WASHINGTON, DC—After more than four decades of testing in tandem with other drugs, placebo gained approval for prescription use from the Food and Drug Administration Monday.
Science & Health
"For years, scientists have been aware of the effectiveness of placebo in treating a surprisingly wide range of conditions," said Dr. Jonathan Bergen of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "It was time to provide doctors with this often highly effective option."
In its most common form, placebo is a white, crystalline substance of a sandy consistency, obtained from the evaporated juice of the Saccharum officinarum plant. The FDA has approved placebo in doses ranging from 1 to 40,000 milligrams.
The long-awaited approval will allow pharmaceutical companies to market placebo in pill and liquid form. Eleven major drug companies have developed placebo tablets, the first of which, AstraZeneca's Sucrosa, hits shelves Sept. 24.
"We couldn't be more thrilled to finally get this wonder drug out of the labs and into consumers' medicine cabinets," said Tami Erickson, a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca. "Studies show placebo to be effective in the treatment of many ailments and disorders, ranging from lower-back pain to erectile dysfunction to nausea."
Pain-sufferers like Margerite Kohler, who participated in a Sucrosa study in March, welcomed the FDA's approval.
"For years, I battled with strange headaches that surfaced during times of stress," Kohler said. "Doctors repeatedly turned me away empty-handed, or suggested that I try an over-the-counter pain reliever—as if that would be strong enough. Finally, I heard about Sucrosa. They said, 'This will work,' and it worked. The headaches are gone."
Researchers diagnosed Kohler with Random Occasional Nonspecific Pain and Discomfort Disorder (RONPDD), a minor but surprisingly pervasive medical condition that strikes otherwise healthy adults... >>
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
I have spoken out against the policy since the start both on here and at ConHome where I received a somewhat surprising amount of support .
Since turnover in the rented sector is much higher than in the social sector would you prefer those living in overcrowded accommodation to carry on subsidising those in the social housing with excess space? How would you fix it?
"There's a stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease"
Mr. Jones, Please do not bring health scare stories on to this fine site. We have our own resident quacks should they be needed, what we don't need is scare stories.
Over the years I have been forced to take a daily salt pill and told that taking salt on my food is bad for me, both on the best medical advice. A moderate ration of booze is good for me, say one group of quacks. Alcohol is a killer even in small quantities, say another. An egg a day was good for us said the Government medical advisers, right up to the time they said eggs are bad for us. Ditto milk: anyone else remember "drink a pint of milk a day"? That was proper milk too, none of your skimmed muck (HMG used to pay a premium for high fat milk because it was so good for us). Carbohydrates bad, then carbohydrates good, the list on conflicting advice goes on and on.
The list of conflicting "expert" opinion goes on and on and on. I think I have now heard government advice in favour of just about anything (HMG used to issue fags to its troops) and against just about everything. To what benefit? My mother who used to listen to all this advice fell off her perch at aged 60 when her elder brother (who went through WW2 at the very sharp end) ate what he liked, drank what he liked (and no 28 units a week either) and smoked what he liked (at aged 85 his doctor was still trying to make him give up, God knows why) and snuffed it at 88.
This month sugar is bad for you. Next year the Mail will be publishing stories about how sugar is a wonder ingredient with life enhancing abilities.
The reason for that is the assumption that people are the same so a study in Japan or Italy or Sweden or even north Sweden vs south Sweden is treated as the same hence a contradictory study leads to advice swinging back and forth but people aren't the same and their ability to process specific foods varies.
Too much sugar is bad for people who can't process sugar that well i.e. most north Europeans.
(same reason binge drinking and alcoholism is a bigger deal in northern Europe)
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
Similar is not the same as identical . I would agree with you that the evidence is not new , it has been there from the start that those penalised the most are the disabled .
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
To be fair, any party dropping to 6% in the polls has to change its approach. Up to now, being loyal coalitionists has not helped their poll ratings.
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
Similar is not the same as identical . I would agree with you that the evidence is not new , it has been there from the start that those penalised the most are the disabled .
I thought changes had already been made such that the disabled were excluded.
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
I have spoken out against the policy since the start both on here and at ConHome where I received a somewhat surprising amount of support .
Since turnover in the rented sector is much higher than in the social sector would you prefer those living in overcrowded accommodation to carry on subsidising those in the social housing with excess space? How would you fix it?
The fault is in assuming that a disabled person who needs a "spare" room for example for a dialysis machine is being subsidised for excess space . Or for example that housing on which thousands of pounds has been spent in modifying it to suit a disabled person should be vacated by them because they cannot afford the so called "excess space" . The problem that needs fixing is the crass assumption that these people have excess space .
"There's a stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease"
Mr. Jones, Please do not bring health scare stories on to this fine site. We have our own resident quacks should they be needed, what we don't need is scare stories.
