The UK's New Minister For Magic

I propose... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-05 09:18 · Score: 5, Funny

The NHS should begin a program of providing him with a homeopathic salary. The less they pay him, the more motivated he will become!

Re:I propose... by Desler · 2012-09-05 09:20 · Score: 5, Funny

No, you just pay him in a currency of significantly diluted value. Zimbabwe dollars should work since they are worth about .0017 GBP each.
Re:I propose... by chilvence · 2012-09-05 09:32 · Score: 2

A fifth minus 3 hundredths of a penny saved is...
Re:I propose... by slick7 · 2012-09-05 09:46 · Score: 2

A fifth minus 3 hundredths of a penny saved is...
...is 3 hundredths of a penny and one heck of a party.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

Or American dollars, at the rate those printing presses are flying...

On topic, at least homeopathy doesn't directly cause hundreds of thousands of fatalities per annum when correctly prescribed. You can't say that about the junk they're peddling at my doctor's office.
Re:I propose... by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-09-05 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny

A fifth minus 3 hundredths of a penny saved is...
According to homeopathy, approximately equivalent to the USA defence budget.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:I propose... by buchner.johannes · 2012-09-05 10:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

EU just rolled out a new directive. Traditional (also herbal) and homeopathic medicine has the burden of proof now for safety and quality. If the EU does one thing well, it's consumer protection.
You can apply for funding to be able to afford the clinical trial. This is an excellent move sorting out the effectiveness and at the same time preserving traditional "household" medicine. In the end, that's what science is about: Whether it is aesthetically pleasing or illogical that drops are diluted in a huge amount of water is irrelevant. All you have to answer is does it work (better than placebos in a double-blind trial)?

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:I propose... by Titan1080 · 2012-09-05 10:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

not sure why this got modded down. it's quite accurate. here in the US, the common treatment for just about ANY ailment is 'here's a bottle of XXXX antibiotic. take these for 2 weeks and call if the problem persists'. or they put you on a prescription until a year later you start seeing commercials all day about the pills you're taking; telling you how you're eligible to be in a class action lawsuit...
Re:I propose... by CapuchinSeven · 2012-09-05 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:I propose... by ffflala · 2012-09-05 11:24 · Score: 4, Informative

All you have to answer is does it work (better than placebos in a double-blind trial)?
This seems terribly unfair, given the increasing effectiveness of placebos over time.

Seriously. http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all Given that particular standard, current drugs be more effective than they would have in the past in order to successfully pass clinical trials.
Re:I propose... by ffflala · 2012-09-05 11:26 · Score: 2

Whoops, looks like I some words.
Re:I propose... by geekoid · 2012-09-05 11:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since there is no trace of the original substance, paying him zero is the correct analogy.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 11:36 · Score: 1

Agreed. Why is this moded troll? Is slashdot now selling mod points to pharmaceutical reps?(that's a troll) Or was the response not in keeping with the echo chamber protocol expected?
Re:I propose... by geekoid · 2012-09-05 11:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Oh, a wired article about a know clinical process that they don't understand.
Hint: Placebos are not increasing effectiveness.
In fact, they have no effectiveness.
They just decrease the perception of pain or other subjective symptoms.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I propose... by AdamWill · 2012-09-05 12:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:I propose... by lgw · 2012-09-05 12:13 · Score: 5, Informative

perception of pain

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Pain is the perception of injury. Pain is a psychological entity. You cannot be wrong about the amount of pain you feel. If you feel pain from an amputated limb, the pain is completely real.
Anything that reduces pain is effective in treating pain. It may be useless in treating injury, but a lot of modern medicine is around pain management for the vast array of problems we can't actually cure.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:I propose... by theshowmecanuck · 2012-09-05 12:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Exactly. By that philosophy we can conclude that while we are drinking all the good with a glass of water, we are also drinking a glass of pure cancer, since at one time it must have been in contact with a host of natural and man made carcinogens. By the way, you shouldn't have ate so much garlic last night.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:I propose... by jrumney · 2012-09-05 12:30 · Score: 2

They're worth that much now? Wow, time to cash in that 100 billion dollar note in my drawer.
Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 13:15 · Score: 1

This represents an incorrect understanding of the placebo effect. There are measurable, objective effects of a person believing they are receiving treatment. I know it is bizarre, but this is well established. Not just for pain, but things like blood pressure and even immune response have objective responses to placebos. That is why the placebo test is used: to distinguish between the psychological effect and the actual effect of the medicine.
Re:I propose... by rtb61 · 2012-09-05 13:51 · Score: 1

I would have to question the legitimacy of double blind tests. It seems really off, 50% of the patients are turned into victims destined to suffer and or die 'Here sucker take the placebo'. Seriously is it really fare to treat people like that, they are hoping for a treatment and you are sucking them in with a placebo because it makes for better statistical analysis, somehow that seems truly inhumane.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:I propose... by slowLearner · 2012-09-05 14:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:I propose... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-09-05 14:42 · Score: 1

Actually, reducing pain is a significant factor in treating many injuries. There are numerous cases where the pain of an injury impairs the body's ability to heal that injury.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:I propose... by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-09-05 15:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:I propose... by Rubinstien · 2012-09-05 15:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 15:41 · Score: 1

Funnily enough, if instead of taking antibiotics when you shouldn't (e.g. to eliminite a virus) you take homeopathy you're better off. Even more so if you think the treatment will work (because of the placebo effect). But should doctors lie to patients? And would it really be lying if they do get better because of the "lie"?
Btw, are there any reputable studies on homeopathy (not done by someone with an interest in the results)? Shouldn't be too difficult to show it performs as well as the placebo does.
Re:I propose... by rtb61 · 2012-09-05 16:06 · Score: 1

Likely a more complete testing program, where all the patients reactions are measured over an extended period as well as all dietary implications and of course full psychological evaluation. Whilst more costly it still seems far more humane. Double blind just seems to be quick dirty inhumane solution to drugs testing.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:I propose... by canadian_right · 2012-09-05 16:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:I propose... by amRadioHed · 2012-09-05 16:22 · Score: 2

So is it better to not do the test and never be able to learn which treatments are safe and effective for the millions of other people suffering from the same illness?
It's unfortunate that not everyone can receive a treatment we think has a good chance of working, but we can''t take shortcuts on such a vital part of the drug discovery process.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:I propose... by wienerschnizzel · 2012-09-05 17:35 · Score: 1

This article has been criticized to oblivion - just use google. Or better yet, just use your brains - how would one measure the effectiveness of placebo? There is no way to conduct a double blind study of placebo. What would the control group get?
Re:I propose... by richlv · 2012-09-05 17:51 · Score: 2

placebo is a method, not the substance. and it could be ethically applied by a doctor, without extracting money from the patient.
grabbing money for inefficient substances and claiming that "it's ok because that's placebo" is unethical, pretty much stealing from those who have a health problem.

--
Rich
Re:I propose... by zzyzyx · 2012-09-05 18:24 · Score: 1

Something that reduces symptoms could be called an effective treatment, no ?
Re:I propose... by lhunath · 2012-09-05 19:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?''
Re:I propose... by sumdumass · 2012-09-05 19:14 · Score: 2

The British government did one a while back and it said that homeopathic medicine has a success rate similar to placebos.
This is also why I do not understand what the big issue is. If the guy tries to institute it, someone will just throw it in his face. Of course, sometimes people need placebos and it could be a harmless alternative to those demanding millions of pills for the common cold.
Re:I propose... by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2012-09-05 19:23 · Score: 3, Funny

So if pain is psychological does this mean paracetamol and codeine phosphate are just placebos?
Re:I propose... by psmears · 2012-09-05 19:47 · Score: 1

I would have to question the legitimacy of double blind tests. It seems really off, 50% of the patients are turned into victims destined to suffer and or die 'Here sucker take the placebo'.

You are assuming that the medication under test actually works. If it doesn't (and we don't know whether it does or not, or else we wouldn't be testing it), then those taking the placebo are no worse off, and indeed may be better off if the medication has side-effects.

--
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
Re:I propose... by Guignol · 2012-09-05 21:21 · Score: 1

I propose we promote his ministry to ministry of silly medicines.
We're getting there, we're getting there...
Re:I propose... by u38cg · 2012-09-05 21:24 · Score: 1

You clearly know nothing about double blind testing. Try this. The whole point of a trial is that you're testing somethng where you don't know if it works or if the effect is actually any better than placebo.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:I propose... by ffflala · 2012-09-05 23:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

I heard this explained well through a joke.

A neurologist went into the emergency room, saying he was in great pain. "Where does it hurt?" he was asked.

"In my head."
Re:I propose... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-05 23:08 · Score: 1

The double-blind clause is especially there to eliminate the placebo effect. For a test on placebo's this should be removed.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:I propose... by mattpalmer1086 · 2012-09-05 23:11 · Score: 1

Would nothing work?
Re:I propose... by wienerschnizzel · 2012-09-05 23:26 · Score: 1

No. The double-blind is to eliminate any manipulation of the results, conscious or unconscious, by both the test subject and the examiner.
There is no actual deception in medical studies involved due to ethical reasons - the human subjects are informed beforehand that there is a 50% chance that they will receive treatment without active ingredients and they consent to it.
Now how would you do a double blind study comparing a 'placebo effect' to 'no effect'? Because that is something you must prove in order to show that there is something like a 'placebo effect' and enumerate how 'strong' it is. To date there was no such study published anywhere.
Re:I propose... by Kavafy · 2012-09-05 23:27 · Score: 1

What? How would any of this solve the control problem? How would you make sure the observed effects are due to the treatment, without having a control group?
Re:I propose... by ffflala · 2012-09-05 23:29 · Score: 1

Oh, dismissive, unsupported appeal to authority.

I take it this is the first you've heard on the subject. That particular article --in Wired (the nerve!!!)-- won a few awards: The Best American Science Writing 2010, The Best Technology Writing 2010, and the 2010 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award.

There no dearth of scholarly articles focusing on placebo effect either, as you'd have found if you had cared to look. For example, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=175282 Though I suppose one could always continue to disregard the idea if by deciding to characterize a measurable, significant increase in prefrontal cordance --perhaps even depression itself-- both as merely subjective phenomenon.
Re:I propose... by lightknight · 2012-09-05 23:50 · Score: 1

Sadly, that is the direction that we're heading in.
See, cures for illnesses were too expensive; so we went with just treating them.
Then treating them was too expensive, so now they just want you to think you are being treated.
All pain is psychological, which means it's all in your head. This means that painkillers are unnecessary, that it is simply the perception of your pain that needs to be managed. If we can convince you that the pain from your car accident is purely psychological, that your leprosy is purely mythological, that a severed hand is in fact whole, then we can convince you of anything. We can confound your mind, and have you spend your entire life on an assembly line, making products you can't afford to buy. We can tell you where to live, and what to think. When we convince you that your pain is simply some flaw of your own design, we own you. A master cares for his slaves as a father does for his children; that they serve him, never question him, and always know he is right.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:I propose... by wienerschnizzel · 2012-09-06 00:02 · Score: 1

Depends on what you mean. If you're asking whether giving nothing to a patient may make them better then the answer is yes. The human body has this stupid tendency to heal itself over time in a lot of cases.
If you mean whether it would help the study to give the control group nothing then the answer is no. It would not be double blind anymore because it would be obvious as to who is getting nothing. Note also that there is no way of conducting it in an ethical way - in the previous case you could tell the patients that there is only 50% chance that they would be getting an active treatment. In the case of placebo study what would you tell them? That they either get no active ingredient or they get nothing at all?
Re:I propose... by mattpalmer1086 · 2012-09-06 00:17 · Score: 1

I mean the second - giving a control group nothing. The first point is well made. In fact, I read somewhere that no doctor or drug ever healed anybody - ultimately it is always the body which heals itself; active drugs only give it a fighting chance to perform its own healing (e.g. by destroying pathogens, or promoting a response to it, or something).
But returning to the second point, I agree you couldn't have double-blind trials as the patient would know whether they got nothing or not. You could still have a blind trial where the researchers did not know who was in the control group or not for the duration of the experiment.
In terms of ethics, if the goal of the trial is to determine whether a placebo has a clinical effect or not, then you are effectively testing a potentially workable treatment (the placebo, even though not pharcologically active) against something known to have no direct effect itself (nothing). So you can still tell patients that there is a 50% chance of getting a treatment that may have a positive effect (but not containing an active ingredient). The other 50% seem to have no hope at all, and they would know it (so you may even invoke the nocebo effect).
It does seem problematic. But if you are interested in whether placebos have clinical effect, how else could it be tested?
Re:I propose... by RaceProUK · 2012-09-06 00:28 · Score: 1

I take it you're not a Brit, or you are but you don't keep up to date with the relevant news. Jeremy Hunt thought it was a good idea to let News International own BSkyB. Now he's in charge of the NHS. Frankly, alarm bells should be ringing across the nation.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:I propose... by wienerschnizzel · 2012-09-06 00:45 · Score: 1

But returning to the second point, I agree you couldn't have double-blind trials as the patient would know whether they got nothing or not. You could still have a blind trial where the researchers did not know who was in the control group or not for the duration of the experiment.
Not quite. In a true controlled double blind study the researcher or his staff must make sure the subjects are taking the treatment - give the pill, injection etc. personally. They don't know whether it's placebo after it was randomized but they do see the patient is taking it. In this case they would see the patient is getting nothing.

In terms of ethics, if the goal of the trial is to determine whether a placebo has a clinical effect or not, then you are effectively testing a potentially workable treatment (the placebo, even though not pharcologically active) against something known to have no direct effect itself (nothing). So you can still tell patients that there is a 50% chance of getting a treatment that may have a positive effect (but not containing an active ingredient). The other 50% seem to have no hope at all, and they would know it (so you may even invoke the nocebo effect).
It does seem problematic. But if you are interested in whether placebos have clinical effect, how else could it be tested?
This would not work in countries I know of where it is required by law that the subjects know what kind of treatment they are getting (and details about how exactly the experiment is performed). Such laws were implemented after some experiments have gone awry in the past (such as some reproductions of the famous Millgram experiment that had left the subjects with lasting psychological problems). It's the reason why no such studies exist. Feel free to look for them.
Re:I propose... by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-06 01:19 · Score: 1

They just decrease the perception of pain or other subjective symptoms.
Not true. Placebos have been demonstrated to relieve objective symptoms. Your state of mind can do amazing things to the body's immune and repair systems.
Re:I propose... by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-06 01:23 · Score: 1

I would have to question the legitimacy of double blind tests. It seems really off, 50% of the patients are turned into victims destined to suffer and or die 'Here sucker take the placebo'.
Not quite so bad as that. For one thing, when prelimary results come in very positive, the trial is usually ended early so that the placebo patients can be put on the now-demonstrated effective treatment. Also, if there's already a proven effective treatment, the control group is put on that rather than a placebo. You don't need to have a group that's getting no treatment; you only need a group that's getting a known baseline.
Re:I propose... by mattpalmer1086 · 2012-09-06 01:30 · Score: 1

Thanks for your interesting replies. It's not an area I know much about.
I had not considered the requirement to ensure that a patient is actually taking the medicine. I suppose you could indirect it a step further, with people who provide assurance whether a pill is taken (or not), but who have no direct contact with the researchers. Of course, they may still introduce bias into the experiment. I suppose you could use a machine which automatically monitors whether the medicine is taken or not somehow, whose results are not known until the end of the experiment.
I have no doubt that such experiments would not pass ethical muster, or would be against the law in some countries. Still, these protocols were designed to reliably test for effects in active compounds. I still wonder how (setting aside ethical or legal constraints) you could construct reasonably reliable trials which test for clinical effects in placebos.
Re:I propose... by mcgrew · 2012-09-06 03:12 · Score: 1

Why is this moded troll?
One, the first sentence is incorrect and has been since the seventies. Secondly, there aren't hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by properly prescribed drugs. Thirdly, he would replace drugs proven effective with placebos???
It's marked "troll" because it's trolling for responses with its inaccuracy; it begs to be corrected.
What I'd like to know is what twelve year old modded him "insightful"? There was no insight whatever.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:I propose... by Cytotoxic · 2012-09-06 03:24 · Score: 1

Sure there is. You simply do nothing. You chose a random cohort from among a larger population and administer placebo treatments. Another random cohort is not treated but is measured in the same way as the placebo cohort after the trial.
Easiest to do on something like gunshot wounds or ebola infections. That way you have a nice, easy to measure endpoint (death). Probably have a hard time getting that one through the committee though.
Re:I propose... by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:24 · Score: 1

Oh, a wired article about a know clinical process that they don't understand.
Hint: Placebos are not increasing effectiveness.
Yes they are. Over the past 20 years, placebos have become stronger. It's a complete mystery why this is happening, but it is, and Wired is not remotely the first to report on this.
Looks like you're the one who doesn't understand this.
Re:I propose... by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:31 · Score: 1

placebo is a method, not the substance. and it could be ethically applied by a doctor, without extracting money from the patient.
grabbing money for inefficient substances and claiming that "it's ok because that's placebo" is unethical, pretty much stealing from those who have a health problem.
There are lots of ethical problems with using placebos as real treatment. One of them is that expensive placebos are actually more effective than cheap or free ones. And is it okay to lie to a patient when it's for their own good? And what if the placebo turns out not to have any effect?
Maybe doctors need acting classes: "Well, there is something that will help, but it's very expensive." "Ah, fortunately it's completely covered by your health insurance."
Re:I propose... by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:32 · Score: 1

I've heard a physician claim that paracetamol is practically a placebo. But I don't care. It works for me.
Re:I propose... by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:37 · Score: 1

Nothing. That's how you measure the strength of the placebo effect. The purpose of the placebo control group is to eliminate the placebo effect from the results, but if you want to measure the placebo effect, you want a control group that doesn't get a placebo.
Of course you can also use a different placebo. I believe blue ones are more effective than other colours, for example, and shape, size and number of pills matter too.
The placebo effect is really incredibly fascinating and bizarre. And I haven't even started about the nocebo effect, which is where you get negative side effects.
Re:I propose... by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:40 · Score: 1

But how are you going to measure the effectiveness of your drugs, if you have nothing to compare them with? We're talking basic scientific principles here. Or do you want to put unproven drugs on the market and just pray that they work?
Re:I propose... by heefeneet · 2012-09-06 05:06 · Score: 1

I take it you're not a Brit, or you are but you don't keep up to date with the relevant news. Jeremy Hunt thought it was a good idea to let News International own BSkyB. Now he's in charge of the NHS. Frankly, alarm bells should be ringing across the nation.
Times like this make me glad the Scottish NHS is a separate entity.
Re:I propose... by overmod · 2012-09-06 05:16 · Score: 2

It might have been better if you had separated out the problems with the pharmaceutical industry correctly:
1) Antibiotics misprescribed, in excessive volume and as a lazy diagnosis or (just plain wrong!) for viral conditions or resistant strains;
2) High prices on necessary drugs "because you can" and then using part of the profit to underwrite legal action against generics;
3) 'Designer drugs' that are patentable only because a radical here or solubilizing ion there is added -- but then, see (2);
4) New drugs put on the market for $$$, purportedly treating silly conditions and then perhaps misapplied to other conditions, that turn out to have a long list of serious side effects and perhaps cause physical harm to the target patients;
5) Excessive advertising directly to the public (I'd argue that yes, ANY advertising of prescription drugs to the public is 'excessive' in a sense) with the budget written off to 'marketing expense' or some similar place where excess profits can be sterilized...
But...
none of those things can possibly be a reason to advocate a system of "therapy" based on a frank and ridiculous conception of the active principle of pharmacology.
Yes, there are cases where 'less than the recommended dosage' of a pharmaceutical turns out to be the effective therapeutic dose -- take Prozac, for example, where the effective dose for many people turns out to be in the 3mg range, but the maker doesn't produce packaged pills or capsules that low. (You dissolve in orange juice or similar acidic solution, and take an aliquot dose...). Yes, there are potentially areas where very small amounts of active material are effective where larger ones might not be -- the example that comes to mind is silver as an antibiotic. But that simply DOES NOT SCALE to the usual homeopathic dose. And in any case, if your theory of therapy depends on some claim that 'like cures like', no matter how cleverly the idea may be disguised with lingo... well, you're not providing helpful medical service that couldn't be rendered just as effectively, and even more cheaply, via similarly packaged and promoted placebo.
Be nice to see a double-blind study that actually demonstrates to an acceptable level of statistical assurance that a homeopathic modality works for the reasons advocated for it. I won't be holding my breath for that, though...
Re:I propose... by cyberchondriac · 2012-09-06 06:57 · Score: 1

Placebos are not increasing effectiveness. In fact, they have no effectiveness.
They just decrease the perception of pain or other subjective symptoms.
Not entirely so. Placebo can sometimes have measurable objective results. http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html

Yet, there are too many studies that have found objective improvements in health after being given placebos to support the notion that the placebo effect is entirely psychological.

Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000).

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:I propose... by markkezner · 2012-09-06 08:04 · Score: 1

If you wish to understand why we do double blind trials, I suggest you pick up a copy of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

--
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
Re:I propose... by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-09-06 09:51 · Score: 2

he says:

Homeopathic care is enormously valued by thousands of people and in an NHS that the Government repeatedly tells us is "patient-led" it ought to be available where a doctor and patient believe that a homeopathic treatment may be of benefit to the patient.
it's my understanding there are no "doctors" that believe in homeopathic treatment -- such a person is known as a homeopath. you know, like a psychopath or sociopath. except this one attacks with ignorance, neglect, placebos, and good intentions.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:I propose... by rtb61 · 2012-09-06 11:55 · Score: 1

You wouldn't all be so desperate to defend it if you all didn't see the inherent inhumanity in it, just saying. Get over it all ready.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:I propose... by lsatenstein · 2012-09-06 13:39 · Score: 1

The NHS should begin a program of providing him with a homeopathic salary. The less they pay him, the more motivated he will become!
If they say homeopathic medicine works, then don't dismiss it as quackery. The native Indians of many countries use homeopathic medicine, as well as many many other peoples from Africa to South America.
It does not mean a homeopathic prescription works for everything, but in some cases it does work. Perhaps it is a placebo, perhaps it works because of knowledge handed down generation to generation.
We know chocolate helps combat cancer . If it is recommended to consume two teaspoons of chocolate per day, would you agree that it is homeopathic prescription? If aspertime sugar substitute causes brain lesions and there are organic sweeteners that have no such effect, and if the organic ones are prescribed by the homeopathic community, is that hogwash?
Many many prescribed drugs are placebos, or do harm via side effects, while others are life savers. Look up via your search engine for the Green Tea topic. It is a homeopathic remedy.
I am a skeptic, but I do know that some of their medications do work, and the medication works with minimal side effects.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:I propose... by fm6 · 2012-09-06 14:37 · Score: 1

Who's desperate? Not the people who base their decisions on evidence and logic, Now, the guy who resorts to name calling and insults when he runs out of weird illogical arguments, that is desperate.
Re:I propose... by shaitand · 2012-09-06 15:08 · Score: 1

Placebos impact objective symptoms as well such as blood pressure.
At the end of the day if you take a pill and you stop hurting or have lower blood pressure as a consequence does it matter what it did? You are paying for the result, not the chemical interaction that is supposed to bring it about.
Placebo can impact anything the brain can impact, that means anything affected by heart rate, blood pressure, the immune system, literally every interaction related to the nervous system (which is all actually part of the brain), and anything related to or affected by hormone and/or protein production. That covers pretty much everything that goes wrong with your health other than trauma or infection and includes the rate of recovery from those.
Re:I propose... by shaitand · 2012-09-06 15:44 · Score: 1

Of course pain is psychological, the entire nervous system is actually composed of neurons, aka braincells. The nerves next to an injury are just brain tendrils. Placebo works by convincing your consciousness to filter out those signals where codeine produces a chemical reaction that impairs your ability to process those signals. EITHER reduces pain. At the end of the day psychological effects translate to electrical and chemical effects in the body, any competent psychiatrist will tell you as much.
Placebo is software where codeine is hardware. Unfortunately, the problem comes from trying to treat hardware solutions to health problems as real and dismiss software ones as not real or lesser. The entire system of western medicine works from the assumption that you have to force the body to do what you want and anything that coaxes your body to heal itself is nothing more than a scam. The problem with that is something like forces your body instead of coaxing it, for example codeine, your body will see as interference and work around.
Don't believe me? Take that codeine awhile and you'll find you have to take more of it as your body resists its interference. At the same time it releases pleasure endorphins so other parts of your brain will want it. Soon your body will start generating very real pain sensations to get you to take that codeine because your brain is a pattern recognition engine and the nerves are part of your brain. Those neurons fired pain signals before and that resulted in other neurons receiving reward signals (because you took opiates). Most of the pain habitual opiate users are curing with the opiates is actually being generated by your body for the sole purpose of getting you to take more opiates. You tell yourself the pain is proof you need the meds but its actually proof you want the meds not that you need them.
The most honest look at this type of thing isn't in human medicine or even veterinary medicine but rather animal training. Stop trying to manipulate your body with drugs and manipulate it (including your thought process) via a reward pathway the same way you would a pet. My recommendation would be chocolate. Sugar is the most habit forming substance known to man. You are already addicted to it and it is tied so strongly to your chemical makeup it is highly doubtful you'd ever form anything like a tolerance to it. Not a lot of chocolate, a single chocolate chip is good. For instance if you hate studying eat a chocolate chip every time you study. You don't need to give it any thought, effort or affirmation. Just eat a chip every time you sit to study. Your negativity toward studying won't go away immediately but it will be reduced over time and may even turn into an actual enjoyment of learning.
Re:I propose... by shaitand · 2012-09-06 15:59 · Score: 1

"how are you going to discriminate the placebo effect from the real effect?"
This is a problem with your logic. You start from the assumption that placebo is illegitimate or lesser than something that works via other mechanisms. At the end of the day all psychological effects correspond to electrical and chemical changes in the brain which in turn can result in changes in most body systems. Why are those objective physical results less valid than those cause by other mechanisms? If I take a pill that directly reacts and chemically converts to serotonin and another person is told they are taking a drug that causes euphoria and takes placebo resulting in their body producing serotonin why is one considered legitimate and the other less so when both have the same result? The problem with the pill that causes a direct chemical action is that the body tends to detect this sort of manipulation and develops tolerance to it.
Re:I propose... by CapuchinSeven · 2012-09-06 22:59 · Score: 1

I assumed the sarcasm would carry over into my typing by typing the same random XXXX antibiotic's but it clearly didn't, no half of the world wouldn't die.
Re:I propose... by markkezner · 2012-09-07 07:40 · Score: 1

I'm going to assume you're not trolling, and you truly believe your compassion based argument against double-blind trials. I'll start out by saying that I'm sorry that my offer of a differing viewpoint seems to have been taken by you as an attack on your values and beliefs. It is not meant to be an attack, and I'm sorry to have provoked an emotional reaction in you.
I don't know how or why you came to have a strong belief against double-blind trials, but I suggest that it does not hurt to consider an alternate viewpoint, even if you are not convinced by it. This is why I suggested you look at Goldacre's book.
Anyway, it's my view that double-blind trials make the world a better and more humane place. My reasoning is that they provide us with more reliable information about the effectiveness of treatment. They fight against data distortions from the placebo effect by "blinding" the patient. They also fight against confirmation bias, sample population manipulation, cherry-picking, and other distortions by blinding the researcher to which treatment each patient is receiving. It's a two-fold data protection system.
The result is that we have more effective medical treatments through better medical data. Although perhaps a few hundred people receive the placebo treatment, millions more will benefit because we would have a better idea of which treatments are more effective. This gives doctors a more accurate view of the world, which undoubtedly helps when treating patients. This is why I see double-blind trials as having a greater benefit to the world than any negative effect that placebo treatment may have.
The patients receiving placebo knew that they may or may not receive a placebo treatment. They also knew that the actual non-placebo medicine may or may not be effective, and could even be harmful. They freely decided to be a part of the study anyway, and sometimes get paid to do so. Besides, even if they do unknowingly receive placebo, their health tends to improve anyway because they believe the placebo treatment will work.
Okay, your turn. I look forward to your response.

--
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
Re:I propose... by nobodie · 2012-09-07 11:35 · Score: 1

Yes Homeopathy, as defined by the practice of dilutions etc. is crap. But in much of Europe, Homeopathy has gotten itself entangled with Naturopathy, which uses traditional folk remedies (mostly herbal) to treat non-life threatening chronic problems, sometimes with success, often with slow recoveries, but seldom with damage to other organs (oh yes I know big Pharm has tried to make a play against the simple herbalist medications, but the truth is that the big pharm prescriptions are prescriptions because they are dangerous).
Disclaimer: my wife is a doctor of traditional Chinese medicine, with a great deal of skill, practice and success with chronic disorders by using acupuncture, Chinese herbal teas and pills and massage based in acupressure. Plus a number of other treatment options that you have probably never heard of but which can help in specific types of illness.
With that disclaimer finished, when you are dying of something that is moving fast to kill you, you really ought to use western medicine, yes it is harsh and strong and ....dangerous. But it can get you through some really bad spots where you might die or have life changing organic problems otherwise. For example, A little over 2 years ago I had a nasty problem that she was trying to treat, but it was just moving too fast for her, she said "screw it, lets go to the clinic. They pumped me full of intrvenous antibiotics for a few days and I came right out of it. Then she went back to work on me to aid my recovery and most people at work didn't even know that I was so sick that I was hearing audio-hallucinations.
The Chinese recognize that the two systems can work together, which is a good approach. They have 4 thousand years of experimental data and practice for their system, so there is something to it.
But homeopathy, in the pure sense has never had any experimental proof behind it and acts as a easy target if someone wants to disparage any non-conventional practice. That is why, for me, it needs to be put to a quick death.

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
Re:I propose... by slowLearner · 2012-09-09 14:25 · Score: 1

Roughly only 30% of the population seems susceptible to placebo effects, and it is not possible to determine ahead of time whether a placebo will work or not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)
So if you want drugs that work only 30% of the time then go buy some herbal water, if you want something that works more often then go to the pharmacist and buy something that has passed a double blind test, which should work with considerably more reliability than 30%.

FYI I really do not think that the placebo effect is not real, I don't have an explanation for it but it is definitely real.

The problem with the pill that causes a direct chemical action is that the body tends to detect this sort of manipulation and develops tolerance to it.
That seems like broad brush, non-verifiable claptrap that one gets from Naturopathy

It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

He could believe in god!

Re:It could be worse by MachDelta · 2012-09-05 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Flamebait? Really? So it's ok to snicker at medicines and treatments which have no body of evidence to stand on and are rooted solely in mysticism and belief, but it's not ok to shine the same light on religion?
I expected better of you, /.
Re:It could be worse by Physicser · 2012-09-05 10:58 · Score: 2

However:
1.) Medicine = Science
2.) Religion != Science
Unfortunately, point 2 is often neglected by most people, on both sides of any religion debate. Even sadder, far too many people actually believe that Science and Religion are the same, or deal with the same things.
Re:It could be worse by MachDelta · 2012-09-05 11:30 · Score: 1

I'd be interested in hearing a working definition of religion that doesn't tread on territory already covered by a science or humanity, and that isn't entirely circular in nature.
Re:It could be worse by lgw · 2012-09-05 12:23 · Score: 2

Religion: the study of the God that created the universe.
Science: the study of the univese that God created.
OK, that fits better with Deism than modern Christianity, but there you go. I'm sure there have been 100s of religions that would eb OK with that definition.
Also, for many:
Religion: the study of the good.
I dont myself think ethics and religion are tightly coupled, but they are for many people. As far a "circular": every logical system includes a set of axioms. That only becomes circular if you try to use that system to argue that the axioms are correct. (After all, the concept of "correct" doesn't really apply to axioms, they're true by definion. Whether a system with those axioms is useful in some way in the real world is an unrelated question.)

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:It could be worse by inasity_rules · 2012-09-05 18:00 · Score: 1

All definitions are ultimately circular in nature or depend on things that are. Do you have a definition of science(not the process of science, but the philosophy behind it) that is not circular in nature? If so, I'd be interested in hearing it. Being circular doesn't disprove the conclusion. It merely fails to prove the conclusion, which is a different thing entirely. We can only prove things within our frameworks. We can not prove the frameworks themselves. But we can, on balance of probability come to some working conclusions. The fact that others conclude differently only proves they work within a different framework. GP is incorrect. Science and religion do intersect, and in places even conflict. But it is a problem. Of philosophy, not evidence.

--
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Re:It could be worse by inasity_rules · 2012-09-05 18:11 · Score: 1

I'd be interested in hearing a definition of science (the philosophy behind it, not the process), that is not circular and does not tread on territory covered by religion. After all, the process of religion is easily defined. As is the process of science. The processes of the two do not really conflict or cover the same ground. The philosophies do. And philosophy, for the most part, is not provable except within its own framework, and therefore both processes serve to "prove" their underlying philosophies in a circular manner.

--
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.

Hold still by puddingebola · 2012-09-05 09:19 · Score: 3, Funny

Hold still, I have to place the leech in just the right spot to suck the evil spirit out.

Re:Hold still by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

At least leeches actually *do* have genuine and well-demonstrated medical applications.
Homeopathy doesn't.
Re:Hold still by DanTheStone · 2012-09-05 09:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Hold still by lazybeam · 2012-09-05 09:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mummy's kisses fixes my toddler's owies. All better!

--
-- no sig for you. come back one year.
Re:Hold still by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:42 · Score: 1

Yeah I have no problem with real doctors referring people to homeopaths if a placebo is indicated. Any drugs prescribed should be generic though.
Re:Hold still by Twinbee · 2012-09-05 09:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:Hold still by Inda · 2012-09-05 10:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

It treats earache too.

My daughter, as a toddler, had one earache after another. Every time the doctor examined her ears, there was nothing wrong. Eventually he prescribed homoeopathic pills, on the NHS, it's not a new thing here. The pills looked and tasted like mints. The earaches stopped.

I'm no fan of magic and witchcraft. I know it was something other than earache but those pills worked.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:Hold still by Darinbob · 2012-09-05 10:09 · Score: 1

Unless of course the NHS is paying for the homeopathic treatment, in which case the placebo will save taxpayer money.
Re:Hold still by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 10:18 · Score: 1

Copper bracelets and magnets have the same effect. Just change where you put them and how long depending on the ailment.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Hold still by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 10:20 · Score: 1

In the US we have "Cebocap", available by prescription in three "strengths", to treat hypochondriacs.
Re:Hold still by F.Ultra · 2012-09-05 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...
Re:Hold still by geekoid · 2012-09-05 11:48 · Score: 1

Once AGAIN:
Placebos have zero influence in Treating ANY problems.
They just decrease the perception of pain or other subjective symptoms for a short period of time.
homeopathy doesn't treat anything.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Hold still by geekoid · 2012-09-05 11:51 · Score: 1

How is more people waiting longer to get actual treatment save tax payer money in any way what so ever?
When a subjective placebo where off, the underlying problems is still there, and often worse.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Hold still by geekoid · 2012-09-05 11:52 · Score: 2

Or maybe the parents assumed it worked and quit applying there bias to the toddler.
And by maybe, I mean definitively.
.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Hold still by BluBrick · 2012-09-05 12:19 · Score: 1

Is the active ingredient by any chance Oxygen Dihydride? That stuff can sometimes counteract the harmful effects of DHMO,

--
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Re:Hold still by lgw · 2012-09-05 12:27 · Score: 1

Unless the only physical problem is the symptom, in which case placebos may be all that's needed. If there's a psychological problem causing the symptoms, and the patient is hostile to psychological treatment, at least the placebos help the symptoms.
Are are you merely arguing that incompetent doctors are a bad thing?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Hold still by LordLucless · 2012-09-05 12:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Homeopathy doesn't.
It's a perfectly valid treatment for dehydration :P

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Hold still by queazocotal · 2012-09-05 14:16 · Score: 1

This would be true, if the brain has no influence over the body.
The experience of pain causes the release of many chemicals from the brain, and this causes widespread systematic effects.
Controlling the experience of pain - through whatever means - reduces this effect.
Plus - behavioural effects - if moving will help an injury, but it's painful, then reducing perceived pain causes actual healing.
Re:Hold still by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-09-05 14:47 · Score: 1

Reducing the perception of pain often allows for the body to heal in cases where the reaction of the person to the ongoing pain continued to aggravate the original injury.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Hold still by amRadioHed · 2012-09-05 17:42 · Score: 1

Placebo's are different though, the people selling them don't pretend they're more then they are and so they are priced accordingly. I wouldn't want any of my insurance money going to charlatans peddling snake oil.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Hold still by DigiShaman · 2012-09-05 18:05 · Score: 2

Interesting. My friends daughter was having a similar issue with ear aches as well. Giving her some gum cleared the issue up in a matter of minutes. If I had to guess, barometric pressure was causing her pain and chewing gum caused her ears to "pop" and equalize. Essentially the same symptoms you get in a plane but on the ground instead as the ears are more sensitive.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Hold still by Robert+Zenz · 2012-09-05 18:54 · Score: 1

Remembers me of the study which shows that red pills work better then blue ones (both placebo of course).
Re:Hold still by Tom · 2012-09-05 18:54 · Score: 1

I assume that Homeopathy would have the same influence as any other placebo in treating those problems.
Which means that it does not work, because the medical definition of "work" for a drug is that it performs better than a placebo by a statistically significant margin.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Hold still by Tom · 2012-09-05 18:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
Re:Hold still by radio4fan · 2012-09-05 20:17 · Score: 1

My daughter, as a toddler, had one earache after another. Every time the doctor examined her ears, there was nothing wrong. Eventually he prescribed homoeopathic pills, on the NHS, it's not a new thing here. The pills looked and tasted like mints. The earaches stopped.
I don't doubt it.
I suggest that what happened was this:
Having found nothing wrong in your daughter's ears, the doctor ran out of ideas and/or patience, so prescribed a placebo in the form of homeopathy.
Your daughter's earaches then stopped due to the body healing itself, or due to the trigger for the pain passing. For example, tooth pain often presents as earache (it's called 'referred pain', in this case 'referred otalgia'), toddlers have emerging teeth, particular teeth finish emerging, otalgia goes away. The doctor could examine your daughter's ears as much as he likes: if the pain was referred, he would see "nothing wrong", as the problem is not in fact in the ears.
Result: homeopathy appears to work, but in fact doesn't.
Far more likely than magic being real, IMO.
Re:Hold still by aug24 · 2012-09-05 20:20 · Score: 1

Firstly, those almost certainly weren't homeopathic, just placebo. Mint pills are cheap; homeopathic 'medicine' isn't.
Secondly, (IIRC according to Dr Phil Hammond, on HIGNFY some years ago), new rules prevent GPs from dispensing mint pills and liquids as placebos, which is a terrible shame.
Just.

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Re:Hold still by Dan+Dankleton · 2012-09-05 20:41 · Score: 1

It's more complicated than that. Red pills work better than blue pills for treating some symptoms, blue better than red for treating others.
Re:Hold still by heathen_01 · 2012-09-05 23:17 · Score: 1

If the patient dies from the lack of treatment then the NHS will have saved money.
Re:Hold still by mattpalmer1086 · 2012-09-05 23:18 · Score: 1

It is my understanding that this is still unproven. While they certainly seem to be most effective in treating perceived symtoms or pain, I believe that it is still an open question as to whether they might have any other clinically useful effects.
Can you provide some references to back up your strongly made assertion that they have no other clinical effects?
Re:Hold still by Kavafy · 2012-09-05 23:26 · Score: 1

Why is this comment modded "funny"? It's a very serious point and a good reductio ad absurdum of the position that we should all pay for homeopathy because it's effective as a placebo.
Re:Hold still by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:43 · Score: 2

Absolutely! It's surprising how well kisses work against pain in toddlers. My son is now in the phase where he has to have a bandaid, even if there's no blood. He wants a bandaid when he has a headache, and it works.
Re:Hold still by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:47 · Score: 1

You really need to read up on the placebo effect. It's a very real thing, and can do a lot more than just alleviate pain.
Re:Hold still by WolfWithoutAClause · 2012-09-06 03:59 · Score: 1

I once had a really sore throat, it hung around for a few weeks. Seemed to be some kind of yeasty type thing.
It disappeared when I had a pack of sugarfree gum, peppermint has antibacterial properties, and the xylitol tends to help bacteria wash away.
It felt about 50% better immediately, and 80% better in 24 hours, and was gone in a couple of days.
But i tried it again with similar symptoms a few months later and nothing happened.
I suspect it did do something the first time, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was just coincidence or placebo.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Hold still by O'Nazareth · 2012-09-06 20:28 · Score: 1

Maybe you do not understand what placebo effect is.
Re:Hold still by O'Nazareth · 2012-09-06 20:32 · Score: 1

My grandma believed in anecdotal evidence and she lived to be 102.

Don't worry, Murdoch will tell him what to do by jo_ham · 2012-09-05 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:So NOT really a Harry Potter... by Jonah+Hex · 2012-09-05 09:19 · Score: 1

And using the same word both at the beginning and end of a sentence definitely qualifies for a stupid human trick! - HEX

--
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes

Re:Laughing stock by chilvence · 2012-09-05 09:20 · Score: 2

Please laugh harder sir, it may be our only chance! :'(

What a sham by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:22 · Score: 5, Informative

There is zero scientific evidence homeopathy works. Absolutely none.

I can only assume this guy is either a moron who believes in homeopathy, or, more likely, he is receiving bribes from companies that make homeopathic products. If the NHS were to pay for homeopathic medicine there would be a huge amount of profit to be made.

What he is doing is a disservice to all the UK citizens who will need real medical care in their lives and may be misdirected to rely on homeopathy, which cannot ever heal or cure them in any way.

It's like having government-funded exorcisms or voodoo rituals to cleanse the bad mojo out of a person. Sounds crazy, right?

Re:What a sham by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-09-05 09:55 · Score: 2

It's like having government-funded exorcisms or voodoo rituals to cleanse the bad mojo out of a person.
Man, I could have used that for some people I've worked with! The only thing was that I was waiting for the government to pay for it...

--
That is all.
Re:What a sham by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-09-05 10:04 · Score: 2

In the US, they just use a handgun. Don't be a pussy.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:What a sham by coastwalker · 2012-09-05 10:06 · Score: 1

I live in the UK and if this is true I will be campaigning for Hunt to be destroyed.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re:What a sham by joebok · 2012-09-05 10:07 · Score: 2

Homeopathy DOES work - the placebo effect is well documented!
Re:What a sham by Rhywden · 2012-09-05 10:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:What a sham by iiii · 2012-09-05 10:20 · Score: 5, Funny

There is zero scientific evidence homeopathy works. Absolutely none.
Wrong. Your problem is in your definition of "works". Works mean achieves some goal you were trying to reach, and perhaps the goal you are thinking of is not the one NHS is trying to reach. Their job is not to cure everyone of everything. Their job is to *control expenses* while *minimizing complaints*. And it is very likely that providing homeopathy will help achieve those goals. Therefore it "works". Remember, even the homeopathy supporters admit that often treatments do not contain even a single molecule of the diluted substance. (cite ) I cannot think of a more cost effective treatment than water, maybe with a bit of food coloring. Even a small reduction in whining would make it cost effective. From an institutional health perspective it's pure genius!!

--
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 10:23 · Score: 2, Informative

There is zero scientific evidence homeopathy works. Absolutely none.
There is plenty. Control groups improve better than untreated. Why? Placebo effect. Homeopathy is professional placebos. They do work. Proven to work. Maybe not any better than a placebo, but if you walked out of your doctor's office with a prescription for "sugar pill placebo - generic" that wouldn't work as well.

Again, there is scientific proof that placebos work, and homeopathy, if medically ineffective, is still an effective treatment scientifically proven to work

Well, that and "homeopathy" doesn't mean what it once did. Just like chiropractors (mostly) don't believe that spinal adjustments will cure cancer. Homeopathy now means "natural treatment", not the original definition.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by Archangel+Michael · 2012-09-05 10:46 · Score: 1

It's like having government-funded exorcisms or voodoo rituals to cleanse the bad mojo out of a person. Sounds crazy, right?
Sounds like modern Psychology.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:What a sham by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 11:00 · Score: 1

There is plenty.
lolwut?
Control groups improve better than untreated. Why? Placebo effect.
That's not homeopathy working, that's the placebo effect working.
Again, homeopathy does not work. It is no better than a placebo.
Maybe not any better than a placebo,
No better than a placebo.
Again, there is scientific proof that placebos work, and homeopathy, if medically ineffective, is still an effective treatment scientifically proven to work
So, why not just give everyone sugar pills or saline injections instead of the real thing?

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:What a sham by Hatta · 2012-09-05 11:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's a poor substitute for educating people about magical thinking.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:What a sham by mellyra · 2012-09-05 11:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
The placebo needs to be credible in order to work - if the patient can easily distinguish it from "real" medicine (by name or by price) it won't work as well,
There are a lot of real and imaginary diseases where a placebo is really all the patient needs - while use of homeopathy to "treat" severe diseases should of course be prohibited indiscriminately destroying its public credibility does probably a lot more damage than good.
If there is one thing that "school medicine" has learned from all the "alternative" medicine concepts then that "There is nothing wrong with you, go home and stop clogging up my practics hours" is never the right answer. People want their imaginary diseases to be taken 100% seriously and prescribing something homeopathic (which is basically guaranteed to have no side effects) is a lot better than prescribing some unwarranted "real" medicine or losing them to esoteric healing (once you lost them they won't come back when they are seriously ill and will instead try to treat their cancer with herb teas).
Re:What a sham by xaxa · 2012-09-05 11:33 · Score: 1

Here are the guidelines for asking for a second opinion on the NHS: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/910.aspx
Frankly, I doubt the government minister will have much effect regarding homoeopathy.
One counterargument: your profit-driven doctors and hospitals might give you unnecessary tests and treatment to increase their profits. (This is what happened when my 10-year-old brother was ill while on holiday in the US. The doctors saw the comprehensive worldwide travel insurance, and $ signs flashed in their eyes.)
Re:What a sham by wild_quinine · 2012-09-05 11:37 · Score: 2

Placebos don't work when you've got a real disease.
Evidence, please? Or is that just an assumption you made because the conclusion seems obvious?
That would be ironic coming from someone who is clearly championing empiricism.
Re:What a sham by wild_quinine · 2012-09-05 11:45 · Score: 1

That's not homeopathy working, that's the placebo effect working. Again, homeopathy does not work. It is no better than a placebo.
I think you're missing the point. A placebo has to be administered. Homeopathy, for the context of this argument, could be seen as a method of administration. As such, it probably is more effective than some other placebos, such as those which the patient knows to be placebos, or those which the patient is more skeptical of. (Although it's not 'some effect vs. no effect'; studies have also shown, IIRC, that there is *some* placebo effect even where the patient knows they are taking a placebo). But at any rate, if some kook is demanding homeopathic remedies, giving them to that person is likely to be more effective than any other placebo.
Whether using this particular (or any other) placebo is ethical and whether the benefits outweigh the costs of, effectively, keeping people ignorant is a different conversation, where we probably have more in common. But let's not rail against the facts simply because we don't like those fucking charlatan liars, the actual homeopaths.
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 11:57 · Score: 1

No, they do. I'm not saying that a placebo will cure decapitation. I'm saying that a positive outlook (often via hope, administered via homeopathic-derived placebo) will improve recovery chance from a large number of actual ailments. That's been tested many times in many ways, and why "control" groups are required in studies, the belief one is being tested has an effect on the outcome. Consider it the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of medicine.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by subreality · 2012-09-05 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

In a medical context, "Working" means performing better than a placebo. By this definition, homeopathy DOES NOT work.
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 11:58 · Score: 1

Again, homeopathy does not work. It is no better than a placebo.
And placebos have been proven effective. Unless you are asserting that there is no placebo effect, you just agreed with me, in a most disagreeable manner.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by geekoid · 2012-09-05 11:59 · Score: 1

No, the patient does not need a placebo. The patient needs to talk to a psychiatrist. There is a mental issue going on and the patient should have it resolved instead of faking a treatment until it impacts their life in worse ways.
". People want their imaginary diseases to be taken 100% seriously and prescribing something homeopathic "
NO. They have a problem, they need REAL treatment.
Sometimes 'imaginary' can bu non specific symptoms, it can be bad symptom definition. it can be an indicator of mental issues.
"once you lost them they won't come back when they are seriously ill and will instead try to treat their cancer with herb teas"
which will happen when they find out the Dr. lied to them.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What a sham by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:00 · Score: 1

" I have dozens of other hospitals to choose from"
Do you? You would be a rare exception. Most people only get to choose what their Insurance will cover.
With a single payer system, YOU have MORE transparency, and MORE say about this kind of none sense.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What a sham by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:03 · Score: 1

"And it is very likely that providing homeopathy will help achieve those goals. "
nice of you to pull that out of your ass.
It's not true. Long term it costs more because the treatment will get more expensive as the problem gets worse. Eventually, they end up in ER costing 10s of thousands of dollars for something that would of cost 100 bucks at the beginning.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What a sham by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:07 · Score: 2, Informative

" They do work. "
Wrong.
"Proven to work."
False.
" Maybe not any better than a placebo, "
Do you even know What The FUCK the placebo effect is? No, you don't.
" there is scientific proof that placebos work,
no, no, NO. shut the fuck up you ignorant SOB.
By DEFINITION, they have no effect on the disease. Was that sentence to hard for your tiny stupid egocentric brain?
" chiropractors (mostly) don't believe that spinal adjustments will cure cancer"
70 percent do. 90 percent believe in a 'magical' method of some sort.
"Homeopathy now means "natural treatment", "
no it doesn't.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What a sham by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:08 · Score: 1

Modern Psychology works. So, no not at all.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What a sham by iiii · 2012-09-05 12:27 · Score: 1

Well if the ER just gives the patient more homeopathic treatment it will save those 10s of thousands of pounds. Mission accomplished.
BTW, reading your .sig, I should have sprinkled my post liberally with ~s.
To some extent I am just being a smart-ass agitator. But the serious point within the snarking is that large health care institutions like NHS or Medicare don't care if you are healthy. They just want you to live and die while pulling as few dollars as possible from the pool, and without making a fuss that will cause them trouble. No one judges the administrators of these programs by how healthy the people in their program are.

--
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
Re:What a sham by LurkerXXX · 2012-09-05 12:32 · Score: 1

prescribing something homeopathic (which is basically guaranteed to have no side effects)
Tell that to people who've had their skin turn blue/gray due to homeopathic colloidal silver treatment...
Dumb people playing with dumb stuff often ends badly.
Re:What a sham by lgw · 2012-09-05 12:34 · Score: 1

You seem to believe there aren't any hypochondriacs. You seem to believe that people who are hostile to psychiatriy deserve no treatment for their physical symptoms. You seem to believe otherwise-competent doctors will somehow do the now somehow begin harming their patients by incorrectly proscribing placebos in ways that they never did before.
These are very strange beliefs.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:What a sham by lgw · 2012-09-05 12:36 · Score: 1

Only if the doctor was wrong when he procribed placebos. Here's a thought: it's far worse when a doctor incorrectly procribes non-placebos!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:What a sham by aXis100 · 2012-09-05 12:58 · Score: 2

Then give people a script for sugar pills with a funky medical-sounding fake name in a regular pill bottle. And when people cotton on to it change the name to something else.
It's far cheaper and more ethical than propping up an industry that relies on bogus science and fleeces sick people without providing a cure.
The sooner homeopathy is terminated the better.
Re:What a sham by bmo · 2012-09-05 13:14 · Score: 1

Giving someone a placebo when they suffer from an organic disease (as opposed to psychosomatic) borders on pure evil.
No, wait, I take that back. It is pure evil.
--
BMO
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 14:05 · Score: 1

But they work. They help cure everything from acne (bacterially caused) to improving cancer remission rates.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 14:12 · Score: 1

Do you even know What The FUCK the placebo effect is? No, you don't.
I've noticed that those with the weakest personal opinions formed with no facts involved are the most likely to get aggressive when faced with a conflicting opinion. The placebo effect is the term describing the better outcome from someone who receives treatment for the problem, even if the treatment is false (sugar pill). But it does result in actual benefit. So if homeopathy is nothing but an overpriced placebo, it's still helping people.

Do you know what the placebo effect is?

A placebo has been defined as "a substance or procedure that is objectively without specific activity for the condition being treated".

If you disagree with homeopathy being a placebo, you are arguing that it does affect the condition being treated. Or, you are arguing that the placebo effect doesn't exist. Which is it?

70 percent do. 90 percent believe in a 'magical' method of some sort.
Did you make that up?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-09-05 14:54 · Score: 1

Except that homeopathic treatments have a large amount of anecdotal evidence talking about how well they work (most of it complete BS, but out there for people to find nevertheless). When a patient goes on line to find out more about the medical sounding name you are giving to sugar-pills this week, the only documentation they are likely to find is someone commenting a week ago that that is the medical sounding name they should give sugar pills next week.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:What a sham by lee1026 · 2012-09-05 15:06 · Score: 1

The placebo is a very documented and very powerful effect. As homeopathy is simply water, it is also a very safe placebo with no side effect.
As far as bad cures go, there are probably much worse.
Re:What a sham by istartedi · 2012-09-05 15:21 · Score: 1

prescribing something homeopathic (which is basically guaranteed to have no side effects)

Tell that to people who've had their skin turn blue/gray due to homeopathic colloidal silver treatment...

If it did that, I seriously doubt it was homeopathic. In the unlikely event that it was, write it up and submit a paper.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:What a sham by simplexion · 2012-09-05 15:50 · Score: 1

Lots of Chiropractors still claim to be able to cure all sorts of ailments. Very few only make claims in regards to backs.
Re:What a sham by dissy · 2012-09-05 15:53 · Score: 1

There is plenty. Control groups improve better than untreated. Why? Placebo effect. Homeopathy is professional placebos. They do work. Proven to work. Maybe not any better than a placebo,

Except this man is claiming they work as things such as vaccines for polio
Re:What a sham by bmo · 2012-09-05 17:50 · Score: 1

>They help cure everything from acne (bacterially caused) to improving cancer remission rates.
Double blind study or GTFO.
--
BMO
Re:What a sham by richlv · 2012-09-05 17:55 · Score: 1

really, proven to work ? as in, better than a placebo ? as noted above, working would actually be showing statistically better results than placebo (http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3096947&cid=41241511). anything else is a scam.

--
Rich
Re:What a sham by Tom · 2012-09-05 18:47 · Score: 1

There is plenty. Control groups improve better than untreated. Why? Placebo effect.
That is what is meant by "does not work" in the context of medicine, but of course you know what. There are two tests that a new drug needs to succeed in. One: It must work better than a placebo. If it passes that test, then it can be said to actually have an effect. Two: It must either work better than or as good as but with fewer side-effects compared to the best currently available drug. Because, after all, if you already have a drug with a, say, 80% effectiveness available, why the heck would you pay for a new drug with a 60% effectiveness?

Homeopathy now means "natural treatment", not the original definition.
No, it doesn't. It still means, in the words of Tim Minchin, "water that somehow remembers a long-lost drop of onion juice, but forgets about all the poo it's had in it".
Its proponents just dodge questions here and there because the non-stupid ones all know that it's a scam. So together with a bunch of other scam it's been re-labeled as "CAM" or "natural remedies" or some such nonsense grouping. It's pure defense - any argument you bring against something in the group can be refuted by a different example from the group. So if you say CAM has no medinical effect, the homeopath will quote some natural medicine that does (but it is expensive and unreliable). If you point out the side-effects, he will say that homeopathy has been proven to be side-effect free (effect-free, too, but he won't say that), and so on. It's a set-up, a whack-a-mole invitation. Don't fall for it. CAM is scam, all of it. Again, in the words of Tim Minchin: "Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? ... Medicine."
Homeopathy does not work, by the standard definition of "work" used by the health professions.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:What a sham by Tom · 2012-09-05 18:51 · Score: 1

Actually, it isn't even genius as a scam.
Ignoring the ethical arguments, there has been fascinating research into placebos recently published. We are starting to learn that different kinds of placebos have different effects. Colours, size, type, etc. all seem to have statistically significant effects. Homeopathy exploits nothing of that.
More importantly, homeopathy is expensive as hell. The cost to the NHS is unjustified. Again, putting ethical arguments aside, if they wanted to use placebos to achieve goals, they could do so at a tiny fraction of the cost of homeopathic nonsense pseudo-drugs.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 19:33 · Score: 1

How do you double-blind a placebo test? A placebo placebo? And you insult other's intellect...

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by Some+Bitch · 2012-09-05 19:42 · Score: 1

prescribing something homeopathic (which is basically guaranteed to have no side effects)
Tell that to people who've had their skin turn blue/gray due to homeopathic colloidal silver treatment...
Dumb people playing with dumb stuff often ends badly.
Colloidal silver treatment is not homeopathy, it's not even vaguely like homeopathy. Both are snake oil, but they're very different brands of it.
Re:What a sham by sumdumass · 2012-09-05 20:58 · Score: 1

People often confuse alternative and natural "cures" with homeopathy. You are probably correct in that it wasn't homeopathic.
Re:What a sham by sumdumass · 2012-09-05 21:13 · Score: 1

I doubt $ signs flashed anywhere. In the US, doctors are often scared of liability lawsuits for malpractice if they do not catch something. A foreigner in the office on vacation (anyone on vacation actually) pretty much assures the patient will see another doctor for the same reason and if he missed something, it would be pointed out instead of some BS story about how a symptom is new so we now are considering this too.
The problem is that too many things appear the same without further testing to rule them out or confirm them. If your brother was a regular patient of his and had not been in a different area recently, the doc would have likely been comfortable taking a best guess considering the medical history and the local environment. I ran into this problem a few years ago with a family doctor after visiting Mexico and Canada. I got worried then was told it was just because I was in another country for a while close to when we went in.
Re:What a sham by wild_quinine · 2012-09-05 23:12 · Score: 2

Go wave your dead chicken elsewhere, shaman.
Show me that placebos cure actual illness.
-- BMO
I don't need to show you anything. You are the one who made a positive statement. You said "Placebos don't work when you've got a real disease".
I didn't even disagree with the statement. I simply asked you if you had evidence, or if you were forming a conclusion based on what you expect to be the case.
That's ironic for at least two reasons, and this irony is only further compounded by your calling me a 'shaman' for asking for evidence of your positive statement.
Re:What a sham by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-05 23:53 · Score: 1

That's why there should be a real doctor in the loop.
Homeopathic medicine can help in many cases (alleviating the symptoms of the common cold, phantom pains, headaches, allergies, shivers and many more). The real doctor should separate the patients who need real medicine from those who would do better with a placebo. The next step is to include the placebos in the insurance, so the patient doesn't get to see the price. Then you can easily give them cheap sugar or something like that (be careful with diabetics though) and the patient will think he got a real medicine. The patient will (usually) recover and continue to trust the real doctors. The cost to the insurance company will be minimized (the doctors visit is a sunk cost and the pills are cheap).
What the doctors should not do is to send the patient to a homeopathic "doctor". I'd hazard a guess that this would cause some of the patient to start going directly to the homeopathic "doctor". If the patient then develops something curable by real medicine he (she) will not go to the real doctor an thus will not receive the real medicine. Add to that the fact that the cost of the "official" homeopathic medicine is far higher.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:What a sham by shilly · 2012-09-05 23:55 · Score: 1

Um. About your sig.
The phrase is "to all intents and purposes". And "who cares" would never have been "whom cares" in the first place.
Sheesh.
Re:What a sham by alexgieg · 2012-09-06 00:02 · Score: 1

In a medical context, "Working" means performing better than a placebo. By this definition, homeopathy DOES NOT work.
However, for those for whom it "worked", it performed 100% well.
A lot of the time, maybe most of it, medicine practice is anecdotal. Taken on aggregate (i.e., not at the individual practice level, but at the statistic research level), sure, decisive patterns arise. When you climb down to each individual case though, it all comes back, hard, to the purely anecdotal. So, if the medic's guts, when he looks the patient in the eyes, makes him think "eh, maybe for this one homeopathy will do", and it actually does, in the very narrow sense of "I'm feeling much better now doc, thanks!" , what blame is to be found in it?

--
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Re:What a sham by dkf · 2012-09-06 00:32 · Score: 1

I can only assume this guy is either a moron who believes in homeopathy, or, more likely, he is receiving bribes from companies that make homeopathic products.
Living in the UK and bearing in mind his previously-demonstrated talents at the Department of Culture, I'm going with the moron theory. After all, I'm a believer in evidence-based politics...

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:What a sham by bmo · 2012-09-06 00:57 · Score: 1

Oh, i see, there's no proof. "Trust me" is all you have.
--
BMO
Re:What a sham by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:52 · Score: 1

No, the patient does not need a placebo. The patient needs to talk to a psychiatrist.
That is far more expensive than a placebo. When a placebo is probably enough, try that first.
Now I suddenly wonder to what extent the effect of psychiatry has really been proven. Have there been any real experiments?
Re:What a sham by mcvos · 2012-09-06 03:57 · Score: 1

Do you have any idea how many research has been done about the placebo effect? You'd better do some reading, instead of clinging to your ignorance.
Re:What a sham by mcvos · 2012-09-06 04:00 · Score: 1

So, why not just give everyone sugar pills or saline injections instead of the real thing?
Do you think effectiveness is a binary thing? Either it fixes everything or it fixes nothing? You give the most effective thing available, and if there's nothing more effective than a placebo, you give a placebo, because it's still a lot more effective than doing nothing at all.
Re:What a sham by mcvos · 2012-09-06 04:06 · Score: 1

But it's a scam that still works better than doing nothing. They use placebos in the control group in order to eliminate the placebo effect from the results. They want to know if it's worth paying lots of money for a drug when they could just as well give them a sugar pill. But that sugar pill is still an option. It's more effective than doing nothing at all, which is the entire reason why they use it in those clinical trials.
Re:What a sham by richlv · 2012-09-06 04:36 · Score: 1

no, when done by a doctor and money is not tricked out (as noted, it's kinda easy to do - "there are these quite expensive and not fully approved drugs... i could get the hospital to finance them for you, but it will take me some time. don't worry though, i'll get them to you later this week, i'm sure i'll succeed"), that is not a scam, and is perfectly ok. _that_ is placebo :)

--
Rich
Re:What a sham by heefeneet · 2012-09-06 05:14 · Score: 1

I live in the UK and Hunts views do NOT affect me, he has fuck all to do with the NHS in Scotland or Wales which are devolved. England has a minister for magic.
It does as the people in England will flock to our hospitals when they get offered tree bark and spinal adjustments instead of the heart transplant they need.
Re:What a sham by subreality · 2012-09-06 05:52 · Score: 1

I'm just drawing a distinction in terminology: medically, homeopathy unambiguously does not work, meaning it does not outperform a placebo; IE, it is a placebo. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used: if the doctor thinks a placebo is the best cure, and homeopathy is the best placebo for the situation, then I don't have any objection to them using it.
I just object to diluting established medical terminology like "works" and "effective".
Re:What a sham by cpu6502 · 2012-09-06 06:28 · Score: 1

Ahhh yes the evil "profit motive". What I have observed is that the profit-making UPS charges less to ship my ebay goods than the nonprofit government. AND I've observed the profit-making parking lots charge less than the government-owned airport lots. Same distance but the govt lot is twice as much.
Profit-seeking ventures are sometimes evil, but in general they have a motive to keep the price as low as possible (for fear of losing business to competition). The government's motive is the opposite (raise the price and payoff debts). The markets also give the freedom-of-choice...... a single payer monopoly does not. It gives the choice of government or government.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-06 08:05 · Score: 1

I have seen single blind studies. You can't double-blind placebos. It's not possible. You are knowingly demanding the impossible and using that as proof you are right, when you aren't. You can't support what you say, you can just say it loudly, rudely and wrongly. there have been a large number of studies on placebos. They do work. But, as you hint at, in a double-blind test, they work no better than a placebo.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-06 09:29 · Score: 1

That is what is meant by "does not work" in the context of medicine, but of course you know what. There are two tests that a new drug needs to succeed in. One: It must work better than a placebo. If it passes that test, then it can be said to actually have an effect.

Why do they test against placebos, rather than no treatment? Because placebos are more effective than no treatment. Placebos are better than nothing, and a whole lot cheaper than regular treatment.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by cpu6502 · 2012-09-06 11:30 · Score: 1

>>>>>What I have observed is that the profit-making UPS charges less to ship my ebay goods than the nonprofit government.
>>
>>You're trying to compare UPS to something that does not exist. Your argument is invalid.
The government shipping service known as USPS does not exist? Wow. So much stupidity in a single person..... I'm surprised your body does not fall-in upon itself and create a pinpoint singularity of dumb.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:What a sham by xaxa · 2012-09-06 12:03 · Score: 1

That doesn't apply to healthcare paid by insurance (certainly not travel insurance held by a child from a country with "free" healthcare). The hospital was chosen because it was first one we could find, and the bill would have been paid pretty much however much it cost.
When we arrived at the hospital, they weren't interested in the obviously sick 10-year-old until my mum found the insurance documents. At that point, he went from "take a ticket, you're number N in the queue" to "step this way sir! How many x-rays would you like?". It was very odd, as that was so alien to us all, and my parents weren't really aware of how the American system worked -- this was 10 years ago, before all the debate (partly covered in the British media) about "Obamacare".
Re:What a sham by cdrguru · 2012-09-07 01:54 · Score: 1

The US will shortly be requiring all government-approved health care insurance plans to include payment for homeopathy. I believe this is already a requirement in California, so this change will simply be to make it nationwide.
Acupuncture, which may have some actual validity as a treatment beyond placebo, will also be required to be paid for. Acupressure, a variant with significantly less theoretical and clinical evidence of efficacy, will certainly be required to be paid for.
I suspect certain treatments consisting of one or more people in a circle chanting proscribed phrases may be included soon. The US is moving from insurance coverage being determined by individual states to one single nationwide decisionmaker - and it will be so much easier to lobby that one group (or maybe individual!) than 50 different state insurance boards. It will also be so much more rewarding because one decision gets you the whole nation in one go.
The problem with this is very simple. The current model for health coverage in the US is the employer pays. Well, come 2014 when the nationwide standards go into effect insurance costs to companies will rise significantly and everyone I have talked to says they are dropping coverage and pushing their employees onto the government-subsidized plans which are pretty much paid by the government instead of the employers. Sure, the employers will have to pay a fine, but the fines are absurdly low - $2500 per employee capped at something line $15,000 instead of $20,000 for insurance coverage. This means they can save 80-90% of the cost of insurance by paying the fine and the employee loses nothing because the government steps in a picks up the tab.
Adding coverage for homeopathy, acupuncture and chanting simply drives the plan cost up for the nation as a whole and makes the whole system completely untenable. Single payer will be the only possible solution with some new taxes to cover it. Probably lots of new taxes that will mean anyone with a job will be heavily taxed to support the millions that don't. While today there are a few places where welfare, food stamps and other programs add up to more than many low-wage jobs the new taxes will probably make this a nationwide reality. Why work when you get more from the government for doing nothing except maybe applying for a job once a month?
Re:What a sham by cpu6502 · 2012-09-07 03:54 · Score: 1

>>>USPS is not a government shipping service
Then how come it has a *.gov web address? http://www.usps.gov/ It's also mandated by the Constitution for the government to provide the mail service. USPS is as wholly part of the government as Amtrak or TSA.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:What a sham by rolandw · 2012-09-07 05:38 · Score: 1

Actually there is lots of evidence that some homeopathy does actually work. Much of it is disguised as "normal" medicine and I bet you use it without knowing.
Interestingly there is equal evidence that idiots in charge really don't work very well. The number of British MPs with any sort of scientific or engineering background is paltry at best (check out the excellent Mark Henderson's "The Geek Manifesto" for more). Having said that, Boris was pretty damn hot at physics and maths as a teenager and should have gone into science so perhaps it doesn't help anyway.
Re:What a sham by Tom · 2012-09-09 07:14 · Score: 1

Why do they test against placebos, rather than no treatment? Because placebos are more effective than no treatment. Placebos are better than nothing, and a whole lot cheaper than regular treatment.
No, that is not the reason.
They test against placebos because every actual drug also has the placebo effect. If you would test against nothing, you would - due to the placebo effect - almost always find that your "medicine" is effective, even if it is actually counter-productive. In many cases, you would have to administer a poison to get a null result.
That does not mean that placebos are an effective treatment. Note that it's still called the placebo effect and not the "placebo treatment" or the "placebo cure" or the "placebo medicine".
That's because placebo effects are a) unstable and b) context-sensitive. Changing the experiment from a double-blind to a simple blind test, for example, often dramatically reduces the placebo effect. Giving a placebo to an unconscious patient in emergency care will have no effect.
That's why placebos are not used as medicine in regular treatment. They are not reliable. The placebo effect is a statistical effect, measured over large samples. You can not count on it in an individual case.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-09 07:51 · Score: 1

If you would test against nothing, you would - due to the placebo effect - almost always find that your "medicine" is effective, even if it is actually counter-productive.
So you are agreeing with me in a disagreeable manner. The placebo effect is there. When an ineffective treatment is given, the results are almost always better than no treatment at all. Thus, you are arguing that homeopathy, if ineffective, is effective due to the placebo effect and the low cost of water.

That's why placebos are not used as medicine in regular treatment. They are not reliable. The placebo effect is a statistical effect, measured over large samples. You can not count on it in an individual case.
And in the context of a national health plan, it should improve the general health of all to endorse placebos. There are statistical effects as you describe when the placebos are distributed to millions of people.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by Tom · 2012-09-09 20:25 · Score: 1

So you are agreeing with me in a disagreeable manner. The placebo effect is there. When an ineffective treatment is given, the results are almost always better than no treatment at all. Thus, you are arguing that homeopathy, if ineffective, is effective due to the placebo effect and the low cost of water.
We are talking about different things.
You are talking about treatment, I am talking about statistics.
Also, I reject the wording that something can be ineffective and effective at the same time. Homeopathy is entirely ineffective, period. That is what is being measured if you measure compared to a placebo. There is no such thing as a homeopathic "effect due to the placebo" - that's like saying that drinking water helps you survive cancer, because if you don't drink water you die. Yes, technically speaking it is true, but the causation is false. You die if you don't drink water, whether you have cancer or not. And giving someone a funny pill will have a measurable effect whether there is homeopathy involved or not. Giving homeopathy some credibility by saying it is effective "via the placebo effect" is hogwash.

And in the context of a national health plan, it should improve the general health of all to endorse placebos. There are statistical effects as you describe when the placebos are distributed to millions of people.
That has so many layers, it is hard to get to the core of it. No, wait it isn't. The answer is: Homeopathy is a scam, period. No amount of beating around the bush changes that.
If you want to administer placebos to the population, don't call it homeopathy. There is one ethical and one business reason for that. The ethical reason is that it is not ok to lie like that. The business reason is that homeopathy is expensive and tap water is cheap. If you call it homeopathy, you will support all the scammers making expensive tap-water.
Two, while there are statistical effects, you are a crazy criminal if you use homeopathy to actually treat an individual patient with anything serious. The placebo effect is not individually reliable, and if your patient is unconscious, the effect is null. If there's a life or permanent damage on the line, you damn better have something that has an actual effect.
You can not apply statistics as solutions to individual cases. Statistically speaking, we are all 51% female and 49% male. You probably don't know many individuals who actually are like that.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-09 21:39 · Score: 1

People who take homeopathic treatments are (statistically) better off than those who remain untreated. You seem to agree with that statement, but are so anti-homeopathy that you can't accept that statement without disagreeing with yourself.

You can not apply statistics as solutions to individual cases. Statistically speaking, we are all 51% female and 49% male. You probably don't know many individuals who actually are like that.
Just because you don't understand statistics doesn't mean the rest of us don't as well.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by Tom · 2012-09-10 01:52 · Score: 1

People who take homeopathic treatments are (statistically) better off than those who remain untreated. You seem to agree with that statement, but are so anti-homeopathy that you can't accept that statement without disagreeing with yourself.
No, I disagree with your insistence to include something that is entirely superfluous. You could just as well say that people who take blue sugar pills are statistically better off than those who don't. That doesn't mean that "blue" has any meaning.
And because it has been demonstrated time and time again to have no medicinal effect whatsoever, I refuse to accept the term "homeopathic treatment", as it makes it sound as if homeopathy would actually treat anything.
I could spit into the bottle, call it "Tomopathic" and claim that "people who take Tomopathic treatments are (statistically) better off than those who remain untreated". Would you agree with that? Would you pay me a bucketload of money so Tomopathic treatments get included in your nation's health program?
And yes, I am very anti on this point because I fail to see why you insist on winning this argument, other than getting a backdoor argument pro homeopathy out of it. Maybe this is not justified in your personal case, but this is the standard procedure of the scammers behind all this bullshit, be it homeopathy, astrology or any number of scams: They get their opponents to agree to some watered-down statement and then take it out of context, claiming that this supports their point.
A placebo will (statistically) create a placebo effect, no matter if it is based on voodoo, homeopathy, spitting into the bottle or nothing at all. That does not mean we should be paying money to people to spit into bottles, nor any of the other scams. There is no such thing as homeopathic medicine, and you can get the placebo effect for a fraction of the cost, with much less overhead, lying and making frauds rich.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-10 11:13 · Score: 1

If the person giving the drug knew which drug was a real drug and which was placebo, the patient might pick up body language cues or something. So one batch of pills will be marked something opaque like "BATCH 4926" and another will be marked something opaque like "BATCH 4931", and after the study is over, it will be revealed which batch was the placebo batch.
So one gets the real placebo, and the other gets the placebo placebo. Are you sure you thought this through? To test a placebo effect, you have to give some a placebo and give others nothing. You can't give the people inequal things and have it double blind. The person administering the nothing will know that his nothing is not the same as the placebo.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What a sham by AK+Marc · 2012-09-14 07:35 · Score: 1

You could just as well say that people who take blue sugar pills are statistically better off than those who don't. That doesn't mean that "blue" has any meaning.
It doesn't. I just don't see why you hate blue so much. From what I've seen, if you give someone a sugar pill and say "this is a sugar pill placebo" they will get a placebo effect, even if they know it a placebo. But the effect is reduced. In that sense, someone who believes in homeopathy will get a better result from the blue homeopathy pill than taking the red sugar pill. But, despite blue being more effective than red, you still go on about how you hate blue so much.

And because it has been demonstrated time and time again to have no medicinal effect whatsoever, I refuse to accept the term "homeopathic treatment", as it makes it sound as if homeopathy would actually treat anything.
Got it. You hate homeopathy so much, you are unwilling to actually address the points of someone you believe to be defending it (even if the person never actually defended it).

And because it has been demonstrated time and time again to have no medicinal effect whatsoever, I refuse to accept the term "homeopathic treatment", as it makes it sound as if homeopathy would actually treat anything.
That was my point. Homeopathy is better than nothing, and if state sponsored (with price caps), it should drive the cost down, giving a good result for little money. Why do you hate patients so much that you want to refuse to give them water? Nobody is lying to anyone in homeopathy. The treatment is almost completely ineffective. It's the "almost" that does actually help, and we should exploit that for better patient outcomes.

You seem to agree with everything I said, but in the most disagreeable manner. Everything I say isn't met with why what I said is wrong, but why you don't like how I worded it, or some unrelated implication you drew.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Devil's advocate here... by twotacocombo · 2012-09-05 09:24 · Score: 1

Empirical proof that homeopathy is completely useless? Less the validity of homeopathy itself, but more regarding the placebo effect.

Re:Devil's advocate here... by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 09:28 · Score: 4, Informative

That is not how it works.
They must prove it actually does work.
The placebo effect is well known and that they why they must test their magic water against a control group given normal water in a well controlled double blind trial. The problem with that is ethical. Since there is no evidence that homeopathy works testing it on sick people would not survive any ethical review if it interfered with real treatment.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by whydavid · 2012-09-05 09:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Please don't think I'm trying to suggest a sample size of one is sufficient, but as an illustrative example I give you Steven Paul Jobs, who famously tried to cure his pancreatic cancer with a whole host of homeopathic remedies until it had progressed so far as to be inoperable. The placebo effect is well-demonstrated and reliable, so you would expect homeopathic remedies to show some benefits, as you allude to. It's when people forego useful medical treatment in favor of homeopathic fairy tales that the real dangers of homeopathy are apparent.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by henryteighth · 2012-09-05 09:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

A basic precept of science is that you can't prove a negative.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Desler · 2012-09-05 09:31 · Score: 1

Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. There are zero double-blind studies showing any effectiveness to homeopathy.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Sulphur · 2012-09-05 09:37 · Score: 1

Empirical proof that homeopathy is completely useless? Less the validity of homeopathy itself, but more regarding the placebo effect.
It cured my dog you insensitive clod.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by sourcerror · 2012-09-05 09:40 · Score: 1

If it only has placebo effect, it means it doesn't work. The control group always gets placebo.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:41 · Score: 5, Funny

I was flipping through some book of Eastern medicine, and wanted to read the section on type 1 diabetes (since I have it), and it was hilarious. Everything else could be cured or treated with various things, but for this they recommended seeing a doctor.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by calmofthestorm · 2012-09-05 09:43 · Score: 1

Don't underestimate the power of placebos, especially in intractable cases. They are not medically useless.

--
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Hentes · 2012-09-05 09:49 · Score: 1

I think homeopathic medicine could be quite effective at curing hipochonders. Just not at its current ridiculosly inflated prices.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-09-05 09:50 · Score: 1

It's a basic precept of logic, you insensitive non-scientist.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by foobsr · 2012-09-05 10:00 · Score: 1

Empirical proof
Happens when theory of science is only administered in homeopathic doses.
CC.

--
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Thuktun · 2012-09-05 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative

A basic precept of science is that you can't prove a negative.
Can we please stop circulating this little bit of folk "wisdom" now?
Proofs of non-existence by reductio ad absurdum are common. Euler's proof of the non-existance of a largest prime number is one notable example.
More discussion here.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Hatta · 2012-09-05 10:07 · Score: 3, Informative

If the illness is not too severe, it's not terribly unethical to test ineffective treatments.* And some such studies have been done. Here's one on warts, and another on migraines. Needless to say, there was no statistically significant effect.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Devil's advocate here... by albacrankie · 2012-09-05 10:14 · Score: 1

"you can't prove a negative"
The sun sets in the west.
The sun doesn't rise in the west.
These are equivalent statements presumably requiring the same level of proof to substantiate. I think you need to be clearer about what you mean.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Mr.+Slippery · 2012-09-05 10:14 · Score: 2

Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. There are zero double-blind studies showing any effectiveness to homeopathy.
True. There are also zero double-blind studies showing any effectiveness to surgery. In fact, IIRC every placebo-controlled trial of a surgical procedure (there have been a handful) has shown the procedure in question to be no more effective than a "sham" operation.
Most of modern medicine has very little scientific evidence to support it.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 10:17 · Score: 1

Actually Steve Jobs did have surgery for his cancer. He got into trouble because the surgery removed part of his small intestines and some other things so he had trouble absorbing nutrients and just kept getting sicker. The reports of him using homeopathy surfaced after the surgery and he probably used homeopethy because modern western medicine had given him a death sentence.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by platypussrex · 2012-09-05 10:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 10:25 · Score: 2

Oh yeah, prove you can't.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Mr.+Slippery · 2012-09-05 10:26 · Score: 1

If it only has placebo effect, it means it doesn't work.
Only if one defines "works" to mean "works better than a placebo". For most people in pain, for example, "works" means "reduces the pain". Placebos are clinically useful.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Devil's advocate here... by turbidostato · 2012-09-05 10:57 · Score: 1

"Only if one defines "works" to mean "works better than a placebo"."
Which is the exact definition used in clinical experiments.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 11:05 · Score: 1

You seem to be confusing maths with science.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-09-05 11:34 · Score: 1

Au contraire misseur!
If you were to say, "I bet there's money in one of those boxes over there." I could prove you wrong by checking each and every box that was described, thereby proving a negative, that there is no money in one of the boxes.
But never-mind that nonsense. I wrote a poem for this sort of logic thing:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
also be it fortunate for creatures of intelligence,
that which can be asserted in absence of evidence,
may be dismissed as undue negligence.
That is to say, sure you can claim whatever you wish, claim homeopathy works; but I may dismiss your statement until it is proven to be true or false. This is the foundation of burden of proof.
So I could not, as limited a human as I am, prove in any conventional method that no god exists. However, I can demonstrate that the Christian god does not exist.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:13 · Score: 1

I think you need to understand the difference between 'incorrect' and a negative.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Devil's advocate here... by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:14 · Score: 1

" There are also zero double-blind studies showing any effectiveness to surgery."
False.
"every placebo-controlled trial of a surgical procedure (there have been a handful) has shown the procedure in question to be no more effective than a "sham" operation."
Nonsense.
"Most of modern medicine has very little scientific evidence to support it."
laughably ignorant.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Devil's advocate here... by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:19 · Score: 1

