advertisement


The Great Obesity Epidemic

kasperhauser said:
What a patient, or even several patients, may report back, has no more weight as evidence in science/medicine than in audio or anywhere else. However, a statistically significant number of reports may constitute data, if collectively they pass appropriate analytical muster.

Patients, much like audio enthusiasts, can be prone to wild flights of imagination, not to mention particular gullibility to things they read on the internet.
Click to expand...

A doctor who tells a patient that his pain is imaginary (or even thinks it) is a shit doctor and would deserve a slap. Fortunately doctors tend to have an intellectual acumen above that of the usual pfm binary thinker.
 
It was the original link I urged interested parties to read on page two, the New Yorker Article.

Maybe following up with the research done by Prof Irving Kirsch at Hull if your interest is stirred.

Kirsch is not suggesting that placebos cannot have a medical effect. He is however suggesting that some pharmaceuticals are no more effective than a sugar pill and that trials that claim to show effectiveness show anything but.

It's interesting. As is the response of those (both here and on the audio forum) when confronted with the proposition.

PS. I think the Beeb is having a "refresh".
 
merlin said:
If that happens to contradict your beliefs then that's fine - but again suggestions of talking out of the wrong orifice are wide of the mark and uncalled for.
Click to expand...

I think that he was talking about his experience, not his beliefs - and my experience was also that SSRIs can work very well.
 
Cliff. The experience might well be that you and he feel better. That's not being challenged and it's great that all is well.

The reasons for that change however are what are being questioned.

I suspect it is your belief that this is because of the act hormonal reuptake inhibition. Hence my attempt to differentiate between experience and belief.:)
 
Steven Toy said:
A doctor who tells a patient that his pain is imaginary (or even thinks it) is a shit doctor and would deserve a slap.
Click to expand...
This sounds like pretty sensible stuff, even if it is unrelated to my post.

merlin said:
It was the original link I urged interested parties to read on page two, the New Yorker Article.

Maybe following up with the research done by Prof Irving Kirsch at Hull if your interest is stirred.

Kirsch is not suggesting that placebos cannot have a medical effect. He is however suggesting that some pharmaceuticals are no more effective than a sugar pill and that trials that claim to show effectiveness show anything but.

It's interesting. As is the response of those (both here and on the audio forum) when confronted with the proposition.

PS. I think the Beeb is having a "refresh".
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll have a look.
 
When I started taking them, I had no idea whatsoever what to expect, and it was an "interesting" journey, not just a matter of feeling better in any kind of linear way. That's why I think it was the pills, not my expectation of them, that made a difference. I've known other people who have used them, and I can't think of anyone who said that there was no effect.
 
Course, if people stopped eating the sugar laden crap produced by the 'food' industry everyone would be a whole lot better and not obese... ;)
 
clifftaylor said:
When I started taking them, I had no idea whatsoever what to expect, and it was an "interesting" journey, not just a matter of feeling better in any kind of linear way. That's why I think it was the pills, not my expectation of them, that made a difference. I've known other people who have used them, and I can't think of anyone who said that there was no effect.
Click to expand...

This is a part of the argument against the reliability of the field trials used by the pharmaceutical companies Cliff.

The understanding of the subjects is that the anti depressants all have a variety of side effects, whether that be increased or decreased appetite, headaches, insomnia or a dry mouth. The list of possible side effects seems endless.

Simply experiencing some side effects leads subjects in blind trials to understand that they are NOT taking a placebo and therefore to believe that they are taking something that helps with depression.

Kirsch is saying AFAIK that any statistical difference that is provided is easily explained by this phenomenon which is easily repeatable. From my personal POV, I'd like to see some evidence that is not so easily explained away.
 
merlin said:
This is a part of the argument against the reliability of the field trials used by the pharmaceutical companies Cliff.

The understanding of the subjects is that the anti depressants all have a variety of side effects, whether that be increased or decreased appetite, headaches, insomnia or a dry mouth. The list of possible side effects seems endless.

Simply experiencing some side effects leads subjects in blind trials to understand that they are NOT taking a placebo and therefore to believe that they are taking something that helps with depression.

Kirsch is saying AFAIK that any statistical difference that is provided is easily explained by this phenomenon which is easily repeatable. From my personal POV, I'd like to see some evidence that is not so easily explained away.
Click to expand...

So if I'd taken them and experienced "something", that would be because they have no effect, and if I'd taken them and expereinced "something", that would also be because they have no effect?

Also, you're talking about side effects and I'm not.
 
No Cliff, I'm just discussing the research that explains the medical trials. You yourself knew you were being prescribed anti depressants by a qualified doctor. You understood you were getting help.

The argument being made by Kirsch and many others is if that same doctor had prescribed you an "anti depressant" that was actually a simple, non psychoactive product designed to give some of the side effects, the result would have been equally favourable and encouraging.
 
merlin said:
The argument being made by Kirsch and many others is if that same doctor had prescribed you an "anti depressant" that was actually a simple, non psychoactive product designed to give some of the side effects, the result would have been equally favourable and encouraging.
Click to expand...

Again, you're talking about side effects.

Also: have you ever taken SSRIs ?
 
The side effects are a side issue here. If you did not expect side effects and did not experience any, then the research suggests a simple sugar pill would have sufficed Cliff.

And yes, I have.
 
merlin said:
The side effects are a side issue here. If you did not expect side effects and did not experience any, then the research suggests a simple sugar pill would have sufficed Cliff.

And yes, I have.
Click to expand...

So if I experienced a worthwhile effect but no side effect(s), then the drugs had no effect?
 
I'm not sure how I can make the point.

Please read the article Cliff as hopefully that will make it clearer as something is seemingly getting lost in translation. Probably my fault.

In short, the suggestion from various scientists is that the drugs have an effect by your believing that they will - not by correcting any alleged chemical imbalance.
 
Merlin, I'm by no means a salesman for Pfizer / GSK. What I am saying is that when I was prescribed the drugs, I knew nothing about them, and my doctor said very little about them other than, "see how it goes, get in touch if you need to". I found that they enabled me to get myself to a state where I was able to get involved in CBT, which certainly did help.
 
merlin

Great thread crap. It's about obesity.

Wouldn't be so bad if you made any sense.
 
It's about unnecessary costs to the NHS to me

The cost of this treatment, would it appears, bankrupt the NHS. It is hard to believe that we can do this to ourselves.
Click to expand...

I'd be most concerned if I started making sense to you Brian.
 
merlin said:
I'm not sure how I can make the point.

Please read the article Cliff as hopefully that will make it clearer as something is seemingly getting lost in translation. Probably my fault.

In short, the suggestion from various scientists is that the drugs have an effect by your believing that they will - not by correcting any alleged chemical imbalance.
Click to expand...

What chemical imbalance? Your imaginary one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top