The purpose of this site is to collect lab research by medical doctors about herbs that are proven to treat illnesses and counter the false attacks on herbs by the medical industry and false claims by alternative medicine. I let the science tell the facts.
index sitemap advanced
search engine by freefind
The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial Date Written  
Author By Joe Holmes Date Revised  

The double blind test are they really reliable? The medical community uses double blind tests and its theory as a reliable method to remove bias. The concept of randomly selected participates and giving half of them a placebo sounds good. The reality is that the participants in some cases may not be randomly selected. Thus the sample participants can be rigged to remove anyone who may provide a negative result. I participated in one years ago where they did considerable advance tests to determine if I was a candidate for the drug being tested. I have read documents supporting this but can only find the one below for now. I am sure I will come across others


1."The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf? Kaptchuk TJ. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, KW-400, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

The double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) is accepted by medicine as objective scientific methodology that, when ideally performed, produces knowledge untainted by bias. The validity of the RCT rests not just on theoretical arguments, but also on the discrepancy between the RCT and less rigorous evidence (the difference is sometimes considered an objective measure of bias). A brief overview of historical and recent developments in "the discrepancy argument" is presented. The article then examines the possibility that some of this "deviation from truth" may be the result of artifacts introduced by the masked RCT itself. Can an "unbiased" method produce bias? Among the experiments examined are those that augment the methodological stringency of a normal RCT in order to render the experiment less susceptible to subversion by the mind. This methodology, a hypothetical "platinum" standard, can be used to judge the "gold" standard. The concealment in a placebo-controlled RCT seems capable of generating a "masking bias." Other potential biases, such as "investigator self-selection," "preference," and "consent" are also briefly discussed. Such potential distortions indicate that the double-blind RCT may not be objective in the realist sense, but rather is objective in a "softer" disciplinary sense. Some "facts" may not exist independent of the apparatus of their production.
PMID: 11377113


Recommended Information