The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So we've been very interested in trying to unpack to what extent these experiences are simply expectancy effects versus reflective of real pharmacology. And the answer to that is both. These kinds of effects are driven in part by expectancy, but expectancy does not account for the full effects, and we've run different controls in different studies.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And the issue that relates to that is that we know that these experiences can be driven or very much affected by expectation, but the set and the setting under which people take the drug.