Placebos: Truly Confounding Data

So what does one do with a finding, such as the Wired story I linked to yesterday, that placebo response is getting stronger and more effective. Because one of the reasons suggested for this, which I find inherently plausible, is that the effectiveness of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) in the pharma space is causing consumers to believe more and more strongly in the efficacy of certain medications, indeed in engineered medications generally.

The problem with DTCA, it's argued, is that:

1. It's expensive, thus driving up pharma marketing budgets in a way that ultimately gets passed on
2. It may lead to consumers asking for meds they don't need, either because their condition doesn't warrant it, or in cases where they request an expensive patented drug when drugs with similar mechanisms of action are available as generics

(These are among the reasons many countries ban DTCA in pharma, as indeed the US did until 1997.)

So what's public policy to do with the idea that pharma DTCA may be responsible for a significant strengthening of placebo response? Ban it anyway, and come up with relatively inexpensive, publicly funded notices that somehow accomplish the same thing? Recommend that pharma firms mix some sugar pills in with their Loparex and bring the cost down? (Kidding). It's as though the universe is laughing at policy wonks by creating wormholes and contradictions that policy alone can't resolve.

Kidding aside, it would appear that the placebo response, rather than being just an annoying problem that drug makers need to "overcome", is something that could potentially be harnessed to do considerable good at non-considerable expense.

(Random unrelated plug: if you're doing policy research, you could do worse than stop by Sourcewatch.org, which I've linked to a few times on the blog, including this post. Sourcewatch is a wiki-like site that tries to uncover the funding sources, political bents etc. of groups and persons, especially those participating in political and policy debates. Sourcewatch is funded by the "Center for Media and Democracy", which appears, from what Sourcewatch itself writes, to be funded by fairly left-leaning, anti-conservative types).