Do you expect a single study to overturn decades of research and medical practice? Leaving aside that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', that would need to be extraordinary evidence, right?
I'm not surprised at all you doubt the existence - it's a very common phenomenon that modern medicine/science struggles to explain (yet) and it's a very weird phenomenon. E.g. placebos still work when you know it's a placebo, it works for animals, it works so well that insurance will cover it etc.
Maybe Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is a good starting point as a book.
> to overturn decades of research and medical practice?
“Medical practice” has an atrocious record of being based in fact. There is, in fact, plenty of research on placebo, and the preponderance seems to suggest that it’s weak or non-existent.
> E.g. placebos still work when you know it's a placebo, it works for animals
This is consistent with, and in fact favors, the theory that it’s actually just mean reversion.
> Maybe Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is a good starting point as a book
I don’t think pop scientism books are a good place to start.
I'm not surprised at all you doubt the existence - it's a very common phenomenon that modern medicine/science struggles to explain (yet) and it's a very weird phenomenon. E.g. placebos still work when you know it's a placebo, it works for animals, it works so well that insurance will cover it etc.
Maybe Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is a good starting point as a book.