yes, I think that is it. Thank you.

A friend had genetic testing done to see which antibiotics work on her or not as she has a difficult to treat chronic bacterial infection. I'm not sure that it works at all or if it just limits what they'll try based on iffy info. But it's her body and she's a believer.

" genetic testing done to see which antibiotics work on her or not "

Yeah, because of the nature and mechanism of action of antibiotics, most of them can't (at this point in time) benefit from pharmacogenetic testing. Many of them work specifically on microbes, rather than on the body's tissues themselves (such as a cardiac drug or a water pill).

You go through your regular doctor. If they are prescribing something to you, or you are having issues with a medication, they may decide you need the test done. What kind of test (blood, swab, saliva) you need will likely be decided by your doctor. If it needs to be done by a specialist or not may depend on your health care system and doctor. If your insurance covers it or not is something you would need to check with your insurance about- some things are sometimes covered, sometimes only covered by doctor referral, sometimes not covered, totally covered, ect. Your doctors office might have the information you need as in they might know if it's covered or you need a referral, but you might need to contact your insurance carrier directly.

I know, right? So I have no idea how this genetic testing thing is supposed to work when it's the infection that's being targeted, not the body. I remember when DH had a kidney infection which led to very high fevers. The antibiotics would make him better, but then when they stopped, he'd get sick again. The bacteria were residing in a kidney stone, and the antibiotics only work on that which touches the blood stream, so the infection was thriving on the stone and it wasn't until it was removed that he finally got well for good.

There's a lot of hocus-pocus out there. But if someone's a believer, the placebo effect is a strong one.

" But if someone's a believer, the placebo effect is a strong one. "

The effectiveness rate of the placebo effect is usually very low. As with the effectiveness rate of treating illnesses spiritually as some similarly are fooled into thinking can be effective. Everyone is welcome to personal opinions but spreading this kind of hoo-hah is arguably more dangerous than helpful.

While this particular program might or might not be accurate it is a fact that people do not assimilate medications evenly. Having a doctor who will recognize this as a fact is crucial to your well being. We are all different to a degree. The reality of something like allergic reactions should make this obvious. Everyone is not allergic. I know that in my family we dont do so well with some opioids. It is obviously genetic so if we are going to look for pain meds we have to be careful. I would like to think that the medical world will come up with a way of determining what we can safely take. Why not other meds?

" The effectiveness rate of the placebo effect is usually very low. "

In many studies, the effectiveness has been shown to be over 50%, sometimes as high as 70% - these are comparing a placebo to nothing, not comparing a placebo to an existing medication. (Example - response to temperature changes in two groups, one given a placebo, one given nothing.)

Elmer, provide some data before you accuse me of spreading "hoo-hah".

And perhaps tell me why you think double-blind studies are done in clinical testing and research?

I think this kind of testing will be routine in the not-too-distant future. I learned a lot from having my DNA tested some years ago. As far as drug reactions go, I remember that I shouldn't take Plavix, a blood thinner; flucoxacillin, an antibiotic; Augmentin, another antibiotic; and an anti-rejection drug following organ transplant. There were others. Not all of these would give me noticeable side effects--in the case of the anti-rejection drug, it just wouldn't work. Not a good thing at all, considering the circumstances under which it would be prescribed.

Someone in an online group I belong to mentioned that she had a good experience with a testing site called GeneSight. I checked it out and found only two tests: one for MTHFR, a somewhat common (I think) genetic mutation, and one that tests a person's response to a list of psychotropic drugs. I imagine both tests would be useful to a lot of people, particularly since so many prescriptions are written for anti-depressants in this country. Here's what GeneSight's report looks like.

https://genesight.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GeneSight-Psychotropic-Sample-Report-4.2.pdf

My mother had it done several years ago at her AL and medicare paid for it. Her psyche meds weren’t very effective. Honestly, the testing made zero difference.

I think the commentators know well that the placebo effect is a psychological effect long ago recognized as a reaction some have to a perceived but not existent treatment. Double blind testing is to assess new drugs or procedures, and sometimes a small percentage of people in the control group receiving nothing can have reactions similar to the tested group. Yawn.

It's not an available treatment approach. Indeed, doctors who forego accepted treatment procedures to pursue something else (a hoped for placebo reaction or otherwise), without the patient's full knowledge and consent, has violated professional standards of care. Another way to say, it's malpractice.

To suggest someone pursue a placebo effect treatment for a medical disease or treatment, are you saying don't go to a physician but instead a shaman from an indigenous group? Or, go to a supplement store and buy a container of dried leaves?

" To suggest someone pursue a placebo effect treatment for a medical disease or treatment "

Did anyone suggest that? Did anyone suggest not going to a medical professional for treatment of a problem?

No. We just said that the placebo effect on people is fairly potent, in opposition to your statement that it's "very low". Don't move the goalposts.

The frequency observed in research is very low. There is no observed effect in clinical treatments because it isn't permitted.

And another thread down... don't feed the troll folks, just pass over that bridge.

Placebos are used in clinical trials, especially cancer trials. This publication is from ASCO - the American Society of Clinical Oncology. DH is a member.

https://www.cancer.net/research-and-advocacy/clinical-trials/placebos-cancer-clinical-trials

maire cate, the issue your linked piece pivots from, and the guidelines described are for, is the ethical concern of when testing involves withholding treatment for conditions that if left untreated can be terminal. So you'll note than when something new is tested, the old treatment and placebo are used if the disease is active. Then what's determined is if the new approach is better, not simply effective.

" The frequency observed in research is very low. "

No, that is not true. The frequency in research on placebos (not on clinical trials of other medications, as I said) shows high frequency at mild to moderate amounts. Would you like me to cite the research for you?

No. It's a nice day, why not go out and enjoy it as I'm about to do. You go to extremes to be disagreeable and it's not something I want to encourage further.

The conversation was not about placebo research, which is intended to better understand its nature. Rather, the topic was my suggesting not to encourage or suggest that placebo treatment for known medical problems is either indicated or effective.

"You go to extremes to be disagreeable..."

Talk about projection!

For anyone else still bothering with this thread, just so there is no misunderstanding, when I said, "There's a lot of hocus-pocus out there. But if someone's a believer, the placebo effect is a strong one." I was not recommending placebos. Rather, if someone undergoes a treatment for which there is little scientific evidence as to efficacy, they may still have a positive outcome due to the placebo effect and thus believe it is efficacious when, in fact, it is not.

I think your words were quite clear without this effort to redirect the thought to something different. In the context of the discussion at that point, your comments ironically injected hocus pocus in suggesting that actions intended to intentionally trigger a placebo effect (how odd that notion is anyway) could be an alternative.

Elmer, just stop it. *I* know what I said and intended. *You* misunderstood what I said. I am not redirecting anything. *You* are. And not for the first time in this conversation. Of course suggesting an intentional placebo effect is an odd notion...so odd that not only did I never suggest it, I never even thought it! But your fervor to cast aspersions on anything I say so alters your perceptions that you literally can't read what I write and get it straight.

You were wrong about what I said. You were wrong about the significance of the placebo effect. You have insulted me, you've insulted TV and now are calling me a liar...all because *you* can't admit it when you're wrong. All you are doing is denigrating your own character and demonstrating the fragility of your ego. Do yourself a favor and just stop.

Perhaps in the future, rather than make blanket assumptions, biased misinterpretations and hurl insults as step one, you might just ask if the writer meant X when she said "...." It could avoid all this ugliness.

It's you who has misunderstood comments. Mine were clear, yours were too.

Hold the personal insults, let your comments rise or fall with their veracity, not the with disrespectful tone you choose to use.

Fun day ahead, hope you have the same.