Photo credit: Representative Cover Image Source: Getty Images | A small boy with hair loss is in a wheelchair in a hospital room | A string of customers queuing for a restaurant down the street – Array
In December 2018, doctors told Olivia Saxelby and Jamie Lee that their five-year-old boy, Oscar Saxelby-Lee, had only three months to live. He was diagnosed with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a rare and aggressive cancer that causes the bone marrow to release immature white blood cells. Doctors cautioned that Oscar immediately required a “stem cell transplant” to survive. Pitmaston Primary School in Worcester, where Oscar studied, came forward to organize a stem cell donation drive. On the due date, event organizers were stunned as a whopping 4,855 people showed up at the venue, reported The New York Times.
Representative Image Source: A group of people following social distancing guidelines waiting in the street to enter a busy restaurant. (Getty Images)
“What a fantastic turnout for our little warrior and those in need of a stem cell transplant,” Jamie, Oscar’s father, wrote on Facebook. “This gives us more and more hope in finding a match for our Ozzy Bear.” Describing the scene of the event, Sue Bladen, the school’s business manager, told The New York Times, “People queued around the block, in the pouring rain, and nobody moaned about it. The spirit we had here was absolutely incredible, the generosity of people.”
Learning how so many people had stepped up for Oscar’s cause, Jamie and Olivia took a short leave from Birmingham Children’s Hospital, where Oscar was hospitalized, and visited the school to thank the donors in the crowd. He was first admitted to the hospital as soon as his blood test reports turned out to be abnormal with a platelet count of just 14. After this, the boy had to go through a rigorous protocol of intense chemotherapy to terminate the leukemia blasts in his blood, as mentioned on the crowdfunding page that Oscar’s school created to help raise for his treatment. Till now, over 720 supporters have donated a sum totaling £23,890 ($31,952).
Like the fundraising campaign, the stem cell donation drive was also organized by the school. “We decided we would do whatever it takes to find a donor for Oscar,” Sue told The New York Times. The school then partnered with DKMS, an international nonprofit organization focused on finding donors for blood cancer patients to organize this event. “Anyone aged 17 to 55 was eligible to come in and register as a donor,” said Sue. Over 200 volunteers registered their names to contribute their services to the event.
And even after the record-breaking donor drive was over, registrations didn’t stop coming. “Incredible to hear that another 1,000 people registered with DKMS online last weekend,” which raised the total number to 5,800, Kate Wilcock, the head teacher at Pitmaston Primary, said on X.
Incredible to hear that another 1,000 people registered with DKMS online last weekend, so …. 5,800 have registered! We raised the huge sum of £3808 for DKMS through pure generosity and love, thank you everyone ? ? ? @Pitmastonschool@OliviaSaxelby@DKMS_uk— Mrs. Wilcock (@HeadWilcock) March 4, 2019
A few months later, Sue posted an update on the crowdfunding page, “Amazing news today – Oscar has a match and is now awaiting a stem cell transplant. Oscar has a long way to go but is now on the next stage of his journey.” But soon after, the happy update was followed by heartbreaking news. “The heartbreaking news that there is no further curative treatment for Oscar available on the NHS means that we have no other choice but to desperately and urgently seek your help once again to save Oscar. Oscar desperately needs in the region of £500,000 ($668,000) to access treatment in Singapore.” She appealed to people to donate money via Virgin Money.
Although the page features no further update, BBC reported in June 2023 that Oscar became cancer-free more than two years earlier. After the support of thousands of people, his parents were able to raise more than £700,000 ($935,000) to help him with his treatment. The little boy is now a grown-up and also a big brother.
Using an in-home HEPA purifier for one month spurs a small but significant improvement in brain function in adults age 40 and older. That’s the result of a new study we co-authored in the journal Scientific Reports.
We analyzed data from a study of 119 people ages 30 to 74 living in Somerville, Massachusetts. Somerville sits along Interstate 93 and Route 28, two major highways, resulting in relatively high levels of traffic-related air pollution. This makes it an especially good location for testing the health effects of air purifiers.
We randomly assigned participants to one of two groups. One used a HEPA air purifier for one month and then a sham air purifier – which looked and acted like the real thing but did not contain the air-cleaning filter – for one month, with a month-long break in between. The second group used the real and sham purifiers in reverse order.
After each month, participants took a test that measured different aspects of their mental capacity. The test probed people’s visual memory and motor speed skills by measuring how quickly they could draw lines between sequential numbers, and it tested executive function and mental flexibility by asking them to draw lines between alternating sequential numbers and letters.
