ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags medicines , regulation , nonscientific

Reply
Old 27th October 2006, 06:17 AM   #161
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,306
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
Interestingly, Lord Colwyn is also a Vice President of the Blackie Foundation Trust, a charitable organisation whose aims are "the advancement of the study of, and education in the science of homoeopathy and to carry out and publicise the results of research."
Isn't it a bit naughty of him not to mention that? Several other speakers in the debate declared interests, even if only, in the case of Mar, to say she uses homoeopathy.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2006, 06:31 AM   #162
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I heard snippets from this debate on "Today in Parliament." I would guess that "excellent" means you agreed with him.

Correct me if I am wrong but, before founding "Sense about Science," Dick Taverne studied "greats" at Oxford and then he went into Law and politics, being a junior minister for labour and joining the "gang of four" in the SDP. I believe he also worked in public relations, until parliamentary rules were changed to stop the conflicts of interest that arose from such activities.

So, to present its case on a medical issue "Sense about Science" is represented by a man who has no knowledge of either science or medicine, but is familiar with law, politics and PR. No problem there then?

It was good to note that, in Parliament, as distinct from science, other voices got a hearing.
Not sure what your point is there, John.

If you are pointing out that a non-scientist can talk sense about science then I'd agree with you!

If you want to quibble in detail with what he said then please show us what he got wrong.

It's also still not clear why you won't answer Mojo's rather easy questions.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2006, 06:32 AM   #163
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by asthmatic camel View Post
No. We should continue to make every effort to keep this issue high-profile. Write to your M.P., write to Boot's, complain and make a nuisance of yourself everywhere you can think of until somebody in power sits up and takes notice.
Don't just write to your MP, go and see your MP at their next constituency surgery, that way the MP will actually hear about your complaint rather than someone on their staff forwarding your letter straight to eth DoH where nothing will happen.
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 04:38 AM   #164
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Great to see that the Daily Mail published a reader comment on the scandal from James Randi:

Quote:
Just what is so difficult about conducting definitive trials of homeopathy? That was done not too long ago via a BBC program, but the results didn't please the homeopaths, so they were ignored. Of course, Darwinian selection will eventually weed out those naive persons who abandon working medicine in favor of quackery, but that's a slow process. I'd rather not wait...

- James Randi, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1770&ct=5
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 05:09 AM   #165
Victor Meldrew
Thinker
 
Victor Meldrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
Great to see that the Daily Mail published a reader comment on the scandal from James Randi:



Interesting article. Loved the comment made by someone that Smarties could now also be used as medicine, as chocolate makes you feel better!

Now, thats a MUCH better idea that little white water tablets.....
Victor Meldrew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 05:32 AM   #166
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Victor Meldrew View Post
Interesting article. Loved the comment made by someone that Smarties could now also be used as medicine, as chocolate makes you feel better!
That's a poor example. There is actual research to back up chocolate.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 05:38 AM   #167
Nucular
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream
Posts: 2,992
Gah! That last sentence by Melanie Oxley!

Quote:
For treatment of a serious illness, we would hope a patient would approach a registered homeopath or their doctor.
To end on that is a travesty. Nice article else though. Labours - in a good way - the fact that so very many people object to this legislation, and does a good job explaining it too.
Nucular is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 05:42 AM   #168
Victor Meldrew
Thinker
 
Victor Meldrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by fls View Post
That's a poor example. There is actual research to back up chocolate.

Linda
Good point Linda!

Anybody feeling ill? I have some new medication available. I am a Smartieologist, and I provide smartieopathic remedies.

If anyone else wishes to train as a Smartieologist, please send me £4000 for complete training, and on satisfactory completion of the course you will receive a lovely cream certificate with gold writing stating that you are a "Certified Smartieologist" (Training can be completed in 5 minutes or less! Yes, YOU can be qualified before lunch!)
Victor Meldrew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 05:57 AM   #169
Victor Meldrew
Thinker
 
Victor Meldrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Victor Meldrew View Post
Good point Linda!

Anybody feeling ill? I have some new medication available. I am a Smartieologist, and I provide smartieopathic remedies.

If anyone else wishes to train as a Smartieologist, please send me £4000 for complete training, and on satisfactory completion of the course you will receive a lovely cream certificate with gold writing stating that you are a "Certified Smartieologist" (Training can be completed in 5 minutes or less! Yes, YOU can be qualified before lunch!)
Should have mentioned:
On the course you will learn:

How to use BLUE smarties to treat depression;
How to use GREEN smarties to make you more environmentally aware;
How to use YELLOW smarties to give you a sunnier outlook on life;
How RED smarties can be used to treat anger; and
Using BROWN smarties for bowel problems

and "alternative tubing" - interesting and effective way to use the tube - valuable advice for tiresome patients!

How to use the lid correctly - how pressing down hard with the lid from the smarties on the patients back will help you correctly diagnose the patients condition (the clue is in using the inside facing on the lid - the letter that mysteriously appears faintly inprinted on the patients skin after pressing down hard for 5 minutes will aid your diagnosis - e.g the letter "b" means use the blue smartie, the letter "s" means use the brown smartie).

Do to the intensity of the training, I can only train 100,000 people at a time as Smartieologists, so SIGN UP NOW! Be the first in your area to promote this wonderful new way of healing!
Victor Meldrew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 06:37 AM   #170
malbui
Beauf
 
malbui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by Victor Meldrew View Post
Good point Linda!

Anybody feeling ill? I have some new medication available. I am a Smartieologist, and I provide smartieopathic remedies.

If anyone else wishes to train as a Smartieologist, please send me £4000 for complete training, and on satisfactory completion of the course you will receive a lovely cream certificate with gold writing stating that you are a "Certified Smartieologist" (Training can be completed in 5 minutes or less! Yes, YOU can be qualified before lunch!)
Too late for me - I've been automedicating for years.

Mmmm... Smarties.
__________________
"But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?"
malbui is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:36 AM   #171
Verde
Muse
 
Verde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where the jackalopes roam.
Posts: 817
Just in case anyone on this side of the Pond was wondering, Smarties are simply a superior form of M&Ms.
Verde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 08:48 AM   #172
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,952
Only Smarties have the answer!
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 09:20 AM   #173
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,306
So that's why John Hewitt can't provide one.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 09:31 AM   #174
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Victor Meldrew View Post
and "alternative tubing" - interesting and effective way to use the tube - valuable advice for tiresome patients!

How to use the lid correctly - how pressing down hard with the lid from the smarties on the patients back will help you correctly diagnose the patients condition (the clue is in using the inside facing on the lid - the letter that mysteriously appears faintly inprinted on the patients skin after pressing down hard for 5 minutes will aid your diagnosis - e.g the letter "b" means use the blue smartie, the letter "s" means use the brown smartie).
I think they have stoped produceing smarties in tubes.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2006, 11:48 AM   #175
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by geni View Post
I think they have stoped produceing smarties in tubes.
See! Already the science of smartie therapy advances with the times!! Proof that it's scientific!!
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 04:03 AM   #176
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
Not sure what your point is there, John.

If you are pointing out that a non-scientist can talk sense about science then I'd agree with you!

If you want to quibble in detail with what he said then please show us what he got wrong.

It's also still not clear why you won't answer Mojo's rather easy questions.
My point here was that propaganda only speaks to its own purposes and only engages with those who agree with it. I'm sorry that the answers I gave MOJO earlier did not conform to his purposes.

That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 04:25 AM   #177
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,306
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
My point here was that propaganda only speaks to its own purposes and only engages with those who agree with it. I'm sorry that the answers I gave MOJO earlier did not conform to his purposes.

That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.
So your point, like the points of your earlier "answers", wasn't actually relevant to the subject of the debate (and of this thread), which is whether the manufactureres of homoeopathic "medicines" should be allowed to make misleading therapeutic claims on the packaging of medicines sold over the counter. Nothing to do with the NHS.

How will being given misleading information be of assistance to "the REAL public", even if they are not rational? Do not people deserve to be given information which is supported by evidence, whether or not they are rational in their decisions? Do you think that because some people are not rational, everyone else should be deprived of the ability to make informed decisions by being fed misleading information?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of "medicines" that can be sold directly to the public without the involvement of a doctor or pharmacist?

Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products?

Do you know what a Larsen ListTM is?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 04:27 AM   #178
Nucular
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream
Posts: 2,992
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I'm sorry that the answers I gave MOJO earlier did not conform to his purposes.
I think it was more 'did not seem to address the topic in hand', than 'did not conform to his purposes'.

The topic in hand being about labelling of over-the-counter homeopathic products, not about NHS homeopathy.

Nevertheless...

Quote:
That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.
{Emphasis mine}

Best served? Do you really think people will be - in fact, are - best served by spending their tax money on 'treatments' which can ultimately be dangerous, or at best useless? At the expense of real treatments?

I know we're agreed on the efficacy question, but your approach here just does not seem to follow.

ETA: I really would address Mojo's post first, if I were you...
Nucular is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 04:28 AM   #179
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,952
No, it's not.

It's about whether or not people should be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of magic water, which demonstrably has no efficacy.

Again, you avoid the point, and instead try to shift the debate onto whether or not homeopathy should be available on the NHS. Something that has nothing at all to do with the legislation. This can only be due to either dishonesty or inability to read.

So I ask you a simple question, to which a yes or no answer will suffice.

If homeopaths are allowed to label their water as efficacious then more people will believe that it actually works. Is that what you want Dr. Hewitt?
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 05:06 AM   #180
asthmatic camel
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,510
Dr. Hewitt, you've been asked to answer some very easy questions by Mojo and have yet to respond with anything other than evasion. Is it possible that you're prescribing worthless remedies in order to boost your income?
asthmatic camel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 05:47 AM   #181
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.
I remember this lesson from my ballet teacher. The pas de bourree within the setting of a dance is necessarily imperfect; you move into and away from the step from a variety of positions and are often moving during the execution (applies to any step). Rather than serving as an excuse for sloppy technique, it meant that you had to be perfect when practising your exercises in the studio.

Yes, the real world is necessarily imperfect. But doesn't that mean that we should strive for perfection in those areas under our control? That when we have a regulatory body charged with reviewing the available information and making statements as to what the evidence shows, that that's what it should actually do? If we add another layer of obfuscation to the process, doesn't it make it more likely that John/Jane Q. Public will move further away from the ideal, rather than closer?

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 08:46 AM   #182
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
So your point, like the points of your earlier "answers", wasn't actually relevant to the subject of the debate (and of this thread), which is whether the manufactureres of homoeopathic "medicines" should be allowed to make misleading therapeutic claims on the packaging of medicines sold over the counter. Nothing to do with the NHS.

How will being given misleading information be of assistance to "the REAL public", even if they are not rational? Do not people deserve to be given information which is supported by evidence, whether or not they are rational in their decisions? Do you think that because some people are not rational, everyone else should be deprived of the ability to make informed decisions by being fed misleading information?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of "medicines" that can be sold directly to the public without the involvement of a doctor or pharmacist?

Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products?

Do you know what a Larsen ListTM is?
If this has nothing to do with the NHS, why do this thread keep quoting it?

Those members of the public who have a rational bent will readily understand rational explanations of the worth of homeopathy.

People should receive good information but they should be free to select their own views and their own medicines from the marketplace of ideas.

I have already stated that I do not believe you can eradicate a belief in homeopathic remedies. I therefore belive that they should be sold in environments that give patients easy access to good, professional medical advice.

To your last two questions, my answer is no and no.
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 08:53 AM   #183
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,306
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
Originally Posted by Mojo
Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products?

Do you know what a Larsen ListTM is?
To your last two questions, my answer is no and no.
Now that you've managed to answer the question "Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products" with a "no", perhaps you can try the following question as well:

Do you think that the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, should be allowed to make claims implying that their "medicines" have therapeutic efficacy?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:00 AM   #184
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by fls View Post
I remember this lesson from my ballet teacher. The pas de bourree within the setting of a dance is necessarily imperfect; you move into and away from the step from a variety of positions and are often moving during the execution (applies to any step). Rather than serving as an excuse for sloppy technique, it meant that you had to be perfect when practising your exercises in the studio.

Yes, the real world is necessarily imperfect. But doesn't that mean that we should strive for perfection in those areas under our control? That when we have a regulatory body charged with reviewing the available information and making statements as to what the evidence shows, that that's what it should actually do? If we add another layer of obfuscation to the process, doesn't it make it more likely that John/Jane Q. Public will move further away from the ideal, rather than closer?

