|Nocebo was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Nocebo was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Reverse Placebo Effect ≠ Nocebo
Reverse Placebo Effect DOES NOT EQUAL nocebo. Nocebo (same root as Nociception) refers to negative or harmful effects that arise from the same reasons as the placebo effect (incidentally and contrary to this article, expectation is only one of the contributing factors). A good example of this is the study by Liccardi et al. (1) where subjects given placebo but told it was a medication to which they were allergic suffered a large number of negative symptoms. One can see how this is the same effect as placebo but in this case a negative or harmful (as opposed to therapeutic) response.
This contrasts Reverse Placebo in which case expectations opposite of what are expected occur in response to a placebo. In this case, taking a placebo analgesic (in which you expect and are conditioned to pain relief), you actually feel more pain (distinctly different from taking a drug that you expect and are conditioned to hyperalgesia). See paper by Bootzin et al. (2) for evidence of the different meaning of this term.
(1) Liccardi, G., Senna, G., Russo, M., Bonadonna, P., Crivellaro, M., Dama, A., ... & Passalacqua, G. (2004). Evaluation of the nocebo effect during oral challenge in patients with adverse drug reactions. Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology, 14(2), 104-7.
(2) Bootzin, R. R., & Bailey, E. T. (2005). Understanding placebo, nocebo, and iatrogenic treatment effects. Journal of clinical psychology, 61(7), 871-880)
There is clearly a vastly different meaning between these two terms. Reverse Placebo should NOT redirect here. -SRoy
- I was redirected to this page when searching for "Reverse Placebo Effect." I was thinking that it was a mistake, because I wasn't thinking about the Nocebo Effect. I was interested in the notion that someone could be given an actual drug, later told that it was a placebo, and was able to reproduce results without the use of the drug.
- Likewise, I was looking for information on whether a potent drug can be less effective because of the patient's belief that it is a placebo or that it doesn't work. -Rrius (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I just last night found a reference to just such a study. I immediately thought of this article when I read it. I'll try to find a place to add the reference more or less seamlessly sometime today. The Bearded One (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- So, given a placebo, but being told they are allergic to it, patients "suffered a large number of negative symptoms", BUT, because the effect is harmful, let's not call it a placebo?
- That's the argument?
- Seems to me that's an example of argument by euphemism.
- "No, you see, it's a NOT-placebo, a NOcebo so to speak. Totally different from the fake and imaginary effect of placebo."--220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ergoiamtoo, you suggested changing "It is self-evident that belief kills, etc." to "Some people believe that belief kills".
In my opinion, your version is very much better than mine; however, I have amended your "Some people believe that belief kills, etc." to read "Some people maintain that belief kills, etc."
I have done this simply because, in my opinion, the sentence reads a lot better because now it does not present two different meanings of the word "believe" in the same sentence. Also, I think the position of those who hold the view in question is far better represented by saying that "they maintain X" -- in the sense that they are externally asserting that X is the case -- rather than them just internally believing that X is the case, Hope that you agree with the amendment, as I feel that it makes things even more clear along the sensible lines that you have already suggested.cogtrue 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please can you remove the biblic quotation which is irrelevant and distracting to the topic. Please keep biblic quotations to pages relating to the bible or christianity.
- To whom it may concern: I have no "brief" for any sort of religious people, any sort of belief system, or any sort of superstition. The specific reason for including this quotation is that the quotation itself is totally linked to a specific "classic" case of a psychogenic condition. In fact the quotation appears in most texts on this topic of psychosomatic disorders (regardless of the authors' religious views) as a strong reminder that what one thinks can be realized. In my view, and particularly because of its direct applicability to the concept of nocebo -- and, especially, because it contains neither doctrine nor any other allegiance to any sort of religious teaching -- it is not only entirely appropriate in this case, but it also makes a seamless link with much that is in the literature on fear-induced conditions. Also, just in case, you decide to mount another obejection, regardless of the presence or absence of religious views within any given individual, the example of the self-inflicted, psychogenic death of Ananias Ananias and Sapphira is a classic example. These two examples will stay in this article, unless I am specifically instructed by a very much higher authority -- a very much higher Wiki authority, that is -- to remove them, simply because (a) they fit the article 100%, and (b) they have no religious connotations whatsoever, in and of themselves, despite the fact that they appear in a well-known religious book. Cheers to whoever you areLindsay658 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I also found the quote strange and out of place. You could put part of your explanation on the page.
