The Absurd Impossibility of the Double Blind Study
As our understanding of consciousness and interconnectedness grows, the assumptions underlying double blind studies start to unravel.
The Starfire Codes produces an audience-supported publication with a stellar podcast, consciousness-expanding daily spiritual content, and well-researched articles on forbidden but crucial topics.
If you love our work, please join our constellation of curious minds and venture into forbidden realms of knowledge.
Hit that like button!
Share with fellow seekers!
If you haven’t yet, please become a Paid Subscriber to support the cosmic quest for truth!
This is what we do full time. Thank you for all of the ways you support The Starfire Codes! It means the universe to us.🌟
Click here to find out more about booking a personal divination reading, having a dream interpreted, purchasing a natal astrology report, and more….
“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” - Gustave Le Bon
The double blind experiment has long been held as the gold standard of scientific inquiry. By keeping both the researchers and subjects unaware of which participants receive the experimental intervention, it aims to minimize bias and maximize the legitimacy of results. However, upon closer examination, the entire notion of a truly double blind study appears to be an absurd impossibility.
The idea first arose within the field of medical research as a means of eliminating placebo effects and researcher bias. Patients would be randomly divided into two groups - one receiving the drug being tested, the other receiving a placebo. Neither the patients nor the doctors would know who was getting what. This helped ensure any improvements weren't just in the patients' heads and the doctors weren't inadvertently influencing outcomes based on their expectations. The technique was soon adopted across scientific disciplines and came to be synonymous with methodological rigor.
Yet as our understanding of consciousness and interconnectedness grows, the assumptions underlying double blind studies start to unravel. If, as research increasingly indicates, there exists a universal field of consciousness that undergirds all of reality, it calls into question whether true isolation between participants can ever be achieved.
Let's begin by looking at the randomization process itself. Most double blind studies use computer programs to randomly assign participants to groups. However, given what we know about quantum entanglement, can we ever say this process is truly random? The computer generating the sequence is itself an extension of the universal consciousness field. The programmer flow of attention in writing the code becomes entangled with the machine. And the person initiating the randomization is similarly connected. Once you recognize that consciousness transcends the individual mind, viewing anything as isolated seems highly dubious.
Some may argue that while the randomization itself may not be completely isolated, the rest of the study can still achieve effective blindness between groups. Yet this too begins to fall apart under deeper scrutiny. Let's take, for example, a drug trial where neither patients nor doctors know who is getting the active medication. To begin with, the pharmacists dispensing the drug know the group assignments. While they may not interact directly with participants, their knowledge becomes part of the universal consciousness field. Studies have repeatedly shown one person's awareness can influence others, even at great distance. Through something as simple as focused intention, a pharmacist could alter outcomes among those receiving the drug.
But even if we somehow keep the pharmacists blinded, issues remain. Patients interact with researchers, technicians and other staff throughout the study. The attitudes, body language, tone of voice - conscious and unconscious cues given by anyone involved in the trial can shape the patients' expectations, mindset and thus their outcomes. And because consciousness flows between us, their perceptions will similarly influence the providers. It becomes an infinite dance where complete isolation is impossible.
Researchers have tried to overcome this by automating more aspects of studies. If machines handle randomization, medication dispensing and data collection, human influence can be curtailed. However, consciousness extends to all forms of matter. Studies have demonstrated emotional entanglement between people and electronic devices. fMRI scans show activitation in a computer's circuitry based on human intention. Again we see nothing can be fully isolated in a double blind study.
These points also apply to researchers analyzing results. While they may receive data with subjects' group assignments masked, consciousness finds ways to seep through. Imagine a team strongly believes in a treatment's effectiveness. Their enthusiasm, however subtle, can make its way to analysts and skew interpretations. With billions sometimes riding on clinical trial outcomes, these motivations can certainly influence what researchers "see" in the statistics.
Some argue these influences are minimal and good study design can still achieve effective blinding. However, examples from research on psychic phenomena cast further doubt on this notion. In precognition studies, participants' ability to predict future events violates causality as modern science defines it. Yet the effects are small - just a few percent above chance, requiring meta-analysis to confirm. This suggests consciousness can subtly bias results in any experiment. No matter how air tight the protocol, people's intuition and future sight appear able to seep in.
Looking at research on presentiment effect, similar issues arise. When a subject's physiology responds to unpredictable stimuli before those stimuli occur, it again suggests isolation in experiments is untenable. No matter how researchers may try to segregate subject and stimulus using space, time and masking, consciousness finds ways to bleed through.
Another body of evidence contradicting the notion of a true double blind comes from research on psychic healing. When studies involve groups of people praying or sending intention for patients unknown to them at a distance, the patients still tend to experience benefits. Once more we see that subjects' outcomes get influenced independent of direct sensory contact.