Tuesday 9 March 2021

JUST A PLACEBO?

Dick Pountain /Idealog 314/ 06 Sep 2020 10:37


It feels as though the Covid pandemic has made virologists and epidemiologists of all us (except those who deny it’s happening of course). Suddenly people are following vaccine development with sport-like attention and discussing the difference between cytokine and bradykinin storms at the bus-stop. Or perhaps that’s just my circle of hypervigilant friends…

This interest is of course highly practical, since returning to any semblance of normal life depends to a great extent on success in a vaccination program. But I sense there’s another dimension to it: it makes us feel better when we understand what’s happening to us, gives us a sense (perhaps illusory) of control. This effect of increased confidence can in some cases affect our real bodily functions, when it’s referred to as ‘the placebo effect’.

Medical science has only fairly recently started to take the placebo effect seriously, and its power appears more remarkable the more is discovered. The effect was dismissed for a long time for the very good reason that it appears to conflict with the central dogma that separates science from magic, namely that the mind cannot *directly* affect matter (without which we’d still be using Eye Of Newt instead of dexamethasone). That’s changing as we learn about the real material pathways that exist between software processes in the brain (that is, thoughts) and bodily processes. These pathways are mostly chemical rather than electrical, depending upon hormones and neurotransmitters distributed via the bloodstream. Incidentally, this is one more reason why the pursuit of Artificial Intelligence will remain stunted so long as it treats intelligence solely as a computational function of the brain, ignoring the intimate two-way communication between brain and the rest of the body’s organs.

Acceptance of the placebo effect grew with the pharmaceutical industry as it introduced drug trials and discovered that a placebo (from the Latin ‘to please’) – that is a fake pill, often just sugar – could sometimes produce an effect similar to the real drug. At first explanations were purely psychological, concerned with expectation: if you *expect* a pill to cure your headache then it might. The placebo effect was and remains a problem for drug trials, since untangling it from the real drug effect is difficult. There’s also an opposite, ‘nocebo effect’ where patients who are informed of possible side effects of a drug can experience or intensify them.

Psychological explanations raise the difficult question over whether such effects are ‘merely’ imaginary, or are physical, a question that also arises about illnesses that medicine suspects may be ‘psychosomatic’. The emphasis nowadays is shifting, not to discount psychological explanation entirely but to reveal how mind actually affects bodily systems. Placebo analgesia occurs when the mental expectation of relief stimulates the limbic system to release hormones called endorphins which behave like opiates. Expecting an antidepressant effect can release dopamine and thus improve mood, ditto for insulin and blood sugar or vasopressin and blood pressure. It’s even been demonstrated that patients can be conditioned, Pavlov-style: administer a drug in a drink with a distinctive taste, and if the drug is removed merely tasting the drink may produce its effect. In short, the placebo effect reveals yet another bodily system – like the immune, muscular and gastro-intestinal systems – that functions as a computational control system separate from and in parallel with the brain.

These placebo pathways can be trained and nurtured to an extraordinary extent, so that they become the basis of practices like yoga and acupuncture, or even the source of what would have once been called ‘miracles’. Wim Hof, a 60-year old Dutchman, can immerse himself in ice water for 45 minutes and swim under 50 yards under the ice of a frozen lake, by conditioning his breath control. Free divers train themselves into feats of breath-holding approaching 20 minutes. Similar feats of ‘mental’ pain relief are routinely reported both in wartime and among marathon runners. An Italian placebo scientist called Fabricio Benedetti gave weightlifters what he told them was a performance-enhancing drug, actually a placebo. He also secretly gave them lighter weights, which convinced them that the drugs were working. When he surreptitiously replaced the normal weights, the muscular force they were able to exert increased while their perceived fatigue remained the same.

I suspect there’s a lot more yet to discover about the placebo effect and its pathways, with enormous consequences not just for medicine but for sport, and everyday life. There’s already evidence that it can even stimulate the immune system, though whether it could ever be trained to resist infections like coronavirus seems pretty unlikely at the moment. Such slim hopes are certainly no excuse either to slacken the effort to develop vaccines, nor to stop persuading anti-vaxxers that they will need to accept them.

SHOW MUST GO ON

 


Dick Pountain /Idealog 313/ 17 Aug 2020 10:32


Last night I ‘attended’ a superb jazz session by world-class musicians Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Dave Holland and Brian Blade. Admittedly it happened 16 years ago – in the Große Konzertscheue, Salzau, Germany -- but I heard it almost as well, and saw it far better, than if I’d been there. My sofa is easier on the bum than most hall seats. It was a free YouTube video, in HD quality, which I Chromecast to my LG smart TV that pushed the sound through my vintage hifi system (excellent though hardly audiophile: Denon amp, Castle speakers). The camerawork was exceptional, in the German manner, so I saw the players’ fingers on their instruments and facial expressions in a close-up never experienced at a live gig. I also avoided queuing for the cloak-room, and being surrounded by people eating steak and chips and chattering instead of listening. So was this virtual concert a satisfactory replacement for the real thing?


I won’t go all gushy about the excitement of travelling in anticipation, about sharing an enthusiasm with other warm, breathing human-beings (which was once true) but will instead focus on more pragmatic considerations. First off, those musicians got as good as they are through a lifetime of playing to live audiences in clubs all over America and Britain (Holland is English), being paid a pittance by tight-fisted promoters. Are kids coming up today via Logic-Pro-on-bedroom-laptop and social media going to develop similar or equivalent skills: only time will tell, but many YouTube channels suggest perhaps not.


Secondly, can a viable music scene be maintained through payment for online performance? I didn’t pay for that Salzau video, and had YouTube been charging I probably wouldn’t have watched it, not knowing how good it was going to be. On the other hand I frequently pay £40+ a ticket to see acts at the South Bank, Jazz Cafe or Ronnie Scott’s. I don’t know what percentage of that gets to the musicians, but nor do I know what slice (if any) of YouTube’s ad revenue went to them for that video.


This applies even more so in the world of classical music. During lockdown in June I watched a week of excellent lunchtime concerts streamed from the Wigmore Hall, including a staggeringly fine ‘Winterreise’ by Mark Padmore and Mitsuko Uchida. The visibly empty seats brought home frighteningly just what the virus is doing to us. As regular attendees at the Wigmore we like to sit stage-side for which we pay £12 to £20 a head. I didn’t pay that for all those streamed concerts, though I did make a one-off donation.
The brutal truth is that the psychology of paying for streamed entertainment is very different from paying for live entertainment. Rightly or wrongly, you are unlikely to pay as much to watch from your own sofa, providing your own refreshment, as you would to travel to a special event at a concert hall or club. And even the alternative ways to pay for online entertainment can be fraught because of the distinction between pay-per-view and subscription.
Streaming has two huge advantages, instant access without travelling, and a vast repository of past performances. Instant access can make it possible to sample performances that you wouldn’t normally consider, and hence be educated and change your tastes - but only if it’s cheap enough that quitting ones you dislike after a minute or two doesn’t hurt too much. That  

was the difference between Spotify and Apple’s now defunct iTunes. I’m happy to pay £10/month for Spotify Premium which I use every day, not just listening to favourites while walking, but for finding new music or researching all versions of some tune. I wouldn’t do any of that were I paying per track.


Movies and TV are more complicated. I don’t subscribe to Netflix, Prime, Hulu or the like, because they don’t have enough of what I like to justify another monthly bill. But I do buy or rent one-off showings of movies – for example hard-to-find oldies like ‘Tampopo’ or ‘Babette’s Feast’ – and I use BBC iPlayer and All4 to binge watch series (I’ve pigged out on all seasons of ‘Line Of Duty’, and all seven years of ‘30 Rock’).

If coronavirus changes the way we consume entertainment forever, market forces alone are unlikely to save ‘the talent’. The print publishing industry faced this problem for years over library lending, and they came up with PLR (Public Lending Rights) and ALCS (Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society) which collect royalties on behalf of authors fairly efficiently. I suspect similar institutions will need to be cobbled together to collect revenues from online service providers on behalf of musicians, and even perhaps starving Hollywood moguls (joke alert)...





SOCIAL UNEASE

Dick Pountain /Idealog 350/ 07 Sep 2023 10:58 Ten years ago this column might have listed a handful of online apps that assist my everyday...