We found that participants 40 years and older – about 42% of our sample – on average completed the section testing for mental flexibility and executive function 12% faster after using the HEPA purifier than after using the sham purifier. That was true even when we accounted for factors like differences in the amount of time participants spent indoors, with either filter, as well as how stressful they found the test.
This improvement may seem small, but it is similar to the cognitive benefits that people experience from increasing their daily exercise. While you may not experience a sudden increase in clarity from a 12% boost, preventing cognitive decline is vital for long-term well-being. Even small decreases in cognitive functioning may be associated with a higher risk of death.
Why it matters
Air pollution can negatively affect mental function after just a few hours of exposure. Studies show that air purifiers are effective at reducing particulates, but it’s unclear whether these reductions can prevent cognitive harm from ongoing pollution sources like traffic. Research has been especially lacking in people living near major sources of air pollution, such as highways.
Our study shows that HEPA air purifiers may offer meaningful health benefits under these circumstances.
What still isn’t known
Research shows that air pollution begins to affect cognitive function especially strongly around age 40. These effects may become increasingly prominent as people age.
HEPA air purifiers may therefore be especially beneficial for older adults. Our study did not explore this possibility, as fewer than 10 of our 119 participants were over the age of 60.
Also, our participants only used a HEPA air purifier for one month. It’s possible that longer durations of air purification may sustain or even increase the improvement in cognitive function we observed in our study.
We plan to study whether reducing particulate matter by using air purifiers is indeed protecting the brain’s white matter, and whether it could reverse some cognitive decline. We will explore that possibility by studying how levels of molecules called metabolites, which cells produce as they do their jobs, change in response to breathing polluted air and air cleaned by a HEPA filter.
The first time the placebo effect really got under my skin was when I read that roughly one-third of people with irritable bowel syndrome improve on placebo treatments alone. Usually this statistic is presented as a fascinating quirk of medicine. My reaction was anger.
Humanity possesses an extremely effective treatment, with essentially zero side effects – and patients need someone else’s permission to use it.
The placebo effect refers to the improvements in symptoms that patients experience after they’re given an inert treatment like a sugar pill. Driven by expectation, context and social cues rather than pharmacology, the placebo effect is often dismissed as all in the mind. But decades of research have shown it is anything but imaginary.
Placebo treatments can trigger measurable changes in the brain, immune system and hormone function. In studies on pain, placebos cause the brain to release endorphins, the body’s natural opioids. In Parkinson’s disease, placebo injections increase dopamine activity in the brain. The placebo effect isn’t magic. It’s biology.
Having spent nearly a quarter-century teachingevolutionary medicine, I’ve come to see placebos not as curiosities of clinical trials but as windows into how human biology responds to social signals. And it’s that relationship that is exactly what makes the placebo effect unsettling.
When testing a new drug, scientists compare its effects to what patients experience on a placebo treatment like sugar pills, saline injections or sham surgery. If the drug doesn’t outperform the placebo, it rarely reaches the public. Placebo responses are common and powerful enough to rival active treatments.
Even surgery isn’t immune to the placebo effect. In several well-documented studies of knee procedures, patients who received sham operations – incisions without the full surgical repair – improved almost as much as those who received the real procedure.
Clearly something real is happening inside the body. But the strangest part of the placebo effect is not that it works. It’s what makes it work.
The prescription of belief
Placebo treatments tend to be more effective when delivered by credible authorities. Pills work better when prescribed by doctors wearing white coats. Expensive pills outperform cheap ones. Injections produce stronger responses than tablets.
Some researchers have even removed the deception from placebo experiments entirely. In open-label placebo studies, patients are directly told they are receiving a placebo; and yet many still report significant improvement.
But look more closely at how these studies are run. Patients are not simply handed a sugar pill and sent home. They receive an explanation from a clinician, in a medical setting, within a structured ritual of care: a context that may be doing much of the biological work.
Even when the deception disappears, the social scaffolding remains. The permission to heal is still being granted by someone else.
The placebo effect extends beyond the patient
The placebo effect is often framed as something happening inside an individual. But it does not operate in isolation.
Consider what happens in veterinary medicine. Dogs and cats cannot believe a treatment they’re given will work; they have no concept of receiving medication. Yet when owners and vets believe an animal is being treated, they consistently report improvements in pain and mobility that medical tests do not confirm.
In one study of dogs with osteoarthritis, owners reported improvement roughly 57% of the time for animals receiving only a placebo.
The animals themselves may not have improved. But the humans caring for them perceived they had. The healing signal, it turns out, travels through the humans in the room.
When healing makes things worse
There have been times when going to the doctor made you less likely to survive. In the 19th century, mainstream medicine was built on bloodletting, purging and doses of mercury and arsenic – treatments that killed as often as they cured.