That's nice of you to suspect that, but it's false.
You might want to go from what you suspect to actual god damn science.
The problem here is you lack the intellect necessarily to think of how it would be done. You're hubris then allows you to conclude it must be impossible. As such, you don't even research it because you ego doesn't allow to to consider you might be wrong.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Devil's advocate here... by platypussrex · 2012-09-05 12:33 · Score: 1

>
For a double blind experiment, both the doctor and the patient need to ignore (the phrase you are looking for is "not be aware") if they are on placebo or not -hence *double* blind.
I see, you think you are cute, but you misunderstand the point of double blind. The point of doing double blind is if there is a possibility that the clinician might know which drug is the test and which is the placebo and then if that knowledge could have even an unintended effect on the subject during the course of the treatment. Since the surgical patient is usually unconscious this can't happen, but if a person were being extremely careful they could have one physician interact with the patient while they were awake (before and after the surgery) and have a separate doctor do the actually surgery (or not) but lie to the "awake" doctors so they always thought the surgery was done. You are probably right that no one has been confused enough to do something like this, for ethical reasons if nothing else, but in addition to not understanding when double blinds are appropriate, you also fail to understand a ruptured appendix. Roughly speaking, the mortality rate from having the surgery is about 1 in 1,000,000 while having no surgery after the appendix ruptures is almost a death sentence. Which pretty much makes your cuteness irrelevant.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by lgw · 2012-09-05 12:41 · Score: 1

I think you missed the point: surgery by a blind surgeon has not been show to be effective. The whole idea of a double blind study of surgery is silly buzzwordism, not a usething thing to discuss.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by albacrankie · 2012-09-05 12:59 · Score: 1

"negative" has linguistic and mathematical usage. My example used the former. I don't think either usage applies to the statement, "you can't prove a negative", which is why I asked for more clarity. I'm guessing the original poster was talking about being able to prove that something doesn't exist. (e.g. there are no sea dragons).
Re:Devil's advocate here... by whydavid · 2012-09-05 14:20 · Score: 1

In short: you're wrong. He tried homeopathy first...this is painstakingly detailed in his biography in the most revealing account of his illness and treatment available anywhere. He had a low-probability surgery to try and cure it after he realized the folly of trying homeopathy, but as expected it didn't work (hence: 'inoperable'). Also painstakingly detailed was the regret Steve Jobs took to the grave for having waited so long to try a modern medical approach.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by doru · 2012-09-05 17:39 · Score: 1

It is Euclid who proved that there are infinitely many prime numbers. And the proof is not exactly by contradiction (although you might say that it is used at some step). Anyway, he doesn't start by saying "There are only N primes".
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Tom · 2012-09-05 18:59 · Score: 1

The problem with that is ethical. Since there is no evidence that homeopathy works testing it on sick people would not survive any ethical review if it interfered with real treatment.
The real world doesn't work like that. Drugs, including placebo controls, are testing in double-blind tests on real patients with real issues, up to and including heart attacks.
Source: My ex studied this stuff. Yeah, she was a bit shocked at first, too.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Devil's advocate here... by bloodhawk · 2012-09-05 22:12 · Score: 1

No, he had surgury after he realised "oh shit my magic cures aren't working". By then the cancer had progressed to the stage that surgery was a big deal and unfortunately for him far too late.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by h4rr4r · 2012-09-06 01:07 · Score: 1

Yes, real drugs.
They do not test one placebo vs another. That means 0 patients get actual medicine which is why it would fail any ethical review.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-06 02:37 · Score: 1

All that science is are varying layers of abstraction over math

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by smellsofbikes · 2012-09-06 03:50 · Score: 1

I was flipping through some book of Eastern medicine, and wanted to read the section on type 1 diabetes (since I have it), and it was hilarious. Everything else could be cured or treated with various things, but for this they recommended seeing a doctor.
I don't know if this is precisely funny or not, but I have a raft of friends who are into alternative medicine and homeopathy, and they have unspoken lists of what conditions they'll try to treat with homeopathy and aromatherapy -- headaches, menstrual cramps, in one case eczema -- and what conditions mean drop all that junk and head for a doctor -- broken arms, whooping cough, yeast infections. What it says to me is that the problems that are life-threatening and that modern medicine can treat, are (generally(*)) ones that everyone will go for the modern medicine option, but the problems that are just flat-out difficult, they'll go for the woo-woo stuff because the effectiveness of the treatments (modern medicine, homeopathy) isn't that much different and the woo-woo stuff is administered in a somewhat more personally appealing/attractive way. From that standpoint, maybe it's not such a bad thing, aside from the fancy sugar-water being devilishly expensive. But if it makes people feel better -- or think they feel better -- I guess it's worth something.
(*) with that said, I had an idiot friend who tried to homeopathically treat a necrotizing brown recluse bite. She died. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. I also just read a book about BRCA-1 and people who have tried to treat breast cancer using naturopathy and electrostimulation. The description of untreated end-stage breast cancer was severely unappetizing.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Re:Devil's advocate here... by Tom · 2012-09-09 07:07 · Score: 1

Yes, of course. Or at least I am not aware of any real medically qualified people testing homeopathic bullshit on patients with real issues.
Homeopaths, of course, do it all the time. A couple of them have ended up in the news with their failures, some (too few if you ask me) have ended up in jail.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Laying on of hands works by ozduo · 2012-09-05 09:24 · Score: 1, Funny

Any women out there with chest complaints contact me and I will happily lay my hands on you. Will cure my stiffness problem.

--
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.

Re:Laying on of hands works by c0lo · 2012-09-05 10:24 · Score: 1

really? Whenever i try that it just exacerbates the problem.
You should try it with elderly women.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

The real lesson by jmorris42 · 2012-09-05 09:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

And this is why all centralized power is dangerous. Eventually an idiot WILL be put in charge. If it were one hospital, insurance provider, pharma company, whatever it is bad but survivable. But when it is a government with a virtual monopoly on something important like medicine and a real monopoly on the use of force to back it up, shit gets serious.

--
Democrat delenda est

Re:The real lesson by MightyMartian · 2012-09-05 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:The real lesson by mapsjanhere · 2012-09-05 09:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

You are aware that the US recognizes homeopathy as valid, and even exempts homeopathic remedies from FDA regulations requiring efficacy? Nothing to do with centralized power, one idiot senator in the 1930s was enough to get this written permanently into law.

--
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
Re:The real lesson by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 09:29 · Score: 1

He will not be allowed to do anything. Here in reality we never let one person make those kinds of decisions. At least those in the UK can get some care instead of getting none like many in the USA face.
Re:The real lesson by Desler · 2012-09-05 09:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

As opposed to the idiotic corporate bureaucrats in charge of private health care?
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-05 09:37 · Score: 4, Informative

No, not really.
0) The NHS is excellent - far better than American healthcare. I say that using all the data I have seen and from personal experience of both systems.
1) The UK government does not have a "virtual monopoly" - it has no exclusive right to provide healthcare at all. It does provide some forms of healthcare so well (e.g. emergency) that alternative providers are fairly rare, and other forms of healthcare with waiting lists (e.g. elective hip replacements) such that there's a healthy variety of private providers. I belong to a mutual much older than the NHS which provides discretionary treatment for elective conditions.
2) Thatcher was an idiot put in charge, but the NHS soldiered on. Blair was an idiot put in charge, but the NHS soldiered on. Major and Brown stuck their dicks in a bit but didn't do anything remarkable compared to their superior predecessors. It was Lansley who has done the most damage to the NHS with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, not because he is an idiot but because he's a fucking smart and fucking nasty man. Cunt, already widely known in Britain as corrupt, silly little man, is just pissing on the wreckage.
3) The NHS didn't really exist before 1948, and that was in the wake of something far worse than we're facing now. If things get shit, we regroup, re-educate and rebuild. It's not like history has a linear progression - we're always repeating the same mistakes and having to correct them.
Re:The real lesson by Lehk228 · 2012-09-05 09:42 · Score: 1

the US laws for homeopathy are that homeopathic remidies do not need to be tested, they must not be sold for any condition that will not clear up on it's own with no lasting negative effects.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-05 09:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

But there is such thing as law hard to get rid of, which I expect is what your parent meant.
For example, the EU Parliament has veto on creation of laws, but does not have any power to repeal laws. So even if the directly elected representatives of the people are entirely opposed to some law, it cannot be repealed without the consent of the Council, unless it can somehow be declared invalid by the Court of Justice (e.g. secondary legislation outside of the EU's jurisdiction).
While I'm here, it's fairly common for various powermongering interestings to want laws to be easier to implement than to repeal. Consider patents: international patent agreements are such that a patent made in one country has to be recognised in many countries; yet an invalidation of the patent in one country does not propagate.
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-05 09:53 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, he may propose laws which will be aye'd by those self-interested Tories and their yellow lickspittles. Yes, Minister isn't quite accurate - see how the DWP has basically become a spokesperson for IDS's personal Himmler-esque (*) philosophy.
Fortunately, Cunt is stupid and will not do such a good job of harming the NHS as Lansley, a true demon.
But, yes, the NHS remains a wonderful thing. And anyone who rejects national healthcare systems in principle is, without exception, either a buffoon or a sadomasochist.
(*) Since the Daily Mail (a popular British newspaper) overtly praised the government for its "arbeit macht frei" (sic) approach, it's difficult to accuse me of Godwinning the discussion.
Re:The real lesson by Hatta · 2012-09-05 10:09 · Score: 2

The US recognizes homeopathy as valid, but still doesn't recognize the medical efficacy of cannabis. Fuck this country.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-05 10:17 · Score: 4, Funny

*expecting to meet surgeon before procedure, patient walks into empty room*
*voice comes out of nowhere*
"Do not be afraid, for I am the invisible hand of the free market. And I shall be operating on you today."
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-05 10:20 · Score: 1

It recognises it but doesn't care.
Don't attribute to competence what can be clearly explained as malice.
Re:The real lesson by Cederic · 2012-09-05 10:25 · Score: 1

Cunt, already widely known in Britain as corrupt, silly little man, is just pissing on the wreckage.
Sorry, you've lost me. Lansley or Hunt (or both)?
Re:The real lesson by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 10:58 · Score: 1

Every law is permanent, even if repealed, it is still written as law, just superseded. It's obviously not permanent-permanent. When the US falls, the laws will be gone. But, even if it's repealed, it will "forever" live on in the register as a law. We don't redact/delete laws when they are repealed. We just ignore them officially.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:The real lesson by turbidostato · 2012-09-05 11:00 · Score: 1

*expecting to meet surgeon before procedure, patient walks into empty room*
*voice comes out of nowhere*
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate!
Re:The real lesson by izomiac · 2012-09-05 11:26 · Score: 2

How is homeopathy recognized as valid? The US doesn't require non-medicines to adhere to FDA regulations. Homeopathy isn't special in this regard, candy is likewise exempted. Of course, that's also why homeopathic placebos must print disclaimers that they don't treat any disease (a far cry from "recognize[ing] homeopathy as valid").

As an interesting historic note, the FDA originally wanted to subject dietary supplements to the same efficacy requirement as medications. This was extremely unpopular as people realized their favorite vitamins, homeopathic remedies, and sports performance supplements would be taken off the market, so they didn't make that a requirement. To my knowledge, these products are legally considered "food" rather than "medicine".
Re:The real lesson by MightyMartian · 2012-09-05 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:The real lesson by TapeCutter · 2012-09-05 11:48 · Score: 1

Here in Australia a single breadwinner family of four earning $100K/yr pays a $1500/yr UHC levy, that's about 1/10th of what a US family pays for similar private cover to get inferior care (statistically: our hospitals would have to kill an extra 20k people a year to reach the US level of care). This is despite the fact that the US taxpayer is already "FORCED" to spend as much on health care as an Australian taxpayer. ie: the two governments have an almost identical per capita spend on public health. A separate scheme (PBS) been operating since the 1950's, it caps prescription drug costs to (IIRC) $1200/yr for a family. Our government actually wants people to use the cheaper generic brand drugs, they also want people to avoid become ill in the first place and spend a portion of the UHC budget on preventative measures such as public awareness campaigns and mass screenings.

A cheap, effective, and humane system for ALL is what you get when HEALTH is a bipartisan issue rather than a milk cow for politically well connected corporations. See the difference? Probably not, your head is buried in your ideological buttocks..

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:The real lesson by Hatta · 2012-09-05 12:15 · Score: 1

Surprise surprise, none of your links (which you couldn't even be bothered to link) actually support your assertion that there is no medical efficacy of cannabis. Try again.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The real lesson by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:20 · Score: 1

Government doesn't equal centralized power. It can, but it doesn't always.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:The real lesson by geekoid · 2012-09-05 12:22 · Score: 1

" US recognizes homeopathy as valid"
not exactly.
" even exempts homeopathic remedies from FDA regulations requiring efficacy"
That's a common misdirection used be the people who sell magical thinking.
The FDA allows it! is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the FDA works.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:The real lesson by TapeCutter · 2012-09-05 12:41 · Score: 1

We've had UHC here in Oz since the 70's, I'm old enough to remeber the old system and the political arguments of the day. Over those 40 years it has become a bipartisan issue, political attacks on it still occur but they are usually about implementation, not so much about ideology. Basically it has become political suicide to fuck with the basic principles of our system, do it and it will cost you 80+% of voters.
Ideologically speaking it's a pretty good balance...

Capitalism: There are still plenty of millionaire doctors, successful drug and health insurance companies, world class hospitals both public and private, private clinics, research centers, etc, in Oz.

Socialism: My blue collar daughter (mother of three) is due to have surgery to remove scar tissue on her sciatic nerve by a world renown neurosurgeon in December, meanwhile they are monitoring her condition with regular MRI's and supplying her with effective pain management. She needs a specialist and she's got one of the best, not because of her wallet, because of her condition. No amount of money/insurance will (legally) allow her to move up the waiting list and her illness will not mortally wound their modest family budget.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:The real lesson by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-09-05 15:05 · Score: 1

Sorry, but it was not regulation that made modern medicine better, it was increased knowledge. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but certification boards do not have a particularly good reputation for actually removing licenses from doctors who fail to demonstrate competency.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The real lesson by MightyMartian · 2012-09-05 15:19 · Score: 1

Increased medical knowledge does little good if there is no way to transmit it. Forcing medical colleges to adhere to at least minimum standards by both certification boards and legislation is the only way I know of to assure it. It isn't perfect, but without it, the average health consumer might get lucky, or might not. Knowledge alone did not lead to the advances at the GP level.
And yes, certification boards suck, but at least there is a mechanism, even a dysfunctional one. What would you prefer, absolutely no means at all to stop incompetent doctors from practicing?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:The real lesson by MightyMartian · 2012-09-05 15:24 · Score: 1

There are no lack of situations in which you don't get a second chance with a bad practitioner. And I think the evidence from other countries suggests highly that they can deliver results comparable to what the United States delivers, and in some areas, far exceed.the United States (ie. most Western European nations easily exceed the United States in infant mortality rate).
Let me repeat my oft stated axiom; the Universe does not give a flying fuck about your particular political or ideological leanings. Choice doesn't mean very goddamned much when the risks of the choice are so variant that one wrong mistake in choosing your doctor in a completely free market place could mean death or maiming.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:The real lesson by Tom · 2012-09-05 18:36 · Score: 2

You make an interesting, but unsubstantiated, claim. It works on the hidden assumption that idiots put in charge is the exception and in general, the people in charge are not idiots.
I fail to see how you can support that assumption.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:The real lesson by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-09-06 01:29 · Score: 1

The problem is that there is a long gap between the advent of regulation of medicine and any significant improvement in medical care. Many of those doctors who bled their patient's to death were properly certified as being masters of medicine. The argument that medicine is so much better today than before it was regulated by a central authority is not a good argument because medicine was regulated for a long time before there were any significant improvements in medical practice.
I do not have a position on the issue of government licensing of doctors. I understand the argument of those who argue against it, but there are other professions where the justification for government regulation of who can practice the profession is much less supportable that medicine is not the place to start. We should start with those other professions and, if things work out as one would expect, move on to professions with better justifications for government regulation.
As to whether or not there would be a way to stop incompetent doctors from practicing if certification boards did not exist, most libertarians support the right of people to sue when someone else's negligence causes them harm. In addition, it is conceivable that there could be other, better, ways to stop incompetent doctors from practicing. However, as I said, medicine is not the place to start going to a more libertarian model of professional regulation.
Your original argument seemed to be that our only choices are complete centralized control of medicine or no regulation at all. Most people who argue for reduced centralization of control over things are not actually arguing for nor government regulation. They are arguing for moderate regulation rather than regulation that attempts to determine what course of action practitioners will take in every eventuality that might come up.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The real lesson by Bigby · 2012-09-06 01:31 · Score: 1

(0) For certain cases, yes. If you want advanced treatment (like with cancer) and want the best quality, you are far better off in the American system. It may cost you, but not always.
(1) They have a "virtual monopoly" over certain parts of the health system. You basically stated this. Microsoft didn't have a "virtual monopoly" over computer systems, just the operating system and office suite.
The problem with the NHS is the same problem with anything that has a monopoly. In theory, they could be excellent. But in the long run, because you can't price things properly in a monopoly, quality or costs get out of control. It doesn't have to, but you need a bunch of selfless geniouses running the thing to hope for that to happen.
Which goes to the point about this thread. There's a guy in there trying to push his agenda. The key reason why central control is bad. Look at how the US has tried to fund more and more R&D. Proponents cheer. They say only government sees the need to do R&D (which must be a joke). But then when Bush shuts off funding around embryos, everyone is up in arms. That is a predictable consequence of putting a monopoly or market control into the hands of a democracy.
Now, there is an argument that despite these shortcomings, the current situation is better than if you didn't have it, but I don't think anyone on either side is open to discussing it. Especially when a Libertarian view is labelled as "going back 100 years", like we would be driving around in Model T cars. When it ignores that the lack of road would cause innovation to potentially bring about flying cars.
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-06 04:35 · Score: 1

(0) "advanced treatment (like with cancer)" - that is embarrassingly vague, almost as wide as "like with viruses". And what do you mean that it won't always cost you? Have you identified some edge cases where American hospitals provide better charitable cancer care than the NHS?
(1) The problem with MS was its abuse of its dominant position. If by "virtual monopoly" OP means "dominant position in certain areas on its own merits" then who cares?

It doesn't have to, but you need a bunch of selfless geniouses running the thing to hope for that to happen.
The civil service in the UK pre-Thatcher was strongly meritocratic and based heavily on the principle of service to the nation - in return, you got job security and excellent benefits. So, like you say, selfless geniuses. 30 years of Thatcherism have slowly eroded this, but Britain has survived worse things.

But then when Bush shuts off funding around embryos, everyone is up in arms. That is a predictable consequence of putting a monopoly or market control into the hands of a democracy.
What? Democracy = voice of people. The government could also have banned embryo research entirely if the people wanted it.

the current situation is better than if you didn't have it, but I don't think anyone on either side is open to discussing it.
Countries which have tried both methods tend to prefer the national healthcare one. This may be "just theory" for America, but for Europe it's based on experience in private and public healthcare and a huge range of different implementations across a continent.

Especially when a Libertarian view is labelled as "going back 100 years",
That's because it is. Worse, though, is the offering of dogma - I don't want "a Libertarian view" or "a Communist view" or "a Capitalist view" - I want something which works. And, in healthcare, Europe has something which works.

like we would be driving around in Model T cars. When it ignores that the lack of road would cause innovation to potentially bring about flying cars.
"would cause... potentially..." I agree that state funding of the road network was an awful idea - not because I object to state funding in the citizen's interest but because I object to corporate welfare. Again, much of mainland Europe is far ahead on public transport, though e.g. the Beeching Axe in the UK was little more than the result of throwing money at cars and leaving trains to languish.
Re:The real lesson by cdrguru · 2012-09-07 04:44 · Score: 1

Sorry, but I'm not sure we ever have had "legislative force" behind doctor certification and licensing. What we have today, and have had since the beginning of any sort of real medicine is peer review and peer boards of review. A doctor that screws up enough has his buddies tell him he needs to spend more time at the golf course.
Yes, there are doctors that are legally sanctioned today, but the hurdle to reach that point is unbelievable. We aren't talking just gross negligence but obvious and complete incompetence.
The problem with the peer review is there is a huge amount of inertia to overcome and the tendency for the doctors to stand together. If a doctor screws up badly enough you can get your malpractice claim but the next week the doctor is back doing the same stuff again. And any attempt by the general public to intefere with review boards and such generally just makes them stand together all the more so.
So if you are thinking the practice of medicine is "regulated" by some set of laws, you are wrong. The regulation that is there is the AMA and state medical boards whose rules the AMA wrote. What laws that are in place require doctors to submit to the state medical board and AMA rules.
And while the AMA doesn't like to admit it, the last thing they want is for a doctor to be removed from practice - perhaps unless they are an embarrassment to the AMA itself. Because every time a doctor is kicked out it just brings more pressure and greater expectations onto the rest of the doctors. You can see this clearly when someone dies in a hospital. Even if the patient was clearly suffering from a terminal disease everyone acts like something wrong happened and they have to cover for each other. A lot of times this is borne out because the family does sue because the patient died.
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-08 20:43 · Score: 1

We should start with those other professions and, if things work out as one would expect, move on to professions with better justifications for government regulation.
You talk like a missionary. "First we must soften them by finding those who genuinely would benefit from our message, then we move on to those who could well do without it..."

