Few things about placebo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019re talking about \u2018true placebo\u2019 here, which is different from a \u2018regression to the mean\u2019 or natural evolution of illness, and which is certainly different from empathy. [see: \u201cEmpathy vs. Placebo<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast to empathy, placebo always involves deception. [see: \u201cPlacebo Without Deception?<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n My take is that, since we have a better alternative, we should get rid of placebo as much as possible, except in some particular circumstances such as end-of-life. [see: \u201cPlacebo Is Not Good for You<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Being skeptical only truly works by being skeptical all the way through.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is different from being skeptical \u2013 as many skeptics are \u2013 to get rid of what one doesn\u2019t want to see in one\u2019s own mental environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since many \u2018rational\u2019 people \u2013 including many scientists \u2013 see rationality as opposed to human depth, skepticism is used by many to get rid of depth. Unfortunately, this creates many fights where there shouldn\u2019t be, and it prevents many openings of doors where there should be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As to placebo, being skeptical means looking for it everywhere.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s no good using the placebo argument as a weapon against the enemy while dissimulating that it can be used to a huge degree as a weapon against oneself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s no good to be mainly blind for it in the own house while being allergic to it in someone else\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s better to be open all the way through. Only as such can rationality genuinely prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Within regular medicine, the drive towards getting rid of placebo is supposed to be central (double-blind studies), yet still deficient because of a lack of insight into the placebo phenomenon. This way, it\u2019s still pretty prevalent. At the same time, the scientific endeavor should prevail towards the future without any doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Making distinction at the placebo level, we can discern three categories.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a simple divide conceptually, but not in practice. In many, if not all kinds of therapy, there is placebo involved. That makes things difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A central difficulty is that in order to get rid of placebo-based \u2018alternative medicines,\u2019 regular medicine needs to bear a cut into the own flesh that not many are prepared to. This way, placebo remains prevalent in the whole domain. It will stay so for as long as an increasing number of medical scientists does not make the difficult move.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That may, after all, be the most challenging pill to swallow.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet without swallowing it, the patient will never cure, the hero will never stand up, the dragon will never be slain, and the kingdom will remain under its yoke. [see: \u201cPlacebo Based Medicine<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n A cry for science and rationality in this field will remain a cry in the desert \u2015 quite pointless if you ask me.<\/p>\n