Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeHowick et al. beg the question
Posted by Leigh_Jackson on 21 Jul 2013 at 09:22 GMT
The distinction in Howick et al. between "pure" and "inert" placebos leads the authors to conclude that the use of placebos is widespread. The term "inert placebo" as employed by Howick et al. is paradoxical since they use it to refer to treatments that are not pharmacologically inert. Hitherto, by definition, a placebo has been understood to be a pharmacologically inert substance employed as a treatment for psychological reasons or as a control in clinical trials.
The authors do not justify their new terminology, they adopt it by fiat. Their study does not present evidence of widespread use of "pure" placebos: Which is to say, placebos as hitherto understood are not in widespread use. It is their new category of "inert" placebos that are not inert, which are found to be in widespread use: Treatments not hitherto considered to be placebos at all.
The authors must justify the paradoxical extension of the term "placebo" to include pharmacologically active treatments, in order to justify their claim that placebos are in widespread medical use.