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.

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

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.

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").