[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The placebo effect is exactly what the double blind clinical trial is designed to counter. The plural anecdote is not data. Clinical trials are not perfect and sweeping conclusions require repeatable results. There is also the tendency of people with a stake in the outcome to fudge results, but it's still the best we got. I am, naturally, dismissive of this kind of nonsense. For instance, patterns of betting on state lotteries do not show any indication of statistically significant precognition. James Randi understands these things better than most statisticians and put his money where my mouth is.

[The Comedian]

"I am, naturally, dismissive of this kind of nonsense."

- Lonesome in Mass., and everyone who has been part of the priesthood (scientific or otherwise) since the dawn of recorded history when confronted with anything outside of their existing orthodoxy.

Were micro-organisms real before they were observed and we had the mechanisms to quantify them?

How about heleocentrism?

Quantum mechanics?

Quasars?

Love?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[null and void]

The placebo effect is exactly what the double blind clinical trial is designed to counter.

Precisely.

It is essential to accurately evaluate a drug or treatment.

OTOH, we know peoples' beliefs and expectations affect their outcomes, yet we systematically eliminate this from clinical trials.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever studied what factors contribute to the efficacy of the placebo effect.

Is there some cue that triggers it? Can doctors and/or pharmacists be trained to give this or these cues?

IF one can trigger the placebo effect is it ethical to cure the patient that way? Is it ethical not to?

(Here in California it is illegal to prescribe or dispense placebos)

[null and void]

4 8 15 16 23 42

;^P