Denial of Evolution VI.

[Randwolf]

the placebo effect.
it's a well known phenomenon in medical science.

Yes, it is.

i mentioned double blind tests were used to nullify its effects but i don't think that's true.

Double blind studies are not "used to nullify its effects", the studies incorporating placebos are performed specifically to rule out that effect.

i don't think double blind tests can nullify it because the effect comes from the subjects themselves.

Of course "the effect comes from the subjects themselves". By definition. How else would you think the effect would arise? Magic?

a typical example:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind

medical literature the world over has confirmed this effect.

Do you even read what you link to?

Nevertheless, Mr. Wright was confident that a new anticancer drug called Krebiozen would cure him

(emphasis mine)
That's how the placebo effect works. A person's own expectations influence the outcome.

Let's start at the beginning:

Placebo Effect

What is a placebo?
A placebo (pluh-see-bow) is a substance or other kind of treatment that looks just like a regular treatment or medicine, but it’s not. It’s actually an inactive “look-alike” treatment or substance. This means it’s not a medicine. The person getting a placebo does not know for sure that the treatment is not real. Sometimes the placebo is in the form of a “sugar pill,” but a placebo can also be an injection, a liquid, or even a procedure. It’s designed to look like a real treatment, but doesn’t directly affect the illness.

What is the placebo effect?
Even though they do not act on the disease, placebos seem to affect how people feel (this happens in up to 1 out of 3 patients). A change in a person’s symptoms as a result of getting a placebo is called the placebo effect. Usually the term “placebo effect” speaks to the helpful effects a placebo has in relieving symptoms. This effect usually lasts only a short time. It’s thought to have something to do with the body’s chemical ability to briefly relieve pain or certain other symptoms.

But sometimes the effect goes the other way, and causes unpleasant symptoms or worse. These may include headaches, nervousness, nausea, or constipation, to name a few of the possible “side effects.” The unpleasant effects that happen after getting a placebo are sometimes called the nocebo effect.

Together, these 2 types of outcomes are sometimes called expectation effects. This means that the person taking the placebo may experience something along the lines of what he or she expects to happen. If a person expects to feel better, that may happen. If the person believes that he or she is getting a strong medicine, the placebo may be thought to cause the side effects. The placebo does not cause any of these effects directly. Instead, the person’s belief in or experience of the placebo helps change the symptoms, or change the way the person perceives the symptoms.

Some patients can have the placebo effect without getting a pill, shot, or procedure. Some may just feel better from visiting the doctor or doing something else they believe will help. That type of placebo effect seems most related to the degree of confidence and faith the patient has in the doctor or activity.​

cancer.org

Now let's look at how placebos are used in clinical trials:

Abstract

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial assessed the effects of epoetin alfa on transfusion requirements, hematopoietic parameters, quality of life (QOL), and safety in anemic cancer patients receiving nonplatinum chemotherapy. The study also explored a possible relationship between increased hemoglobin and survival.

...

RESULTS: Epoetin alfa, compared with placebo, significantly decreased transfusion requirements (P = .0057) and increased hemoglobin (P < .001). Improvement of all primary cancer- and anemia-specific QOL domains, including energy level, ability to do daily activities, and fatigue, was significantly (P < .01) greater for epoetin alfa versus placebo patients. Although the study was not powered for survival as an end point, Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a trend in overall survival favoring epoetin alfa (P = .13, log-rank test), and Cox regression analysis showed an estimated hazards ratio of 1.309 (P = .052) favoring epoetin alfa. Adverse events were comparable between groups.​

You see leopold, the researchers include placebos in the trials to rule out expectation bias, not to prove that placebos are some mystical cure. Note: "Epoetin alfa, compared with placebo, significantly decreased transfusion requirements". Do you even begin to understand yet?

 

[leopold]

Oh I see. I'm aware of what the placebo effect is, but I don't believe science can "prove" or "disprove" faith.

the documented experiences with the placebo effect is indeed proof that "belief" is a very real phenomenon.
the "belief" that something can "cure" you and it does whether it should or not.
no wegs, science has indeed PROVED this.
the "miracles" proclaimed by some doctors might be closely related to this somehow, the patient actually healed themselves through the power of their mind.

