The whole problem with being your own scientist and blind testing things is the potentially long transitions to deficiency. And then there is the matter of spotting problems. Feel like filling in a questionnaire 4 times a day? (A full dietary and extra of "feel" plus any ailments. Do extended bloodwork every some time.)

Then knowing how to apply statistics properly?

This is not viable for most people even with modern tools...

On the other hand it is a decent way to lose weight by pervasive tracking according to a few studies.

> Feel like filling in a questionnaire 4 times a day?

I'm currently working on a paper showing you can track 2 things every day (total of 3 measurements) and make quite an improvement for a common health condition.

> Then knowing how to apply statistics properly?

Yes and no. The ultimate gauge is how the person feels. If its placebo then so what. If they can afford it, who am I to say its wrong.

Also, many intelligent people are involved in the supplement movement and beginning to organize well and document. Applying an ANOVA isn't that difficult to do. Any large university will also have a statistical consulting center which you can visit to have them review your "tests" and explain a good way to do the stats (I've done this).

> On the other hand it is a decent way to lose weight by pervasive tracking according to a few studies.

Yes, you are correct.

> The ultimate gauge is how the person feels.

By that metric, psychics saying they can talk to your loved ones can be morally justifiable.

I think you're understating people's ability to listen to their own body, and using an ungenerous definition of 'feeling'.

Listening to your body is a skill that can be developed over time. Several years ago, I did not pay attention to, or was not aware of, any relation between what I ate, and how my body felt afterwards, what things looked like on the other end, etcetera. After starting to work out and taking my health seriously, I spent more time tracking things like 'how does food X agree with my stomach? How does it affect my energy levels when I have sugar in the morning?', and learned a lot. There are foods now I'm very hesitant to touch, that I would have eaten without a second thought several years ago, because I now know they affect me personally in undesirable ways.

This is not to say that one should eschew the scientific literature, or their doctor's advice. You should just take both into account.

To play devil's advocate, use of the placebo effect has always been considered morally justifiable in the medical field.

I think the context is in how the person feels physically and psychologically in the long-term. Psychics seem to market to those who have a short-term life issue like needing closure from a dead loved one or needing to know if their luck is going to change.

On the other hand, completely ignoring subjective comfort is also demonstrably absurd.

You can still tell them the truth. You can say "we don't know if the supplement is doing anything useful chemically, but the act of taking it seems to help you." I wouldn't have any trouble morally justifying that.

> By that metric, psychics saying they can talk to your loved ones can be morally justifiable.

A truly altruistic lie, while less moral to tell than the truth, can in many cases be more compassionate and do less harm over the long run.

Issue is, there are very few truly altruistic lies (most of them are told in obituaries, goes the pithy one-liner). Most seemingly-non-damaging lies are told for dual benefit if the liar and the recipient. In your example, the psychic is out to make a buck. This is personal and debatable, but I consider such "it makes you feel good but I'm only telling you 'cause it enriches me" statements to be less moral than truly altruistic lies (which are less moral than the truth), but more moral than malicious/victimizing lies (e.g. "no, Charlie Brown, I won't move the football this time").

Can you reveal what the measurements are?

It sure is not perfect, but it beats doing nothing.

You exactly nailed the problem on the head. Modern medicine is totally off track we have specialists that zoom into to a particular part of the body missing forest for the trees.

I see tons of supplements in costco for joints , apparently only solution that modern medicine has come up for "arthritis" is taking crap loads of NSAIDS which often make the problem worse and cause new ones like gastro troubles, now you are taking NSAIDS and reflux meds which in turn cause more troubles. Everyone goes on pretending that this is some sort of cutting edge "modern medicine" . Disgusting.

The state of affairs is so ridiculous that there are standup comedy routines about it. Here is one from Louis C.K https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXXWwllCS18

edit: curious why my comment was downvoted.

I think this is how we should revamp science education. Teach people how to examine the evidence and how one can fool themselves. Less inclined plane problems, more scientific reasoning.

Great points. The very existence of the placebo effect proves that "inert" substances do, in fact, work for some people, even if the effect is purely psychological.

Some vitamins do work for some people. And science is about finding what works.

Not "purely" psychological though - that would be a delusion, which we presumably don't consider 'working'. Perhaps it would better to say that while the effect is somatic, the cause is psychological?

It could be either.