As to whether or not there would be a way to stop incompetent doctors from practicing if certification boards did not exist, most libertarians support the right of people to sue when someone else's negligence causes them harm.
I know libertarians don't live in the real world, but you only get one body.

However, as I said, medicine is not the place to start going to a more libertarian model of professional regulation.

Nowhere is. Libertarianism is like a religion, starting with dogma and then sugegsting solutions according to dogma. I don't want policies which suggest "what about imposing the belief of the followers of X...", whatever X is. I don't want any more religions. I don't want to see the whole world turning in the direction of a particular religion. I want systems which are shown to work in a given scenario, whether that is regulated state operation for healthcare or mostly unregulated capitalism for various non-critical Internet services.

They are arguing for moderate regulation rather than regulation that attempts to determine what course of action practitioners will take in every eventuality that might come up..
This is a strawman. Doctors often have differences of opinion. I assume that US healthcare services, like UK, give you a right to a second opinion.
Re:The real lesson by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-09-09 07:34 · Score: 1

This is a strawman. Doctors often have differences of opinion. I assume that US healthcare services, like UK, give you a right to a second opinion.
Well, I do not know about the UK system, but Obamacare contains a provision establishing a board which will establish "best practices" of treatment for many diseases, any doctor who does not follow those "best practices" treatments is subject to disciplinary action. That means that if I go to Doctor A and they give me a treatment program that is based on the "best practices" determined by that board, it does me absolutely no good to go to another doctor, because that second doctor is unlikely to give me a recommendation that goes against that board recommended treatment (if they do and it comes to the attention of anyone in authority, they will receive a punishment of some kind--generally reduced compensation for their work).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-09 08:32 · Score: 1

There are NICE guidelines which provide lots of treatment pathways and set standards on what must be available+funded and, on the other end, what cannot be provided without the patient being expected to contribute (though strawmen frequently argue that a socialised health service is unacceptable because it won't pay $1,000,000s/year for treatment which has little or no proven benefit). The guidelines usually provide or admit alternatives, but it's worth noting that there are so many routine conditions where you're fooling yourself if you think medicine provides a selection of equally useful alternatives.
NICE is a bit of an oddity, though. Thatcher tried to break up the health service by getting it competing within itself ("internal market"), creating a postcode lottery with varying opportunities for treatment depending on where you live. The aim was to restore national standards. Lansley's now done a similar divide-and-conquer thing with the Health & Social Care Act, and I am not sure how the NHS will get through that one, but I hope it will. It's not that the Tories hate the NHS so much as that they like to milk it by introducing middlemen everywhere - Lansley himself received generous donations from people who stood to benefit from his "reforms".

We now know how he plans to save £20 billion by GauteL · 2012-09-05 09:25 · Score: 5, Funny

No need to buy thousands of doses of penicillin or heart medication. Just buy one dose and it'll serve the entire population.

Joker by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-09-05 09:27 · Score: 1

Please let this be a joke, please let this be a joke.

*calms down*

It's okay, the homeopathy will fail to work and someone will sue the government for it and all will be right. Right? RIGHT?

Homeopathy does work by ceoyoyo · 2012-09-05 09:28 · Score: 1

Homeopathy does work, in people who believe in it. Tap water is cheap. If someone believes in homeopathy enough to demand it, maybe a vial of tap water SHOULD be covered. It's probably cheaper than many other, usually ineffective treatments for untreatable or minor ailments. Walk into a doctors office with the sniffles and a bad attitude and instead of leaving with useless antibiotics you're given a bottle of water (I mean, super diluted phlegm) and a nice pamphlet warning you that homeopathy is bull.

Re:Homeopathy does work by Dunbal · 2012-09-05 09:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Careful with that - several churches might get upset with you infringing on their business model. Next thing you'll be handing out wafers too.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Homeopathy does work by WillKemp · 2012-09-05 09:37 · Score: 2

Not only does homeopathy work (for some people, at least), but it doesn't have the nasty side effects of most (all?) pharmaceutical drugs. It's also considerably cheaper. There's an insane amount of over prescription of pharmaceuticals in developed countries - wasting billions of dollars every year and causing untold harm to the people who take them unnecessarily, and to the population in general (think superbugs). It would be much better if most of them were replaced with homeopathic placebos.
Re:Homeopathy does work by Lehk228 · 2012-09-05 09:44 · Score: 2

the only condition treatable with homeopathic medicine is mild dehydration

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Homeopathy does work by Rhywden · 2012-09-05 10:28 · Score: 1

Again, it's not the homeopathy which works, it's the placebo effect which works. That is why there are no side-effects - because you believe it to have only positive effects because you're told there aren't any.
However, if you were to do a trial drug test where you handed out homeopathic "drugs" and told one sample group that this particular "drug" would cure them but also possessed some side-effects... then you would actually get side-effects!
Because of placebo's evil twin, the nocebo.
Re:Homeopathy does work by flimflammer · 2012-09-05 10:29 · Score: 1

This has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Over prescription is a valid problem, but "fixing" it with magic water is not a valid solution. Only those who believe in homeopathic remedies will even have a big enough suspension of disbelief to believe the "medicine" is working. Everyone else is going to know they're banking on the placebo effect and going to want real medicine. I don't think government sponsored ignorance is a valid solution to anything, even if some people genuinely believe in homeopathy and want their doctors to give it to them. You're hurting your citizens based on their ignorance by offering them snake oil instead of a real cure.
Re:Homeopathy does work by WillKemp · 2012-09-05 10:43 · Score: 1

But most of the things that quacks hand out antibiotics etc for don't need a real cure. The quacks should be telling them to go away and stop wasting their time. But, instead, they dish out pills because their silly patients want them. Giving people harmless homeopathics isn't hurting citizens nearly as much as giving them harmful (unnecessary) antibiotics.
Re:Homeopathy does work by Aardpig · 2012-09-05 12:08 · Score: 1

So you're advocating a nanny state where the government mandates what the silly patients should have?

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Homeopathy does work by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-09-05 12:18 · Score: 1

Actually, if you believe you're going to have nasty side effects, you do. This is the flipside - the "nocebo" effect. It's been proven in much the same way - controlled trials where all recipients were given inert sugar pills but some people were told to expect side effects.
So what's to say that the attitude that traditional pharmaceuticals have side effects, put about by homeopathists (and the leaflets that come in the box) isn't responsible for some proportion of the side effects perceived? (Would love to see some numbers there.)
I agree that there's an overprescription of drugs but why spend money on expensive homeopathic remedies when sugar pills in a variety of shapes and colours, with fancy names, will do just as well.

I'm prescribing you a dimer of glucose and fructose. A definite improvement is possible!
Re:Homeopathy does work by WillKemp · 2012-09-05 13:45 · Score: 1

So what's to say that the attitude that traditional pharmaceuticals have side effects, put about by homeopathists (and the leaflets that come in the box) isn't responsible for some proportion of the side effects perceived?
Maybe the nocebo effect is responsible for MRSA. If people stop believing overuse of antibiotics is responsible for it, maybe it will go away! Maybe if people stop believing thalidomide causes birth defects, those defects will magically disappear.
But most people don't think about the side effects of the drugs they accept from quacks willy nilly - if they did, they probably wouldn't be so keen to take them. Fortunately my mum was one of the smarter ones and refused the thalidomide the quack tried to give her when she was pregnant with me. (In her old age, she used to accept drugs from the quack, so as not to offend them and to keep them onside, but she didn't take most of them. She lived to be 86.)
The fact is that there's a vast amount of proven and well documented detrimental side effects of pharmaceutical drugs - and a big proportion of the use of those drugs is totally unnecessary.

I agree that there's an overprescription of drugs but why spend money on expensive homeopathic remedies when sugar pills in a variety of shapes and colours, with fancy names, will do just as well.
Yeah, i agree. There's no real reason to waste money on homeopathics.
Re:Homeopathy does work by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-05 16:59 · Score: 1

Too bad for them, that's what patents are for. Just ask the Church of Scientology.
Re:Homeopathy does work by ceoyoyo · 2012-09-06 01:20 · Score: 1

Any condition the patient believes is treatable by homeopathy, is. It doesn't work as well as approved drugs, but for minor conditions where there isn't really a treatment (like a common cold), it's better than nothing and saves prescribing actual medicine as a placebo.
Re:Homeopathy does work by Lehk228 · 2012-09-06 14:44 · Score: 1

foolishness should not be embraced, it should be extinguished

the harm in allowing homeopathy and other bunk is that people get used to accepting it for minor stuff then when they get something serious

or worse, they use such nonsense to treat defenseless children when they have a serious disease.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Homeopathy does work by ceoyoyo · 2012-09-07 01:34 · Score: 1

Thus the pamphlet warning that homeopathy is crap. You could also only approve it for things like the treatment of colds. Homeopaths shouldn't be allowed to make claims about serious diseases anyway.
Despite your opinion and a lot of efforts by many people over centuries, people still insist on believing things that aren't true. Placebos also have a long medical history.

Prince Charles by alexander_686 · 2012-09-05 09:29 · Score: 1

Does it surprises you that government employees follow their executives? Prince Charles believes in homeopathy. Now, o.k., he is still only a crowned prince, but.

Re:Prince Charles by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-05 09:34 · Score: 2

I'm not sure I follow. What does Prince Charles have to do with the government?
Re:Prince Charles by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 09:51 · Score: 2

He is the future head of state of England
Yes.
i.e. the top cheese, where the buck stops. etc.
no.
He will hold a similar position to Barack Obama in the United State
wtf?
or Queen Elizabeth II of Canada.
yes
Now, of course, he is going to have to consult with parliament on some issues â" but remember â" he only needs to consult.
huh?

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Prince Charles by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-05 09:53 · Score: 1

The royal family have no political power at all.
Re:Prince Charles by flimflammer · 2012-09-05 10:39 · Score: 1

Er, dude, the royal family over there have long since relinquished any actual power it had over the governing of its people.
Re:Prince Charles by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 11:07 · Score: 2

In theory, they still hold absolute political power. In practice, they never try to find out, because it would be stripped from them quicker than you can say "long live the queen". The monarchy would rather have absolute power they can't wield than no power they can wield, though the results are the same.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Prince Charles by xaxa · 2012-09-05 11:43 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I follow. What does Prince Charles have to do with the government?
The news last week was that he's secretly consulted about certain laws. There's a FoI request to disclose the process by which he is consulted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/prince-charles-public-duty-private-power
Re:Prince Charles by clickclickdrone · 2012-09-05 20:21 · Score: 1

Mod this one up, they're absolutely spot on.

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil

Shouldn't be too expensive... by pushing-robot · 2012-09-05 09:30 · Score: 2

[homeopathic remedies should be] provided at public expense by the NHS

Why didn't I think of this? Give away bottles of water, er, "remedies", and take the profit away from the snake oil salesmen.

Genius.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?

He might not think it works, but IS a politician. by yakovlev · 2012-09-05 09:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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."

What's Wrong With Holistic Methodology? by l0ungeb0y · 2012-09-05 09:31 · Score: 1

I believe 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. Frankly, I suspect that the NHS could save a substantial amount of money with this sort of treatment to the daily sundry of ills of the homemakers and saturnine types who are so fond of a visit to the physician to tend to their latest "ailments".

Re:What's Wrong With Holistic Methodology? by Dunbal · 2012-09-05 09:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:What's Wrong With Holistic Methodology? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-05 09:52 · Score: 1

Frankly, I suspect that the NHS could save a substantial amount of money with this sort of treatment to the daily sundry of ills of the homemakers and saturnine types who are so fond of a visit to the physician to tend to their latest "ailments".
Sadly quite possibly true, but that doesn't make it right, especially when you've got the homeopaths with their degrees in baloney in the middle raking in the public cash. On the plus side, there's some evidence the placebo effect works even if you explain it to the patient, so we might get to cut them out of the loop!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

It does work by istartedi · 2012-09-05 09:32 · Score: 5, Funny

The homeopathc process activates placebetrinos in dihydrogen monoxide. Ordinary DHO can be deadly, but in the proper hands it works wonders. The placebetrino hasn't actually been observed, but future upgrades to the LHC are expected to run with high enough energies to reveal it as well as the anti-placebetrino.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:It does work by puddingebola · 2012-09-05 09:57 · Score: 1

Doesn't the use of placebetrinos cause fluctuations in the prefrontal cortex that can lead to Groupthink? Or does the dihydrogen monoxide mitigate that effect?
Re:It does work by LordLucless · 2012-09-05 12:51 · Score: 1

as well as the anti-placebetrino
Also known as the sciencino

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

Methods in place... by whydavid · 2012-09-05 09:33 · Score: 2

There are methods in place within the NHS for evaluating whether or not treatments are worthy of public funding. Cost effectiveness analysis and comparative effectiveness research aren't perfect, but they do a pretty good job at weeding out garbage with no benefit no matter how you interpret the results. So, as long as this nutcase doesn't have the ability to unanimously approve new treatments for public funding, it seems the UK should be relatively safe, for now.

The placebo effect works by Ichoran · 2012-09-05 09:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

The placebo effect works, and homeopathy should be a tremendously inexpensive way to induce it. The placebo effect does not mean that people do not get better--it is that people get better even when you give them something inert! How better to generate something inert that feels like it should help than to take something that should help and dilute it? Granted, the effects of placebo are limited, but if you only need something limited anyway, why not give them a microcent's worth of water in a 20-cent vial, sold for $2, to make the patient feel as much relief as they can generate from their own beliefs? (How different is this from bottled water, anyway? The tap water in most places affluent enough to afford bottled water is perfectly safe.)

I'm only partly joking.

(Blasted democracies, requiring informed citizenry and spoiling all our plans to dupe them into thinking they're fine!)

Re:The placebo effect works by flimflammer · 2012-09-05 11:02 · Score: 1

(How different is this from bottled water, anyway? The tap water in most places affluent enough to afford bottled water is perfectly safe.)
The issue isn't always about safety (though people may just be generally put off when their particular tap water comes out of the faucet light brown), but also taste. I grew up drinking tap water in San Diego. It's not bad tap water, but unless it's refrigerated or you're really thirsty, you might not like the taste.
That is the only reason I would ever reach for bottled water, and do from time to time. It provides me with a better taste than I would otherwise get. It's the same reason someone might chose to drink a Pepsi instead of a Coke. I always keep a case of bottled water around, but I don't pound them down so my cost is rarely over $5 a month. Certainly well more than I pay for the same amount of tap water, but it's worth it for me on taste alone.
Re:The placebo effect works by Jorgensen · 2012-09-05 11:51 · Score: 1
There are two problems with this:
- It may cause people to believe in homeopathy, since it will become the "official treatment": It gives undue credibility
- Studies have shown that when people are given expensive placebos (placeboes?), they report a bigger effect than for cheap placebos (even when told it is a placebo!) - I wish I had the link handy...
And imagine the lawsuit, media coverage and political mayhem if a patient was given a government-approved-known-to-be-placebo medicine and then died - it's bound to happen (law of large numbers and whatnot) - even if it is not causally related...
Re:The placebo effect works by aug24 · 2012-09-05 20:27 · Score: 1

Except homeopathy isn't cheap. Six bucks and upwards for a small bottle.
Cost of a bottle of mint solution? Bulk purchased through the NHS? Probably under a buck.

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.

Re:Insulting by Dunbal · 2012-09-05 09:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Wow I had warts for years and I did nothing at all and one day they were gone too! Doing nothing it all is as good as homeopathy, and far cheaper.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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.

Are they having the same conversation? by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-09-05 09:36 · Score: 2

I think I've heard two definitions for homeopathic. The first is the silliness of infinite dilution creating a water with some non-water quality. The other is more what I'd call folk medicine, which is simply a greater willingness to assume that traditional, low-cost solutions such as various teas for various ailments work until proven otherwise.

Re:Are they having the same conversation? by Barsteward · 2012-09-05 09:46 · Score: 1

Here's the best... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Re:Are they having the same conversation? by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-09-05 10:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

The latter is more correctly categorized as "naturopathy". For some ailments, it can work as well as traditional medicine because plants do have various chemicals that can cure disease.
Now there's the issue of those chemicals not being "clean" (i.e., mixed with other undesirable substances), not knowing the dosage (because the amount of the useful chemical varies from plant to plant), and, of course, misidentification of plants (which can lead to one ingesting the wrong chemical). And though all of the issues mentioned can arise when a chemical (which, in this usage, is referred to as a drug) in pill, elixer, injection, or suppository form is prescribed by a physician and used as directed by the patient, the likelihood of an undesired outcome is lowered considerably when the forces of science and modern manufacturing technology are brought to bear.
Of course, feel free to chew on a willow branch instead of taking an aspirin for your dose of acetylsalicylic acid - I certainly won't stop you. But when you end up with your muscles still aching because your jaw muscles and teeth gave out before the pain was gone, don't come crying to me.

--
That is all.
Re:Are they having the same conversation? by wmbetts · 2012-09-05 11:49 · Score: 1

You'd make a tea out of it if you had any sense and save your jaw and teeth. Two other things that actually work that come to mind are aloe and yellow root plants. Aloe is good for skin issues (burns, herpes, etc) and can be made into a good laxative. Yellow root is a decent antibiotic.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
Re:Are they having the same conversation? by richlv · 2012-09-05 18:01 · Score: 1

it has only been attempted to be confused by the crooks behind the homeopathy, who also try to sell herbal treatments on the side. natural/herbal/fitotheraphy should never ever be confused with that scam.
and those why try to do that, well, should be punched.

--
Rich
Re:Are they having the same conversation? by bloodhawk · 2012-09-05 22:24 · Score: 1

If you had any sense you would have simply taken an aspirin in the first place. Given common sense has failed at step one it isn't hard to imagine them chewing it.

Re:Laughing stock by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-05 09:38 · Score: 1

I'll join in with the rest of the non-UK world: "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

I seem to recall Homeopathy is a big deal in France as well.

--
#DeleteChrome

So it's not just us! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:39 · Score: 1

And here I thought the strain of rabid anti-intellectualism in politics was limited to American conservative forces. Bully for you Mr. Cameron! Nothing like a spanner to the noggin eh? That'll show those damned liberal brain cells what for.

Placebos *do* work. by SputnikCopilot · 2012-09-05 09:39 · Score: 1

How is this a problem? Isn't science supposed to be used to find out *why*, given science has been used to prove that (eg) homeopathy *does* work?

Re:Insulting by WillKemp · 2012-09-05 09:40 · Score: 1

Try (100%) lavender oil - that's very effective for getting rid of warts.

Re:Laughing stock by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:42 · Score: 1

I'll join in with the rest of the non-UK world: "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

I seem to recall Homeopathy is a big deal in France as well.

So is Jerry Lewis. What's your point?

Re:Laughing stock by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2012-09-05 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Consistency in action by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-09-05 09:44 · Score: 2

The Tories plan to apply the same theories to medicine that they have to economics.

Serves the brits right for voting for this nonsense.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz

Re:Consistency in action by John+Allsup · 2012-09-05 09:48 · Score: 2

We've got a choice between two bunches and a little extra bunch, all composed of professional politicians. We can't vote the political class out as a bloc and are basically stuffed until we do. Thus: we're stuffed.

--
John_Chalisque
Re:Consistency in action by 6031769 · 2012-09-05 09:55 · Score: 1

It speaks volumes for how utterly shit the other lot are that this bunch are the better option.
Nobody actually wants a homeopath in charge of the NHS, but if the alternative means giving Ed Balls another five years of driving the economy into a brick wall we'll take our chances with Hunt. It will be very illuminating to see which path he opts for should he or a member of his family fall seriously ill.

