3 ms·
What this article leads me to think is that we need to legally protect the word placebo. It seems grossly misleading to use the word placebo to describe non bio
by newishuser 14y ago
What this article leads me to think is that we need to legally protect the word placebo. It seems grossly misleading to use the word placebo to describe non biologically inert ingredients. To do so is to lie and nothing more.
- wiredfool 14y agoJust look for homeopathic remedies then. Guaranteed not to have any active ingredients.
- joshuacc 14y agoThat's not strictly true. Homeopathic remedies do often include small amounts of alcohol or sugar.
- hellerbarde 14y agounless it's homeopathic alcohol :P http://homeopathicvodka.com/ http://homeopathicvodka.com/
- plorkyeran 14y agoNot everything that claims to be homeopathic actually is. One example is Traumeel. If you look at their ingredients ( http://www.traumeel.us/Products/ProductDetail.aspx?id=1901000 http://www.traumeel.us/Products/ProductDetail.aspx?id=190100... ), there's enough active ingredients that are only 1X diluted that the total is over .5% active. I assume it's just labeled as homeopathic because they failed to fake some clinical trials to get FDA approval (or didn't even try), but maybe it's actually an effective marketing choice.
- jessriedel 14y agoActually, I think "Placebo" has always meant "a thing used to make not taking a drug an indistinguishable experience to taking it" (which, it turns out upon reflection, requires it to inflict side effects). Inertness is just a popular misconception. That said, I think capitalizing on that misconception is wrong and that it might be reasonable to take actions which prevent true but subtle statements like "drug had similar side-effects to a placebo" from misleading laymen.