UK Labour Party's Support For Homeopathy Grows

An anonymous reader writes: The UK's Labour Party is currently led by Jeremy Corbyn, who has shown support for homeopathy in the past. So has Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. (So-called 'shadow' posts in the UK government essentially comprise an alternative Cabinet with positions held by party members in opposition to the party in power.) Now, homeopathy seems to have additional support from the newly-appointed shadow health minister, Heidi Alexander. "I know lots of people who know about benefits of homeopathy. Whether it's the right use of public money is another thing altogether. I'm open to hearing the argument as to why people may think it appropriate."

Comments

Politics of homeopathy

[universe520]

This is an interesting development. Senior Conservatives (in government) have expressed similar views, including Jeremy Hunt I think. Corbyn's not necessary anti science - here was his pitch on science to scientists who support Labour http://www.scientistsforlabour... homeopathy is still a controversial issue in the UK, with many politicians keen to show support for it because their constituents probably come to them with compelling stories of its success in their cases...

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Luckyo]

To be fair, if you get your "placebo ~20% effect" from [treatment that does nothing other than convince you that it does something], that's great for health.

I completely agree with her statement that supporting it with public money is completely different from acknowledging that placebo effect can indeed provide help to some people.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[msauve]

Well, there's a simple solution. All the homeopathy believers should simply resign their posts. Their remaining "imprint" will attract like-minded voters to their party.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[iJed]

Yes Jeremy Hunt (the UK health secretary) seems to believe in homeopathy. It really shows the quality of your government when someone so unsuited to this job (or any position requiring the application of rational thought) is able to set health policy.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[RabidReindeer]

I thought that homeopathy was supposed to be the basis of Trickle-Down Economics!

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[jcr]

"Trickle-down economics" is a left-wing straw man.

-jcr

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[dave420]

Apart from it not being anything of the sort, you are entirely correct.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it works! Americans drink watered down piss that remembers it once contained beer and get drunk ever week!

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Applehu Akbar]

Corbyn is also anti-nuclear and anti-GMO. Homeopathy couldn't have been far behind.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Dr_Barnowl]

Trickle-down economics is a joke.

No, literally, it started off as a joke by an American humourist, Will Rogers, who said of President Hoover's recovery efforts

money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy.

But the notion that prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for everyone is no straw man - it's a well known part of right wing policy.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Dr_Barnowl]

Anti-nuclear and anti-GMO are pretty much mainstream positions in the UK, so that would seem to be democratic.

Homeopathy? I'm not sure what the prevailing opinion is, but the economics of it would seem to indicate that enough people believe in it for it to be a commonly held belief that it works.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Applehu Akbar]

Obsolete meme. Just as there is dentistry now in the UK, the US has undergone a revolution in craft beer, with more variety available now than anywhere else.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This required state governments to stop outlawing microbreweries AKA your corner pubs with a copper hooskerdoo in the corner, which had been outlawed since the end of prohibition at the behest of giant national breweries.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[thinkwaitfast]

On my first trip to the UK, I was excited and looking forward to good beer (and Guinness). What was everyone drinking, including the foreigners? Budweiser. But that was 20 years ago, so things might have changed.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-nuclear and anti-GMO are pretty much mainstream positions in the UK, so that would seem to be democratic.

Homeopathy? I'm not sure what the prevailing opinion is, but the economics of it would seem to indicate that enough people believe in it for it to be a commonly held belief that it works.

A lot of people believe a lot of things, including that sending money to stupidly rich televangelists heals them.Homeopathy is proven not to work, outside placebo effects. But as you say, people send stupid amount of money to this scam industry where a lot of people are getting very rich. It is especially funny when some of the same people talk critically about "big pharma" profit, while the homeopathy industry is a huge money scam.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Applehu Akbar]

Looks as though my point about Labour Party politics is proven.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no giant American breweries anymore. What used to be Coors is now Molson Coors, and is Canadian. What used to be Miller is now SABMiller, and is based in the UK. And what used to be the big-daddy of them all, Anheuser-Busch, is now AB-Inbev, and is Belgian. Of them, only Molson Coors keeps a "headquarters" in the US.

It's only natural for the relaxation of competitive controls when there's nobody local to lobby for them anymore.

Also, most craft beer is shit. The best US beer comes from former microbreweries like New Belgium or Schlafly. The best beer available in the US typically comes from Germany. I'm partial to Paulaner, personally. Hacker-Pschorr is good too. And both are usually available at Costco, at least seasonally. Even in the land of St. Louis, where the shadows of AB-Inbev lie.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[sjames]

To be a strawman, it would have to have never been a part of the right's policy. I don't know much of UK politics but in the U.S. It most certainly has been (even by name) a part of the right and is still practiced.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Quirkz]

. The best beer available in the US typically comes from Germany. I'm partial to Paulaner, personally. Hacker-Pschorr is good too.

I love German beer, but any time I buy some it's moderately to extremely skunked. I'm in a small, remote town, so maybe it just takes longer to get here or the local distributors have unfortunate quality control, but it's come to the point that I just don't bother. If I wanted a beer that tasted and smelled like Corona, I'd drink a Corona instead of paying import rates.

Anyway, I always assumed the problem was just buying imports. If you have good luck, maybe I just need to make a pilgrimage to someplace with better delivery quality control, and stock up.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, if you get your "placebo ~20% effect" from [treatment that does nothing other than convince you that it does something], that's great for health.

I completely agree with her statement that supporting it with public money is completely different from acknowledging that placebo effect can indeed provide help to some people.

But is it good use of public money if 80% of the time there's no positive outcome?

I have a inverse placebo problem - 80% of the time my medications don't seem to work, so I have to take another dose.
Of course, that's really only the xanax and hydrocodone.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

would be true except for the fact the uk beats out The US in dental quality - we just dont engage in as much comestic stuff as you septic tanks.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Agreed on the deliciousness of German beer. I've never had it skunked, because I always stock up on it when it comes out in mini-kegs at this time of year (for Oktoberfest of course).

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[tehcyder]

On my first trip to the UK, I was excited and looking forward to good beer (and Guinness). What was everyone drinking, including the foreigners? Budweiser. But that was 20 years ago, so things might have changed.

Even then, anywhere serving Budweiser would also have served Guinness and at least a couple of proper beers. If people choose shit lager over beer, that's not the pubs' fault.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[tehcyder]

Corbyn is also anti-nuclear and anti-GMO. Homeopathy couldn't have been far behind.

He's anti nuclear weapons, certainly. Nuclear energy in the UK still suffers from the historical association with the production of material for nuclear weapons, which was vehemently denied at the time, and thus causes suspicions on the left. And GMO is not popular with anyone much in the UK, right or left wing.

He doesn't exactly seem like a believer in homeopathy to me, he's probably trying not to annoy people over trivialities at this stage (he has bigger fish to fry). People waste a lot of their own money on herbal "remedies", crystal healing, etc. The main reason that homeopathy is a political hot potato is that the NHS have apparently been paying for it.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[AmazingRuss]

If it's homeopathy, we should only need to support it with a barely detectable amount of tax money.

Re: Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL this should be modded funny. I take Xanax, forget I took it so I take another. Repeat until I'm knocked out for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

As popularly understood, "trickle down economics" means "when we cut the taxes for our rich friends, the rest of the economy gets better".

There is no empirical evidence for this, and in fact there's plenty of evidence showing it doesn't work at all.

But a lot of right wing morons (with their belief in economics founded solely in ideology) continue to assert that this works. They keep pushing the notion it as a solution.

It isn't a straw man, it's a real (and entirely defective) policy. And all it does it let politicians buy votes from their rich friends who don't give a fuck if it actually works or not.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless dumb ass parents give those homeopathic product to their children instead of the real deal, placebo works when you are convince that the product your getting is working, newborn up to 2 year old (not a scientif guess here) do not grasp this concept thus not affected by the placebo effect.

The fact that there is almost nothing of a product and or standard for these types of product is scary.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Applehu Akbar]

Brits confusing nuclear energy with nuclear weapons? I thought that only illiterate Yank hippie mothers made that association.

In any case the Labour Party, having just been thumped by the Conservatives, seems to have chosen to go full woo in its efforts to win back the public by 2020. I would rather see the old Stalinist Labour platform of the early Fifties, when I was a small boy in London and food was rationed. At least the Commies had hopes for the future, rather than clutching at primitivist nostalgia. Remember when lust for a golden past that never existed was called 'conservative'?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Obsolete meme. Just as there is dentistry now in the UK, the US has undergone a revolution in craft beer, with more variety available now than anywhere else.

too bad it's all hopped to shit (attn: American craft brewers more hops != better beer)

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Triklyn]

FALSE, if it's detectable, it's still far too concentrated for homeopathy.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Triklyn]

cosmetic stuff actually has incidental benefit to dental health.

you're effectively minimizing overlap, and overlap bad. it's easier for plaque to hide in those in between places.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

If parents believe it works and the child can recognise that they are happy or positive then the placebo will work in a small but significant percentage. The nocebo effect will also work.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, most craft beer is shit"

Tell us where you live so that we can avoid it.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[BasilBrush]

20 years ago Budweiser Budvar was a popular drink in the UK. That's what you will have seen. It has absolutely nothing to do with American Budweiser. It's a completely different company and a different brew. It's a good Czech beer.

But more people will have been drinking the many other types of beer.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[BasilBrush]

"Trickle-down economics" is a left-wing straw man.

So what *is* the purpose of policy designed to make the rich richer?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion that prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for everyone is no straw man - it's a well known part of right wing policy.

The Republicans have never believed that prosperity for the rich would lead to prosperity for the poor. They never claimed that anything would trickle down to the peons. They hate the poor and want them to die. To die. That is the way of their kind.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Actually, there's plenty of empirical evidence for it, depending on how you cut taxes for the rich. Proper structuring of taxes can certainly help the rest of the economy, even if the rich end up paying a bit less.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm convinced that the placebo effect is only in the mind. There was a study of adult asthmatics with reactive airway disease in which albuterol aerosols was compared with saline aerosols, sham acupuncture, and nothing. The study started by finding individuals with reactive airway disease by measuring airflow before and after albuterol treatment. Those that did indeed have reactive airways were divided into the 4 groups. One month later their airflow was tested and they then received the treatment and were retested. All of the 'treatment' groups had perceived improvement in their airflow. The only one that had a significant improvement in their airflow was the albuterol group. Physiologically there was not a placebo effect. It was only in their perception.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Support for 19th century voodoo from incompetent mystic crackpots like Cameron is unsurprising. That some in Labour also support it bodes poorly for the direction education in the UK is headed. Supporters of homeopathy in the UK are almost as bad as creationists in America. They confuse personal belief with science. The actual science against homeopathy is extensive and compelling.

The domain of what we reference as homeopathy is broad though so this isn't to say it's impossible mp homeopathy treatment works beyond placebo. However, no one is stopping advocates from proving it through the normal scientific vetting process - thus leaving the domain of homeopathy essentially a synonym for snakeoil and witchcraft

That all said, much like any religion, spending personal money on homeopathy treatments should be legal. Freedom involves choice after all. The only caveat is it shouldn't involve taxpayer dollars and labels shouldn't deceive the desperate and ignorant by claiming their products are scientifically proven to work.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

I like that. Continue the thought.

If a government is friendly to homeopathy, maybe they could practice homeopathic government in general. Pursue the War On Drugs with zero police officers, for example. Spy on citizens with a single pair of binoculars. Put protesters in jail for only a few seconds, to increase the sentence.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[SEE]

So the problem isn't that Corbyn's an idiot, but that the British people are idiots, and Corbyn's just giving them the idiocy they want?

Re: Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/nhs-in-crisis-health-secretary-jeremy-hunt-answers-your-questions-9788366.html

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh with those pesky facts about some important Tories having the same beliefs - it makes the Corbyn smear campaign more difficult! (CAPTCHA: lawsuit)

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Rakarra]

The notion that prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for everyone is no straw man - it's a well known part of right wing policy.

The Republicans have never believed that prosperity for the rich would lead to prosperity for the poor. They never claimed that anything would trickle down to the peons. They hate the poor and want them to die. To die. That is the way of their kind.

If there is no poor, there can be no rich. Not exactly what they'd want.

Re: Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

So children of parents who believe in homeopathy end up dying. Where's the downside in cleaning up the gene pool?

Re: Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, then keep the Mexicans. Someone's got to mow the lawns.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Jason Levine]

"Our new Homeopathy Jails will hold many more prisoners now that we've dissolved the walls in a solution of Earth's Atmosphere. Let's see the criminals escape now!"

