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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 11:52 · 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 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 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 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 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.

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: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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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

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.

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.

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."

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"?

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.

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: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?

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: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 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: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: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: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: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.

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 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: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.

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: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!

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.

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?

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 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: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

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, /.

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.

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: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: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

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: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: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.

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

The UK's New Minister For Magic

111 of 526 comments (clear)