Linda writes: "John, if I’m understanding correctly, you’re concerned about the effect of positive or negative NeuroTalk postings about the efficacy of both approved treatments and those in clinical trials."

I'm certainly concerned about the impact of the placebo effect on those issues, but others as well: supplements, diets, exercise regimes and more abstract things. For instance, I think reading a positive post about, say, a research breakthrough can itself be considered a placebo. Conversely, reading a negative one about, say, a clinical trial failing acts as a nocebo.

Soccertese writes: "if people don't want their "placebo bubble" burst by a skeptical responder here then that's their problem, they shouldn't post here." I really don't think it is as simple as that. We are a community where, I hope, the well being of the indidual matters. Sometimes a component of that well being will be due to the placebo effect. There are times when this needs to be pointed out. For instance, where the "therapy" is dangerous. But, there are other times when it is not necessary. For instance, where the "therapy" is safe, cheap and doesn't preclude more effective treatments.

I think this forum does a good job: most posts are positive; enough are negative to maintain credibility; new advances are reported at a rate at least as fast as old ones go stale.

I don't want censorship. I do want people to understand the power of the placebo effect on PwP and to take this into account in their postings.

John