somebody wrote:
> "Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
> news:4b11abcc$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> in JAMA or another medical journal that showed placebos were just as
>> effective, if not more, as prescription anti-depressants in treating
>> mild to moderate depression and anxiety. And if the placebo makes them
>> feel better, why now let them use it?
> 
> Good question, with complicated answers. If people in position of trust
> telling the populace that economy is recovering makes economy recover, why
> (and we not) not do that?

Different type of trust between populous and expert. Government experts
are appointed outside your control, doctors you can change if you
dislike how the current one handles your visits. Plus, you add the
assumption that telling the populous the economy is getting better will
have the result of it getting better, without any proof that this is the
case.

So, bad analogy or straw man.

> Isn't a doctor telling you that taking aspiring
> will make you feel better already pushing an extra placebo bias, even when
> aspirin would have healing effect without his endorsement?

Yes, it is. And yet, that has been the standard doctor advice since
Aspirin was trademarked. So much so that "Take two of these and call me
in the morning" is a common phrase. I do not see the problem with using
placebo bias to treat common and non-threatening ailments, where the
placebo is as effective or more so than complex prescriptions. Even if
it is marginally less effective, if the placebo has fewer side effects
it may still be a better treatment for certain patients.

"So, Mrs Soandso, we have two drugs we can treat you with today. This
one is the latest that some company is paying me to push, and has lots
of side effects. This other one is a little less effective, but has
roughly the same side effects as Aspirin. Both should help you feel
better in a few days. Which would you like me to send you home with?"

Post a reply to this message