Over the years I have been forced to take a daily salt pill and told that taking salt on my food is bad for me, both on the best medical advice. A moderate ration of booze is good for me, say one group of quacks. Alcohol is a killer even in small quantities, say another. An egg a day was good for us said the Government medical advisers, right up to the time they said eggs are bad for us. Ditto milk: anyone else remember "drink a pint of milk a day"? That was proper milk too, none of your skimmed muck (HMG used to pay a premium for high fat milk because it was so good for us). Carbohydrates bad, then carbohydrates good, the list on conflicting advice goes on and on.
The list of conflicting "expert" opinion goes on and on and on. I think I have now heard government advice in favour of just about anything (HMG used to issue fags to its troops) and against just about everything. To what benefit? My mother who used to listen to all this advice fell off her perch at aged 60 when her elder brother (who went through WW2 at the very sharp end) ate what he liked, drank what he liked (and no 28 units a week either) and smoked what he liked (at aged 85 his doctor was still trying to make him give up, God knows why) and snuffed it at 88.
This month sugar is bad for you. Next year the Mail will be publishing stories about how sugar is a wonder ingredient with life enhancing abilities.
The reason for that is the assumption that people are the same so a study in Japan or Italy or Sweden or even north Sweden vs south Sweden is treated as the same hence a contradictory study leads to advice swinging back and forth but people aren't the same and their ability to process specific foods varies.
Too much sugar is bad for people who can't process sugar that well i.e. most north Europeans.
(same reason binge drinking and alcoholism is a bigger deal in northern Europe)
The only advice anyone needs is this: eat anything you want in moderation. Enjoy it. The purpose of having good health is to enjoy life. So enjoy it. And remember that no matter what your diet everyone ends up dead.
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
Similar is not the same as identical . I would agree with you that the evidence is not new , it has been there from the start that those penalised the most are the disabled .
I thought changes had already been made such that the disabled were excluded.
Bet Labour can't believe CLegg is pushing the agenda back onto the Bedroom tax - what an absolute gift today is for Mr Miliband - No PMQs for him to balls up either atm.
Bet Labour can't believe CLegg is pushing the agenda back onto the Bedroom tax - what an absolute gift today is for Mr Miliband - No PMQs for him to balls up either atm.
Are there any more votes to be moved on this issue?
Don't see it myself.
People have reached their view on this and are unlikely to change it now.
Bet Labour can't believe CLegg is pushing the agenda back onto the Bedroom tax - what an absolute gift today is for Mr Miliband - No PMQs for him to balls up either atm.
Are there any more votes to be moved on this issue?
Don't see it myself.
People have reached their view on this and are unlikely to change it now.
Hattie's remarks are now today's chip wrappers. Labour just need to preserve the status quo as much as possible.
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
Similar is not the same as identical . I would agree with you that the evidence is not new , it has been there from the start that those penalised the most are the disabled .
I thought changes had already been made such that the disabled were excluded.
"There's a stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease"
Mr. Jones, Please do not bring health scare stories on to this fine site. We have our own resident quacks should they be needed, what we don't need is scare stories.
Over the years I have been forced to take a daily salt pill and told that taking salt on my food is bad for me, both on the best medical advice. A moderate ration of booze is good for me, say one group of quacks. Alcohol is a killer even in small quantities, say another. An egg a day was good for us said the Government medical advisers, right up to the time they said eggs are bad for us. Ditto milk: anyone else remember "drink a pint of milk a day"? That was proper milk too, none of your skimmed muck (HMG used to pay a premium for high fat milk because it was so good for us). Carbohydrates bad, then carbohydrates good, the list on conflicting advice goes on and on.
The list of conflicting "expert" opinion goes on and on and on. I think I have now heard government advice in favour of just about anything (HMG used to issue fags to its troops) and against just about everything. To what benefit? My mother who used to listen to all this advice fell off her perch at aged 60 when her elder brother (who went through WW2 at the very sharp end) ate what he liked, drank what he liked (and no 28 units a week either) and smoked what he liked (at aged 85 his doctor was still trying to make him give up, God knows why) and snuffed it at 88.
This month sugar is bad for you. Next year the Mail will be publishing stories about how sugar is a wonder ingredient with life enhancing abilities.
The reason for that is the assumption that people are the same so a study in Japan or Italy or Sweden or even north Sweden vs south Sweden is treated as the same hence a contradictory study leads to advice swinging back and forth but people aren't the same and their ability to process specific foods varies.
Too much sugar is bad for people who can't process sugar that well i.e. most north Europeans.
(same reason binge drinking and alcoholism is a bigger deal in northern Europe)
The only advice anyone needs is this: eat anything you want in moderation. Enjoy it. The purpose of having good health is to enjoy life. So enjoy it. And remember that no matter what your diet everyone ends up dead.