Linda
You strive for perfection all you like, just do not ask everyone else to become a ballet dancer.

I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?

Shall hospitals ban clerics from their doors - begone ye priests and clerics and rabis and imams and and and. Henceforth, shall all patients, who might soon shuffle off their mortal coils, receive a Gideon edition of "The Holy Gene" by Richard Dawkins - bound in real plastic? Shall they then be counselled to find comfort in contemplating their contribution to the great adventure that has been life's evolution?
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:16 AM   #185
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,306
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?

Shall hospitals ban clerics from their doors - begone ye priests and clerics and rabis and imams and and and. Henceforth, shall all patients, who might soon shuffle off their mortal coils, receive a Gideon edition of "The Holy Gene" by Richard Dawkins - bound in real plastic? Shall they then be counselled to find comfort in contemplating their contribution to the great adventure that has been life's evolution?
This is another strawman argument: nobody is suggesting this. However, there is a question which can be asked here:

Should the priests (assuming they are not also qualified as doctors) be allowed to give medical advice and treatment?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 09:47 AM   #186
axon
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
People should receive good information but they should be free to select their own views and their own medicines from the marketplace of ideas.
Exactly. People should be free to choose whether to buy any sort of remedy. They should also be not be given misleading information, which is exactly what the issue is about, deliberately misleading labelling on homeopathic remedies.
axon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 10:41 AM   #187
Nucular
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream
Posts: 2,992
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
If this has nothing to do with the NHS, why do this thread keep quoting it?
Because you keep bringing it up, precipitating 'well that's not the issue but since you bring it up...' posts.

Quote:
I have already stated that I do not believe you can eradicate a belief in homeopathic remedies. I therefore belive that they should be sold in environments that give patients easy access to good, professional medical advice.
A 'harm reduction model' for quackery sounds like an interesting idea, but your premise and conclusion here are somewhat mysterious. How does allowing patients to be misinformed amount to 'good, professional medical advice'?

I hope you answer Mojo's next question, quoted here for your convenience:

Quote:
Do you think that the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, should be allowed to make claims implying that their "medicines" have therapeutic efficacy?
Given your answer to the more general question about the government allowing vendors to make false claims, it seems to me that there's only one answer you can give; but it's amazing what equivocation, selective attention and billigerence can achieve. Show us what you can do
Nucular is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 12:03 PM   #188
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
You strive for perfection all you like, just do not ask everyone else to become a ballet dancer.
I did not mean for that to be taken literally.

Recognizing that we necessarily fall short of perfection in any endeavour, how is purposefully moving towards imperfection a reasonable response?

Quote:
I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?
How is that relelvant? They are not under any obligation to make supportable claims.

The MHRA is charged with determining which claims are supportable. What is wrong with asking them to do that?

Quote:
Shall hospitals ban clerics from their doors - begone ye priests and clerics and rabis and imams and and and. Henceforth, shall all patients, who might soon shuffle off their mortal coils, receive a Gideon edition of "The Holy Gene" by Richard Dawkins - bound in real plastic? Shall they then be counselled to find comfort in contemplating their contribution to the great adventure that has been life's evolution?
None of this is relevant to the issue. People can still be free to choose that which gives them comfort. But just like I am obliged to *not* mislead my patients, the MHRA should be obliged to not mislead the public.

ETA: Allowing homeopathic elixirs to place claims on their labels does nothing to bring these products into the setting of "good, professional medical advice". Physicians and pharmacists are not going to advise their use. And since they will be sold over-the-counter in drug and grocery stores, anyone can make their selections without any professional advice whatsoever.

Linda

Last edited by fls; 30th October 2006 at 12:11 PM.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 01:15 PM   #189
Yahzi
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,669
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
It was good to note that, in Parliament, as distinct from science, other voices got a hearing.
But they're talking about science.

Apparently you think scientific facts should be decided by a political process?
Yahzi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2006, 01:24 PM   #190
Yahzi
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,669
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?
I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of your example.

Does the hospital allow priests into the operating room? Do the priests make diagnosis? Do they prescribe drugs?

