it. thank you so much. julia boorstin in l.a. >>> the placebo effect seems to be getting stronger. this is what we've been talking about, teasing throughout the show. many new drugs are failing in late stage trials because they can't actually beat out sugar pills. in fact, roughly half of them, according to this month's " wired" magazine which uncovers the fpharma cris. joing us, requested wired" magazine contributor steve silverman and erica schwartz. great to see both of you. a fascinating topic here. you say, actually, steve, half of all drugs in late-stage trials actually failed because they can't beat out the sugar pill equivalent, the placebo equivalent. how big a problem is this or could this become for the big pharma industry? >> well, it's a huge problem. because it costs, as you know, hundreds of millions of dollars to develop new drugs. and what's beating them in clinical trials is not actually a sugar pill, obviously, but it's the body's response to the act of taking a bill. which boosts up a lot of self-healing networks in the body that create real healing for things like depression, chronic pain, even parkinson's disease. so the placebo effect is not just a psychological phenomenon of thinks that you're getting better. people in clinical trials who take placebos actually do experience a lot of improvement in their health. this has become a serious problem for the companies. >> does this really show us the power of the mind and just exactly what it can do? >> absolutely. you know what's surprising? that it's taken so long. that you know what? if you think about it, the power of the mind, i mean, who we are, the body heals itself. and why is it that we don't look at that when we look at the placebo trials. the people get the drugs, the placebo, meaning care, do better. why is that so surprising? why have we been hiding it from the public for so long. >> steve silverman, just to pick up on that, i read your entire piece last night and loved it. heck of a great piece of work. >> thank you. >> let me ask you abouterica schwartz's point. you know, you talk about the brain producing analgesics. you talk about one of the important transmitter, dopamine. why can't the pharmaceuticals harness these natural brain functions? >> you don't expect the drug company to harness the placebo effect, because they may have a hard time marketing sugar pills. who does need to harness it is the health care industry and doctors. drug companies for years have been burying clinical trials in which there was a high placebo response. because those are the studies that don't get them fda approval. >> erica take a whack at this very important point. we are learning these powerful, natural responses from our brain. which is a terrific thing. and it's got to be better than being on drugs all the time. >> absolutely. >> how can this be harnessed to help people? >> it's about the doctor-patient relationship. it's about traing doctors to really relate to the patient, to communicate with the patient. and you know what? it's great when a doctor is great at taking out a tumor. but we say, you know what? if the doctor takes out the tumor, that's good enough. the bedside manner doesn't matter. here's the proof that it matters. the only thing that matters is the bedside manner. then if the drug works that's great. >> erica, it's not -- that's sort of the bedside manner and the communication, very important. but how can the big pharma industry actually, larry's saying, really chemically take these natural endor fins that we have in our body and make them into products so that those can work. >> it can't. that's why they've been trying to hide it from us. because they can't. it's about you. how you feel. how you respond. when somebody tells you you're feeling great, if i gi you this you're going to feel better, you will feel better. >> what does it mean, erica, for big pharma going forward? >> they have to redefine what they're standing for and stop hiding the information. and you know what? as silverman said, the big pharma used to look at it as, you know, fake science, placebo effect. now it's the elephant in the board room. >> just on the way out, trish started with this and i think it's really the key stock market point. how damaging is this to the drug industry? >> it's very damaging. half the drugs that drop out of the pipeline now are dropping out because they can't beat placebo. but the real scoop in my article in a sense is that companies like merck, pfizer, lily, johnson and johnson now have an under the radar secret data sharing project to figure out what's going on with the placebo effect. they're keeping this quiet. it's been run through the nih. they're for the first timesharing their data from clinical trials to find out why the placebo effect seems to be rising worldwide. >> great stuff, guys. thank you. fascinating discussion. fascinating article. appreciate it. >>> up next, the health care debate flying under the radar. >> will immigration derail health care reform? as though it didn't have enough trouble, our next two guests face off in the call of the wild. reading about washington these days... i gotta ask, what's in it for me? i'm not looking for a bailout, just a good paying job. that's why i like this clean energy idea. now that works for our whole family. for the kids, a better environment. for my wife, who commutes, no more gettin' jerked around on gas prices... and for me, well, it wouldn't be so bad if this breadwinner brought home a little more bread. repower america. i hope our senators are listening. >>> welcome back.

