Sure, but this is misplaced skepticism. There have been many studies attesting to the harms of PM 2.5 and the benefits of intervention. The onus isn't on a single consumer to set up a double blind, randomized test for himself, the onus is on you to simply google for the many that have been already done.
Just because it has an effect on the average person doesn't mean it must have an effect on every person. It can still be a placebo for any one individual, and I don't see the harm of asking how does one double-check if the effect is real or not.
There isn't much harm, there just isn't much point either. We don't usually interrogate people's assumptions down to axioms and provable claims, because it's impossible to live that way. Do you have personal experimental data to prove that eating handfuls of mud is likely to hurt your stomach?
>Do you have personal experimental data to prove that eating handfuls of mud is likely to hurt your stomach?
I do have evidence that eating mud is likely to hurt my stomach: the relevant body of literature showing that this is a likely event for the population I'm part of.
In OP's case, however, considering that the relevant body of litetuare shows that placebos are very effective for improving sleep quality, I would say it's very reasonable to ask someone to elaborate on why they are so convinced that their method of treatment is not a placebo for sleep quality.
No one is saying they have to "prove" it--they can just elaborate on their conviction: perhaps OP had many insomnnia treatments before and this was the only one that showed efficiency. Not a proof, but it is some circumstatial evidence. On the other hand, maybe OP is not aware how effective placebos are, in which case his statement may be too strong to straight-out declare that "it's not a placebo effect."
> the relevant body of literature showing that this is a likely event for the population I'm part of
Please link some examples, because I somehow doubt that you referenced them before forming an opinion. I think we all know eating lots of mud is a bad idea without referencing literature, let alone qualifiers about population groups.
I'm curious if you've lived in any of these hyper-polluted cities. The health effects of breathing such smog is absolutely palpable.
Here's a couple of studies on how PM2.5 affects your arteries, blood pressure, stress hormones, etc. I don't doubt all of these effects can add up to a better or worse night's sleep.
- "significantly higher blood pressure, hormones, insulin resistance, and biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation among individuals exposed to higher PMs": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28808144/
>Please link some examples, because I somehow doubt that you referenced them before forming an opinion.
That's because I assumed it was meant to be a hypothetical example--I don't actually have an opinion on the health effects of eating mud.
The point is that one claim is regarding the likelihood of X happening due to Y (in general), and the other claim is about the affirmation that X happened because of Y (in a specific case.) Likelihood is confirmed by scientific articles that employ statistical inference methods such as the ones you have been posting, while the other claim is undemonstrable by the scientific method, so it is commonly supported through further circumstantial/anecdotal evidence, which is what I assumed the other poster asked for.
Anyway, given that most of your comment is posting more scientific articles, we're probably arguing about different things.
I've always thought it would be an interesting service where someone did this with medication/supplements. They sent you supplies of both the real and sugar pill meds for a certain duration and you recorded how you felt.
