|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Double-blind Testing is Scientifically Invalid | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANI Junior Member (Idle past 4557 days) Posts: 3 From: Australia Joined: |
There are situations where double blinding can be used as a device to create desired conditions in a particular experiment. However it is being used right across the board for a vast number of experiments in testing things like ESP and prayer and other situations where the direct relationship between the subjects is an important factor. Lossing this factor makes the experiment useless. Double blinding is not a means of making an experiment scientific. The only condition that makes an experiment scientific is a control experiment, in which we remove the test conditions in order to make sure that our results are not due to something other than our test conditions. In the Great Prayer Experiment double blinding took away the test conditions. It is fine in the control only. In drug trials the doctors are relationally distanced from the patients or in other words the experiments are double blinded because they were trying to get rid of the problem of placebo in the group getting the drug because through ESP, which is at a premium in relationship, the patients knew that they were given a drug.
It is also worth noting that double blinding doesn't always help solve problems. So for instance in drug trials double blinding hasn't solved their problem to better determine the efficacy of a drug because all patients being blinded (ie loss of insight) means that there is a placebo effect now right across the board, in both groups those getting the drug and those getting the blank. Patients reason that they have a 50-50 chance of getting a drug so why not just believe they have been given a drug. Remember patients in drug trials have a desperate need to get well and this is a strong motivating force to make such a choice. That choice creates a placebo effect in no matter what they are given. Edited by Admin, : Simplify title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the Double-blind Testing is Scientifically Invalid thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
In drug trials the doctors are relationally distanced from the patients or in other words the experiments are double blinded because they were trying to get rid of the problem of placebo in the group getting the drug because through ESP, which is at a premium in relationship, the patients knew that they were given a drug. Can you either rewrite this line or break it down? Not sure what you are trying to say. How is it the people receiving the drug knew they were getting the drug? ESP? ESP from whom?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Double blinding is not a means of making an experiment scientific. The only condition that makes an experiment scientific is a control experiment, in which we remove the test conditions in order to make sure that our results are not due to something other than our test conditions. That is exactly what a double blind study does. The subjects are treated exactly the same. The only difference is that one group is given a placebo (or standard of care) while the other group is given the experimental drug. The people collecting the data do not know which group each subject is in so the results are not biased by the data collection process.
It is fine in the control only. In drug trials the doctors are relationally distanced from the patients or in other words the experiments are double blinded because they were trying to get rid of the problem of placebo in the group getting the drug because through ESP, which is at a premium in relationship, the patients knew that they were given a drug. In the case of a double blind study, the doctor doesn't even know if the patient was given the experimental drug. The experimental drug and placebo look identical, and they are administered in the exact same way. The labels on the packages do not say if they are placebo or drug.
It is also worth noting that double blinding doesn't always help solve problems. So for instance in drug trials double blinding hasn't solved their problem to better determine the efficacy of a drug because all patients being blinded (ie loss of insight) means that there is a placebo effect now right across the board, in both groups those getting the drug and those getting the blank. Patients reason that they have a 50-50 chance of getting a drug so why not just believe they have been given a drug. That is the entire point of a double blind study, to determine if the drug does better than the psychosomatic reaction. If the drug group data is equivalent to the placebo group then the conclusion is that the drug is not effective.
Remember patients in drug trials have a desperate need to get well and this is a strong motivating force to make such a choice. In these types of studies the experimental drug is compared to the standard of care. For example, a new cancer drug will be compared to an already approved and common treatment. It is against the law, and ethics in general, to give a placebo to a patient with a serious disease. However, the doctor does not know which treatment is being administered, and neither does the patient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Remember patients in drug trials have a desperate need to get well and this is a strong motivating force to make such a choice. That choice creates a placebo effect in no matter what they are given.
Do you think the only drug tests are for life saving drugs? Was there a "desperate need" during testing of viagra? I have been in a few drug trials for high blood pressure meds. I had no "desperate need". There was no affect on my life at all. I think this argument is just a load of hooey.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
However it is being used right across the board for a vast number of experiments in testing things like ESP and prayer.. Could you link to these so called "studies" that are testing ESP and prayer? If you can, you should also let JREF know as well."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It is also worth noting that double blinding doesn't always help solve problems. So for instance in drug trials double blinding hasn't solved their problem to better determine the efficacy of a drug because all patients being blinded (ie loss of insight) means that there is a placebo effect now right across the board, in both groups those getting the drug and those getting the blank. Patients reason that they have a 50-50 chance of getting a drug so why not just believe they have been given a drug. Remember patients in drug trials have a desperate need to get well and this is a strong motivating force to make such a choice. That choice creates a placebo effect in no matter what they are given. But that's exactly why you'd want to test a drug double-blind against a placebo --- to distinguish the mere placebo effect of the drug from any actual pharmaceutical properties it might have. Because you are testing the drug against a placebo rather than against nothing, there is, in your own words, "a placebo effect right across the board" and there is "a placebo effect no matter what they are given". Which means that a difference in outcomes is due to something other than the placebo effect. That's the whole point. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
However it is being used right across the board for a vast number of experiments in testing things like ESP and prayer and other situations where the direct relationship between the subjects is an important factor. How do you know that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Was there a "desperate need" during testing of viagra? Funny story. Viagra was originally tested as a heart medication (or maybe high blood pressure, forget which). The experimental groups started reporting a very interesting side effect. You might say that some of the data stuck out. Only then did Pfizer get the idea to sell the drug as an ED treatment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You do know that double blinding refers to the experimenters being blind to the research hypothesis, don't you.
I fail to see your point. How can reducing the bias the experimenter could bring to the experiment be a bad thing? I've got be honest here: it seems like this is yet another attempt to redefine the scientific method so that magic can be real. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You do know that double blinding refers to the experimenters being blind to the research hypothesis, don't you. I think this is a pretty unusual interpretation of what double blinding means. Usually in a clinical context a double blind trial means that neither the experimenter nor the subject know if the subject is a control subject or an experimental subject. I find it hard to see how anyone could give ethical consent to take part as an experimenter in a medical trial if they didn't know the hypothesis that was being tested, i.e. what the trial was for or what its purpose was. TTFN, WK P.S. One caveat here is that there was a Cochrane review about 5 years ago that found about 15 different distinct usages of 'double blind' in a survey of researchers, and they almost all believed that their usage was the typical one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I find it hard to see how anyone could give ethical consent to take part as an experimenter in a medical trial if they didn't know the hypothesis that was being tested, i.e. what the trial was for or what its purpose was. This is exactly correct. As part of my own work I have to be trained annually on how to properly run trials that involve human subjects. Part of the consent process is explaining what your hypothesis is, how participation will test the hypothesis, and the potential risks that the subject will be exposed to (including the risk of receiving a placebo) in language that the subject will understand. Subjects are to be treated as a full partner in the scientific process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Ya mean no ones gettin they're glossys put out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Your most likely right. I've always believed it to be the way I meant it, but I guess I could very well have got the idea in my head and never bothered to re examine it.
Thanks for the heads up. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Let me throw in an amusing story from a friend who watched it happen: a study years ago in an Oklahoma mental hospital was done to compare the standard antipsychotic (maybe Thorazine??) with a new candidate drug. An hour after getting their dose, the patients were ragging on each other along the lines of "We got the good stuff! You got the sugar pills!" and "This new shit isn't near as good as the old."
But yeah, double-blind studies are still better by miles than alternatives when people are involved.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024