[wfme]

Completely disagree. If the "woo" you describe is so ineffective, placebos wouldn't be a thing. Sure, there are problems that may require some kind of invasive treatment, but there are also a lot that we seem to include in that group that can be treated with much less invasive procedures.

David Epstein touches on this here [0]: "A unique study at five orthopedic clinics in Finland compared APM with “sham surgery.” That is, surgeons took patients with knee pain to operating rooms, made incisions, faked surgeries, and then sewed them back up. Neither the patients nor the doctors evaluating them knew who had received real surgeries and who was sporting a souvenir scar. A year later, there was nothing to tell them apart. The sham surgery performed just as well as real surgery. Except that, in the long run, the real surgery may increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. Also, it’s expensive, and, while APM is exceedingly safe, surgery plus physical therapy has a greater risk of side effects than just physical therapy."

[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but...

[watwut]

Placebos don't fix issues, if they would, we would sell half placebo pills to save money. They sometimes have some temporary effect.

If placebos worked, we could not use then to gage treatment effectiveness in trials. And treatment passes trial only if it does better then placebo.

[weregiraffe]

>>If placebos worked, we could not use then to gage treatment effectiveness in trials.

What? The reason placebos are used in trials is because they work.

[watwut]

The treatment is considered working when it produces better results then placebo. When the treatment is undistinguishable from placebo, then the conclusion of trial is that "improvements are result of chance rather then treatment".

Placebo is used so that patients, doctors and anyone else is not affected by their expectations/wishes of whether treatment should or should not work.

The whole point is to measure actual physical improvements. You can't replace real treatment by placebos and expect them to have the same results - clinical trials are done so that this is guaranteed to not work with drugs that passed them.

[wfme]

The conclusion is most definitely not "improvements are result of chance rather than treatment". You've also used quotes here but there doesn't appear to be any reference so I can only assume you're quoting yourself :)

I assume you didn't read (or perhaps chose to disregard) the article I referenced in my original comment as that provides evidence to the contrary of what you are claiming. Another much shorter article that you may like to read states "Experts have concluded that reacting to a placebo is not proof that a certain treatment doesn't work, but rather that another, non-pharmacological mechanism may be present." [0]

[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-th...