© Health Central NZ
In this blog I am going to have a closer look at an issue that has niggled away at me for a long time. Placebos. In part I was stimulated to write on this following an article that Maryanne Demasi published on the CrossFit site
'Sometimes a placebo is not a placebo.' 1There are many, many different issues about placebos. Most of which people don't even consider. Such as, is there really such a thing as the placebo effect? And if there is, how come we haven't managed to sort out what it actually might be? I know most people reading this will retort. '
Of course, there's a placebo effect. It's a known thing.' Personally, I am not so sure. Like many known things it begins to fall apart under a bit of critical examination.
For example:
'Whether you know you're taking a placebo pill or not, it will still have a beneficial effect, new research has revealed. Scientists from Harvard University and the University of Basel prescribed a group of minor burn victims with a "treatment" cream, telling only some of them that it was a placebo. After the cream was applied, both groups reported benefits, despite the placebo cream containing no medicine.
The study goes against traditional medical thinking surrounding the placebo effect, which has always revolved around the idea that it was necessary to deceive patients in order for "sugar pills" to be clinically effective.' 2
In short, you get the placebo effect whether you know, or don't know, that you are receiving a placebo. Which kind of blows a major hole in rationale underpinning double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials.
However, I am not exploring that particular rabbit hole today.
Today I am going to look at the question. What is in a placebo? You may well believe you know the answer to this. A placebo is an inert formulation containing no active ingredients.
This is a reasonable assumption to make as the medical definition of a placebo, as taken from the Merriam-Webster medical dictionary, is:
'1a: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder
b: an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)'
A few years ago, I was speaking to an investigative journalist from the Netherlands who was trying to get hold of the placebo tablets used in a particular clinical trial. He wanted to establish exactly what was in them, and if they were truly inert.
No such luck, these placebos were very carefully guarded, as was any information about what they contained.He gave up, but I did file his tale in my mind, recognising this was something that needed to be looked in greater detail at some point in the future. Can it be true that placebos are not actually inert?
Comment: Leaving aside whether or not dairy is in fact good for people in general, (recognizing the importance of recognizing individual differences in how we all respond to different foods), there is little doubt at this point that whole fat dairy products are healthier than low or no-fat versions. Fat has never been an issue, yet the 'fat is bad' paradigm is so firmly entrenched that some scientists and authorities will seemingly never be able to escape it. If you can do milk (and it's worth investigating whether or not you actually can), the whole fat versions are really the only option you should be consuming.
See also: