 |
 |
I have proposed that those who are trying alternative, unapproved, and nonprescribed medications do so in such a manner as to enhance the scientific meaning of their home trial. Specifically, I have proposed the use a form of the "double blind" procedure in order to eliminate the placebo effect. I thought that it would be useful to develop a database of the home trials of various alternative treatments (an example, NADH) if these home trials conform to minimal scientific standards. Inferences concerning the value of such alternative treatments could be based on these public data. But a problem has been gnawing at me: If a treatment relieves symptoms via the placebo effect, why debunk it? Maybe, what we should do is develop better, more effective, and longer lasting placebos, capable of giving greater pleasure and/or relief to the afflicted, rather than to spend our time demonstrating the truth that a certain treatment has little or no effect other than that of a placebo. Is it sensible to evaluate alternative treatments in order to know that possibly Substance X has no effect after the placebo effect is eliminated? My Halloween question is, "Truth or Treat?" The answer is not obvious. Reminds me a little of Jack Benny's pause to consider the robber's option, "Your money or your life?" Do you have any answer? Allan Netick email [log in to unmask]