Rethinking Placebo: More Than Just a ‘Fake’ Pill

We tend to treat the placebo effect as a footnote a quirky glitch in scientific studies, something to subtract out so we can get to the “real” result. But what if we’ve misunderstood it completely?

What if the placebo is not a nuisance to control, but a powerful lens into the brain’s capacity to regulate pain, perception, and even recovery? In recent years, neuroscience has started to tell a very different story one where expectation is chemistry, belief is biology, and context is treatment.

It is time to stop calling the placebo “fake”. Because what it activates may be the most real thing in medicine: the mind’s role in healing.

When Nothing Heals: The Placebo as Process, Not Trick

In a now famous study on knee pain, patients with osteoarthritis underwent what they believed was arthroscopic surgery. Incisions were made. Theatre lights shone. Surgeons spoke. But no procedure was actually performed. And yet, post operative reports showed dramatic reductions in pain comparable to, or greater than, those in the actual treatment group. Two years later, the “fake surgery” patients were still walking better, with less discomfort (Moseley et al., 2002).

These were not gullible minds or fabricated feelings. This was real pain relief. What had changed? Not the joint but the context, the belief, and the expectations of healing.

Expectation Is Biology: The Neuroscience of the Placebo Effect

Neuroscientists now know that the placebo effect is not simply psychological. It is physiological, measurable, and often replicable. When an individual believes they are receiving effective treatment, the brain responds accordingly. Functional imaging shows reduced activity in pain processing areas, increased dopamine release, and the activation of endogenous opioid systems (Wager et al., 2004; Benedetti & Alessandro Piedimonte, 2021).

In a 2024 breakthrough study, researchers discovered a previously unknown neural circuit linking the frontal cortex (home of conscious expectation) to the cerebellum and brainstem (regions involved in pain modulation). Stimulating this pathway produced pain relief even in the absence of any actual analgesic (Chen et al., 2024). Blocking it eliminated placebo induced effects entirely.

The implication is profound: our brains may come equipped with a “placebo circuit” a built-in therapeutic system that can be consciously activated.

Belief with a Price Tag: How Context Shapes Healing

Not all placebos are equal. A sugar pill does not work in a vacuum it works in a story.

Consider this: in a Parkinson’s study, patients were injected with what they were told were two different drugs one “cheap”, the other “expensive”. Both were inert saline. Yet the “expensive” injection improved motor function significantly more (Espay et al., 2015).

The belief in value activated greater dopamine release the same neurochemical pathway targeted by actual Parkinson’s drugs.

Even colour, size, and form matter. A blue tablet may calm anxiety better than a red one. Capsules beat tablets. Injections beat pills. And sham surgeries? They can outperform both (Meissner & Linde, 2018).

These findings suggest that the more real a treatment feels and the stronger the narrative around it the more the brain responds. Healing is not just about content. It is also about delivery.

Open Label Placebos: When Deception Is Not Required

Perhaps the most surprising development in placebo research is this: they can work even when people know they are taking one.

In studies on chronic pain, IBS, and depression, patients were told explicitly, “This is a placebo. It contains no active medicine. But research shows placebos can help.” Many were sceptical. Yet across trials, the open label placebo group consistently improved more than those who received no treatment at all and sometimes nearly as much as those who received actual drugs (Lembo et al., 2021) (Bernstein et al., 2021).

The therapeutic ritual taking a pill, being cared for, feeling hopeful was enough to trigger measurable change. These findings suggest that the brain does not require deception to activate its own pharmacy. It needs permission.

The Nocebo Effect: When Belief Harms

Placebo’s darker sibling is the nocebo effect: when negative expectation triggers real side effects. In antidepressant trials, patients in placebo groups regularly report nausea, headaches, fatigue and even drop out due to these symptoms. Not because of any chemical reaction, but because they believed side effects were coming (Planès et al., 2016).

During the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, researchers observed that up to 76% of common post-injection symptoms in placebo arms (like headache and fatigue) were likely driven by expectation, not the injection (Amanzio et al., 2021).

This highlights a clinical challenge: how to inform patients of risks without unintentionally amplifying them. Every word spoken in a consultation every raised eyebrow or rushed explanation is a form of suggestion. In healthcare, expectation is not neutral. It can heal. And it can harm.