This post started out as a joke, but I'm afraid it might be getting too close to Insightful for a description of how governments views the citizenry - as prisoners who must obey their (the guards'/politicians') whims.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean, of course, that it's not strong enough.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[aybiss]

Hah, and you think these entitled inbreeders are capable of wrapping their minds around a notion that complicated?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[cold fjord]

But the notion that prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for everyone is no straw man - it's a well known part of right wing policy.

The description of the policy can be a straw man depending on how it is described. You've basically gone straw man there.

Some background for those that are interested:

Obama Skips the Kennedy Tax Cuts
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[cold fjord]

Your formulation isn't correct. You might start with these links*:

Obama Skips the Kennedy Tax Cuts
Was JFK really a supply-sider?
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

*No doubt there are better ones, but time is short.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[bears]

No, you would have seen not Budvar but ferociously heavily promoted effluent with links over the pond. But no way was everybody drinking it, and absolutely no way was it your only choice.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[BasilBrush]

You are definitely wrong, because I used to be one of the people drinking the Budvar 20 years ago. It was Czech Budvar, not America Budweiser, nor a licensed brew. It was available widely.

American Budweiser was and is also still available, but the shape of the bottle is completely different, as well as the label. Only the Budweiser logo bears a similarity.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[BasilBrush]

3 random links to right-wing web sites does not an argument make. Either right wingers ARE claiming trickle down is true, OR they are taking more of the money for themselves. That's the fact of the matter.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Triklyn]

yes, the memory of the tax monies will sustain them.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Ah, and here we see "-1, Troll" being used instead of a discussion. Hopefully that'll get addressed in metamoderation.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[jez9999]

Quite. The most qualified homeopathic doctors need to be paid cheques of nothing that have the memory of money.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[doccus]

Actually, is he REALLY talking about "homeopathy", or simply alternative and herbal medicine? In my experience, politicians are far too dense to be able to tell the duifference, and they use that term interchangeably.. Or is this MLA a real homeopathic "doctor"?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[doccus]

It's taught now in every university worthy of the top 1% donor club. Since they dom't want to lose their support from the bildenburgs etc.. they keep tesaching Neo-classical economics. A fraud and hoax in every conceivable way, but one which soothes the consciences of all top one-percenters...

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[cthulhu11]

If they think "Labor" has a u in it, little surprise they believe homeopathy

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[TheRealLifeboy]

To be fair, if you get your "placebo ~20% effect" from [treatment that does nothing other than convince you that it does something], that's great for health.

I completely agree with her statement that supporting it with public money is completely different from acknowledging that placebo effect can indeed provide help to some people.

But is it good use of public money if 80% of the time there's no positive outcome?

It's still way better than the 3% long term success rate with high-potency toxins like chemotherapy!

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[cold fjord]

I take it you've never noticed the trend of Marxist economics to turn former nations that were regional bread baskets into basket cases that have to import food, and bring ruin on the nation? Talk about a fraud and a hoax, and one with dozens of examples of failure.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[cold fjord]

The "facts of the matter" seem destined to elude you since you seem to prefer polemic, straw men, and false choices to actual investigation of the ideas to claim to be curious about. Don't worry, citizen, nobody here will force you to become better informed or to consider uncomfortable ideas that might be in discord with the party's teaching. So enjoy your pint, and don't forget to pay your party dues this month. Oh, the links? Not random at all.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Quirkz]

Yeah, kegs are the way to go. If I ever find it on tap, it's a no-brainer. Sadly, it's rare to get that stuff on tap around here.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[BasilBrush]

You're saying nothing.

Either right wingers ARE claiming trickle down is true, OR they are taking more of the money for themselves. Which is it?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[beastofburdon]

Wow, leave it to our resident boot-licker to take a comment about one type of capitalist economics being bad and immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are screaming Marxism from the rooftops.
Crawl back under your bridge troll!

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[beastofburdon]

Sadly though, the majority are still drinking the piss.

Re: Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Belief in homeopathy is culturally transmitted, not genetically.
2. Children would die through no fault of their own.

I personally view withholding proper medical treatment from a child as abuse, and the law in my country agrees. Parents should be, and occasionally are, prosecuted for neglect and abuse for exactly this.

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[cold fjord]

Two can play that game.

Have you stopped beating your live-in boyfriend? Yes, or no? Which is it?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[BasilBrush]

It's no. We enjoy a bit of S&M.

