This is a thread topic that I've been mentally flossing for quite a while.
It's just that this week in particular, a few things have popped up in press releases that caught my attention on the subject. Interesting stuff.
More expensive "drugs" work better than cheap ones.]http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/one-big-reason-why-cns-drug-development-has-foundered/2015-01-29]More expensive "drugs" work better than cheap ones.In other news-- homeopathy, much?
"gluten sensitivity" might be placebo effectIn related news, apparently the placebo effect
is "dose" dependent after all. {snicker}
Okay-- seriously, though.
I think this combination of things is a HUGE reason why some people can-- with complete seriousness and seeming to have anecdotal evidence backing that claim-- to have been "cured" of food allergy via means which seem to lack any and all scientific or medical validity. (NAET, homeopathy, wackadoo Woo of all flavors).
The point is-- as long as the original claim (food sensitivity/allergy) is equally equivocal (or at least cannot be backed by a monitored blind challenge), their BELIEF that they would be cured is all that apparently matters. Well, and the size of the payments for treatment.
I wonder, also, how this plays into reaction severity even for those who ARE legitimately allergic, however. I know that this is something that we've discussed in this community a
lot over the years-- and concluded that there is probably a small subset of people who are geniunely "that sensitive" in terms of aerosol reactivity-- on the basis of the fact that so many of them can be triggered with exposures that they are
not aware of a source for. We've seen that far too many times to discount it in my own DD, for example-- she can react to an exposure that she has no idea is occurring, or one that she FIRMLY believes will be "fine" and turns out not to be.
For many people, though-- and I am thinking specifically of an anecdote from Denver, in which during a challenge a child mounted a rather convincing "reaction" which was to the
placebo. Belief isn't
everything of course.
But it makes me ponder whether or not belief in rescue meds is
also a factor in some reaction outcomes. Does BELIEVING that benadryl (or epi) will work to stop a reaction play some role in doing so?
I wonder. Now that, clearly, is not a study which
can be conducted in human subjects. Because, ethics. (And really, good thing, right?) But I wonder.
Also-- please feel free to dig up or link to the original research articles-- I'm too lazy to do so after trolling PMC and PubMed for a living much of each week. I was kicking back with the news this morning when my brain ran into this pair.