Hospitals also have cafeterias - by your logic, that makes a short-order cook indistinguishable from a heart surgeon.

Your obduracy is staggering. You understand the distinction perfectly well. You are simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong.

If homeopathic medicines don't work, then the public is best served by banning them. This is so obvious that even the homeopaths have to pretend they work.

Last edited by Yahzi; 30th October 2006 at 01:50 PM.
Yahzi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 08:33 AM   #191
Big Al
Mage Questor
 
Big Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,125
The NHS runs on tax money. Do you think homeopathy, iridology, acupuncture, colonic irrigation and chiropractic clinics can be run for nothing?

It isn't just a question of homeopathy being harmless. The fact is that, with a finite amount of cash, running a homeopathy clinic diverts badly needed funds from some other clinic that might do demonstrable good.

The big decisions in the NHS are not being made by doctors and nurses, but by faceless PC administrators and attention-seeking politicians. As a taxpayer, I can consider myself a stakeholder in the NHS, and I'd like to ask, no, DEMAND, that all these worthless processes and treatments be scrapped in favour of ones that WORK!
Big Al is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 08:34 AM   #192
Big Al
Mage Questor
 
Big Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,125
But then again, I'm only a cash cow, to be milked at will by the Government to make them look caring and sharing.
Big Al is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 01:28 PM   #193
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
 
Asolepius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,150
I don't have time to answer individual posts here as there are so many, so I'll do a bit of a round up. Firstly, dear Dr Hewitt, I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on the esteem you seem to have for those opposing the motion in the Lords. Half of them were hereditary peers with no more claim to intellectual high ground than my cat. Well at least the cat is not easily deluded. Do you despise science so much that you prefer their opinions to the facts? I think you should be aware of some of the latter.

I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary. Dr Hewitt, how can it possibly be undesirable to include such a warning? The answer is to be found in the MHRA's own explanatory memorandum - anything like that would `inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry'. What does this mean? The influence of the homeopaths is more pervasive than we had imagined. Don't forget that Michael Fox, until recently chief exec of the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, is a director of the MHRA.

On reading all this material, what strikes me is that such imaginary concepts as homeopathic `provings', `stocks', and `potentisation' are all discussed as if they were real science. This is our own medicines regulatory agency deluding itself with quackery. They might as well try to regulate alchemy or astrology.

I am less concerned about someone's qualifications than I am about their commitment to truth. However, anyone who has read `The March of Unreason' will know that Dick Taverne has a better grasp of science than many who claim to practise it. How condescending you are being Dr Hewitt - it ill becomes you. I see that Baroness Barker, who also opposed the motion, is a Lib Dem spokesperson for health - without as far as I can see the slightest qualification for the job. Should you not have criticised her as well?

So in conclusion Dr Hewitt, do you really think you have done yourself any credit here? You decide......
__________________
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Blog - Majikthyse

Last edited by Asolepius; 31st October 2006 at 01:30 PM.
Asolepius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 02:54 PM   #194
Cynric
Critical Thinker
 
Cynric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by Asolepius View Post
...Well at least the cat is not easily deluded...
Unlike the Countess' goats.

Quote:
I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary.
Now that's really worrying. They must be pretty confident of their support base among the political elite to have the nerve to ignore Royal Colleges and patient's groups. But I suppose that having the Prince of Wales, the PM, his wife and his wife's sister on board would make them a touch cocky.

I'm sure you'll do your damnedest to make hay with this Asolepius. Good luck.
__________________
Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labour does the body.

Seneca

Last edited by Cynric; 31st October 2006 at 02:57 PM.
Cynric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 03:19 PM   #195
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Asolepius View Post
I don't have time to answer individual posts here as there are so many, so I'll do a bit of a round up. Firstly, dear Dr Hewitt, I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on the esteem you seem to have for those opposing the motion in the Lords. Half of them were hereditary peers with no more claim to intellectual high ground than my cat. Well at least the cat is not easily deluded. Do you despise science so much that you prefer their opinions to the facts? I think you should be aware of some of the latter.

I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary. Dr Hewitt, how can it possibly be undesirable to include such a warning? The answer is to be found in the MHRA's own explanatory memorandum - anything like that would `inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry'. What does this mean? The influence of the homeopaths is more pervasive than we had imagined. Don't forget that Michael Fox, until recently chief exec of the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, is a director of the MHRA.

