There doesn't appear to have been a control group? Perhaps wearing funny hats is good for cognition.
The sad thing is that a study "Attention and interaction twice a day with professionals (or anyone else) who show an interest in you and your recovery reverses a year of alzeheimer's" -- would go nowhere. Because that is enormously expensive/inconvenient, and won't make any pharmaceutical or medical device company any money.
But yeah, there could totally be a difference between twice-a-day intervention by a researcher who is in a good mood and optimistic about your recovery (and well-rested from going home every night from their prestigious and well-paid job), and a live-in relative who is exhausted and depressed from your state and from having had to leave much of their life to become a full-time live-in caretaker. Depressed about decline with company, indeed.
One can argue about why that is, but it seems obvious that there's something exploitable there.
If not, it sounds like a reporting issue and not any kind of exploitable effect distinct from convincing someone to cheer up a bit.
[0] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/onlyhuman/episodes/real...
Also, please understand if you haven't been anywhere near there yourself, the ONLY thing you can be 100% sure of when being used for scientific trials is that they are lying to you. Says so right there on the tin. Anything else would be unethical, right? Bad science! "Take this, this is a placebo" But is it? Or is this a sciency adjustment to show that it's the medicine working on me not any belief I have in it. Is there another reason they can't tell me why they're lying about it being a placebo? What are you trying to treat. A 1000 ft vertical fall? Whether you know it's a placebo or not makes zero difference. Described feelings of wellness? Yeah. There's a huge amount between those extremes. All those things are not equal, nor is it even approximately continuous between them.
Don't laugh when people disbelieve "this is placebo". Have some respect for the people who are in these trials because you know the scientists and doctors they're forced to deal with for their one shot at treatment have basically have none at all that is remotely visible to the poor fool staring down some hideous, heinous, vicious, rapacious monster. Don't believe me, got to hospital, try it. The drowning person will clutch the point of a sword but that's not something you'll see in scientific litterature built on data from these people with human hopes, dreams and utter desperation.
"Take a teaspoon of sugar, get it yourself from the hospital canteen then open the sachet and consume in front of a nurse at 15:00 daily just so you can be 100% sure it's not medicine and is a placebo" - no placebo verifying trial ever. Or maybe I stopped reading too early and the experimental design wasn't as flawed as it looks. Maybe you can confirm with a link to the paper because your expertise outstrips my own?
Here's something that is not a placebo: "Promising treatment found for $disease_monster affect millions directly and indirectly" as a story worth money to tell whether fact or fiction. It got viewers on tv before the web, sold magazines and papers and now gets clicks and advertising impressions. It's difficult to be cynnical enough, isn't it? Cancer, Alzheimers are very high on the qty of cure stories that go nowhere we see. Because you know people, you probably loved some of them or love people who did. It catches your eye.
Interestingly, while I'm on this ramble, medicine is where the rubber meets the road in most people's life, even highly educated people, when it comes to science. What they see are not the ideals science has for itself. This in turn undermines belief in science because there really is /so/ much scientific bullshit to wade through. YES it's better than crystals and chakras or other crap and that's an insanely low bar. If that's the best we have we are an utter disgrace as a civilization. This is not an anti-science comment. Science really could be being practised a hell of a lot better in and around medicine, including its reporting. If you love science and what it has done for the human race (who doesn't), stare at the ugliness on display. Decide if you're ok with it or not.
Here is a picture of a random person identified as a scientist who has a teaching position at a university. Do you trust them absolutely without question or are you rather more circumspect. I'll finish with the words funding and replication crisis.
If you have been, I apologise...
I'd have to go and dig up studies, but my memory is that even the control groups don't see particularly good results; neurodegenerative disorders are just too fundamental. Most of the promising results for brain activity and dementia seem to represent either keeping information "active" so that it's not consolidated away by normal aging, or keeping patients engaged so that they have better cognitive performance despite unchecked biological losses.
I agree that if this only saw improvement on cognitive scores, a placebo delaying decline would be pretty concerning. But the biological improvements are better than drug or placebo for any other Alzheimer's medicine I've seen, which is very promising.
So, yeah, that is how controls work, generally. If there is some other standardly accepted treatment for Alzheimer's already, it might be unethical to _refrain_ from giving that, perhaps the control would be given that too. But it's not unethical not to give someone the treatment that you don't even know if it works yet.
Usually. As a general principle. These are certainly interesting things to talk about in the field of medical ethics, and you can find lots of discussion of them in article and such, it's not always totally straightforward or universally agreed upon and of course medical researchers do unethical things all the time.
But simply having a control group that does not get the treatment you are researching is not by itself considered unethical. Which seems to be what you are suggesting. Remember that you don't know if the experimental treatment works at all, that's why it's being studied -- it may even make the condition _worse_, or have negative side effects.
And yes, having a control group is normal procedure. And that's what a control group is, starting off in the same place as the experimental group, but not receiving the experimental treatment, with other conditions being normalized the same. If the control group is 'double blinded', then neither the subjects nor the research staff know if a given subject is receiving the experimental treatment or control.
I wouldn't really think it's any more unethical than any other clinical trial for any other disease. The whole point is you don't know if the drug/treatment works, so I don't think it's unethical to withhold it. All participants are informed that there is a chance they'll receive placebo treatment as well, no one is being tricked. The point of the trial is to test the treatment, not to just fix a small group of people before the big roll-out.
But, you are right that sometimes the 'control' portion of a study is halted and the control people are given the treatment if a study seems to be going especially obviously well, on ethical grounds.
It can be some difficult ethical decisions. But whether you have 40 people in the experimental group and no control group, or 40 people in the experimental group and 40 people in a control group, you still only have 40 people in the experimental group.
Not having a control group doesn't somehow get the treatment to all effected people in the world. And it would be unethical to give the experimental treatment to everyone in the world _before you have evidence of it's efficacy_ anyway. It might be ineffective, it might even make the condition _worse_ or have other dangerous side effects in addition to being ineffective. You don't know this until you study it properly. Studying it properly means using proper valid statistical techniques, and may mean having a control group. I think it is unethical to give a treatment to people widely _without_ having done a study with a control. Being a part of a research study can be _dangerous_.
Anyone that participates in a research study, knowing the risks, is providing a valuable service to everyone else that may later benefit from what is discovered, whether they end up in the experimental group or the control group. They are taking on risks of a still experimental treatment to help get knowledge to help others.
I'm not saying it's simple. I'm just saying that it is definitely not as simple as thinking having no control group is somehow more ethical than having a control group, or that it's good idea to widely distribute experimental treatments which haven't yet been properly studied. You will harm people by doing so.
That's my dispute. We know X will kill you in a certain time frame. We have thousands if not millions of data points. I fail to see how the control group is really telling you anything you do not already know. Ignoring what we already know is unethical.
It is just is insane that we set people up for false hope and watch them die in droves. I guess it looks better on the marketing material to doctors. I wonder how many actual studies are halted because of die off in the control group. It sure seemed like that wasn't going to be an option.
I don't think you understand the purpose of the control group.
It is irrelevant how much we already know about what Alzheimer's disease does, because the control group is not intended to tell you anything about that at all. The justification for the control group is not that it will tell us something about what Alzheimer's does.
The purpose of the control group is to determine if the treatment works. That's it.
You seem to be suggesting that when doing a research study of a new treatment, it would be unethical not to give this treatment to everyone on the planet who has the disease. That makes no sense at all. The experimental treatment may do nothing for them, or may actually harm them. Giving an experimental unproven treatment to everyone would be unethical.
If you want to argue that it is unnecessary to have control groups in an experiment, you need to first understand what the purpose they are said to serve by those who believe they are important (which is pretty much any statisticians or methodologists).
Again, at this stage you're just assessing if the treatment even works. The point isn't to fix one group and screw over another, the whole point is that you don't know if the drug is going to do anything. It's much easier to tell if a treatment is worth giving to everyone if you first do the correctly controlled trials.
It seems like you're coming at this from a place of assuming the treatment is going to work from the get go, which is not true for the majority of treatments that undergo this kind of trial. Moreover, many treatments have side effects that, again, are much easier to look at if you can compared them to a group that went through the exact same handling. Even small, seemingly innocuous things like going to a hospital to talk to an interested person about how you're doing can have an effect on health readouts that may be relevant to a study. Or maybe the stress of sitting down having this weird hat put on your head affects something. Or maybe some much less obvious aspect of the study. The point of the control is that you cancel out all of these kinds of effects, obvious or otherwise, so that the ONLY difference is the treatment.
Controls also help with allowing double blinded studies. If the researchers know who is receiving treatment and who is receiving placebo, they can unconsciously influence the results, especially for things like behavioral surveys that aren't as objective as, say, taking blood and seeing if you have more or less cancer cells. Obviously you can't have this kind of blinding if the researchers know every single person is getting the real treatment.
The control group doesn't need to be treatment-free.
Being control just means you are still part of that status quo.
If we had like 99.9% confidence that the procedure would work, sure roll it out to everyone ASAP, but I don't think we are there yet.
As mentioned in another comment, the sad state of Alzheimers patient care today includes infrequent attention. It is plausible that two visits from another human each day would in itself cause the same kind of improvement seen in the study.
Without a control group, it is impossible to ascribe the results to the treatment or the other aspects of the study.
But say you've developed a treatment device for heart attacks. Untreated, let's say the death rate is 90%. With your treatment, the death rate is 20%. Even without running a controlled experiment where half the heart attack patients get the deactivated device, you can state pretty strongly that your device has better-than-placebo results.
In before "the placebo effect is real!" Well, sure it is. But it's most effective for subjective complaints, such as for pain relief, where the person's mental state is responsible for a large part of the experience. Placebos aren't so great for objective issues like "cardiac arteries are experiencing insufficient blood flow", "liver has cancer", or "patient has late stage Alzheimers".
Though I suppose you run into the same issue the other way, too. If the treatment somehow improves everyone’s cognitive function it’s difficult to measure because your “baseline” has moved.