Homeopathy emerged in the late 18th century precisely in this context. Its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, was a physician horrified by the harm the conventional medicine of his time was causing. His highly diluted versions of contemporary remedies did nothing pharmacologically. But they also did not kill people, which put them decisively ahead of the competition.
Homeopathic patients not only survived but also reported dramatic recoveries from chronic ailments and acute infections alike. During the cholera epidemics of the mid-1800s, patients at homeopathic hospitals had lower death rates than those receiving standard care. Why was that?
The standard cholera treatment of the era was aggressive and exhausting; for a disease that already caused massive fluid loss, doctors often prescribed further bloodletting, along with toxic purgatives such as calomel – a form of mercury – to “flush” the system. In contrast, homeopathic care involved extreme dilutions of substances in water or alcohol, effectively providing hydration and a calm, structured environment without the physiological assault.
Death rates were lower not because homeopathy worked but because the placebo effect – combined with not poisoning patients – was more effective than the medicine of the day.
Healing is not free
The body needs resources to heal from injury and disease. Activating systems such as immune responses, tissue repair and inflammation at the wrong time can be dangerous.
Some researchers have proposed that placebo responses reflect a kind of biological health governor: a system that regulates when the body invests heavily in recovery. Cues from trusted individuals may be exactly the signal the body waits for before committing resources to recovery. A caregiver’s reassurance, a physician’s authority and the rituals of medicine may tell the body that conditions are finally stable enough to devote energy to healing.
If that interpretation is correct, the placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is an ancient biological system responding to social information.
Body under stress
The placebo effect resembles another system people struggle with today: the stress response.
Stress evolved to keep you alive in the face of acute danger – predators, famine, immediate physical threat. These days, this useful piece of biological engineering might fire when someone hasn’t replied to your email. The system that once saved people’s lives now makes many miserable over things that would have been unimaginable to their ancestors.
You can talk back to the stress response, consciously reappraising the threat – in other words, reframing a looming deadline not as a catastrophe but as a manageable challenge – to help quiet it. But notice what you cannot do: You cannot simply decide to activate your placebo response. You cannot will yourself to release pain-relieving endorphins by believing hard enough in a sugar pill. For that, you still need the ritual, the white coat, the authority figure. You need someone else.
The stress response, misfiring as it is, remains yours. The placebo response has been outsourced: not because it wasn’t always social, but because even now, people still can’t seem to access it on their own.
The uncomfortable implication
The placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is a feature of human biology that people have largely surrendered to whoever performs authority most convincingly.
If belief can activate biological healing pathways, belief can also be manipulated. Charismatic figures, elaborate medical rituals and expensive treatments may produce real improvement in symptoms even when the underlying treatment is physiologically inert. That is how wellness culture works. It leverages the same social scaffolding of care to trigger the body’s internal pharmacy, regardless of whether the treatment itself does anything.
The placebo effect is often celebrated as proof that the mind can heal the body. But I believe that may not be its most interesting lesson. It also reveals that human physiology evolved to take its cues from other people. Your brain, immune system and pain response are not isolated machines. They are deeply intertwined with social signals, expectations and trust.
In a world filled with doctors, advertisements, wellness influencers and elaborate medical rituals, that insight is both fascinating and profoundly maddening. People are walking around with one of the most powerful healing systems ever documented locked inside them, and they can reliably access it only when someone in a position of authority gives them permission.
She was right to be touched. He had actually thought about what she would like. She’s health-conscious, so he tailored the meal to her preferences. As they sat down he proudly explained what he’d made and why.
It was designed, he told her, for her prostate health.
A visibly confused woman tries to think. Photo credit: Canva
Sedlak asked him if he meant his prostate health.
He confidently said no. He meant hers.
Sedlak, an actress and filmmaker with 145K Instagram followers, shared the moment in a video posted on November 22, 2025 under her handle @alexandrasedlak. She described the progression from delight to confusion with great precision. “I am dating a dummy,” she concluded in the video. “But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”
For reference: the prostate is a gland in the male reproductive system, located below the bladder. Women do not have one. A study published in PMC found that men’s knowledge of gynecologic anatomy tends to be significantly lower than women’s, which at least provides some scientific context for this particular gap running in the other direction.
The comments were predictably delighted. One person suggested she invite him over and cook a meal focused on his ovulation health, then casually ask what part of his cycle he’s in. Another compared him to a golden retriever who should be given head scratches and told he’s a good boy.
He is very caring. He cooked her a whole meal. The organ was wrong but the intention was right.
For more relationship-based content, follow @alexandrasedlak on Instagram.
