The placebo effect doesn’t help. It’s just noise in the data collection process. It’s particularly problematic with human trials that rely on subjective evidence. Humans have a bias that actions have effects, even when they don’t (gamblers blowing on dice, wishing on a star etc).
Any intervention will have people think that the outcome has changed because of the intervention. This doesn’t mean the placebo effect helped, it just altered the recorded outcome. If it was a device was used to make the measurement, rather than human opinion, we just call it noise/error.
It’s a common misconception that the placebo effect does something. It does nothing other than artificially increase subjective measurements. Placebo effect is stronger in very subjective medical conditions such as pain, shiny packaging and brand names are reported to provide greater pain relief. Such medicines are so tightly regulated the formulation and supply leaves very little opportunity for medicines to actually have an effect. You don’t see the same effect when it comes to reducing the size of cancer tumours or altering directly measurable quantities.
Doctors aren’t allowed to prescribe placebos in the UK. Because it’s dangerous and a source of corruption. Such as King Charles selling homeopathic services to the NHS. Doctors do recommend such services, they do this primarily to dismiss patients and their issues.
As pain is aubjective. The subject believing their pain to be improved is an effect.
For a lot of medical science now, we look not only at medical outcomes but patient perceived outcomes.
Scientists are great at quantifying outcomes and risk evaluation mathematically. People are bad at using that data to decide on treatment, so depend on healthcare professionals to guide them. The communication skills of the healthcare provider are just as important as their clinical skill in many cases. In some cases, even more so.
If someone is happier with their objectively worse outcome, which is the better outcome?
The intro to the Wikipedia article on placebo is quite good. Lots of easily accessible sources often misrepresent the placebo effect. The Wikipedia article does suggest placebo effect improves pain response, but it does say perceived.
If someone says something uses the placebo effect it means it doesn’t work. They may not know that. But a placebo response is our measure for medical treatments that don’t work.
When people say the placebo effect works it’s like a microwave that doesn’t heat food. People hear the ding and tell you the food does feel warmer. The perception is that the broken microwave heats food, but the food isn’t any warmer. We avoid this issue in science by making measurements, but for fields like medicine we often rely on people saying how they feel. This is how the placebo effect corrupts medical studies. People are very unreliable. They also often want to be polite and say they had a positive effect from the treatment. This is doubly so for people that volunteer or buy these types of herbal treatments. They think only idiots would buy or take these things that don’t work, I’m not an idiot so the treatment must be working.
Well, because it financially supports scammers preying on people is why not. And many medical scams aren't harmless or innocent or may give people a false sense of wellness that can lead to them avoiding real medicine.
A spice used in Indian cuisine. It's intensely yellow due to curcumin, a compound that has miraculous property of causing false positives in about any cell assay (ie it seems like it does something, but really it decomposes/is fluorescent/damages cell wall/clumps up/pulls metal ions where they shouldn't be/forms hydrogen peroxide where it shouldn't be, all of which can look like some kind of activity when looking at cells, but it is not so)
Also it's completely insoluble in water and shredded by liver in minutes, so it's physically impossible for it to be active in vivo (can't do shit if it's not there). It's great for churning out bad science tho
It is used in ayurveda, and some proponents of ayurveda want to prove that it cures literally everything, and its behaviour in cell assays makes it seem so at least as long as you don't look too closely
I'd say it's worse than placebo, because it's known by now that nothing of that shit has any chance to work yet there are still clinical trials with it. This takes away resources from things that have a better shot at working which imo makes it pretty unethical