--
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Re:Consistency in action by Cederic · 2012-09-05 10:32 · Score: 1

You can't spend your way out of a recession when you're already over budget by tens of billions because the fuckwit Labour party increased public spending far above Government revenues even when the economy was good.
It's going to take a couple of decades to pay off that level of debt so please, don't vote the cunts back in to run it up even higher. I'm hoping to retire one day.
Re:Consistency in action by aug24 · 2012-09-05 20:28 · Score: 1

Want to start a new political party: "The Evidence Based Party"?

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.

It is a step up for him . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-09-05 09:45 · Score: 1

. . . now the BBC can introduce him on the radio as being a "daft twat" instead of a "right cunt".

Will he be supporting homeo marriage as well . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Insulting by gomiam · 2012-09-05 09:47 · Score: 1

It didn't work, it's just a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (and no, I'm not sassing you in Eskimo talk). Just because it happened after you started the homeopathic (non-)treatment doesn't mean it happened because you started it. Especially when many large scale studies have found, once and again, that it doesn't work.

Then again, I agree with you on something. It is not magic. It is a scam.

Re:Insulting by jo_ham · 2012-09-05 09:47 · Score: 1

It's not magic. Talk to my daughter who had frightful warts on her fingers. Nitrogen, peeling gels, tape... nothing worked for years. Six weeks into a homeopathic treatment and they were 50% reduced. Gone at 13 weeks. You can blather about coincidence all you want. It worked in that case. And I'll happily try it myself anytime.

Since you didn't log in, this story is obviously false.

Further evidence that homeopathy is nonsense. Even its proponents won't stand behind it publicly.

Unfortunate lumping by Grayhand · 2012-09-05 09:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Unfortunately herbal remedies and Homeopathy tends to get lumped together. I know first hand many herbal remedies work and some legit doctors have been prescribing them for decades. Athletes use Arnica for muscle strain and I found it works pretty well on migrains for lessening the symptoms. Cinnamon has been found to be at least as effective as most of the diabetes medicines used for controlling blood sugar peaks and it's also recognized as a stimulant. There are hundreds of medically proven herbs that are cheap and effective with potentially thousands more untested that are in traditional medicines. Homeopathy on the other hand to me is mostly snake oil. Things like diluting a compound and having it still be effective is just plain silly. I'd consider most of it placebos. The problem is there's no clear line between herbal and homeopathy. For back aches I call Tiger Balm, Arnica and ice packs the holly trinity. To me they are herbal remedies but you find them in the homeopathic section of health food stores and some drug stores. Herbal remedies should be government funded because they are inherently cheaper than factory drugs and with fewer side effects. The problem is there's been so little testing since the drug companies don't stand to get rich or get exclusive rights to them so it's hard to make rules as to which are truly effective. There's things like Goat Weed that is a herbal Viagra that is effective but then again people still take ground up Rhino horn which is expensive snake oil. With all the hundreds of billions a year that are spent on drugs there should be government testing on herbal remedies if for no other reason than saving money. The problem comes in the form of resistance from drug companies. Cheaper solutions threaten profits so don't expect government standardized testing of most herbs any time soon if ever.

Re:Unfortunate lumping by Eravnrekaree · 2012-09-05 10:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Remember that many items can chemically react even at a low level with the body. You might think that 1 ppm is not much but that is above the maximum contaminate level for many toxins. Things at low quantities can interact.
I also thought some ideas of homeopathy were about not the item, remaining in the liquid and directly chemically reacting but perhaps some sort of metaphysical theory that there was some sort of imprint or memory implanted in surrounded water molecules at some energy or psychic level, and that this would activate the bodies immune system in some way. It sounds like nonsense, but then we would be making an assumption. Only studies could actually see if there were any effect. That someone does not fit into our classical ideas of physics does not mean it can be 100% dismissed, this would assume that something is not possible without actually having any evidence to make a determination. A study looking at effectiveness would help provide that.
Re:Unfortunate lumping by Aardpig · 2012-09-05 12:16 · Score: 1

My, what a splendid display of woo. Please, give us some more!

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Unfortunate lumping by izomiac · 2012-09-05 12:25 · Score: 1
Here's the actual evidence on the three you mentioned:
- Arnica - Never been shown to have any effect, it performed worse than placebo in the last study (statistically insignificant of course)
- Cinnamon - It does have a statistically significant effect. It's clinically irrelevant though, as it improves Hgb A1C by a mere 0.04 - 0.14. Plus, given how close the range is to zero, there's a 3.5% probability that the results occurred due to random chance (less than 5% is the cut-off, but that's very weak data -- in fact, it'd fail a traditional two-tailed test for inequality).
- Epimedium - A controversial Chinese study showed a slight benefit in bone density for post-menopausal women. Not the right kind of "bone" I suppose...
The thing about herbals and their ilk is that it's all hogwash except the speaker's favorite. To be fair, some herbs have slight effects, but far too little to make them anything more than a placebo. Doubly so since the manufacture of supplements isn't regulated, so you frequently don't get what's on the label. St. John's Wort is a good example. It's been shown to have a small antidepressant effect. However, the various herbal formulations vary from a small dose of the active ingredient (not enough to do anything, except maybe interfere with warfarin levels due to how sensitive they are), to none at all. Therefore, it's not recommended to actually treat depression. OTOH, it doesn't hurt anything in otherwise healthy people, so many doctors are fine with their patients taking it, perhaps even pleased with the placebo effect.

BTW, if pharmaceuticals thought that herbals worked they'd isolate the active ingredient, patent the process, and sell it for an obscene mark-up. The cost to manufacture the drug has almost no effect on its price, but a cheap to manufacture drug is more profitable (Profit = Price - Cost). Either pharmaceuticals don't want to make money, or their teams of drug researchers don't think herbals and the like work. Which is more likely?
Re:Unfortunate lumping by Suddenly_Dead · 2012-09-05 14:46 · Score: 1

either it would be some sort of psychic memory or it would be some deeper physics we cannot detect, it operates at levels that are too small to be detectable.
Yeah, levels so low we can't detect an effect, let alone any of the original substance at all.
Re:Unfortunate lumping by istartedi · 2012-09-05 15:32 · Score: 1

As I read over posts here I see that indeed a lot of people are conflating "homeopathic" with other "alternative". AFAIK, homeopathic is strictly defined as serial dillution to levels such that there is unlikely to be even one molecule of the active ingredient. OTOH, "alternative" medecines such as herbs can be very potent. One that I've used is chamomile tea, and it definitely gets you to sleep faster. I've also noticed that hibiscus makes you urinate. Guess what? It's a natural diuretic (which lowers blood pressure by causing you to piss more) and they actually warn people not to use it if they're already on a diuretic.
So yes, if the UK minister thinks that "alternative" and thus "herbal" are the same as homeopathic, then they've opened up an even bigger kettle of fish than I thought.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Unfortunate lumping by radio4fan · 2012-09-05 20:42 · Score: 2

There's plenty of research on herbal medicine. Searching pubmed for arnica alone gives me 15 pages of results. Among which I find this one which shows arnica to be less effective than placebo on muscle strains: it makes muscle strain worse.

With all the hundreds of billions a year that are spent on drugs there should be government testing on herbal remedies if for no other reason than saving money. The problem comes in the form of resistance from drug companies.
Companies which produce herbal remedies also have huge piles of money, why don't they spend some of that proving their remedies work? Hint: it's because they largely don't work.
Many effective pharmacological do compounds come from plants. These are isolated, tested for safety and effectiveness, and -- if shown to be both safe and effective -- become 'medicine': Not herbal medicine, but actual medicine. Think of taxominofen, isolated from yew plants.
'Herbal medicine' is the practice of prescribing unknown quantities of a substance of unknown purity without understanding the mechanism by which its' supposed to work. You can have that if you want, but I don't want the NHS paying for it.

Re:We now know how he plans to save £20 bill by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-09-05 09:49 · Score: 1

Homeopathy allegedly works by diluting a substance that causes similar symptoms, rather than curing them.

So it would infer that you could cure bacterial infections by diluting a drop of unpasteurised milk 10 million times.

Hold your horses by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:50 · Score: 1

I can see this topic has been thrown here mainly so that a bunch of geeks could laugh it out. Oh, how fun, witty and clever all of you are. Truly a masters of sarcasm.

Actually, Russian Academy of Science issued a habilitation for scientific work on water memory. Benveniste's ideas got endorsed by Nobel prize laureate Brian Josephson. Madeleine Ennis attempted to debunk the myth, only to find it at least partially true, much to her own surprise. That is not to say that "water memory" exists or that homeopathy works. The point is, trying to cover it with laugh and some heavy-handed irony is sign of anything but being smart.

But why do I waste my time. I can already see this post voted down into oblivion. It's better not to aknowledge something that threatens to ruin our educated views.

Re:Hold your horses by Cederic · 2012-09-05 10:36 · Score: 1

Ooh, please. Can you link to double-blind research that proves any of this?
No seriously - there's a $1m prize waiting to be claimed. I'm not trying to laugh or use heavy-handed irony, I'm just waiting to see some fucking evidence.
So show some, or stop fucking trolling with your bullshit.
Re:Hold your horses by Aardpig · 2012-09-05 12:17 · Score: 1

Benveniste, I believe, was exposed as a fraud by Nature.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.

Alternative medicine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:52 · Score: 1

You know what they call alternative medicine that has been shown to work? Medicine.

Can't remember who said that.

Re:Alternative medicine by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-05 10:11 · Score: 1

You know what they call alternative medicine that has been shown to work? Medicine.
Can't remember who said that.
I do: A fictional character

Ironic? A bit.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Alternative medicine by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 11:48 · Score: 1

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth.
Just because it was attributed to a fictional character does not mean that it isn't insightful or correct.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Reshuffles by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-05 09:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does it strike anyone else as odd that you can go from Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to Secretary of State for Health in a day, or from Transport to Defence? Do any of these people have any actual experience or qualification in the departments they get dumped on? It's all just a load of old bollocks, isn't it?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Reshuffles by clickclickdrone · 2012-09-05 20:25 · Score: 2

> It's all just a load of old bollocks, isn't it?
Yes. At that level it's apparantly all about leadership and vision, not actual knowledge or qualification. I worked at a bank where the CEO (who was actually quite good) used to work for a biscuit firm and went on to run a high street shop chain. WTF?

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Re:Reshuffles by spike1 · 2012-09-05 23:45 · Score: 1

They're politicians, the only qualifications any of them are likely to have is one for "political science" or some other similar non-subject.
And they don't even need that, joe bloggs from down the street who left school with no o-levels could walk into the local political party office, join up, talk them round, get elected and become prime minister with zero qualifications at all.
(highly unlikely of course but he might be a manipulative charismatic bastard and pull it off)...
That's democracy for you.
Re:Reshuffles by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-06 01:49 · Score: 1

Yes, what's the phrase? Something like "those who would seek power least deserve to wield it"?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Reshuffles by PeterBrett · 2012-09-06 02:30 · Score: 1

Do any of these people have any actual experience or qualification in the departments they get dumped on?
Sometimes, albeit rarely.

--
Pirate Party UK

The sky is not falling by Eravnrekaree · 2012-09-05 09:58 · Score: 1

Perhaps homeopathy is nonsense but you act like since it might be funded that the sky is falling. As far as I can tell its individual choice sitll to use it and if people feel its worthless, dont use it. Itsthat simple, even if its offered does not mean YOU have to use it.

another thing is minute quanities of substances can have effects on the body, including harmful. You might think "oh 1 ppm is not much, there is no way that this could have an effect", yet the maximum contaminant levels are far below this for many toxins and chemicals can react with the body at this low levels.

Re:The sky is not falling by Cederic · 2012-09-05 10:38 · Score: 1, Flamebait

You missed the part where a third of my income is taken from me and wasted on shit like this. No, I do not want a tax rise to pay for some cunt called Jeremy to ignore science.
Re:The sky is not falling by MozeeToby · 2012-09-06 01:50 · Score: 1

It's a waste of taxpayer money. It's a waste of patient and doctor time (including time that could have been used to actually treat the disease). And, most importantly, it legitimizes a branch of pathological science.

This is the trouble with our government by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-05 09:58 · Score: 1

We have a right-wing government. That means *big* government, who want to put their sticky little fingers into everything. That means everything state-funded must be sold off, and the money pumped into private companies which just co-incidentally happen to have certain politicians on their board.

So, what's going to happen is the NHS is going to be taken apart, and replaced by private healthcare, with - like all countries that have private healthcare - massive waiting lists, dirty hospitals with primitive equipment crippling debts for anyone who gets ill, and big flash cars in the hospital admin car parks.

Healthcare is too important to leave to private industry.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-05 10:08 · Score: 1

"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.

In all fairness, I must point out that water and sugar pills are orders of magnitude cheaper to provide to patients than caviar, champagne, and chocolate-covered gold leaf candies, whatever that is. Hell, most medical facilities have water and placebos on hand, it's not like there's going to be all that much added expense, if any.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Why is it wrong? by gmuslera · 2012-09-05 10:08 · Score: 2

People already thinks that is fine to have imaginary property, imaginary money, imaginary democracy, imaginary rights, imaginary gods, etc, why not have imaginary medicine? Could be a few for whom the placebo effect won't be enough, there maybe some other imaginary medicine could work, or then they could go to real one.

Re:LOLz @ Science by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-05 10:10 · Score: 1

I know why this is modded down, but just wanted to state: it shouldn't be.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Laughing stock by zlives · 2012-09-05 10:10 · Score: 1

while true, its more a laugh out of relief that we don't hold the sole stock on dimwits (enter Akin on the science committee) or congresswoman yvette clark who wanted to free slaves in 1898 in NY...

so... Hahahaha haha.. ha ha

Re:Insulting by Hatta · 2012-09-05 10:12 · Score: 1

Yes, we are being insulting because you deserve to be insulted. Learn about confirmation bias and you won't get insulted as much.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Homeopathic Whisky by dav3hatt0n · 2012-09-05 10:12 · Score: 2

I'm looking to patient my discovery of Homeopathic Whiskey. I have taken a rather excellent Single Malt and I have continually watered it down in a Homeopathic fashion to a concentration of many million parts.(note: only the best spring water would suffice) Based upon proven Homeopathic principles, as one might expect, my Whiskey offers the highest recorded alcohol content and the most pungent taste. Obviously, I will charge a premium price for this rare treat. I'm hoping to have this product endorsed by a number of significant people including the new health minster. Do you think I will have many takers? PS: Next I'm thinking about Homeopathic Petrol and Homeopathic Chocolate. Do you think there might be a market?

Herbs, chiropractics, prayers, whatever... by tomhath · 2012-09-05 10:15 · Score: 1

If you think it will make you better it just might. As long as the treatment doesn't cost much they may as well let the patients cure themselves. Some might even enjoy a good colon cleansing now and then.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by Threni · 2012-09-05 10:16 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter if they want it. They can't have it. It doesn't work, and therefore fails the cost effectiveness criteria of the NICE protocol.

If they want it, they can pay for it. If it's on the NHS, I'm paying for it. It's bad enough that I have to pay for all sorts of religious bollockry for similarly irrational, weak minded fucking idiots.

Re:What about if works for unknown (yet) reasons? by Hatta · 2012-09-05 10:18 · Score: 1

I'm not claiming this is the case but why it's so hard for people dissing homeopathy that it may actually work for reasons yet unkonwn to science?

Believe it or not, most medicines work for reasons yet unknown to science. We don't have to know how something works to show that it is effective in a double blind study. The problem with homeopathy is that it doesn't work in any double blind study ever.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:For a moment by flimflammer · 2012-09-05 10:19 · Score: 1

Well now you've gone and done it.

Re:Consistency^w Democracy in action by bullgod · 2012-09-05 10:19 · Score: 1

I didn't vote for him you insensitive clod!

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by zlives · 2012-09-05 10:20 · Score: 1

ice-cream and lollipops for me but have to be served with one use gold spoons... that i get to keep. where do i sign up for this health plan.

The Queen and PoW have a veto over UK legislation by Vainglorious+Coward · 2012-09-05 10:23 · Score: 1

Now, of course, he is going to have to consult with parliament on some issues â" but remember â" he only needs to consult.
huh?

Actually, it's the other way round : parliament has to consult the Queen and the Prince of Wales before introducing new legislation, to ensure there is no harm to their private interests. This little known Royal Veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a "royal nuclear deterrent".

Charles' support for homeopathy is well known - he argued in favour of homeopathy before the World Health Assembly in 2006, endorsed a company peddling homeopathic "cures" for polio, and in 2010 was accused of secretly lobbying ministers for homeopathy to be provided by the NHS.

--
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by Hatta · 2012-09-05 10:23 · Score: 1

What about that should make a rational individual feel any better about this scumbag?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Laughing stock by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 10:28 · Score: 1

Huge, and largely government covered, in Germany.

Why wouldn't drinking the mid-part of your morning urination cure any number of ailments?

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by Cederic · 2012-09-05 10:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

If the hospital sticks a pretty label on a bottle of tap water and utilises the placebo effect then it's a worthwhile treatment and will add benefit.

If the hospital prescribes a branded bottle of tap water that costs the NHS Â£480 a bottle then it's fraudulent and I'd be looking for links between the "manufacturer" and Jeremy Cunt*

*Yes, that's the name used to introduce him on BBC Radio 4

Holy fuckshit by gelfling · 2012-09-05 10:31 · Score: 1

I quit. The Renaissance was a mistake.

Mitchell and Webb by Mendy · 2012-09-05 10:32 · Score: 1

Hopefully this isn't the future of the NHS...

or m&m's by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-05 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

I just got an ear infection... by sdguero · 2012-09-05 10:42 · Score: 1

Went to the grocery store and got "homeopathic" ear drops last night... http://www.hylands.com/products/earachedrops.php Intended to treat a large number of ear ailments. I've used prescription stuff with great success before (I get ear infections sometimes because I surf) but I didn't feel like going to the doctor. Anyway, I'm one day in (3 applications) and my ear feels better than it did yesterday. We will see if this clears up by tomorrow like the prescription stuff has done for me before.

Re:I just got an ear infection... by aaronb1138 · 2012-09-05 11:08 · Score: 1

I've had a doctor recommend those before (who wasn't a quack). They are labeled as homeopathic, but are really more closely related to natural medicine. Rather than some crazy water diluted tincture, they are a bit oily and have constituents of therapeutic value. No strong antibiotics like prescriptions, but just moisturizing your skin helps a lot with infections and ailments near the skin. Similar to the way Melem (beeswax and oil mixture) is better than and Vaseline is about equal to triple antibiotic at helping cuts heal faster.
Re:I just got an ear infection... by MozeeToby · 2012-09-06 01:55 · Score: 1

There are some homeopathic treatments sold in stores that are not diluted to the point of total ineffectiveness, the most obvious being a sinus spray that is actually 1% pepper spray. Look at the back of the package for the dilution amount and keep in mind that some medicines (or even herbal remedies) are effective even in the micro-gram per kilogram dosing range. Alternatively, it could just be a coincidence you know... it's not like every ear ache developed into scarlet fever before the discovery of penicillin.

Placebo Effect by wisnoskij · 2012-09-05 10:45 · Score: 2

Even if homeopathic med. does absolute nothing, the placebo effect would still make it better, and in some cases more effective, medicine than many mainstream medicines.
And let us not get too cocky, most people have thought they, or at least society in general, have known everything there is to know since the beginning of time. Do you really think we are actually their yet?
Most disproofs of most homeopathic med. is entirely based on "this cannot work in theory" logic, and only valid if you really think we know everything there is to know.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Great Idea... From a Budgetary Viewpoint by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-09-05 10:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Since homeopathy is:

1. Cheap, and
2. Doesn't work,

People will die much more quickly saving National Health billions of pounds.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

Re:Great Idea... From a Budgetary Viewpoint by YttriumOxide · 2012-09-05 17:09 · Score: 1
Since homeopathy is:
- 1. Cheap, and
- 2. Doesn't work,
Sadly, that's only 50% right... the "manufacturers" of these "remedies" will certainly charge a fortune for them.
--
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan

Re:LOLz @ Science by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-09-05 11:01 · Score: 1

I know why this is modded down, but just wanted to state: it shouldn't be.

Yes it should be. As soon as someone comes up with some repeatable, publicly observable evidence for things that do "not necessarily follow currently known physical and biological laws" or that "quantify the basic concept of vital energy in the human body", I will pay attention. So far in my life of over 60 years, I haven't seen any, and I have looked. And, while we're on the subject, why is shit like the GP always posted AC?

