that is even more susceptible to the placebo effect.

but ultimately it's what matters, right?

I don't understand why is it so hard for some people to grasp this, if you're actually feeling better because of something the root cause of it is irrelevant.

The question is not about the cause but about the actual effects. You might feel better and that's goog in itself, but it's not good enough if you want to treat something with real, measurable symptoms.

First, you are absolutely correct in fact.

But that being said, if person A has no measurable symptoms, and person B does, then A's experience with a weighted blanket may not translate to B even if A experiences positive, measurable "improvement."

So I agree that A's subjective endorsement is no good for B, but then again even if A had sustained objective improvement it still might be no good for B.

At the end of the day, if B has real, measurable symptoms of poor sleep, the very best thing is a controlled test of people with the same symptoms of poor sleep.

IMHO, of course. If my medical diplomas were laid end-to-end, they'd stretch from Albuquerque to Albuquerque.

I think that's the point you're missing, feeling bad and how much, then feeling better is fixing a real measurable symptom.

> ... if you're actually feeling better because of something the root cause of it is irrelevant.

It can certainly be relevant, especially on a long-enough timeline. Suppose the root cause of feeling better is because of opiate usage. Long term, you're going to have a bad time.

You know full well that's not what I meant. A thing that's meant to just mask your feelings and make you feel better is not a placebo.

well, yeah, the problem is that it's generally not a lasting effect, and it prevents you from finding a real solution.