Slashdot Mirror


The UK's New Minister For Magic

An anonymous reader sends this depressing excerpt from New Scientist: "A serious blow to science-based medical practices has been dealt in the UK with the appointment of Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary. The fortunes of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are about to be transformed with the help of the magical waters of homeopathic medicine. Top marks to The Telegraph's science writer Tom Chivers for quickly picking up on talk that the UK's new health minister, Jeremy Hunt – who replaced Andrew Lansley yesterday in a government reshuffle – thinks that homeopathy works, and should be provided at public expense by the NHS."

36 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. I propose... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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!

    1. Re:I propose... by Desler · · 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.

    2. Re:I propose... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · 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.
    3. Re:I propose... by buchner.johannes · · 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.
    4. Re:I propose... by CapuchinSeven · · 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.

    5. Re:I propose... by ffflala · · 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.

    6. Re:I propose... by geekoid · · 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
    7. Re:I propose... by AdamWill · · 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.

    8. Re:I propose... by lgw · · 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.
    9. Re:I propose... by DarwinSurvivor · · 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.

    10. Re:I propose... by Rubinstien · · 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.

    11. Re:I propose... by canadian_right · · 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
  2. What a sham by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re:What a sham by Rhywden · · 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.

    2. Re:What a sham by iiii · · 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
    3. Re:What a sham by subreality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a medical context, "Working" means performing better than a placebo. By this definition, homeopathy DOES NOT work.

  3. The real lesson by jmorris42 · · 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
    1. Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · · 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.

    2. Re:The real lesson by Hazel+Bergeron · · 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."

    3. Re:The real lesson by MightyMartian · · 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.
  4. We now know how he plans to save £20 billion by GauteL · · 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.

  5. Re:Hold still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least leeches actually *do* have genuine and well-demonstrated medical applications.

    Homeopathy doesn't.

  6. Re:Devil's advocate here... by h4rr4r · · 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.

  7. Re:Devil's advocate here... by whydavid · · 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.

  8. He might not think it works, but IS a politician. by yakovlev · · 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."

  9. Re:Hold still by DanTheStone · · 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.

  10. It does work by istartedi · · 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"?
  11. Re:Hold still by lazybeam · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    --
    no sig for you. come back one year.
  12. Re:Insulting by Dunbal · · 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.
  13. Re:Homeopathy does work by Dunbal · · 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.
  14. Re:Devil's advocate here... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  15. Re:Hold still by Twinbee · · 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
  16. Unfortunate lumping by Grayhand · · 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.

  17. Re:Devil's advocate here... by Thuktun · · 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.

  18. Re:Are they having the same conversation? by frank_adrian314159 · · 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.
  19. Re:Hold still by LordLucless · · 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