- I have gone ahead and removed the quote. The reason is simple: it's just fancy text. It doesn't actually add anything to the article. Having interesting quotes to spice things up is very common in other texts, but has no place in Wikipedia. It would be like adding "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." to the article on Theatre. Interesting quote and commonly used to reference theatre, but not needed. If you really want the quote to stay, stick it in a section like "Examples of nocebo in history" or something. Just keep it out of the lead, ok?--SeizureDog 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OKLindsay658 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Good Article nomination has failed
- Very hard to read; Lead does not introduce or summarize. Please consider rewording to meet WP:LEAD , change passive tenses to active tenses wherever possible. Also, a few good images would help the article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- CTSWyneken. Thanks for your feedback.
- Obviously, I was not responsible for the nomination.
- In my view, the "Nocebo" article can not be polished into its final form until I have finished the other three "corrsponding counterpart" pieces I am currently constructing for "Placebo"; i.e., Placebo (medicine) (which will, when finished, entirely replace the current Placebo and Placebo effect which colllectively and severally have so many problems in their current form), Placebo (origins of technical term), and Uses of the term placebo.
- At that time that all four are completed, I will be comprehensively examining each (and all of them as a unit) for style, symmetry, content, etc. and I will pay particular attention to your helpful criticisms, and make sure that the Lead meets specification.
- I am, however, intrigued by your claim that "images" might improve the article, and I would be most grateful (especially because I am yet to learn how to find images and how to insert them into an article) if you could share with me your ideas on what sort of image(s) you had in mind for this article; because, as well, I may be able to continue such an "image" theme through all four articles.
- Again, thanks for your guidance. Lindsay658 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- When it's done revision, do renom the article. The content is interesting to me and is well documented. As far as images, try looking about at http://commons.wikimedia.org under medical and drug categories. I would go for images that represent patients under care, medical trials, pills, etc. Since you're working with a concept that is not concrete, look for things that illustrate the effects or can act as metaphors. If you need further help, drop me another note. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
self-willed/self-inflicted needs work, as well as a clairification.
One question comes to my mind. Is it a Nocebo effect when one takes medicine that someone believes won't help him, and while the body is cured the mind still suffers. This should probably be in the introduction as the introduction seems to only talk about placebos, however there's very good alternate items in the article (including self-willed deaths)
In addition self-willed vs. self-inflicted seems overexplained, with the bulk of the explination on self-inflicted. Shouldn't this be more about the different forms of self-willed. To my understanding self-willed is a unconcious act, self-inflicted is a concious act (walking in front of a bus with out noticing it vs. throwing yourself infront of a bus). There seems little use in explaining all three forms of self-inflicted acts (religious and heroic examples both fall firmly under suicide, though you could meantion "for heroic or religious means").Kinglink 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the comic completely misrepresents what nocebo means. Needs to be removed. The fat guy dies bc. he does "not believe" in the power of a plcebo..... WTF???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC) _______
Random comment from the peanut gallery -- this article repeatedly uses quotes when they are not necessary. For example, there's no reason to refer to anything as a "classic" example ... saying a classic example is fine.
I removed "One known example is dying of fright after being bitten by a non-venomous snake", as a very similar story appears on Snopes, and is debunked there. I assume it's an urban legend. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Also this: "Because the original meaning of "nocebo" specifically referred to a subject's response to an inert drug, the term nocebo effect can really only refer to the consequences of the application of a "harm-producing" "nocebo drug" (however, the concept of a "harm-producing" "nocebo drug" is a much later concept than either that of a "nocebo response" or of a "nocebo reaction")." Makes no sense. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why TGN1412 is a nocebo?
I've read the articles  and  linked to from this page and it seems to me that the TGN1412 was not a nocebo. The men who were given a low dose of the real drug became ill, while those who were given a placebo were OK. Why this case is even referenced at all? --VadimIppolitov (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, the TGN1412 trial had nothing whatsoever to do with nocebo effect. I'd remove the mention of this drug trial as an example of nocebo, because it patently wasn't (if the available literature is correct). However not being a professional in the field I'd be interested to hear opinions of those who are. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)