4 ms·

Yeah, I see your point, especially about money exchanging hands. But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does it m

Yeah, I see your point, especially about money exchanging hands. But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately feels a reduction of those symptoms? I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product.

lutusp 14y ago
> But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately feels a reduction of those symptoms? Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Placebos aren't a cause, they are an illusion. I guess it would be all right if the customers could pay using imaginary money. If I claim to have a cure for the common cold, and if I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer for a week, do I have the right to claim victory and collect money? > I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product. The line is much clearer than that. If the treatment isn't validated in objective double-blind clinical trials, it's not a medical treatment and no claims can be made for it. I can't tell you how many advertisements I've seen that said "Clinically tested!" but without also mentioning, "The tests failed!" :)
- polyfractal 14y ago
  > Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Ok ok, you win. I can't argue against that =) (My background is in biology and my girlfriend is in the medical profession, so I'm 100% on board with homeopathy being silly. I just thought it was an interesting line of conversation about the efficacy of a placebo, and ramification of selling it.)
  - lutusp 14y ago
    And we haven't even gotten around to discussing the difference between real placebos and the phony, cut-rate kind. :)

lutusp 14y ago

> But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately feels a reduction of those symptoms? Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Placebos aren't a cause, they are an illusion. I guess it would be all right if the customers could pay using imaginary money. If I claim to have a cure for the common cold, and if I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer for a week, do I have the right to claim victory and collect money? > I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying to someone about a product. The line is much clearer than that. If the treatment isn't validated in objective double-blind clinical trials, it's not a medical treatment and no claims can be made for it. I can't tell you how many advertisements I've seen that said "Clinically tested!" but without also mentioning, "The tests failed!" :)

polyfractal 14y ago
> Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent is the cause leading to the effect. Ok ok, you win. I can't argue against that =) (My background is in biology and my girlfriend is in the medical profession, so I'm 100% on board with homeopathy being silly. I just thought it was an interesting line of conversation about the efficacy of a placebo, and ramification of selling it.)
- lutusp 14y ago
  And we haven't even gotten around to discussing the difference between real placebos and the phony, cut-rate kind. :)