Although I disagree with the placebo claim, does it really matter? Often, perception is reality. If a placebo eliminates the symptoms, than the placebo is just as good as "actual treatment or medicine." The ends justify the means. The brain and mind are powerful things.

Either way, the philosophy of most chiropractic and alternative medicine work is that the body can often heal itself as long as it's allowed to do so. The goal of the treatment is to simply do whatever it takes to facilitate the bodies natural healing processes. Nothing more, really. A few quacks don't represent the majority, just like they shouldn't for western medicine. It's by no means a cure-all, but it's very often a useful and effective component of a treatment regiment. One that is far under-utilized by western medicine. The goal is to target the core issue rather than only the symptoms, which western medicine focuses on almost exclusively for many issues.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I'm sure Collins had plenty of insight into various treatments and such. I see no reason or evidence to assume that him having surgery was a mistake. Players have had the surgery before and still played football it just didn't work out in his case.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

If, for the sake of argument, you grant that it is a placebo, it does matter because by definition it is not targeting the core issue. It's only treating a symptom, and doing so no more efficaciously than any other placebo source.

If, again for the sake of argument, we grant it is a placebo effect, it is one thing to treat cases of pain where the underlying cause will not have any other complications. There are only two potential downsides I can think of offhand in these cases: (1) foregoing a treatment that actually does resolve the source of the issue and thus, forego a more effective treatment; and/or (2) the potential you cause complications with the treatment you're using (e.g. cause a back injury through chiropractic care or fail to sanitize a needle used in acupuncture, which risk may not be material).

The danger lies in, if it is a placebo, situations in which the underlying cause can and/or will cause future complications (e.g. a herniated disc that's structurally compromised to the point that a further hit stressing that region is at a higher risk of causing permanent damage or paralysis). That's a recipe for disaster.

That's why the placebo point matters.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

No, it was not.

Collins got kicked in the head and temporarily lost feeling in his extremeties. He got feeling back in a short time, but they scanned and found a "bulge" in a disc.

The doctors told him he needed surgery or they wouldn't clear him to play. I do not believe he needed that surgery. But once he had it, they refused to clear him anyway.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

At the end of the day when the insurance company says "fuck you" the answer still is "sorry, no" regardless of what experimental treatment you want to try.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla