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).
Yeah. Though you ethically can’t try to use placebo as a medical treatment, because it’s inconsistent in whether it does anything and is essentially trying to not treat the patient at all with known methods of treatment.
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 :)
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.
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.
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
Yeah. Though you ethically can’t try to use placebo as a medical treatment, because it’s inconsistent in whether it does anything and is essentially trying to not treat the patient at all with known methods of treatment.
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):
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:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583468/
And:
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.