zlacker

Sure thing! A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials found that when disorders are amenable to placebos, the placebo effect is robust and approaches the treatment effect[1]. For psychological disorders, particularly depression, it's been shown that placebos are nearly as effective as active medications[2].

[1]: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.5...

[2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20129/full

>>applec+(OP)
You're asserting a nocebo effect, not a placebo effect, so I don't believe your links are relevant. Further, this person is talking about a perceived correlation between an experience and a natural change, not an intervention, which means it may not even be a nocebo effect, but a different category of issue altogether. Given that, I again suggest you cannot actually demonstrate any math on your claim of probability. Again, I think you're dressing up your feelings in sciencey talk.

Further, your request is nearly tautological. The way that one gets to a big, statistically robust test of a hypothesis is via small stepping stones. E.g., this sort of self-experimentation. If you scoff at everybody doing something small and say, "you're probably wrong because there's no big evidence", you decrease the chances of getting the sort of proof that you claim to want.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "personally, I'd like to see convincing measures of the effect of bright light therapy on mood and intelligence before I adopt this." But that's frustratingly different than your apparent attitude that in 2 minutes of thought you know more about this guy's experience than he does.