New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Study Finds Placebo Effect Is Fake

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The placebo effect may have no scientific basis, according to a study published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine. Doctors have long known that about 35 percent of all patients given a placebo will get better, and they had assumed it was because the patients believed the dummy medication would help them. Many people have taken the idea a step further, believing that we can "think ourselves well" to some extent.

To find out, researchers from the University of Copenhagen and the Nordic Cochrane Center, Rigshopitalet, in Denmark looked at the statistical results of 727 trials, focusing on 114 that tested pharmacological, physical and psychological placebos involving 7,500 patients. They reviewed a broad range of different studies, excluding any that had not tested the effectiveness of both a placebo and no treatment at all. Then they examined how test subjects receiving placebos fared in comparison to groups that had received no treatment.

It turned out that the results were similar. "We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects," the authors write, suggesting that "outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos." They also found, however, that placebos had possible small benefits for studies with subjective outcomes and the treatment of pain.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe