Addtional: The researchers themselves note something along the lines of what I'm talking about:

The placebo response in this trial (59% on IBS-AR) was substantially higher than typical reported placebo responses of 30–40% in double-blind IBS pharmaceutical studies. [15] This finding seems counterintuitive. We speculate that it is an indication of the credibility of our open-label rationale. Patients in our study accepted that they were receiving an active treatment, albeit not a pharmacological one, whereas patients in double-blind trials understand that they have only a 50% chance of receiving active treatment. It may be that one hundred percent certainty that one is receiving the “treatment of interest” (in this case open-label placebo) is more placebogenic than a fifty percent probability of receiving an inactive control.

Perhaps "implicitly deceptive" is too strong a phrase. My argument is that the phrasing promoted the measurably effective placebo effect, rather than the inert nature of the pills themselves. I'd be interested to see some sort of companion study where the patients were told "These are completely inert sugar pills, they will have no physiological effect on you."

Incidentally, my objection may be beside the point. I read some time ago someone (possibly Ben Goldacre) arguing that one could potentially use placebos ethically in general practice, provided they were delivered with sufficiently careful phrasing. This study seems to be a verification of that idea.

From the actual study, the wording used to present the placebos to the patients seems to have been very carefully chosen to be utterly truthful, yet implicitly deceptive:

...open-label placebo pills presented as “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes”

Note that this is "may" in the sense of "is permitted to," rather than "might."

Okay, you can ignore my previous comment - he's fixed it now.

(Guess which feature was added just before he went to bed?)

That edit link is broken - I think it may be a problem with the site. Does it work for you?

I've already emailed the site's creator to alert him to the potential problem.

No, it's spelt "Strine".

(Further info).

... usually while driving.

That's the problem with this and every other UV adaptive lens treatment: Glass (like, for example, your windscreen) blocks UV.
So, they don't actually work when you're driving.

This is why I always get frames with clip on sunglasses with my glasses. Although, since I always end up losing the sunglasses part within a year, I'm considering just lashing out and getting prescription sunglasses.

I've got a pair that I had a friend bring back from a trip to the US. I love them, but if you're one of the genetic freaks like me who has a longer second toe, they can be a little uncomfortable. Mine have stretched to fit, but it took a while.
If you can, I strongly recommend you do a test fitting in a store before buying, as the sizes are not quite the same as standard shoe sizes. The guide on their website is pretty good and worked for me, although this guy thinks it's a bit off.

Also, one of the other toes is coming apart due to some dodgy stitching, but it's past the 90 days return and in the wrong country, so I'm out of luck with that.
(I seem to have had a run of bad luck with Vibram - the Vibram soles of my expensive hiking shoes have recently cracked across the middle).