Basically we make up side effects, the same way placebos give made up benefits
Interesting, I read this earlier.
I have always had a suspicion that at least 50% of certain drugs effects are psychological, makes sense that this would also be true with side effects.
.
thereâs been suspicion about this for years but nice to see some clinical evidence that itâs for real. I take a statin - albeit at a very low level - but havenât seen any of the side effects attributed to them, but then I have no issue taking it so maybe I wouldnât.
Itâs amazing what our minds can do.
It is, but jesus itâs making objective reality hard to prove!
Iâd go as far to say itâs been âprovenâ for many many years, both in terms of things we just know from centuries of observation but also has gone through trials and scientific method.
If anything I reckon the concept of a nocebo is a lot more intuitive than placebo. Itâs easy to understand how you can perceive something as negative or feel a side effect given how much of sensory perception is in the brain rather than in peripheral tissues (eg how many chronic pain sufferers there are).
Itâs therefore not a small stretch to see how people âfeelâ better after a sugar pill. Itâs a harder thing to explain physiological changes such as cholesterol reductions from placebo.
Added: itâs not the concept of a nocebo thatâs made BBC news - itâs the self-fulfillment of the statin nocebo. Theyâre widely talked about as having side effects, which makes them relevant news especially given their prevalence of use. The more the news can provide a controversial edge, especially alongside other debates around fat and cholesterol the more theyâll be talked about.