Agreed the article is bullshit. However getting the issue 100% backwards the author actually raises an important point. Active placebos do make for a different comparator than inert placebos --- arguably a much better one. Given that north of 90% of patients and doctors have been found to correctly guess allocation in blinded trials of tricyclic antidepressants and other antipsychotics, it might actually help to add something to the placebo which does generate side effects to make it harder for people to pick which group they are in.
It always made me laugh reading about 'double blinded' trials of cannabis extract for MS... In this and many other cases the blind is a complete fiction.
Outlawing active placebos would actually be very foolish. Up to 90% of patients and 100% of physicians have been found to have broken blinds in trials of tricyclics, almost certainly because of the side effects. The original article is extremely weak in failing to address this... in fact, drug companies really should be adding ingredients with side effects to their placebos, but won't because it increases the complexity and reduces the statistical power of the trials they run.
There are other examples, but this is a function of our executive's decision to bend over to US demands and rewrite UK law, rather than corruption of the legal system itself.
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.