 

[wegs]

the documented experiences with the placebo effect is indeed proof that "belief" is a very real phenomenon.
the "belief" that something can "cure" you and it does whether it should or not.
no wegs, science has indeed PROVED this.
the "miracles" proclaimed by some doctors might be closely related to this somehow, the patient actually healed themselves through the power of their mind.

I believe in miracles. So you are saying...so I understand...that when science (medicine/treatment in this case) fails to cure, but the patient shows signs of progress or is cured, science considers this a miracle? Of a supernatural kind? Or at the very least, something beyond scientific control?

I wonder if science could still explain such a phenomenon though such as "mind over matter."
That's worth exploring.

Me thinks this deserves a completely new thread, leopold.

 

[Randwolf]

the documented experiences with the placebo effect is indeed proof that "belief" is a very real phenomenon.
the "belief" that something can "cure" you and it does whether it should or not.

No one is disputing that the placebo effect is "real" and that the mechanism is somehow tied to a person's expectations ("belief", if you will). To get back on track, you questioned "for the life of me i can't imagine why evolution would produce such a trait." My question back to you is "Why wouldn't it?"

The same as any other trait selected for by evolution, the placebo effect conveys a survival advantage to those who are most susceptible to it. If I survive a potentially deadly disease and go on to reproduce then my genes get passed on whereas the person that didn't "believe" and died before reproducing is a genetic dead end. The specific mechanism by which I survived doesn't have to be fully explained to understand this.

As regards evolution, the mechanism itself (while interesting in its own right) is simply not relevant except to the extent that the propensity is inherent in one's genetic makeup. If this trait increases survival rates than it is likely to be selected for - over a very long time it may become more prevalent.

ON THE face of it, the placebo effect makes no sense. Someone suffering from a low-level infection will recover just as nicely whether they take an active drug or a simple sugar pill. This suggests people are able to heal themselves unaided - so why wait for a sugar pill to prompt recovery?

New evidence from a computer model offers a possible evolutionary explanation, and suggests that the immune system has an on-off switch controlled by the mind.

It all starts with the observation that something similar to the placebo effect occurs in many animals, says Peter Trimmer, a biologist at the University of Bristol, UK. For instance, Siberian hamsters do little to fight an infection if the lights above their lab cage mimic the short days and long nights of winter. But changing the lighting pattern to give the impression of summer causes them to mount a full immune response.

Likewise, those people who think they are taking a drug but are really receiving a placebo can have a response which is twice that of those who receive no pills (Annals of Family Medicine, doi.org/cckm8b). In Siberian hamsters and people, intervention creates a mental cue that kick-starts the immune response.

There is a simple explanation, says Trimmer: the immune system is costly to run - so costly that a strong and sustained response could dangerously drain an animal's energy reserves. In other words, as long as the infection is not lethal, it pays to wait for a sign that fighting it will not endanger the animal in other ways.

Nicholas Humphrey, a retired psychologist formerly at the London School of Economics, first proposed this idea a decade ago, but only now has evidence to support it emerged from a computer model designed by Trimmer and his colleagues.

According to Humphrey's picture, the Siberian hamster subconsciously acts on a cue that it is summer because food supplies to sustain an immune response are plentiful at that time of year. We subconsciously respond to treatment - even a sham one - because it comes with assurances that it will weaken the infection, allowing our immune response to succeed rapidly without straining the body's resources.

Trimmer's simulation is built on this assumption - that animals need to spend vital resources on fighting low-level infections. The model revealed that, in challenging environments, animals lived longer and sired more offspring if they endured infections without mounting an immune response. In more favourable environments, it was best for animals to mount an immune response and return to health as quickly as possible (Evolution and Human Behavior, doi.org/h8p). The results show a clear evolutionary benefit to switching the immune system on and off depending on environmental conditions.​

While New Scientist has been known to publish some slightly, errr..., "questionable" articles from time to time, this one seems on point here.

 

[leopold]

I believe in miracles. So you are saying...so I understand...that when science (medicine/treatment in this case) fails to cure, but the patient shows signs of progress or is cured, science considers this a miracle?

no.
science calls it the placebo effect.
it's essentially the same as giving you a sugar pill and you believing it will cure your cancer, and it does.

Me thinks this deserves a completely new thread, leopold.

this thread is about evolution and its mechanisms.
this phenomenon evolved somehow, for some reason.

 

[Randwolf]

this thread is about evolution and its mechanisms.
this phenomenon [placebo effect] evolved somehow, for some reason.

Maybe for this reason?

The model revealed that, in challenging environments, animals lived longer and sired more offspring if they endured infections without mounting an immune response. In more favourable environments, it was best for animals to mount an immune response and return to health as quickly as possible (Evolution and Human Behavior, doi.org/h8p). The results show a clear evolutionary benefit to switching the immune system on and off depending on environmental conditions.​

Maybe?

 

[Aqueous Id]

the documented experiences with the placebo effect is indeed proof that "belief" is a very real phenomenon.
the "belief" that something can "cure" you and it does whether it should or not.
no wegs, science has indeed PROVED this.
the "miracles" proclaimed by some doctors might be closely related to this somehow, the patient actually healed themselves through the power of their mind.

What threw me off about your reply to my wish for a genetic cure for denialism, which wegs & Randwolf correctly did not take literally, is that you mentioned wondering how evolution can account for an attitude, as if attitudes are heritable traits. You seem to me to be saying that with sincerity (maybe you weren't joking as wegs might have thought) so I'll assume that you are actually wondering about it.

One thing we can say for sure is that defensive behavior can be explained as evolved--insofar as all behaviors have some evolutionary root--but this is generally limited to subconscious instincts. Denialism as a manifestation of "fight or flight" is specific to individual thoughts a person may have. Obviously our central weaknesses are rooted in base instincts, as are many of our strengths. But attitudes are virtual, existing in the forebrain in ways that do not directly comport with the struggle for survival. There is a lot of room for the imagination to go to work to distort that.

Denialism as we are discussing here is fairly complicated as far as mapping our way back to the pure traits that give us the faculties which serve as platforms for the virtual worlds in which we calculate risk from a library of fact and fantasy. My guess is that there is no gene that directly affects this. Down Syndrome, Autism and Asperger's come to mind as some of the better known genetic anomalies that affect the capacity for certain thoughts and behaviors. Schizophrenia and perhaps criminal thinking may be thought to stem from a combination of genetic and other factors, but this is barely tangible in comparison.

Given the ways we are wired, what makes a person go into "the grieving process" when some ideal doesn't pan out for them, and not make it past the first stage (denial)? If anything, from an evolutionary standpoint, we should be wired to be more wary of our actual enemies, not the ones we invent in our minds. This also speaks to the origin of modern humans in the first place. What did we actually need that extra amount of "sapience" for, if not to better defend against actual threats? It probably doesn't matter, since evidently the defense mechanism has been bent in the folks that persist in their denial of science. No matter how they were once endowed with better faculties for reasoning, it's pretty clear they have sustained damage to those faculties by the rhetoric of fundamentalism--coupled with any number of issues that went unresolved during their indoctrination.

It remains to be seen whether people who heal while maintaining hope are actually controlling cell metabolism and mitosis in any direct way. Most likely they are maintaining better blood pressure and less stress on the heart, and, when able, this may be the result of better diet, exercise and relaxation. Hormone and immune responses may benefit, and so the end result may at best be only an indirect cause. I'm not sure if that was where you were headed; it's just a clarification.

 

[leopold]

Maybe?

or maybe not.
not all of this effect is related to the immune system, some of it is some isn't.

 

[Randwolf]

or maybe not.
not all of this effect is related to the immune system, some of it is some isn't.

Which part isn't?

 

[Rav]

the "miracles" proclaimed by some doctors might be closely related to this somehow, the patient actually healed themselves through the power of their mind.

As has already been touched on, the placebo effect has nothing to do "miraculous" recoveries. Rather it is, by definition, merely a perceived therapeutic benefit that has positive flow-on psychological consequences which can result in the patient "feeling" better. In other words, it's subjective. To put it another way, any analysis of our own wellbeing includes a psychological/emotional component which can heavily contextualize the severity of whatever is ailing us. This is precisely why you can have two people, with the same illness, with same severity of symptoms, and find person A in bed feeling sorry for themselves and person B continuing to go about their daily business. One is all "woe is me, I'm fucking dieing here, I miss my mommy" and the other is more "you ain't takin' me down that easily, I've got shit to do!".

 

[Aqueous Id]

As has already been touched on, the placebo effect has nothing to do "miraculous" recoveries. Rather it is, by definition, merely a perceived therapeutic benefit that has positive flow-on psychological consequences which can result in the patient "feeling" better. In other words, it's subjective. To put it another way, any analysis of our own wellbeing includes a psychological/emotional component which can heavily contextualize the severity of whatever is ailing us. This is precisely why you can have two people, with the same illness, with same severity of symptoms, and find person A in bed feeling sorry for themselves and person B continuing to go about their daily business. One is all "woe is me, I'm fucking dieing here, I miss my mommy" and the other is more "you ain't takin' me down that easily, I've got shit to do!".

I guess it's mostly academic to make the connection since the way thoughts and feelings affect hormones etc. would seem to form some kind of feedback loop of its own, one that keeps gravitating back to denial--to the extent it supports the production of an addictive level of therapeutic chemicals, such as serotonin. I would almost hazard to guess that the expressions of "jubilation" and "rapture" associated with religious experience, if it could be clinically measured, would find some interesting chemical cocktail that has these folks feeling as high as kites.

 

[Rav]

It remains to be seen whether people who heal while maintaining hope are actually controlling cell metabolism and mitosis in any direct way. Most likely they are maintaining better blood pressure and less stress on the heart, and, when able, this may be the result of better diet, exercise and relaxation. Hormone and immune responses may benefit, and so the end result may at best be only an indirect cause.

Many years I ago I was briskly walking up a hill and trying to push through the pain of a quickly developing side stitch. For some reason I happened to recall an article I had read in some wellbeing magazine about a self-healing technique, and I figured it couldn't hurt to give it a shot. So I started breathing more slowly but more deeply. On the inhale I imagined that I was breathing in a sort of brilliant healing light, part of which circled around the source of pain and started carrying it away, and on the exhale I imagined I was breathing out a sort of dark unhealthy light, and the pain of my side stitch along with it. And you know what? It totally worked.

Of course later on I discovered that slower more even breathing can often serve to mitigate the strain placed on the diaphragm by the combination of quick intense breaths and the constant up/down motion of running, or brisk determined walking as it was in my case.

 

[Randwolf]

I guess it's mostly academic to make the connection since the way thoughts and feelings affect hormones etc. would seem to form some kind of feedback loop of its own, one that keeps gravitating back to denial--to the extent it supports the production of an addictive level of therapeutic chemicals, such as serotonin. I would almost hazard to guess that the expressions of "jubilation" and "rapture" associated with religious experience, if it could be clinically measured, would find some interesting chemical cocktail that has these folks feeling as high as kites.

The believers seem to think exactly that:

Many Charismatics believe that when you speak in tongues, you edify or build up your spirit man. Well, that is only one-third true. The Bible does not say that the speaker edifies his spirit. No, it says that the speaker “edifies himself”. This means his entire self — spirit, soul and body. So he who speaks in tongues builds up his spirit, soul and body.

Does this include building up your immune system? Yes, it does! Brain specialists at Oral Roberts University’s hospital found out through research and testing that when a person prays in tongues, his brain releases two chemicals that are directed to his immune system, giving it a 35 to 40 per cent boost. Interestingly, these secretions are triggered by a part of our brain that has no other apparent activity and which is activated only when we pray in tongues​

Link

I have no idea how valid this alleged research at Oral Roberts University’s hospital is but I would tend to agree with the underlying premise. Something is going on with the brain's neurotransmitters during glossolalia and other religious experiences.

Another article...

 

[Rav]

That was awesome because for whatever reason it took me a few seconds longer to clue myself in than I would have expected in hindsight, and those few seconds were golden

 

[wegs]

no.
science calls it the placebo effect.
it's essentially the same as giving you a sugar pill and you believing it will cure your cancer, and it does.

again. I know what it is. but how does science explain this? I do believe that the theory if mind over matter can be proven but I also believe in Divine Intervention.

this thread is about evolution and its mechanisms.
this phenomenon evolved somehow, for some reason.

Thus, why we need a new thread. Lol

 

[wegs]

The believers seem to think exactly that:

Many Charismatics believe that when you speak in tongues, you edify or build up your spirit man. Well, that is only one-third true. The Bible does not say that the speaker edifies his spirit. No, it says that the speaker “edifies himself”. This means his entire self — spirit, soul and body. So he who speaks in tongues builds up his spirit, soul and body.

Does this include building up your immune system? Yes, it does! Brain specialists at Oral Roberts University’s hospital found out through research and testing that when a person prays in tongues, his brain releases two chemicals that are directed to his immune system, giving it a 35 to 40 per cent boost. Interestingly, these secretions are triggered by a part of our brain that has no other apparent activity and which is activated only when we pray in tongues​

Link

I have no idea how valid this alleged research at Oral Roberts University’s hospital is but I would tend to agree with the underlying premise. Something is going on with the brain's neurotransmitters during glossolalia and other religious experiences.

Another article...

I only ask that you insert the word "some" when referring to believers as I don't believe in the literal translation of speaking in tongues like some believers do. Just out of politeness, if nothing else, if you wouldn't mind.

Thank you

 

[Randwolf]

Sorry. "Some" believers. As in some of those that believe in what the Oral Roberts University says.

 

[wegs]

Imagine the outcry from the fundamentalists over that. And you're right when you said "many people", since many people don't carry the Neanderthal marker--specifically, people of African heritage whose ancestors never shared DNA outside of their homeland group. That leaves it for the white supremacists to agonize over the fact that only "pure black" people are "100% human" (i.e., Homo sapiens sapiens). We can speculate that this kind news probably did more to cement white supremacy to fundamentalism, in a common distrust of science, than many others. (If I had been on top of my game, I would have been mass producing my EVOLUTiON IS A LIE bumper stickers right after that news came out . . . the ones with the Confederate flag on one side and a picture of a Bible on the right).

No doubt the fundamentalist fear of caving in to the facts of science, particularly evolution, has produced one of the most unholy marriages between the nobler ideas of religion (compassion and generosity) and the worst (sanctimony leading to selfishness). The duplicity in that kind of thinking is (especially if we take the KKK as its emblem) nothing short of psychopathic.

Just think of all of the genetic similarity among humans and all other life forms, all the way down the "tree of life" - primates, mammals, tetrapods, chordates, metazoans -- all the way back to first cells. For all the folks who went to charter schools just to get some of that ole time faith-based science (the numbers may be fairly alarming when we factor in the fact that 12% of biology teachers believe the Earth is 6,000 years old), science, as we are discussing it in this thread, must appear to be the Devil himself. After all, we're not only talking about descending from "monkeys" (ape-like protohumans) but sharing genes with . . . the banana . . . yeast, fer Gawd's sake . . . and then there's the lowly fruit fly, which has played a role in this thread. Imagine the disgrace of being told you've descended from a common ancestor of an insect, while convinced that Divine Revelation places humans at the center of God's purpose for creation--as seen through the eye of the fundamentalist.

We can laugh now, but during times that fundamentalists get themselves elected by solidarity with the hard-core anti-science crowd, some of the most bizarre threats emerge against academic freedom and the fruits of research, even to the point of unwittingly cutting one's nose off to spite her face. It's the absurdity upon absurdity--the glorification of ignorance--that makes this so "throwed off":

[video=youtube;Eg1vIeuQT1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg1vIeuQT1s[/video]​

which also speaks to your comment that



Unfortunately there is no known genetic cure for faith-based, anti-science denial of reality!

Lol you started quite the domino effect with your final comment right there .^^

Question for you: why do you think that fundamentalists don't accept science? By fundamentalist, I am assuming you mean Christian. Just for the record, I'm not a fundamentalist but why do you assume this? One can be Christian and still have a high regard for science. I just believe science had a Creator. Man merely discovers science.

I'm just curious and not looking to spar with you. I guess I ask because I wish there weren't all these divisions whether imaginary or real, between scientists and faith believers. :/

 

[Rav]

Sorry. "Some" believers. As in some of those that believe in what the Oral Roberts University says.

Wait. Oral Roberts University isn't a spoof?

Wow. It's the sort of name that totally sounds like something someone would make up as comical source, and the article you quoted definitely sounded silly to me. I guess I better go read it again...

 

[wegs]

Oral Roberts was a well known evangelist. While not my cup of tea, he seemed like a sweet man.
He died in 2009.

Edit...and thank you, randwolf.