Can reflexology help control symptoms in cancer patients undergoing treatment?

My initial response to this question, is off course not.  A placebo is anything that seems to be a "real" medical treatment -- but isn't i.e. it is fake.  The judgement of what is fake is based on the availability of scientific evidence. Traditionally in medical trails patients don't know if they are taking a placebo.  For most of my readers, they would probably refuse to take a placebo, as they know its a placebo, so you would think your wasting your time.  I would agree with this, but was a bit surprised by some recent research. Around half of 97 patients with chronic lower back pain were given a pill bottle with the word "Placebo" printed on it - after they been told that a placebo contains no active ingredient - along with a standard NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) pain killer, while the remainder of the group was just given the NSAID. After taking the pills twice a day for three weeks, the patients taking they placebo plus the NSAID reported a 30% reduction in pain compared with a 9% decrease in those given only the NSAID. So the researches discovered that a placebo may be effective treatment for lower back pain even when people know they are taking a placebo! Reference Carvalho, Cláudia; Caetano et al, 2016, Open-label placebo treatment in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial, Journal of Pain, December 2016, Vol 157, Issue 2, p 2766 - 2772  

The focus of all pregnant women is a happy, health, baby and that includes carrying the baby full term obviously if there is no risk to the mother's health. Women in the US and the rest of the developed world are typically low in DHA (omega-3), with levels well below those reported in countries like Japan where more fish is eaten.  Women with low levels of the nutrient are much more likely to give birth prematurely.  Until recently there was no effective method to prevent spontaneous early preterm birth. Analyses of two clinical trials -- one in the U.S. and the other in the Australia -- suggest that thousands of early preterm births -- those at or before 34 weeks' gestation -- could be prevented if pregnant women took daily omega-3 supplements.  Taking the supplement can reduce the risk to just 1.5%.  Researchers estimated that more than 106,000 high-risk early preterm births could be avoided in the U.S. and about 1,100 could be prevented in Australia each year if pregnant women took daily supplements of omega-3. Reference https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013130104.htm

I have never been that keen on the idea of eating genetically modified food.  I understand the economic argument about same amount of land would give you a greater yield and that the crops would be more robust and hence would need less pesticides.  But I have always had my concerns about if scientist truly understood all the implications of modify crops.  In Europe generally the idea of fooling with nature caused widespread protests. Genetically modified crops were more acceptable in North America and were introduced 20 years.  Well I can safely say that any fears I had about any adverse side effects or any other fears of GM crops being "Frankenstein" food that is harmful to humans were laid to rest a long time ago.  So I would say that GM crops are now more acceptable by the European general public, who here in the UK we probably eat GM crops that are imported from North America.  So on the "Frankenstein" criteria they have been very successful. But what about the economic arguments that were put forward 20 years ago.  Data from the united nations reveals that there is no discernible advantage in yields between North America and Europe that didn't introduce GM crops.  Since GM crops like corn, cotton and soyabeans were introduced into North America the use of toxic chemicals to kill insects and fungi has fallen by 33% but the spraying of herbicides has increased by 21%.  In France, the use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by 65% and herbicide spraying as fallen by 36%. This suggests that GM crops aren't as robust as originally envisaged by scientist and they don't produce more abundant harvests either.  So western europe didn't loose out by not introducing GM crops. Where GM crops do seem to have made a difference according to Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany, is significant yield gains from insect-resistant varieties  of crops in the developing world, particularly in India. References Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and Prospects report see >> https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=23395