If the placebo effect works well enough to give people water instead of antibiotics etc, then fine - go for it, it will save money.
That's clearly not a very good example (placebo effect is likely to be very small in relation to the treatment of infections) but, as I said, it is appropriate to disillusion patients about a 'suspect' treatment if adequately efficacious (and adequately safe/well-tolerated) conventional alternatives are available. However, placebo can only work in the presence of deception. If a patient is told that (s)he is being treatment with pure water with no known beneficial effects, and that any benefit a patient derives from it will be the result of their belief/faith in the treatment, then any 'placebo effect' will more-or-less vanish.
If not, then not, even if it works (as does prayer, Buddhist chanting, transcendental meditation or sleeping in pyramids) for some, unless the %some is significant and unless using it instead of conventional therapies with known outcomes is not worse.
I largely agree, but it's not quite as simple as you suggest. If one took that approach literally, all but the one most efficacious treatments (e.g. medicines) for a given condition would be 'banned'.
The potential harm of junk-science remedies is important. IANA doctor, but I'm pretty sure that a cough which persists for 3 weeks ought to be looked at, not self-medicated with an increasingly bizarre range of alternatives.
Of course. That is, indeed, the danger ... but it applies to the whole spectrum of 'alternative medicine', not just potions and machines.
If the makers are saying their machine can both diagnose and treat asthma, hayfever, cancer, pain, pepression, peurological disorders, pigraines, auto-immune disorders, etc, how many people are going die or get much worse if they believe that rather than go to the doctor? ... How something works is not the issue. Whether it does is. If this machine can be proven, with properly conducted trials, to be efficacious¹ then allow it to be sold. If not, not.
I have really been talking generally, rather than about this specific machine, or even machines/devices in general. I am far less familiar with legislation relating to 'machines' than medications, but if we were talking 'medications', any of those therapeutic claims (diagnostic claims are more difficult) would be serious criminal offences if they could not be substantiated (particularly in relation to claims relating to cancer, about which there is specific legislation). Indeed, it is a criminal offence to make 'medicinal claims' about anything which is not a licensed ('approved' in modern lingo) medication. To what extent the same is true of machines/devices, I'm not so sure, but there certainly is some legislation - and, in any event, general legislation relating to 'trading standards' etc. would presumably also be applicable if the 'product' was not 'fit for (the claimed) purpose'.
¹ I'm assuming that there is a threshold for efficaciousness beyond what would be expected from a placebo.
Even in terms of conventional treatments, that's not necessarily the case. The primary requirement for, say, a medicine is to show that it is (statistically significantly) more efficacious than placebo, regardless of the magnitude of benefit over placebo. For that reason it would, by definition, be impossible to get a placebo medication licensed/approved - but that approach clearly falls on its face if one is contemplating a treatment which works
by placebo effect.
We've been sidetracked into this theoretical discussion about placebos and placebo effect - but I would remind you of my very first contribution to this thread. I'm most certainly no defender of any sort of snake oil - I merely pointed out the dilemma that exists (in many people's eyes, if not yours) because some patients can derive considerable benefit by being 'deceived'.
Kind Regards, John
)