CommunicatorIC
@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Properly testing a healing modality that involves touch (e.g., acupressure, acupuncture, massage, touch assists, nerve assists) to account for the placebo effect is difficult. A double blind experiment -- i.e., one where neither the recipient nor the administrator of the "medicine" knows whether the recipient is receiving the "medicine" being tested, as opposed to a placebo (which is easy in the case of pills) -- is obviously impossible.
As I recall, the way such healing modalities are usually tested is to have: (a) one half of the group have the modality done correctly according to the theory of the modality and (b) the other half of the group have the modality done wrong according to the theory of the modality -- e.g., acupuncture needles put in wrong (but otherwise safe) places, acupressure applied to the wrong places, touch or nerve assists done wrong, backwards, in the wrong order, in the wrong places, etc. That is, in some way that violates the underlying theory of the modality. That is, in some way if the proponent of the modality claims the result of the "wrong" way still proves that it works, one can respond, "then anything works and your theory has no merit."
Obviously, this is not double blind because the practitioners who are administering the modality know whether they are doing it the "right" or "wrong' way, and may consciously or unconsciously signal the recipients, thus effecting the results through the placebo effect.
Again, as I recall that is the way testing is done. That is, that is the way testing is done assuming one actually wants to discover the truth. As opposed to defend and justify the practice using post-hoc rationalizations and excuses.
In my personal experience, proponents and practitioners of such non-traditional medical modalities usually do not want to find out the truth. (There are exceptions.) They are interested only in defending their chosen modality, and justifying and rationalizing away negative results with post-hoc excuses.
As I recall, the way such healing modalities are usually tested is to have: (a) one half of the group have the modality done correctly according to the theory of the modality and (b) the other half of the group have the modality done wrong according to the theory of the modality -- e.g., acupuncture needles put in wrong (but otherwise safe) places, acupressure applied to the wrong places, touch or nerve assists done wrong, backwards, in the wrong order, in the wrong places, etc. That is, in some way that violates the underlying theory of the modality. That is, in some way if the proponent of the modality claims the result of the "wrong" way still proves that it works, one can respond, "then anything works and your theory has no merit."
Obviously, this is not double blind because the practitioners who are administering the modality know whether they are doing it the "right" or "wrong' way, and may consciously or unconsciously signal the recipients, thus effecting the results through the placebo effect.
Again, as I recall that is the way testing is done. That is, that is the way testing is done assuming one actually wants to discover the truth. As opposed to defend and justify the practice using post-hoc rationalizations and excuses.
In my personal experience, proponents and practitioners of such non-traditional medical modalities usually do not want to find out the truth. (There are exceptions.) They are interested only in defending their chosen modality, and justifying and rationalizing away negative results with post-hoc excuses.