That doesn't apply to processed food because people don't know what's in it e.g. since the 70s sugar increasingly replaced fat in processed foods.
The reason for that is the assumption that people are the same so a study in Japan or Italy or Sweden or even north Sweden vs south Sweden is treated as the same hence a contradictory study leads to advice swinging back and forth but people aren't the same and their ability to process specific foods varies.
Too much sugar is bad for people who can't process sugar that well i.e. most north Europeans.
(same reason binge drinking and alcoholism is a bigger deal in northern Europe)
So then, Mr. Jones, you agree that most health scare stories that appear in the papers are just that - scare stories They may be applicable to some people somewhere but from the reports you wouldn't know where or who. Best bet then, is to ignore them otherwise you will cause yourself un-necessary stress and research shows that stress is a bigger killer than [fill in your particular enjoyment here]
P.S. Saying booze is bad for North Europeans seems to be a bit like saying oxygen is bad for them. Take the history of the North and try and imagine it without booze, doesn't work does it? I have a great admiration for the Salvationists and my father, in his youth , signed the pledge (I have his Band of Hope Medal somewhere), but let us be honest.
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
To be fair, any party dropping to 6% in the polls has to change its approach. Up to now, being loyal coalitionists has not helped their poll ratings.
Actually the LDs have been far from being loyalists, they have dissembled, briefed and voted against the coalition. Even reneged on straight deals AV vote for Boundary changes. But as Mr Hodges points out they are very keen on reinforcing their image as duplicituous bar stewards. They have been rewarded for their disloyalty with 6% (1% in Scotland).
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
I have spoken out against the policy since the start both on here and at ConHome where I received a somewhat surprising amount of support .
Since turnover in the rented sector is much higher than in the social sector would you prefer those living in overcrowded accommodation to carry on subsidising those in the social housing with excess space? How would you fix it?
The fault is in assuming that a disabled person who needs a "spare" room for example for a dialysis machine is being subsidised for excess space . Or for example that housing on which thousands of pounds has been spent in modifying it to suit a disabled person should be vacated by them because they cannot afford the so called "excess space" . The problem that needs fixing is the crass assumption that these people have excess space .
Mark, since you state this is such a large problem, what are the number of disabled people requiring (due to their specific disability) a spare room and are being penalised with extra rent?
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me: Labour do similar = good. Conservatives do it = bad.
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
To be fair, any party dropping to 6% in the polls has to change its approach. Up to now, being loyal coalitionists has not helped their poll ratings.
Actually the LDs have been far from being loyalists, they have dissembled, briefed and voted against the coalition. Even reneged on straight deals AV vote for Boundary changes. But as Mr Hodges points out they are very keen on reinforcing their image as duplicituous bar stewards. They have been rewarded for their disloyalty with 6% (1% in Scotland).
I think thats right - they have tried to attack their own govt at every opportunity, blamoing others for what they think is ppoitically unpopular and trying to claim crdit for the opposite. This has affected thier own figures and the tories as well I think.
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ' .....
This is just silly Mr Socrates, this is the law now.
Is that Peter Phillip's latest ranking in your male crumpet listing ?
No! Peter Phillips is fourth, just below Iván García and just above Prince Louis of Luxembourg. WAAAAGH!
How might we possibly know, you so rarely advise us of who's up and who's down.
Perhaps you should issue a monthly top ten ?
What do you mean, how might you know? (a) I tweet the statistics at the beginning of each month; (b) I publish the updated statistics for each 12-month period at the beginning of each month on my website.
You're in luck, because it's not just the top ten; it's the whole 18. Just got to my website http://www.croydonloony.co.uk/ and click on the link to the WAAAAGH page.
Comments
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fda-approves-sale-of-prescription-placebo,1606/
The "new evidence" the LDs have is merely their current polling, and the hope of grabbing some LD-LAB switchers back again.
Too much sugar is bad for people who can't process sugar that well i.e. most north Europeans.
(same reason binge drinking and alcoholism is a bigger deal in northern Europe)
Don't see it myself.
People have reached their view on this and are unlikely to change it now.
P.S. Saying booze is bad for North Europeans seems to be a bit like saying oxygen is bad for them. Take the history of the North and try and imagine it without booze, doesn't work does it? I have a great admiration for the Salvationists and my father, in his youth , signed the pledge (I have his Band of Hope Medal somewhere), but let us be honest.
But as Mr Hodges points out they are very keen on reinforcing their image as duplicituous bar stewards. They have been rewarded for their disloyalty with 6% (1% in Scotland).
This is just silly Mr Socrates, this is the law now.
(a) I tweet the statistics at the beginning of each month;
(b) I publish the updated statistics for each 12-month period at the beginning of each month on my website.
You're in luck, because it's not just the top ten; it's the whole 18. Just got to my website
http://www.croydonloony.co.uk/
and click on the link to the WAAAAGH page.