Slashdot Mirror
The UK's New Minister For Magic
An anonymous reader sends this depressing excerpt from New Scientist:
"A serious blow to science-based medical practices has been dealt in the UK with the appointment of Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary. The fortunes of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are about to be transformed with the help of the magical waters of homeopathic medicine. Top marks to The Telegraph's science writer Tom Chivers for quickly picking up on talk that the UK's new health minister, Jeremy Hunt – who replaced Andrew Lansley yesterday in a government reshuffle – thinks that homeopathy works, and should be provided at public expense by the NHS."
He could believe in god!
Rupert Murdoch is best buddies with Hunt, and all of his actions are "guided" by what News Corps wants, so as long as Sky doesn't believe in homeopathy then we'll be fine.
Because when medicine was left to individual practitioners, things were sooooo much better.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you read Jeremy Hunt's response letter, what he actually says is that some PATIENTS want and/or believe in homeopathic medicine, so we should let them have it. Basically he's saying that the NHS should agree to pay for any treatment that the general populous wants, since it is a "patient-focused" organization. This argument is also significantly easier to defend if it's a treatment that they are already paying for, and it sounds like they are.
In short, Jeremy Hunt is a politician. He made a calculated determination that people who like homeopathic treatments are more likely to be supportive of him due to this decision than others are to be against him for deciding the other way. I can see why, since most scientists will think of him as a "typical stupid politician" (not much of an insult for an actual politician) while most homeopathic believers will see him as a "defender of their cause."
A basic precept of science is that you can't prove a negative.
Homeopathy doesn't.
Sure it does. And I'm no fan of homeopathy. The areas listed in the "Mote Prime" article are areas strongly influenced by the placebo effect (pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety, etc.). I assume that Homeopathy would have the same influence as any other placebo in treating those problems.
Mummy's kisses fixes my toddler's owies. All better!
--
no sig for you. come back one year.
As opposed to the idiotic corporate bureaucrats in charge of private health care?
it is well known that a good, strong and colorful sugar pill administered with a tall glass of water can go a long way to curing many reported medical conditions.
Yep. Hypoglycemia for one.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"If you read Jeremy Hunt's response letter, what he actually says is that some PATIENTS want and/or believe in homeopathic medicine, so we should let them have it."
That's nonsense. As a patient I believe that eating caviar, drinking champagne, and eating chocolate-covered gold leaf candies will cure my medical condition. That doesn't mean the fricking taxpayer should help pay for treatment if there is NO scientifically demonstrated medical benefit. If people want a medically useless treatment, then can spend their own money on such snake oil.
Here in the U.S. we have more than our fair share of new-age dimwits and vaccine fear mongers. I have no such room to throw stones.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
In that case, I have a million other ideas, all differing to some extent, and each with the same profound properties that a placebo provides. Each one has an inventive story and reason for why it works behind it (I haven't tested most of them admittedly, but I DO think they're all great). The government should allow these million other methods on the market too, and make me a millionaire.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Then it's not homeopathy which works - it's the placebo effect which works. And for that we don't need overpriced sugar which has danced around the table twelve times at midnight or somesuch nonsense.
I have to call BS on this one. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from what you said, it sounds like that you are claiming something like: Take two people each with an acute appendix. For one, do an appendectomy, for the other, put him out, wake him up, and tell him he had an appendectomy. And the surgery is no more effective than lying to the guy. Sorry, but there is no way in hell that can be true.
My mother used to work as a home health aid, she said that she worked with an older couple where the senile husband would demand pills from his wife; rather than argue or tell him no the wife would hand him is ww pills that came in red blue yellow brown and green, she told him that they were candy coated to hide the bad flavor and that he would need to swallow them quickly. It worked every time
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
It's modded down because if we replaced those XXXX antibiotic's that the AC above claims kills people in the hundreds of thousands, with homeopathy "treatments", billions upon billions upon billions of people would die in the space of 6 months. Idiots.
That's a poor substitute for educating people about magical thinking.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Of course it had to be the pills, no chance in hell that your daughter simply got older and stopped having ear infections like many other children...
Since there is no trace of the original substance, paying him zero is the correct analogy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Libertarians can't help but mod me down even when I don't directly reference them.
Well, it's bloody we'll true. Medicine in ye olden days where you could only judge a doctor's fitness by how many patients lived or died (in other words pure market forces) wasn't exactly a stellar success, and it's only when certification boards and similar bodies, with the force of legislation behind them, did you at least gain some trust as to basic credentials and competency, and some way to remove doctors who failed to maintain that competency.
A pure free market in health care would be a nightmare, where the worst aspects of the current system would be magnified in horrific fashion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In a medical context, "Working" means performing better than a placebo. By this definition, homeopathy DOES NOT work.
So placebo is, in fact, an effective remedy for pain and other subjective symptoms. This is a perfectly correct formulation. Pain is an entirely subjective phenomenon. If a sugar pill causes a person to perceive less pain, it is an effective form of pain relief, pure and simple.
And your suggestion for a replacement is what?
Seriously, how are you going to judge the effectiveness of a drug, if you don't test it in humans and how are you going to discriminate the placebo effect from the real effect?
At present we cannot totally rely on animal testing or computer models, so just what do you want to use?
If we didn't use humans in testing in a double blind test then we couldn't say for sure that the drugs are effective and then we would be open to the same empty promises and shenanigans of Homoeopathy.
It is truly unfortunate that this has to happen but until someone can come up with a reasonable working solution to the problem then the double blind is the best that we can do.
No, to play by their rules, you need to fill a box full of packing peanuts and 1 penny. Then shred the box, throw the pieces in the garbage and pay him with a gum wrapper found at same land fill.
When my mother was dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), she volunteered for a double-blind trial, knowing that there was an even chance she would get the placebo. This did not bother her in the least - she was hoping that it would ultimately result in some benefit for someone else later on. Unfortunately, her disease had already progressed too rapidly and she was not accepted into the test cohort.
I don't think there is anything unethical or inhumane about making a valid statistical trial. Many of these substances have serious side-effects and very prohibitive costs - it is better to make an informed and valid comparison of the pros and cons of any treatment.
These trails require the informed consent of the participants, and any well designed trail takes into account that if a new treatment turns out to be very effective it would be unethical to continue, but must be ended and the treatment supplied to all.
As is often the case, the experts have actually though of these things before you.
Anarchists never rule
I'm no fan of magic and witchcraft. I know it was something other than earache but those pills worked.
I don't mind utilizing the placebo effect.
What I do mind is that the NHS could've paid 1/100th for the same thing by simply setting up its own sugar pill factory and labelling the product with whatever strikes their fancy.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The point here is that while placebos may have an effect when taken, the extent of that effect should be no greater than that of targeted medication.
If medication designed to cure depression works better than a placebo does (ie. MORE people are cured, or symptoms are reduced FURTHER), then the medication is considered to "work". If the medication doesn't work, it will either be AS effective as a placebo (likely the case for homeopathic medicine) or LESS effective (adverse effects).
It really doesn't matter that placebos have an effect. Because if homeopathic medicine doesn't work, it effectively becomes a placebo. So yes, it's perfectly fair to compare against placebos.
``OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?''