Dummy Medicine, Dummy Doctors, and a Dummy Degree, Part 2.0: Harvard Medical School and the Curious Case of Ted Kaptchuk, OMD

Introduction: If you’ve followed the long-running saga of “dummy medicine” (placebos), “dummy doctors” (credential confusion), and the occasional “dummy degree,” you know this story is equal parts serious science and academic theater. At the center is Ted J. Kaptchuk, OMDa professor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Harvard-wide Program in Placebo Studies (PiPS)whose work on placebo effects has shaped how clinicians and skeptics talk about care, context, and patient-reported outcomes. The debate is lively: are placebos clever illusions that help people feel better, or ethical landmines that risk replacing hard evidence with warm fuzzies? Today, we revisit the high points, clear up frequent misconceptions, and examine why the “curious case” still matters for science-based medicine.

Who Is Ted Kaptchukand Why Is He Controversial?

Ted Kaptchuk is a Harvard Medical School professor known internationally for placebo research and for leading PiPS at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. That’s not controversial. What riles critics is the path he took to the ivory tower (and how that journey gets framed): the “OMD” credential (Doctor of Oriental Medicine), a long history in East Asian medicine scholarship, and a prolific record on placebo mechanisms and ethics. Harvard’s official bio lists his professorship and leadership of PiPS, underscoring his mainstream standing within academic medicine.

Science-Based Medicine (SBM), a hub for physician-skeptics, chronicled Kaptchuk’s background in a multipart series beginning in 2011, probing his credentialing and the claims built around it. The core critique: top-tier institutions shouldn’t elevate ambiguous credentials or blur lines between empirically supported medicine and therapies whose effects rarely exceed placebo. The title you’re reading nods to that series’ Part 2.0, which dissected Kaptchuk’s role at Harvard and the optics of his OMD.

Placebos 101: What We Knowand What We Don’t

Placebos aren’t magic pills; they’re context effects. The encounter with a clinician, the ritual of treatment, and patient expectations can change how symptoms are perceived. A landmark Cochrane review led by Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche found that, in general, placebos don’t produce large effects on objective or binary outcomes, though they can yield small benefits for subjective, continuous outcomes such as pain. Translation: placebos can influence how people feel, but they rarely move hard physiological endpoints.

Modern overviews echo this nuance: placebo effects are real psychobiological events rooted in the therapeutic context, not mere “nothing.” But their clinical utility has limits and ethical boundaries, especially if they displace effective treatment for disease processes that demand active therapy.

The Harvard Experiments: From Deception to “Open-Label” Placebo

Open-Label Placebo in IBS

One of Kaptchuk’s most quoted studies is the 2010 open-label placebo (OLP) randomized trial in irritable bowel syndrome. Participants knowingly took placebo pills and still reported symptom improvement versus a no-treatment control. The finding electrified headlines: if you tell patients “this is a sugar pill,” and they still feel better, what exactly is at workconditioning, expectation, the clinical ritual, or something else? These data helped seed a new research program around “honest placebos” as potential adjuncts for symptom-driven conditions.

Asthma: When Subjective and Objective Diverge

A 2011 NEJM study comparing albuterol, placebo inhalers, sham acupuncture, and no intervention found a classic split: objective lung function (FEV₁) improved with albuterol but not with placebo or sham; yet subjective improvement ratings were similar for albuterol and the two placebo armsand all three beat “no intervention.” This is the placebo paradox in high resolution: patients can feel better while physiology stays the same, a reminder that relief isn’t always repair.

The Credential Question: What Does “OMD” Mean Here?

Credentials carry weightespecially at Harvard. Kaptchuk’s use of “OMD” has been scrutinized by skeptics who argue it isn’t comparable to an MD or PhD in biomedical science. A frequently cited account (via SBM) points to official correspondence from Macau authorities stating the named institute wasn’t a degree-granting university, highlighting the fog around the credential’s status. Irrespective of titles, Kaptchuk’s Harvard profile reflects that he was appointed and promoted on the strength of his scholarship, not on the basis of a U.S. medical license. The controversy, however, raises important institutional questions: how should elite centers weigh atypical backgrounds when the scholarship itself is influential but sits next to “integrative” narratives that can be oversold?

Media, Mythmaking, and the “Power of Nothing”

High-end journalism has profiled Kaptchuk’s work, sometimes with a romantic sheen. Michael Specter’s “The Power of Nothing” in The New Yorker captured the allure of placebo science: an artful clinical ritual that modulates perception andoccasionallybiomarkers. Letters to the editor and commentary quickly pushed back, stressing that placebos shouldn’t be mistaken for curative therapy for diseases like cancer or atherosclerosis. The lesson for communicators is simple: hold two truths at onceplacebos can meaningfully ease subjective suffering; they are not substitutes for disease-modifying treatment.

What Science-Based Medicine Gets Right

The SBM critique lands squarely on several points. First, placebo responses shine with subjective outcomes (pain, distress, nausea), but typically don’t budge objective pathology. Second, institutions must be vigilant about credential inflation and the messaging that flows from it; when elite brands platform ambiguous degrees, the public can confuse charisma with credibility. Third, the ethics matter: deception is off the table, and even “honest” placebos must not crowd out proven care. In short, SBM’s caution sign is not anti-compassionit’s pro-evidence, insisting that warm bedside manner and rigorous therapeutics are complements, not competitors.

