Helen MacDonald

And maybe we should have heeded that always word because that's always a false friend, isn't it, when it comes up in exams.

So the authors of the analysis paper, which are sort of discussing the issues around this, are making the case that the illustrious reputation of blinding, they describe it, may not be justified.

And they have this rather glorious story about mesmerism, which they think describes the first case of blinding in a trial.

And I...

was going to ask Duncan to read it to you because we all know that his voice is very relaxing and delightful and it will mesmerise you into believing that blinding works.

So you have to transport yourself to Paris in the year 1884 for Duncan to tell you about it.

1784.

1784.

I hope you enjoyed that.

I did.

So coming back to this paper, in essence, it says there are some logistical and practical reasons why blinding might be tricky.

Sometimes it can compromise patient safety.

It's quite hard to measure.

And we might dismiss valuable information if we place a really high value on blinded trials and dismiss the findings of studies which are

which may be less blinded.

So maybe, Carl, you've been quiet for so long, I feel that maybe it's time for a little New Year's test.

As our professor of evidence-based medicine, you should list for us some reasons why blinding may not be a good thing.

How do you mean?

I think that's quite good.

There's a few things you missed as a future professor of evidence-based medicine.