[adcoelho]

This is not by any means my field of study but i do agree that placebo components should always be disclosed in order to turn these kind of tests more transparent.

However, how can we prove that something is 100% biologically inert? We can't account for all the unknown effects, is there any such 'ingredient'? I guess that at least the used placebo should be proven to not affect directly anything directly related to the hypothesis.

[rxmatic]

It doesn't appear that anyone actually knows about the field here as this is really a non-issue for a simple reason (I chose you to reply to because you were at the bottom).

First of all, most immporant studies don't use a placebo because it would unethical when there are standard treatments out there already and you have to show that your new drug is just as good or better than those treatments (the proper terms are supperior vs. non-inferior trials).

But considering trials that do use a placebo - the whole point is to prove that their drug is superior to the placebo. If anything, when they design the placebo, it would have structurally similar molecules that would give the same side effects, and potentially the same results <-- which is key. A research DOES NOT WANT the placebo to do as well as their drug. The placebo can only hurt their results, not help them cheat.

You could also argue that since it's not regulated, maybe the active component does actual harm to make the test drug look better! No. There are too many studies showing what the controlled group should look like (whether they are on a placebo or on nothing at all).