I'm surprised no one is commenting on how poorly this article is written. It lost me at paragraph four.
Paragraphs three and four completely misrepresent the placebo effect. They suggest that it cures problems. That's not what it is. It changes perception. Mental effects, like pain, are what placebo changes. It never cures underlying physical problems.
I'm surprised you blame your lack of reading skills on the New York Times.
Because a problem that isn't perceived is, almost by definition, no longer a problem.
Look: this is basically the tree-in-forest-noise debate. And your chosen interpretation actually isn't completely without merit.
But what is illegitimate is to deny even the existence of other interpretations, and then use that ignorance for yet another tiresome and shallow attack that does not even have the self-awareness to recognise how preposterous it is to believe two dozen words could somehow expose this writer as a complete fraud while the entirety of the Time's editorial leadership missed it.
Aren't mental effects like pain problems? From your problem paragraph 4:
> Depression, back pain, chemotherapy-related malaise, migraine, post-traumatic stress disorder: The list of conditions that respond to placebos — as well as they do to drugs, with some patients — is long and growing.
Paragraphs three and four completely misrepresent the placebo effect. They suggest that it cures problems. That's not what it is. It changes perception. Mental effects, like pain, are what placebo changes. It never cures underlying physical problems.