2 Comment(s)

1. Steven J. Steinberg | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply

   Yes, BUT:

   1. What type of starch was used in the placebo-pills? Might some of the test-subjects have had a sensitivity or allergy to that type of starch? Were the subjects pre-examined for such possibilities, and if not, why not?

   2. What were the chemical components of the placebo-pills’ shell, including the coloring? Might some of the test-subjects have had a sensitivity or allergy to that those components? Were the subjects pre-examined for such possibilities, and if not, why not?

   3. What other components, if any, were in those placebo-pills? Might some of the test-subjects have had a sensitivity or allergy to those components? Were the subjects pre-examined for such possibilities, and if not, why not?

   4. As to the fake acupuncture: Especially considering that the subjects all reported arm-pain, were any of the subjects pre-examined as to — or were they pre-asked about — whether — their arms (or any area on their arms) were particularly sensitive to, and reactive to, pressure or pricking or scratching or being in ay way irritated? Id these subjects were not pre-tested, pre-examined, or pre-asked about these possible factors, why weren’t they?

   5. If no such pre-investigations or quesries were done as outlined in my above questions, what does that suggest about the validity of the study or of the conclusions reached by the study’s authors?

   6. As to the purely psychological component of the study: What, in each case, was the attitude of the doctor (and/or nurse, etc.) as presented to the subjects, before, during, and after the study? Was this carefully and objectively observed and duly documented? If not, what does that lack of relevant information suggest about the subjects’ physiological & psychological response and, therefore, the validity of the study?

   7. Further, as to the purely psychological component of the study: What, in each case, was the attitude of the subjects, as to their own condition, and as to the medical profession, and as to the doctors/nurses (etcetera) in the study — and as to the environment in which the study took place — and as to the study itself, before, during, and after the study? Were they examined for, and asked about, their level of fear, worry, hopefulness, and trust (etcetera) of the medical profession and personnel and the study itself, bire, during, and after the study? Was any of this documented — and if not, why not? And if none of these factors, as above, was explored and documented, then what does that say about the validity of the study and the interetation of the study’s results?

   Personally, while I’m not a doctor, I rail against “studies” that purport to be scientific and irrefutable but which, in fact, skip basic steps required by rigorous scientific research and thus are used to generate conclusions — interpretations — which, while appearing to the unquestioning mind to be accurate, are, in reality, flawed.

   I would hope that this current “acupuncture vs placebo pills” research addressed these issues — but did it?

2. Krista | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply

   If you are that interested in the study, I suggest you read the full text, which is available online. You can also view others’ responses to the study + the author’s comments on those responses.

   It was published in the British Medical Journal, which is very well respected, peer reviewed journal so I wouldn’t say it “skip[ed] basic steps required by rigorous scientific research.”

   Furthermore, I don’t know any scientist that would claim their study to be “irrefutable” - that’s more “faith” rather than science, which is about testing hypotheses, broadening the pool of current research, and adjusting theories according to research observations.

Post a Comment