More Than a Pill: The Placebo as Mirror

The placebo effect is not just about inert treatments. It is about us what we believe, how we relate to care, and what our brains are capable of when given the signal to recover.

A warm, attentive doctor may trigger more healing than a dismissive one even if they prescribe the same medication. A confident diagnosis can reduce pain. A rushed explanation may raise anxiety. As Kaptchuk et al. (2010) puts it, the “therapeutic encounter” is not a soft factor it is part of the treatment.

This reframes the placebo not as deception, but as potential: the measurable benefit that comes from human interaction, trust, and ritual. It is not mind over matter. It is mind within matter.

The Future of Placebo Science: Ethical, Personalised, Powerful

We are entering a new era in medicine one where the placebo is no longer discarded, but deliberately studied and, in some cases, applied.

Could we use open label placebos as adjuncts to reduce drug doses? Might we design treatments that maximise expectation through sensory design, clinician training, and patient engagement? Could we train the brain to activate its own placebo circuits through neurofeedback or stimulation?

These are not far-fetched ideas. They are active areas of research. And they challenge a core assumption in medicine: that healing comes only from molecules. In truth, it also comes from meaning.

Final Thoughts: What Placebos Reveal About Us

The placebo effect does not undermine science. It expands it.

It reminds us that treatment is never just pharmacology it is perception, environment, and belief. It reveals that our brains are not just passive recipients of care, but active participants in healing. And it suggests that one of the most powerful tools in health is not just what we give patients but how we give it.

A fake pill that eases pain is not a failure of science. It is a glimpse of what science has yet to fully understand: that the mind, when trusted, can be its own medicine.

References

Amanzio, M., Mitsikostas, D. D., Giovannelli, F., Bartoli, M., Cipriani, G. E., & Brown, W. A. (2021). Adverse events of active and placebo groups in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine randomized trials: A systematic review. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100253

Benedetti, F., & Alessandro Piedimonte. (2021). Placebo Effect. Springer EBooks, 1246–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57401-7_197

Bernstein, M. H., Fuchs, N., Rosenfield, M., Weiss, A.-P., Blease, C., Locher, C., Magill, M., Rich, J., & Beaudoin, F. L. (2021). Treating Pain With Open-Label Placebos: A Qualitative Study With Post-Surgical Pain Patients. The Journal of Pain, 22(11), 1518–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2021.05.001

Chen, C., Niehaus, J. K., Dinc, F., Huang, K. L., Barnette, A. L., Tassou, A., Shuster, S. A., Wang, L., Lemire, A., Menon, V., Ritola, K., Hantman, A., Zeng, H., Schnitzer, M. J., & Scherrer, G. (2024). Neural circuit basis of placebo pain relief. Nature, 632, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07816-z

Espay, A. J., Norris, M. M., Eliassen, J. C., Dwivedi, A., Smith, M. S., Banks, C., Allendorfer, J. B., Lang, A. E., Fleck, D. E., Linke, M. J., & Szaflarski, J. P. (2015). Placebo effect of medication cost in Parkinson disease. Neurology, 84(8), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001282

Kaptchuk, T. J., Friedlander, E., Kelley, J. M., Sanchez, M. N., Kokkotou, E., Singer, J. P., Kowalczykowski, M., Miller, F. G., Kirsch, I., & Lembo, A. J. (2010). Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. PLoS ONE, 5(12), e15591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015591

Lembo, A., Kelley, J. M., Nee, J., Ballou, S., Iturrino, J., Cheng, V., Rangan, V., Katon, J., Hirsch, W., Kirsch, I., Hall, K., Davis, R. B., & Kaptchuk, T. J. (2021). Open-label placebo vs double-blind placebo for irritable bowel syndrome. Pain, Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002234

Meissner, K., & Linde, K. (2018). Are Blue Pills Better Than Green? How Treatment Features Modulate Placebo Effects. International Review of Neurobiology, 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irn.2018.07.014

Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., Hollingsworth, J. C., Ashton, C. M., & Wray, N. P. (2002). A Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Surgery for Osteoarthritis of the Knee. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa013259

Planès, S., Villier, C., & Mallaret, M. (2016). The nocebo effect of drugs. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 4(2), e00208. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.208

Wager, T. D. (2004). Placebo-Induced Changes in fMRI in the Anticipation and Experience of Pain. Science, 303(5661), 1162–1167. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093065