... reinforcing my borderline-crank belief in the importance of more public health messaging about nocebo and placebo effects I’m general !
*in general
Nocebo effects are common - and appear, for instance, to account for a large portion of people discontinuing statins because of side effects. Which can be really medically deleterious for individuals with strong indications for statins !
I should say that the nocebo effects may even be larger than they appear in the screenshot above if, as seems quite possivle, there is a degree of functional unblinding due to arm pain. Such partial unblinding can lead to what is referred to as “active placebo” effects ...
... not sure if people use the term “active nocebo” but the concept is the same. (For drug trials, the placebo effect of a drug can be augmented if the participants come to believe they received active drug to the development of perceptible side effects).
We gotta talk more about nocebo effects folks!
Journalists are rightly emphasizing that reports of rare “side effects” after Covid vaccines - which no doubt need to be seriously investigated - could (and often will!) represent coincidence. “True, true, and unrelated”, etc.
However, are there any stories noting that even many common, unserious side effects represent nocebo effects?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Eric, with all due respect, this paper describes a web-based survey of a sample recruited from online support groups — but more importantly the vast majority of participants had no evidence of prior COVID-19 infection?
15.9% had positive PCR, and 18.2% had positive antibodies. Even if you assume zero overlap (and why would you?), that means that the majority of these participants, whose demographics are opposite those who typically face severe COVID, never seemed to have COVID?
Make no mistake — COVID is the pandemic of a century — a horrifying, unprecedented plague. But the "long covid" narrative needs revision, rapidly.
We should fight for healthcare that is free at point of service. Imposing payments serves two purposes, both harmful.
First, ideologically, it reinforces the notion that healthcare is a commodity.
Second, practically, it distributes the use of services by means, not needs.
Until we understand the fundamental political, economic, and ideological function of cost-sharing, we will never abolish it.
I could cite dozens of studies showing the medical harm that cost-sharing inflicts, but the reality is that this is a philosophical and political question more than an empiric one, one that I will rephrase as crudely as possible:
OK, so I'll now tweet out the articles I wrote this year, and research projects where I took the lead, in case any of it may be of interest to folks.
It feels odd because so much has changed over the course of this year — politically, medically, everything!
In January, we published a study suggesting that people with VA coverage (where drug copays are non-existent or minimal) forego medications because of cost much less often than those w/ other forms of health coverage.
According to the new CBO report, under single-payer, we could cover ~100% of the population, make medical services free at point of use, and expand benefits — without spending a dollar more. And healthcare providers would still do perfectly well.
If you also add, as we should, universal long term care with no out-of-pocket costs, you'd spend about ~$300 billion more a year on healthcare altogether, they estimate — but we'd have a free-at-point-of-use system with comprehensive benefits for all, including long-term care.
I'll have many more thoughts on this analysis soon, but the bottom line is clear.
Any healthcare reform other than single-payer will either have higher costs or skimpier benefits than single-payer.
It must be horrible for Canadians not to have the freedom to choose a healthcare plan that charges deductibles or restricts what doctors they can go to. They must be so jealous of all the choices we get to make each year ! nytimes.com/2020/12/11/ups…
We’re very fortunate that private insurance companies take some 12% of every dollar they collect in premiums to design this rich panoply of choices for us. It would be horrible to have a single plan with 2% overhead without restrictive networks, copays, or deductibles instead.
Yes, it’s true we could go to whatever doctor or hospital we wanted, not pay anything out-of-pocket, and never worry about being uninsured. But we’d miss out on the fulfilling, meaningful, efficient, & liberating annual insurance-plan-shopping experience !