3 ms·

Yeah, I think maybe Vox is sensationalizing a bit with that article title. Back in 1995, Dr. Andrew Weil wrote: It is well known that belief in medicines can

Yeah, I think maybe Vox is sensationalizing a bit with that article title. Back in 1995, Dr. Andrew Weil wrote: It is well known that belief in medicines can cause favorable outcomes even if the medicines are ineffective. This is the placebo response, which most doctors dislike because it muddies their experiments and seems inherently unscientific from the point of view of the biomedical model ... far from being a nuisance, it is, potentially, the greatest therapeutic ally doctors can find in their efforts to mitigate disease. [Spontaneous Healing] I'm not saying that Weil describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before? It seems to me Kaptchuk has varied one aspect of the experiment (eliminate double blindness, and even single blindness). Does that make it a radically new hypothesis?

hannob 9y ago
> I'm not saying that Weil describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before? Well, Kaptchuk at least tries to do science. Andrew Weil is a full-blown crank.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  Ah. Ok. Got it. Maybe if I rephrase it slightly it will be more useful: Back in 1995, a full-blown crank wrote: It is well known that belief in medicines can cause favorable outcomes even if the medicines are ineffective. This is the placebo response, which most doctors dislike because it muddies their experiments and seems inherently unscientific from the point of view of the biomedical model ... far from being a nuisance, it is, potentially, the greatest therapeutic ally doctors can find in their efforts to mitigate disease. I'm not saying that this full-blown crank describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before?

hannob 9y ago

> I'm not saying that Weil describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before? Well, Kaptchuk at least tries to do science. Andrew Weil is a full-blown crank.

HillaryBriss 9y ago
Ah. Ok. Got it. Maybe if I rephrase it slightly it will be more useful: Back in 1995, a full-blown crank wrote: It is well known that belief in medicines can cause favorable outcomes even if the medicines are ineffective. This is the placebo response, which most doctors dislike because it muddies their experiments and seems inherently unscientific from the point of view of the biomedical model ... far from being a nuisance, it is, potentially, the greatest therapeutic ally doctors can find in their efforts to mitigate disease. I'm not saying that this full-blown crank describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before?