On reading all this material, what strikes me is that such imaginary concepts as homeopathic `provings', `stocks', and `potentisation' are all discussed as if they were real science. This is our own medicines regulatory agency deluding itself with quackery. They might as well try to regulate alchemy or astrology.

I am less concerned about someone's qualifications than I am about their commitment to truth. However, anyone who has read `The March of Unreason' will know that Dick Taverne has a better grasp of science than many who claim to practise it. How condescending you are being Dr Hewitt - it ill becomes you. I see that Baroness Barker, who also opposed the motion, is a Lib Dem spokesperson for health - without as far as I can see the slightest qualification for the job. Should you not have criticised her as well?

So in conclusion Dr Hewitt, do you really think you have done yourself any credit here? You decide......
I have already made it perfectly clear that I regard homeopathy as nonsense. What I admired about that debate was that those who disagreed were allowed to speak. I have no problems at all with the kind of warning labels you suggest. I merely think that some people will always buy junk remedies and that they should be allowed to do so through a channel that can lead them to decent medical advice.
I have also made it clear that I do not despise science at all, I have always regarded scientific method as giving the best estimate of truth. My problem is that I have seen so little of the scientific method in science.
I do despise those hypocritical members of the scientific community who subvert scientific method to the furtherance of their own ambitions. I mean those who, despite their claims to the contrary, will neither allow any platform for dissent nor engage with the dissenters.
Taverne protests about the march of unreason but does not see the abuse and unreason perpetrated in the name of science.

Many readers on this thread will have been British scientists so read this carefully. In my mind, there is no doubt that my work on cell biology was, substantially, correct and I do believe that some senior members of British science excluded that work to conceal their own failures. If I talk to British science about this serious scientific problem I get ignored. On the other hand, if I talk to a piece of junk science, like homeopathy, then I start getting lots of attention.
How much credit do you think that does British science? You decide .....
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 03:48 PM   #196
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
 
Asolepius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,150
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
What I admired about that debate was that those who disagreed were allowed to speak.
My goodness, and there was I thinking that a parliamentary debate only allowed one side to speak. Now there's a thing.
Quote:
I have no problems at all with the kind of warning labels you suggest. I merely think that some people will always buy junk remedies and that they should be allowed to do so through a channel that can lead them to decent medical advice.
....and how pray do these regulations ensure that? Or even influence patients just a tiny bit in that direction?
Quote:
Many readers on this thread will have been British scientists so read this carefully. In my mind, there is no doubt that my work on cell biology was, substantially, correct and I do believe that some senior members of British science excluded that work to conceal their own failures.
So how many scientists agreed with you?
Quote:
If I talk to British science about this serious scientific problem I get ignored. On the other hand, if I talk to a piece of junk science, like homeopathy, then I start getting lots of attention.
How much credit do you think that does British science? You decide .....
Now this is getting seriously off-topic. If you want to start a thread about your own personal gripes, do so, but this one is about government-endorsed lying.
__________________
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Blog - Majikthyse
Asolepius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2006, 05:19 PM   #197
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,306
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I have already made it perfectly clear that I regard homeopathy as nonsense.
Are you in favour of or against the regulations that are the subject of this thread, and of the parliamentary debate that you so admired, which allow the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines" sold directly to the public to make claims implying that their "medicines" have therapeutic efficacy?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 31st October 2006 at 05:21 PM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2006, 12:33 AM   #198
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Asolepius View Post
My goodness, and there was I thinking that a parliamentary debate only allowed one side to speak. Now there's a thing.
....and how pray do these regulations ensure that?
I was merely regretting that science does not allow both sides a hearing.
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2006, 12:48 AM   #199
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,952
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I was merely regretting that science does not allow both sides a hearing.
Please only speak for scientific fields that you have direct experience of.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2006, 07:20 AM   #200
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Quite a brusque display of indifference on the homeopathy issue from Tony Blair in today’s Guardian:
Quote:
"I wouldn't bother fighting a great battle over homeopathy, I mean there are people who use it, people who don't use it, it is not going to determine the future of the world, frankly.”

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...937504,00.html
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.