Double blind win (by skeletonclaw)

Wait, if it's double-blind, wouldn't the scientists be unaware of whether he got a placebo or the real drug? Although I suppose this could be after the study has concluded. I would bet that in real studies they record the side effects reported before checking to see if it was the placebo or not!

This is basically like the many tests done on gluten sensitivity, where the people who claimed to have it and thought they were given bread claimed the usual symptoms, when they weren't given anything of the sort. (And vice versa when they were given something they thought had no gluten, but did, and had no ill effects afterwards).
- What's really crazy is that sometimes the placebo can still bring people relief even after knowing that it's a placebo
- Sure, but that's just the placebo effect? I thought the double-blind process referred to something else in particular (hence the "double" part of the blind):
  A double-blind study blinds both the subjects as well as the researchers to the treatment allocation [1]
  In any case, I was mostly just curious, don't intend to nit-pick the title :)
  [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546641/
- Source?
  This is all I could find on the subject:
  nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), has resurfaced in the literature, fueling a debate on the appropriateness of the GFD for people without celiac disease. Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583468/
  And:
  NCGS is included in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.[3][4] The definition and diagnostic criteria of non-celiac gluten sensitivity were debated and established by three consensus conferences.[4][14][15][16][17] However, as of 2019, there remained much debate in the scientific community as to whether NCGS was a distinct clinical disorder.[18]
  So there’s definitely debate in the community about it, I would love to see some of these many tests done to prove it was not being caused by gluten if you could point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.
Both of the scientists are actually legally blind so this all still checks out
Single blind studies do exist though... For some reason.
- If the experimenter never really interacts with the participants and there is no subjective measurement being made there isn't really any benefit to being double blind, it's just overhead at that point
- And they’re two scientists so it’s really double single blinded win!
- Yes, I think some treatments cannot be done without the scientist knowing.

Downvoted for not knowing what double blind means.

Isn't it where the testers and testees have no idea which is the placebo during testing? I figured this was at the end
- Researchers wouldn't find out until after they question the subjects.

Scientist: Tell us what side effects the medication caused?

Test subject: my diabetes somehow is acting up again

Scientist: Oh

"How is this a double blind study?"

"Well you see, the participant and the scientist are blind."

😂

Yay for the nocebo effect

I like where this went. I expected from the second panel the patient to make a super long list of symptoms like the American medication commercials where they go very fast over a huge list of possible symptoms.

Source: Skeleton Claw

Tumblr archive: https://www.skeletonclaw.com/archive
RSS Feed: https://www.skeletonclaw.com/rss