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

Not only does he believe in homeopathy by gallondr00nk · 2012-09-05 11:05 · Score: 1

Not quite OT, but Jeremy Hunt also believes in dismantling and privatising the NHS. He co-authored a book called "Direct Democracy", details of which can be found below:

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/jeremy-hunt-co-authored-book-calling.html

So now, to add to our welfare and disabilty minister who despises the disabled and needy, an environment minister who doesn't give a toss about the environment and a justice minister who wants to abolish the human rights act, we now have a health minister who wants to dismantle the health service.

Sigh, fucking politicians.

Homeopathic politician? by DraconicFae · 2012-09-05 11:05 · Score: 1

If a politician is in a bath, and we shake the tub, after the politican gets out is the "essence of politician" in the tubwater sufficient to serve in the role of politician? We could experiment.. put the tub of "minister water" in to the committee roles the politician serves on, see if it does as good or better of a job...

Re:Homeopathic politician? by Aardpig · 2012-09-05 12:23 · Score: 1

I recall when the Rt Hon Roy Hattersley MP was unable to fulfill a scheduled appearance on "Have I Got News for You". So they used a tub of lard instead.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 11:08 · Score: 1

As a patient I believe that eating caviar, drinking champagne, and eating chocolate-covered gold leaf candies will cure my medical condition.

The difference is you are lying, and they are not.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:What about if works for unknown (yet) reasons? by imnotanumber · 2012-09-05 11:20 · Score: 1

I'm not claiming this is the case but why it's so hard for people dissing homeopathy that it may actually work for reasons yet unkonwn to science?

Like someone already pointed, most medicine works for reasons yet unknown to science. The science part happens when there are replicable tests that show some therapy is betters than placebo pills.

All I can say, it worked for me twice, for two different problems and in two different points of my life. It's cheap, and if it's just water, won't hurt so why not try? Even if it works by placebo effect, it works so no harm done.

Many conditions disappear without any external medicine. The thing that you are taking when that happens gets the fame to cure, at least to you. If many thousands are taking a homoeopathic solution, there will be some that solve their problem at the exact time to correlate to the homoeopathic substance.

As for the harm done, it can come from delaying the use of real medicine...

Re:What about if works for unknown (yet) reasons? by agoliveira · 2012-09-05 11:30 · Score: 1

I don't think my two issues just happen to cure themselves as those were the only two times in my life that I've taken homeopathy. It is indeed possible but highly unlikely.
At least in Brazil, homeopathy is treated as any other medical pratice and all the solutions have to be prescribed by a doctor. No doctor will prescribe homepathy for a problem that can be more easly cured by regular medicine or requires a quick intervention like an infection for instance.

--
Scientia est Potentia

Frankie Boyle of course by nedlohs · 2012-09-05 11:33 · Score: 2

"Seems strange that Jeremy Hunt is getting a hard time for believing in homeopathy. The Education Secretary believes in God. " - http://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/242964690030960640

Re:What about if works for unknown (yet) reasons? by nedlohs · 2012-09-05 11:49 · Score: 1

Sure it might work. Except that whenever we test it it doesn't work. Rubbing two peices of lead together might make gold too, but since everytime someone has tested it it hasn't worked we are pretty safe in concluding it doesn't.

Not knowing why a treatment works is not exactly unusual in medicine. Treatments that don't work in double blind studies though are a different matter - they are common too but it means it doesn't work not that "it may work for reasons yet unknown to science".

Straw man by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-09-05 12:10 · Score: 1

Hold still, I have to place the leech in just the right spot to suck the evil spirit out.

Who said that leeches were ever intended for sucking "evil spirits"?

You seem to believe in a caricature of the Middle Ages; like those people who think learned Europeans affirmed the Earth to be flat (this never happened).

Re:Straw man by puddingebola · 2012-09-05 16:09 · Score: 1

Who said anything about the Middle Ages? There's nothing referencing the Middle Ages in my post. You seem to believe in a caricature of the geeks on slashdot who go around with misconceptions of the Middle Ages from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Re:Straw man by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-05 23:33 · Score: 1

Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a documentary of the time. You can see the movie is that old because of the grain size.
The bones of the siblings to the monster of Aaargh (which survived the animators' heart attack) are nowadays misidentified as dinosaur bones.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Until it backfires by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-09-05 12:15 · Score: 1

I cannot think of a more cost effective treatment than water, maybe with a bit of food coloring

Until someone stops their real medicine because he trusts homeopathy. Then his condition will become far worse and the cost will explode.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-09-05 12:30 · Score: 1

So you are arguing that he is not stupid, just evil. Either way, the UK taxpayer is defrauded.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by mt42 · 2012-09-05 13:10 · Score: 3, Informative

If you read the Early Day Motion he signed in 2007, he says is that he "believes that complementary medicine has the potential to offer clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients" (emphasis mine). To be fair, he was only one of 206 MPs (including such luminaries as Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister) who signed the motion. That's almost a third of British MPs who believe the NHS should be spending upwards of £4 million* per year treating sick people with something that works no better than a sugar pill.

* This is from the £12 million 2005-2008 expenditure figures for homeopathy obtained by Channel 4, which apparently doesn't include the running costs of the NHS homeopathic hospitals that the Early Day Motion is supporting.

Re:Insulting by Volguus+Zildrohar · 2012-09-05 14:00 · Score: 2

"I haven't been insulted as much since I learned about confirmation bias, therefore..."

--
When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.

Placebo less harmful than real drugs by manu0601 · 2012-09-05 14:08 · Score: 1

Homeopathy is likely to benefit the patient through placebo effect, and it does not carry adverse effect like many real drugs. Why should we discard a treatment that sometimes works without any drawback?

Re:Laughing stock by Genda · 2012-09-05 14:44 · Score: 1

You know, I don't have a problem with people and their magical thinking as long as they keep it at home, or celebrate it in a designated place of worship. The minute they begin to turn their pet delusions into law, I get a wee bit squeamish. There was a great letter recently to the Governor of Arizona, who was at the time trying to woo mining interests into digging up uranium in the state, and she made a comment on the earth being 6,000 years old and the scientists involved attempted to inform her that nobody with an IQ higher than a rutabaga's holds that opinion any more.

Homeopathy == Idiocy by YttriumOxide · 2012-09-05 17:07 · Score: 1

Here's the text of a facebook post I made a few months ago...

1:17am... can't sleep because whenever I lie down, I cough insanely until I sit up again. Having a cold sucks.

Since I feel like it though, here's a little rant about something that annoys me. Homeopathic "medicine". My mother-in-law brought around a large pile of different medicines and so on for my cold (very nice of her). However, included in the lot is a bottle of something called "Meditonsin", marked as a homeopathic remedy.
For those of you who just think "homeopathic" means "natural" or some such thing; let me set the record straight. The word homeopathy derives from Greek and means "like suffering". It's based on the rather stupid notion that giving someone a very dilute form of something that CAUSES particular symptoms will somehow CURE those same symptoms that they already have.
Looking at the list of ingredients for Meditonsin, I notice "Mercurius Cyanatus" in there. For those of you with rusty Latin and no imagination, that's another way of saying Mercury(II) Cyanide - one of the more deadly poisons that I can think of. While I have no doubt that there's probably either none or next to none actually in the solution (due to another stupid principle of homeopathy, which is that the more you dilute something the more potent it is), it hardly instills in me a desire to drink the stuff.
About the only thing in the bottle that would help the cold is that it was originally diluted with ethanol rather than water before the final water was added, and so it's more or less a bottle of 6% alcohol and water with the very slight chance of minute traces of deadly poisons.

So, I think I'll stick to the pseudoephedrine and aspirin I've already been taking, plus the nice tasting cough drops (which contain no medicine whatsoever, but sucking on anything stimulates saliva, which is good for a scratchy throat)

As a final thought: You know what they call Alternative Medicine that actually works? "Medicine".

--
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan

Wait, the UK has homeopathic hospitals? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 17:53 · Score: 1

... And I thought this was just a comedy sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Politician by GerryHattrick · 2012-09-05 18:02 · Score: 1

Sounds like a politician who has helped constituents oppose the closure of a much-loved local hospital, and then can't admit he knows the treatments are nonsense. Note his dodge that if doctors and patients agree, they should have it: bring back leeches? [Disclosure: I dealt with him on health issues years ago, and he's not like that - but he *is* a politician].

Re:Laughing stock by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2012-09-05 19:26 · Score: 1

Could be worse. Could believe in mythical sky fairies. So the health minister is misguided but so many politicians all over the world base their decisions on their imaginary friend. I'm not sure what's more scary!

Cured of headaches by MrL0G1C · 2012-09-05 19:26 · Score: 2

The placebo effect of homeopathy cured me of headaches for life, I didn't even believe in homeopathy at the time and only went at the insistence of my parent. I guess the placebo effect fooled some part of my subconscious as I went from having several headaches per week to approx' 1-2 mild headaches per year.

I think it is worth leaving homeopathy in place, just because you don't understand the value of placebo doesn't mean homeopathy doesn't have value.

Drugs don't cure you, they help the body heal itself, many drugs don't even do that, they just mask the symptoms rather than deal with the cause of the symptoms.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

The pill did not work by aepervius · 2012-09-05 20:00 · Score: 1

Toddler have aches which can come and go. More importantly they get an important feedback from their parents face. You were probably not smiling which she was crying, generating more anxiety and more crying. Then somebody give you a pill to give, then your own anxiety decrease, the baby remark it from your face, decrease its own anxiety stop crying. The pill almost certainly did not work except by appeasing the parent (you).

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

You get it wrong by aepervius · 2012-09-05 20:06 · Score: 1

*placwebo* effect is more than giving a pill, for example the form of the pill and the color of the pill has an influence, heck even giving an injection has an influence. *placebo* is known to have an effect.

But homeopathy goes beyond that and tells us dilution of stuff works, that tapping a bible against a glass full of water works (read it up) these are the claim which we say do not work,. because they are not differentiable in a double blind against a given placebo. You cannot compare homeopathy against untreated, you have to compare in double blind against a placebo of similar form ! And then you get to understand why we say homeopathy does not work. We means by that it has no effect beyond a normal placebo of identical form/color/administration.

In other word , the dilution, the theory , the bible tapping is utter useless woo which has no effect, in other word homeopathy DO NOT WORK. Simple logic really.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:You get it wrong by AK+Marc · 2012-09-06 08:03 · Score: 1

The placebo effect must be different from the "placwebo" effect you talk about. The point of it is "if you believe it, it helps" And yes, people react differently to different colors, so pill color may have an effect. And why wouldn't bible water help? It's like praying for someone without the stress (double-blind playing tests show that being told you are being prayed for decreases your chances of recovery, but actually being prayed for has no effect).

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:What about if works for unknown (yet) reasons? by clickclickdrone · 2012-09-05 20:34 · Score: 1

I'm not claiming this is the case but why it's so hard for people dissing homeopathy that it may actually work for reasons yet unkonwn to science?

In many cases, it does work but equally, science reckons it has a fairly good grasp on why. It's certainly a big chunk of placebo (more on that in a minute) but is also believed to be helped by someone just taking the time to sit and talk through your problem over say a 30mins consultation rather than a quick GP 5 min window and take this prescription for antibiotics. People respond very well to a bit of TLC.

Placebos are a fascinating area. Recent research has shown that not only can they make a real difference to vague stuff like a cold, feeling run down etc, they have been found to cause actual physical changes such as organ repair, which was the last thing those researchers were expecting. The wierd things is that even if the patient knows it's a placebo, it works. Better yet, taking two placebo pills works better than one and most curiously, a placebo injection worls better than pills. Our minds/bodies seem to work in most mysterious ways. A final oddity, it has been noted that existing 'real' drugs often stop working when a newer version is released. As an example, a certain anti depressent (can't remember the name) had a reasonable success rate, say 60%. A new drug was released which had 70% success rate BUT the first drug dropped to 40%. The current thoughts on that is that the doctor tells the patient the new drug is better and some sort of placebo type response does the rest.

There's a good chapter on this stuff in the book Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil

Are ministers experts in their departments? by pne · 2012-09-05 21:43 · Score: 1

Does it strike anyone else as odd that you can go from Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to Secretary of State for Health in a day, or from Transport to Defence? Do any of these people have any actual experience or qualification in the departments they get dumped on? It's all just a load of old bollocks, isn't it?

My thoughts as well.

It seems a bit odd that someone can go from one ministry to a completely different one... or, for that matter, that dividing up people into ministries "conveniently" goes by proportion of parties in the coalition, since the various parties just happen to have experts for the various subjects in the requisite proportions.

--
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.

France too by Herve5 · 2012-09-05 22:28 · Score: 2

France is the place where the (in)famous experiment was done of blastocyte degranulation, supposedly demonstrating homeopathy, which then (of course) could not be duplicated anywhere else in the world, while its acceptance in the science review Nature costed its head to the director there.

France indeed is special because there is a big factory (I don't dare say "lab") that produces tons of homeopathic products, and is visibly very profitable since it finances the above kind of research.

So, up to now, as a French I thought I was among the most stupid in the world, but in fact it's nothing funny to discover brits are in the same boat...

--
Herve S.

Beg the question by danaris · 2012-09-06 02:06 · Score: 1

Yes, real drugs. They do not test one placebo vs another. That means 0 patients get actual medicine which is why it would fail any ethical review.

Isn't that begging the question? I mean, I know that there have, in fact, been studies that showed that homeopathy was ineffective, but assuming that the point is that double-blind studies are the standard of evidence required for determining medical efficacy...don't you have to do the double-blind study before you can definitively say that homeopathics are no more medically effective than a placebo?

You might as well say that running a double-blind test to see what effect aspirin has on heart attacks is a placebo against another placebo, because everyone knows aspirin is headache medicine! ...Until you actually do the tests, and find out that aspirin has a measurable effect against heart attacks.

Not saying that such tests would find that homeopathics are effective, just that until you have done the tests, based on the assumption that double-blind studies are the standard of evidence required for determining medical efficacy, you can't rule it out.

Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.

Re:Beg the question by h4rr4r · 2012-09-06 02:49 · Score: 1

I would suggest you would first at least have to have a testable theory as to how they would work and perhaps show some evidence in a petri dish. As far as I can tell they have done neither.
Re:Beg the question by danaris · 2012-09-06 03:43 · Score: 1

I would suggest you would first at least have to have a testable theory as to how they would work and perhaps show some evidence in a petri dish. As far as I can tell they have done neither.
If I thought that drug companies did as much, I might agree with you.
Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Re:Beg the question by h4rr4r · 2012-09-06 03:47 · Score: 1

Do you have any evidence for that?
My brother works in a lab that produces optical treatments for humans and they have to test all new products quite extensively before they are even allowed to test them on animals. That comes before human trials, and this is for stuff like contact solution and pink eye medicine. I would hope more rigorous testing would be used for pharmaceuticals that are ingested rather than being applied topically.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by PeterBrett · 2012-09-06 02:28 · Score: 1

It doesn't really matter what treatments Hunt wants the NHS to pay for; NICE is not under political control, and approves treatments based only on measurements of cost-effectiveness. BTW, this makes NICE extremely unpopular.

--
Pirate Party UK

Re:LOLz @ Science by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-06 03:00 · Score: 1

I know why this is modded down, but just wanted to state: it shouldn't be.

Yes it should be. As soon as someone comes up with some repeatable, publicly observable evidence for things that do "not necessarily follow currently known physical and biological laws" or that "quantify the basic concept of vital energy in the human body", I will pay attention

Science has yet to explain the physical and biological laws that govern human consciousness and sentience, yet here we are, 2 conscious and sentient humans having a conversation. I believe this is the point AC was trying to make. That, and that "science" has a tendency to pat itself on the back for being the summation of all knowledge, moments before making a new discovery that indicates maybe we don't know as much about the universe and how it works as we like to think.

So far in my life of over 60 years, I haven't seen any, and I have looked.

I shall meet your anecdote with one of my own:
In my life of 28 years, I have looked, and I have seen many, many things the science of today can't explain (or flat out refuses to even try, how scientific is that?). I personally have stood in a room of an empty building, devoid of life, and watched inanimate objects move about the area as if by their own power. I have sat alone in graveyards with tape recorders, taping the 'silence' around me, only to find voices imprinted on the recordings both analog and digital. I have seen lights in the sky that appear to move intelligently, yet in ways that are physically impossible for known terrestrial craft to move in.

Can science explain what I've experienced? I believe yes, granted that effort is put forth, rather than having the entire matter isn't poo-pooed into oblivion because some mainstream asshole, who is a scientist not for love of the science but to draw a paycheck, claims it's 'pseudo-science,' in flagrant disregard for the scientific method, likely because that's not the science he's getting paid to engage in.

And, while we're on the subject, why is shit like the GP always posted AC?

Aww, c'mon, you know the answer to that - they want to keep their Karma, of course.

Why such a trivial thing would matter to anyone is beyond me, but then again, I hardly understand the infatuation with Twitter and Facebook, which is probably atypical for a member of my generation.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:The Queen and PoW have a veto over UK legislati by rossdee · 2012-09-06 03:03 · Score: 1

"Actually, it's the other way round : parliament has to consult the Queen and the Prince of Wales before introducing new legislation, to ensure there is no harm to their private interests. This little known Royal Veto [guardian.co.uk] has been described by constitutional lawyers as a "royal nuclear deterrent"."

England is a Constitutional Monarchy, The Sovereign is mainly a 'rubber stamp' on legislation. (Charles doesn't even have that role until his mother dies or abdicates)
The same is also true of most of the other countries that have The Queen as Head of State (eg Canada, New Zealand)

Re:Laughing stock by zlives · 2012-09-06 04:24 · Score: 1

unfortunately belief!=opinion in the eyes of the belief holder but rather a fact since God can do anything, even forge geological and carbon dating records.

there can never be a debate on science vs belief... however i wish that all members of the government were required to take a test on US history... all parts of US history (and factual history) and depending on their score (hopefully ~= knowledge) they could attain a particular office. I would make the test a written test with the answers publicly available.

Re:The Queen and PoW have a veto over UK legislati by Vainglorious+Coward · 2012-09-06 04:36 · Score: 1

The Sovereign is mainly a 'rubber stamp' on legislation

That's the official line, but you obviously didn't read the piece at the link I provided : there is currently a legal battle over the release of the confidential internal manual which details how the consent of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. So, yes, "mainly" a rubber stamp, except when proposed legislation may affect the private interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Cornwall. In those cases, the royal veto can and is applied.

England is a Constitutional Monarchy

No it isn't. You probably meant to write "the United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy", and that's certainly the official status. But there is no Constitution in the UK (unless you count the human rights stuff that's come from the EU), so the reality boils down to "the UK is a Monarchy".

--
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by yakovlev · 2012-09-06 14:49 · Score: 1

Scumbags can be bought, for instance by the pharmaceutical companies who don't want "alternative medicine" to be competing with them. It's principled idiots who cannot be influenced.

The trick is aligning yourself with someone the politician will listen to, and letting them do the talking.

Re:He might not think it works, but IS a politicia by yakovlev · 2012-09-06 14:56 · Score: 1

Believe me, I noticed that part about if a doctor prescribes it. I considered those weasel words to be further evidence that he was making this decision based purely on political grounds, and using doctors as political cover.

Your descriptions of UK politics make a lot of sense, and considering the reverence for NHS, I can totally see why a politician would take the stance he did even if not playing to those who have strong support of homeopathic medicine. He could also be playing to the "politicians should stay out of medical decisions" crowd.

Re:Insulting by metrix007 · 2012-09-18 11:57 · Score: 1

You're generally a reasonably smart guy, aside from the Apple bias.

Why then can you not understand that a free account that takes no effort to get lends no credibility to a statement, and so people who realize that can't be bothered to make one?

It's this idiot reasoning and trolling of yours that gets you modded down. FYI.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:Insulting by jo_ham · 2012-09-19 03:01 · Score: 1

Accounts may be free, but the very nature of slashdot lends permanence to comments you make while using it since you cannot delete or edit anything you post. Thus, having an account - even a free one that takes no effort to get - does lend credibility to someone who uses it regularly since it gives you a posting history. A history that the AC trolls seem to put a lot of emphasis on when accusations of shilling or "digging for dirt" to look for patterns of bias.

Thus, I'm only judging them by the "standards" they hold me to, so if you post AC, your comments are worthless except under very specific circumstances where an AC comment is justified, such as protecting a whistleblower or something like that.

Slashdot Mirror

The UK's New Minister For Magic

411 of 526 comments (clear)