[Apes]

The negativity that you are sensing is not against the placebo effect, but against treatments that claim legitimacy and use anecdotes that are easily explained by the placebo effect as evidence of their effectiveness.

A placebo is by definition something that has no effect at all. Any improvement in the state of someone taking a placebo must be attributed instead to something other than the placebo. However, patients will attribute their improvement to the placebo. This is the placebo effect.

No doctor would literally say that a placebo is a "powerful drug", since it is by definition completely inert. However, they may say so in a figurative manner to mean that patients will claim effectiveness of ineffective treatments due to the placebo effect.

Treatments that rely on the placebo effect have two major negative aspects. First they may prevent people from seeking a truly effective means of treatment. Second, they take money for providing a treatment that has no actual value.

[thwest]

What is "actual value" and how does it relate to subjective use-value? If people value the placebo effect, why is that bad? And if they value the effect, what is wrong with valuing the source of it? (The distinction between placebo and placebo effect stinks of Cartesian duality). Do you see meditation or talk therapy as placebos? Are we obligated to deny people self improvement that isn't a result of ingesting a chemical?

Alcoholics Anonymous has the same effectiveness as cold turkey and a few other sobriety methods (about 10% success). Are you suggesting that alcoholics should never attempt the AA program? Some solutions work for individual cases and are worth being explored on a personal basis.