What Kaptchuk’s Program Contributed

Even critics concede that the Harvard-wide Program in Placebo Studies helped formalize a research agenda on the “context of care”: how interaction, meaning-making, and ritual shape perceived outcomes. Harvard’s own coverage underscored how Kaptchuk’s group teased apart components of placebo effects and documented nocebo side effects in trials where participants were primed with warnings. These insights are gifts to mainstream clinicians, reminding us that tone, time, trust, and transparency affect patient experiencewhether or not the intervention is pharmacologically potent.

Ethics: The Line Between Caring and Misleading

Ethical north star: alleviate suffering without compromising truth or delaying effective care. The “open-label” pathway tries to square that circle: no deception, clear disclosure, and use mainly for symptom relief in conditions where active disease modification isn’t at risk. The literature, including NEJM perspective work, calls for rigorous guardrails: don’t oversell, don’t replace indicated therapies, and keep informed consent central.

Key Takeaways for Clinicians and Skeptics

• Placebos are context, not cure: expect modest benefits on subjective outcomes; don’t expect changes in objective disease measures.
• Open-label placebos can help select patients with symptom-dominant conditions like IBS, provided consent is explicit and standard care remains intact.
• Messaging matters: media can drift from nuance to narrative; keep claims tightly tethered to data.
• Credentials and credibility are separable: institutions must ensure that public-facing titles don’t mislead about expertise or licensure.
• Compassion enhances, it doesn’t replace, efficacy: warm, attentive care boosts patient experience alongside evidence-based treatment.

FAQ: The Curious Case, in Plain English

“Do placebos really work?”

They can change how you feeloften a little, sometimes a lotespecially for pain and similar symptoms. They rarely change the underlying disease process.

“Is it ethical to use them?”

Deceptive placebos are ethically fraught. “Honest” (open-label) placebos are being studied as add-ons, not replacements, and require careful consent and boundaries.

“What’s the deal with ‘OMD’?”

It’s a non-MD credential from the world of East Asian medicine. Skeptics argue that it can be misleading when used in mainstream academic settings. The controversy is about optics and standards in elite institutions.

Conclusion

Placebo researchespecially the open-label trackhas enriched medicine’s understanding of the therapeutic encounter, and Ted Kaptchuk’s group deserves credit for making “context” a measurable variable. At the same time, Science-Based Medicine’s scrutiny is healthy: medicine must keep its compass oriented toward outcomes that matter, hierarchies of evidence, and clarity about credentials. The best future is not “dummy medicine” displacing real therapy; it’s real therapy delivered in humane, expectation-sensitive ways that maximize relief without sacrificing truth.

sapo: Placebos can change how patients feelbut rarely alter disease. We unpack Harvard’s Program in Placebo Studies, Ted Kaptchuk’s “OMD” controversy, and Science-Based Medicine’s critique. See what the evidence actually says about open-label placebos, asthma, IBS, and the ethics of “dummy medicine.”

Experiences and Lessons from Covering “Dummy Medicine” (≈)

Writing about placebos is like narrating a magician’s act while refusing to use smoke and mirrors. The first lesson is how easily people conflate “feeling better” with “getting better.” Patients (and sometimes journalists) love a tidy narrative: the acupuncture felt soothing, the sugar pill reduced nausea, the sham inhaler calmed breathing. Yet the data keep warning us that the body’s dashboard lightsspirometry, tumor burden, inflammatory markersoften don’t budge. The experience taught me to pair every human story with a hard endpoint. When the two disagree, optimism yields to evidence.

Another lesson is how “ritual” can be rehabilitated without slipping into pseudoscience. In clinics that emphasize time, touch, and explanation, patients often report less pain or anxiety. That’s not proof of energy meridians; it’s proof that empathy has measurable effects. The trick is to deliver warmth without theatricsno white-coat mysticism, just communication skills and predictable follow-up. When I interview clinicians who ace this, their secret is banal and beautiful: ask, listen, and don’t rush.

Credentials were the third wake-up call. Titles are shortcuts our brains use to decide who’s worth trusting. But shortcuts can mislead. The “OMD” debate showed me how institutions must spell out what a credential doesand doesn’tmean. Was the degree conferred by an accredited university? Does it imply licensure or clinical authority in biomedicine? Silence on these points lets audiences assume equivalence with MD or PhD when none exists. Exploring this story made me more explicit about degrees in every profile I write.

The fourth lesson: open-label placebos deserve curiosity but also containment. Patients appreciate honesty, and some are willing to try a transparent sugar pill as an add-on for symptoms. But in real clinics, the risk is scope creep. An “honest placebo” for IBS discomfort is one thing; letting a placebo stand in for an antibiotic or a bronchodilator is another. My rule when covering OLP trials is to ask two questions: What would standard of care be without the placebo? and Were objective outcomes tracked? If either answer is fuzzy, the story needs more reportingor a tighter conclusion.

Finally, I learned to recognize how media frames influence public expectations. A feature titled “The Power of Nothing” is catnip; it suggests we’ve discovered a hack for suffering. But headlines can blur boundary lines that researchers spend entire careers trying to draw. When I talk to trialists, they’re careful: placebos can help patients feel better; they do not “treat” cancer, reverse asthma pathophysiology, or unblock arteries. As a writer, matching that precision is part of the job.

So, what’s the takeaway for readers? Celebrate the parts of care that make you feel heard; they matter. Demand treatments that change outcomes when outcomes can be changed; your health deserves it. And when an authority leans on an obscure credential, ask what it certifies. In the end, the best medicine isn’t dummy or dourit’s humane, honest, and anchored to evidence.