What was your point?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

One isn't automatically a marxist simply because they don't support greed , corruption, graft, and indentured servitude of the masses via a fraudulent implementation of capitalism. If the american implementation of capitalism is so noble, and morally superior, why is it then collapsing in on itself after the top 1% have siphoned off all the wealth, making it the most corrupt economy on the face of the planet?

Re:Politics of homeopathy

[grahamtriggs]

No - getting the placebo effect is not great for health, unless there is no known treatment with better results.

In many cases, there are known treatments with proven better results than a placebo. At which point, homeopathy is decidedly worse for health.

The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

I was reading the Metro (a 'free' paper that's given away at a lot of UK train stations), and it was filled with wall-to-wall criticisms of Corbyn's shadow cabinet choices. In the run up to the leadership campaign, there was nothing but smoke blown in Jeremy's direction. And now this post on Slashdot of all places.

Makes you wonder what the establishment is afraid of.

Re:The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's afraid of change. All establishments are. There are actually sound cybernetic reasons why that should be the case, although that doesn't make it any more pleasant to see the vehemence with which it's being done in this case.

Corbyn here, Sanders in the US ... things are certainly getting interesting.

Re:The papers

[Chrisq]

Since it's owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere via DMG Media it's not surprising that it has a right wing bias.

Re:The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that, or they're just not as crazy as Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.

Re:The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it's owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere via DMG Media it's not surprising that it has a right wing bias.

the hard part about anal sex is wiping all the SHIT off your COCK. like a SHITCOCK.

Re:The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the Guardian is doing it. The shadow cabinet is 50% female but apparently there aren't enough women in 'top jobs'.

Re:The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for that G.I.F.T.

Re:The papers

[fustakrakich]

Makes you wonder what the establishment is afraid of.

No, it merely confirms suspicion. The adversarial nature of authority is quite transparent.

Re:The papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes you wonder what the establishment is afraid of.

Simple. They're afraid of that rarest of political animals: a man of probity. Like him or loath him, he seems to me the sort of chap whom the paymaste-- er, lobbyists will not be able to easily sway with brib-- er, inducements.

Re:The papers

[tehcyder]

The Metro newspaper is part of the Daily Mail group.

If you need any more explanation, you're probably not a close follower of British political life.

Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

The current labour leadership are a total joke who will never be elected, so it doesn't matter what they think about anything. I'm not surprised to hear they think homeopathy is a good thing, but it doesn't matter at all.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rei]

Corbyn also blames the Ukraine crisis on the west and ticked off Poland by saying that they never should have been allowed into NATO and instead "should have gone down the road Ukraine went in 1990". He thinks Britain should leave NATO, but recently backtracked, saying that there's no "appetite" among the public to do so at the moment and he'll respect that. Russia basically endorsed him today.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

The Ukraine crisis IS as much a fault of the west as that of Russia. NATO is also an organization that was created to oppose an enemy that no longer exists, and provides very good ammo for Putin to point out how the west would like to corner them..

Re:Nothing to worry about

[smittyoneeach]

Yeah, it's almost as if there were no history of Russian expansionism going back to Peter the Great and stuff.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

It's almost like there was similar expansionist policies in almost all of Europe.. you act like they were alone in this.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Crashmarik]

Don't go bringing common sense into this.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Crashmarik]

Were vs Are

There were similar policies on the part of the western nations.
There still are those policies in place by the Russians.

Or maybe you might like to take it up with the Ukrainians.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

So, you think there was no western influence in the decision of the Ukraine to attempt to join the EU?

As for hanging on to old territories, let's not forget that much of eastern Europe was Russian in our lifetime, I don't see western Europe renouncing a lot of territory either.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

Sweet, someone too dumb to write a proper response has marked me as a troll, good job moderating dude.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Capt.Albatross]

Were vs Are

So the bit about "going back to Peter the Great" is irrelevant. And that bit was in the only sentence in smitty_one_each's post.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[msauve]

"The Ukraine crisis IS as much a fault of the west as that of Russia."

In exactly the same way that rape is the fault of the victim.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rei]

Nobody was talking about letting Ukraine join the EU. They're way far away from meeting the standards, and as it stands, a lot of people think that even letting states like Hungary in was a mistake. What was being offered was a trade pact.

