A cursory search on google for "RCT open placebo" suggests some of them are. Here's one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29513699/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.g

A cursory search on google for "RCT open placebo" suggests some of them are. Here's one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29513699/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29513699/ What I find fun is that it's something I can simply experiment on myself with to find out for myself. After all, by the time I learned about open placebos, I'd already spent years healing without knowing about the effect. As a result, I'm already my own blind study. It may not bring certainty, but if I really wanted certainty, I'd be working on a device to transport myself to the parallel universe where everything operates purely on certainty, rather than this one that's more likely built on uncertainty. I'm choosing to embrace uncertainty and subjectivity, instead of chasing certainty and objectivity. Science without subjectivity is science denial of the subjective nature of the observers, anyway. I choose to meet all needs while denying none. Also, RCTs aren't the only tool for studying the subjective and sometimes aren't even available due to the subjective nature of placebos. With regard to psychedelic healing, for instance, it's impossible to keep from learning who's taken the placebo. This will likely be the case until people develop the skills related to tripping without drugs, assuming that's a skill available to us, which I think is worth choosing to believe in. I'm saying this because I've noticed a culture of RCT dependency growing, where someone will choose to withhold believing in something if there isn't what they deem to be sufficient RCT-based evidence available to them. This is a type of bias that distracts from the power of placebos, which is we can choose to believe in anything simply because it is useful to us and allows us to see more potential paths forward to consider.