a judge ordered google reveal the name of the blogger who trashed the cover girl. she turned out to be this woman. see her there. 29-year-old rosemary port. she and her lawyer joined me last week. >> i was so grossly offended that i couldn't -- i couldn't do nothing. i wanted it gone and i didn't want to be there for the rest of my life. i knew the only way for it to be gone was to call my lawyer. >> defamation is not protected under the first amendment. second of all, she argued in court that there should be a lower standard. that basically this is trash talk and that it shouldn't be allowed because the overall context of the internet is trash talk. and the judge clearly rejected that and made a very strong statement that basically the internet's not going to be a safe harbor for defamatory language. >> well, now the blogger in question here is turning around and suing google to the tune of $15 million. she declined our request that she appear on the show tonight. her attorney is joining us along with nick thompson, the senior editor of " wired" magazine and back with us, our senior analyst, jeff toobin as well. a lot of people say this case is cut and dry. google was ordered by a judge to release your client's name. they did. end of story. >> it's easy to say that. when it comes to someone's right of privacy, i believe google should have fought harder to frequent my client's rights. >> it's not about privacy, is it? it's about defamation. >> it's about privacy. if you choose to be nopanonymous, the court and google should have protected my client's right to the fullest extent of the law. they did not do enough. the question is why. the local mom and pop shop that sells a book affords its customers more protection than this multibillion conglomerate afforded my client. as a matter of fact, campbell, their only defense was, well, if you get a court order we're going to have to turn it over. never arguing context, never arguing opinion, never formulating a correct offense for my client's due process rights. at the end of the day, they didn't even bother to give my client ample opportunity to appeal the decision. >> all right, jeff -- >> i just don't know where you get the right? do you have a contract with google? where's -- where do you get off saying that google is supposed to do something for your client when your client has done nothing but apparently defame another person using a fake name? >> well, your question is taken -- the very exact reason why they didn't give my client the right here. they didn't give my client an opportunity, a 36-hour window to appeal. this wasn't -- >> i don't understand -- why does google have to defend your client at all, for instance? >> because they said that they would. they had attorneys in court. i don't believe that they did the proper defense of my client's rights. this wasn't a criminal case. this wasn't a death penalty case. jeff, you know that it wasn't an immediate emergency here that google had to reveal her name so quickly. attorneys know every day they don't have to abide by a court order. they can walk across the street -- they could walk across the street and file an ae peel. >> let me bring nick into this. with all due respect it's about more than your case. my question is, there are a lot of websites out there, a lot of blogs that say really nasty stuff and are really mean. you know, as was alleged of his client. why target this young woman and her? is it just because she -- the person she was targeting sued? >> that's exactly why this one has come out into the public now. this comes out a lot. the big question, there's a very interesting point you two are making here. there are certainly cases where we would want google to fight on behalf of the people trying to be exposed by other people in court cases. >> whistle blowers, for instance. >> the iranian government said, you violated our laws. google give up your name. you would want google to fight with everything they have. should google go to the map and do all that in this particular case where it's one person writing comments on a blog? >> that's why she has me now. google wasn't able to afford my client the right protection. they didn't file a memorandum of law and opposition to the request. they did not do anything to protect my client's rights. >> very quickly. we're out of time. >> the next day it's going to be your rights. >> that's the problem here is that there are certain circumstances where we will care about internet protection. whistle blowers, political activists, but in this circumstance you don't -- it doesn't seem like you have a very sympathetic client. >> it's not for google to decide who should get what rights. my client is a citizen of the united states. >> a fair point. >> she should be afforded her points through due process. no one should decide who gets those rights or not other than an appellate division court. or the court of appeals. >> sal, we'll be very interested to see where your case goes. it is about much bigger issues. appreciate your time. everyone's time. we have to end it there. thanks, guys. >>> take a look at this. it's a picture that rocked the modeling world. in a moment we're going to meet the model who is changing the shape of fashion. on. - enough! you get half and you get half. ( chirp ) team three, boathouse? ( chirp ) oh yeah-- his and hers. - ( crowd gasping ) - ( chirp ) van gogh? ( chirp ) even steven. - ( chirp ) mansion. - ( chirp ) good to go. ( grunts ) timber! ( chirp ) boss? what do we do with the shih-tzu? - ( crowd gasps ) - ( chirp ) joint custody. - phew! - announcer: get work done now. communicate in less than a second with nextel direct connect. only on the now network. deaf, hard of hearing and