Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> 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!" :)



> 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.)


And we haven't even gotten around to discussing the difference between real placebos and the phony, cut-rate kind. :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: