[meowface]

I don't support the use of homeopathy, but I don't think that's a great analogy. Polygraphs are used as an interrogation technique, where psychological tricks and deception on the part of law enforcement are "fair game" (we could enter a long discussion as to whether or not deception during interrogations/interviews should be permitted, but regardless, that's the status quo right now).

Trickery and deception when it comes to medicine and personal health are never fair game. I think there's definitely a difference between police telling a suspect "we know you did it" (when they don't actually know) and a doctor telling a patient "take this and you'll feel better" (when the drug actually does nothing).

Also, polygraphs are a little bit more functional than homeopathic medicine: a polygraph can not only induce nervousness, but can also notice it in some cases (even if the nervousness may not be concerned around a particular question and may not necessarily indicate deception and even if there are false positives). This helps create a feedback loop which makes it more powerful than a pure placebo (e.g. a "lie detector machine" you hook someone up to which isn't powered on at all and does literally nothing).

[paulcole]

> Trickery and deception when it comes to medicine and personal health are never fair game.

What about when it is known to work?

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/putting-the-pla...

[meowface]

It's been shown that telling someone you're giving them a placebo can still bring benefit, in which case I'm okay with it. But giving someone a placebo or homeopathy pill (same thing) and failing to disclose it contains no active ingredient is pure deception, unless the patient has given consent that they may receive a placebo, like if they're in an experimental trial. Even if someone does show improvement after receiving the placebo, it's never justifiable to outright lie to them.