4 ms·

You are conflating effectiveness (change in outcomes) with efficacy (change in outcomes relative to placebo or other intervention). Both are worth knowing, beca

You are conflating effectiveness (change in outcomes) with efficacy (change in outcomes relative to placebo or other intervention). Both are worth knowing, because usually there are no free lunches to be had - interventions (also those that are known placebos!) can have negative side effects. Not sure if that's what you meant: In Germany, e.g. acupuncture (and other specific types of homeopathic treatments) are reimbursed by public health insurance, for specific conditions. Exactly because they can induce a significant beneficial placebo effect on average while having less risks, and being cost effective. BTW, depending a bit on jurisdiction, placebos are routinely given even in hospital care. If you have family/friends who are doctors, do ask them.

IMTDb 4y ago
My main points is that I do not believe that it's OK for the state to be paying for things that have not proven their efficacy. My whole relatives are MD Doctors (father, 5 sisters, wife and best friend) and they all agree that we are lacking funding for the health sector as a whole, so paying for people beliefs isn't a priority. On top of that, it puts the state in a weird situation because it has to decide which beliefs are OK (acupuncture fixes fibromyalgy is an OK belief -> reimbursed) and which one aren't (getting a PS5 fixes depression is not and OK belief -> not reimbursed). People are absolutely entitled to have their own beliefs, but if a treatment hasn't shown any efficacy, we should aim for a close to 0 spending of the public health sector on it. I feel that creating a state controlled millilitre water bottling company would make some placebo available at virtually no cost, so could be a nice way of offering some effectiveness for free, but acupuncture isn't.