Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve many clinical conditions. However, most reports on effects of placebos are based on unreliable studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment.We studied the effect of placebo treatments by reviewing 202 trials comparing placebo treatment with no treatment covering 60 healthcare problems. In general, placebo treatments produced no major health benefits, although on average they had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients, such as pain. However, the effect on pain varied from large to non-existent, even in well-conducted trials. Variations in the effect of placebo was partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted, the type of placebo used, and whether patients were informed that the trial involved placebo.
NOT that the placebo effect fails to convince the subjective opinions of the placebo "eater".
it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important.
So am I now to suspect all the people who say FLAC sounds inferior to wave are only doing so in order to be polite; even when they come here and do it?
You're grasping at straws.
In the meantime you've failed to take into account what has been documented and understood about the way in which humans can be biased into hearing things that never existed. How do you plan on resolving the McGurk effect, for instance?
How about all the failed ABX tests where the person submitting them thought they did indeed validate their claims that there were audible differences?
might it not be wrong also about audio?
Quote from: gnusmas997 on 10 June, 2013, 07:12:57 AMmight it not be wrong also about audio?That you don't know enough about it and are skeptical is hardly enough to warrant tossing a substantial body of research in favor of your false equivalency.FWIW, many people here who accept that humans can be biased into hearing differences that do not exist do not believe that sugar pills work on pain. These are not mutually exclusive. Your failure to recognize this shouldn't be used to suggest there is a possibility that you could be right.
You may look it up. Please don't ask me to conduct your research for you.
ABX does not remove the ability for someone to affix differences that do not actually exist to what is "heard" during testing. Instead it serves to randomize the occurence of those "differences".
it still remains the case that audio placebo effect disappears during a double-blind trial but the McGurk effect remains. That alone is sufficient for me to conclude that they're not necessarily connected, one might be true and the other false.
This would be akin to asking the question "If the listener is told that he may be listening to a superior system, does that make it truly sound better to him, or is he just saying that it sounds better to please the tester because he really can't tell the difference"?
Page 13, right before the “Strengths and weaknesses” heading:[blockquote]Larger effects of placebo were also found in the trials that falsely informed patients that the study compared two active treatments with no-treatment.[/blockquote]
In general, placebo treatments produced no major health benefits, although on average they had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients...