Comments on: The Placebo Gene?

By: Sceptici în România – Episodul 54 - Sceptici în România

Sceptici în România – Episodul 54 - Sceptici în România — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:06:05 +0000

[...] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-placebo-gene/ [...]

By: Personality Predicts Placebo Effect « Talesfromthelou's Blog

Personality Predicts Placebo Effect « Talesfromthelou's Blog — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:54:19 +0000

[...] The Placebo Gene? (sciencebasedmedicine.org) Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailRedditGoogle +1PrintDiggLinkedInStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

By: DugganSC

DugganSC — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:36:54 +0000

I agree that it would be a bad idea to just screen out people with the gene complex. After all, we don’t really know all of the effects. Genes are seldom lightswitches that only turn one thing on or off.

By: Badly Shaved Monkey

Badly Shaved Monkey — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:28:03 +0000

One reason for engaging in that little thought experiment was to consider what the SCAMsters’ response would be. It would be for them final proof that Big Pharma is intent on controlling symptoms instead of producing true cures. Which, ahem, is all that the SCAMsters can show they do. Oh, the irony.

By: Badly Shaved Monkey

Badly Shaved Monkey — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 06:54:52 +0000

Imagine that this result is validated: placebo responses are mediated by a genetic variant that gives the subjects a kick of dopamine. So, a Big Pharma company licenses a dopaminergic drug to confer this benefit to more patients. The slogan could be, “Placebin. It can’t fix your disease but it can make you feel better about being ill.” All the benefits of altie medicine with none of the tedious inconvenience of being stuck with needles or spending endless hours with a loopy homeopath.

By: BillyJoe

BillyJoe — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 03:19:25 +0000

Rork: “We probably get what you meant anyway.”

We probably would…if we read the second paragraph of the article. (;

By: rork

rork — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:25:11 +0000

Thanks for pointing this paper out.
1) I’m not sure regression to the mean or natural course are statistical effects differing between placebo and no treatment. We probably get what you meant anyway.
2) Rather than remove met/met people or even heterozygotes, we could just use everyone, and measure the gene and put it in the model. Ideally it could be part of the basis for your randomization too. Still model it though.
3) Figure 2 made me think heterozygotes might be different enough.

About the paper:
a) I think they don’t cough up the actual data, nor do they plot it. Why do people plot the mean and standard deviation in graphs where every single reader wanted to see all the data? This is a serious question for biologists that I have been fighting for years. The answer: argument from popularity. The truth: the practice is common exactly because it hides data – it is popular because it is bad. So by following others you are sinning, and opening the door for others to sin (my John Donne for today).
b) They aren’t perfectly clear what the model for treatment “dose” looks like. Do you think it was 3 levels, or did they recode the doses -1,0,1 (or equivalently, 0,1,2 or 1,2,3)? I think they assigned numbers to the doses, since that is simpler and might have given just enough power for them to squeak under p=.05.
c) They didn’t really test if hets are different, so the question in my point 3 above, was not addressed. They only show that gene dose correlated (that’s using all of the data). Want to fit your own models? You’ll have to ask for data I think.