Wikipedia is not a source. It is an opinion blog (just like ref 18), not peer-reviewed. Ref 17 is a systematic review, which is better, but this is still a lazy

Wikipedia is not a source. It is an opinion blog (just like ref 18), not peer-reviewed. Ref 17 is a systematic review, which is better, but this is still a lazy reply and it frustrates me to no end. I'm not arguing for equal efficacy. I'm arguing that the complete disregard of sham practices, mediated by placebo, is not rational; and that not taking placebo into account as a possible treatment for certain conditions is short-sighted (if not harmful).