The Last Page Of The Results Starting On Line 18 States:

Alternative hypothesis: The IQ of the subjects was higher while they were taking the drug than while they were taking the placebo. (The population average is greater than 0).

Testing allows the p-value that represents the probability showing that results are unlikely to occur by chance. A p-value of 5% or lower is statistically significant. The p value helps in minimizing Type I or Type II errors in the dataset that can often occur when the p value is more than the significance level. The p value can help in stopping the positive and negative correlation between the dataset to reject the null hypothesis and to determine if there is statistical significance in the hypothesis. Understanding the p value is very important in helping researchers to determine the significance of the effect of their experiment and variables for other researchers

There is a risk for a type 1 error in this study because of the multiple comparisons in this study.

With a P-value of 0.00, we have a strong level of significance. No additional information is needed to ensure that the data given is accurate.

The author continues to demonstrate how the placebo effect works by comparing it to the famous biological study by Ivan Pavlov. In Pavlov’s experiment, dogs are conditioned to respond to a specific stimulus and eventually begin to respond to the same stimulus in the same way all the time. Bjerklie explains that, “as far as the placebo effect is concerned, we may as well be those impressionable canines.” What Bjerklie means is that the human mind has the ability to be conditioned to expect certain outcomes. The placebo effect builds on the human minds ability to be conditioned and an individual’s faith in the healthcare providers it choses to visit. Overtime the human mind has come to believe that if given a medication that is suppose to have a positive effect on a specific pathology, it will in fact have an positive effect.

Proponents of placebo-prescribing argue that clinicians “can use non-deceptive means to promote a positive placebo response in their patients” (Brody, 1982, 112). However, some proponents also argue that

The placebo effect has been affecting people for hundreds of years. In the 1940s sugar pills were sold in doctors’ catalogs specifically for the purpose of prescribing them to psychiatric patients. Today, over 60% of doctors admit to prescribing placebos to their patients, although there is an unwritten rule among doctors in the United States that placebos should no longer be given to patients. Some even do it on a regular basis because they believe the effect a fake drug has on the brain is more effective for its price than the real medication or treatment. In the documentary, Placebo: Cracking the Code, viewers see a few different perspective of the placebo effect. They hear from doctors, patients, and researchers to more fully understand the ins and outs of the placebo effect. These different viewpoints serve as an effective way to bring light the producers’ purpose: to show just helpful and sometimes harmful placebo drugs can be.

Placebos have been used in clinical trials since the eighteenth century but did not become a research topic until the late twentieth century (van Haselen, 2013). Most often when using placebos in clinical trials it is to determine whether or not the active agent has more effect on a patient than the placebo by providing each to the same number of recipients. The trials are almost always double blinded, this means that both person giving the drug and the person receiving it are unaware whether or not it is active so that good care and relationships must be present in the recipients at all times (Tavel, 2014). Ovosi, Ibrahim, & Bello-Ovosi (2017) declared “The choice between placebo and active controls in clinical trials affects the quality of the result as well as the ethical and scientific acceptability by both the public and regulatory bodies. It has, therefore, continued to generate discuss among researchers” (para. 3). This goes against the autonomy of a patient which is the right for a person to

The study only involved about 120 subjects--quite a small sample size relative to most research of significance. Still, they did establish that patients taking the placebo medication experienced the predicted Abeta40 decline in the CSF, while those receiving the resveratrol treatments showed little to no change in their Abeta40

1. Table 8.1 shows results of an eight-center clinical trial to compare a drug to placebo for curing an infection. At each center, subjects were randomly assigned to two groups.

If the goal is to estimate the overall effect of a particular treatment, which involves pooling the results from the main results. Comparing therapy or a placebo or no treatment, it will affect the outcomes set out in the studies. However, both randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies need different possible bias: selection bias (depending on different groups’ comparison), performance bias (using in randomized controlled trials), attribution bias (how participants withdraw the test ) and detection bias(the difference in the

The authors may want to address the following list of minor issues to further improve the manuscript:

The article provides us with vague information about what was specifically changed in each test group. For example, the article states that mice that ate the whole blueberries experienced better results compared to mice who just had resveratrol. The article does not tell us information such as how much resveratrol (by itself) was given to mice when they were tested or how many blueberries the different test groups

Results are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. aP<0.01, vs. sham group; bP<0.01, vs. SAP group. IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12,

at the beginning of this study, due to the short period of time between testing. However,