Here's a quite detailed history of the negotiations and where things went awry, from both sides. Basically, the EU handed Yanukovych a set of economics calculations showing the huge amount of money that would flow into Ukraine, and the conditions they had to meet to get it. They were never really open to negotiation, convinced that the amount of windfall was all that mattered, and they'd fall in line on the conditions. "Vast amounts of money flowing into the country" certainly appealed to ostrich wrangler Yanukovych, but the main sticking point early on was his political prosecution of former prime minister (and Princess Leia impersonator) Yulia Tymoshenko. The EU was quite confident that he'd fall in line in order to get the windfall from the trade membership, and they also didn't see how it was any matter of Russia's what Ukraine, a sovereign state, decided to do on its own, and thus how they even were relevant to the negotiations. It was a pretty haughty position, but if was a quite passive position. Everything Yanukovych tried to change about the deal was rebuffed - it was a "take it or leave it" situation, with the EU fully convinced that the "take it" answer would arrive any day. Russia first tried imposing counterpressure on Ukraine with an economic carrot and stick approach, but this approved not enough to derail the negotiations - although left the Ukrainian side increasingly rebuffed trying to get further concessions from the EU to compensate it. However, the sudden and unexpected reversal came after a relatively brief meeting between Yanukovych and Putin. What was said at that meeting is anyone's guess - although how far Russia was willing to go to keep Ukraine from drawing closer to the EU has been made abundantly clear since then.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you might like to take it up with the Afghans, the Iraqis, and probably the Iranians quite soon too.

Oh sorry, that's "fighting terrorism" and the occurrence of valuable natural resources in those areas is just a massive coincidence.

I suppose if we lie about this and deny everything then they can't call it a "policy". Even though it is clearly a policy.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you think there was no western influence in the decision of the Ukraine to attempt to join the EU?

As for hanging on to old territories, let's not forget that much of eastern Europe was Russian in our lifetime, I don't see western Europe renouncing a lot of territory either.

I should hope any decision of Ukraine to join the EU would be influenced by the West. It would be pretty stupid to join the EU without considering Western influence. It's what most people call a choice as opposed to conquest. Putin believes in influences and choices as well, his influence is based on sending tanks, missiles, special ops and navy ships into foreign territory as influence. The intricacies of Choice are a bit lost on him, Choice in his mind is comprised of a single option.

You're definitely correct that some of Eastern Europe was part of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), however, you're more likely including the Warsaw pact in the lot which in fact were "autonomous" lands (East Germany (DDR), Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Burgaria). Notable exceptions are Yugoslavia (supposedly neutral) and Albania that left the pact in 1968 after siding with China. Obviously, if any of the closer pact members had the whim to be more autonomous, it was crashed (e.g. Prague Spring, Hungarian Revolution of 1956). Ukraine SSR was a founding member of the UN but was indeed part of the USSR. It won its independence from the USSR in a referendum (total 92.3% for independence, 54% in Crimea, 80% in eastern Ukraine).

Obviously if we're to observe subjugate states in the history, USA is ruled by the British Queen, most of South America by Spain, Brazil by Portugal, Africa and the Middle East are too complex to list. China is the province of Japan, shall I carry on? The accepted norm is a bit different today.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you won't need any DLC to support rebels and annex provinces.

Captcha: Prestige

Re:Nothing to worry about

[jandersen]

The current labour leadership are a total joke who will never be elected, ...

Perhaps - if so, then I suggest you grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. Personally, I'm not sot so sure; nobody expected that Corbyn would be anything more than a loser in the leadership election, yet he won. A part of the reason is probably that the well-established elite in Labour have become too polished and woolly-mouthed; too clever at not actually expressing any views that can't later be revamped as something else - and they have been good at keeping the "less desirable elements" away from any chance at running for anything. And then they became too sure of their positions. As far as I can see, Corbyn was elected because Labour's leadership has lost contact with their grassroots.

Whatever the outcome in the long run, I think it will be good for Labour and for British politics that things are shaken up a bit, because the establishment has become far too smug. And I think it is too early to dismiss Corbyn; he may yet prove himself worthy. Stranger things happen at sea, as they say.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

Ooh, hyperbole, never seen that before on the internet.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[phantomfive]

The thing Ukraine conspiratorialists like you don't understand is that the US (and the west generally) don't really care about Ukraine. They wouldn't go to all that effort to do asassinations and secret support. If Putin wants Ukraine, he can take it, and the west will mumble some vague complaints, just like happened with Crimea.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

I don't think there was a conspiracy, just very poorly considered diplomacy, especially considering what little benefit having Ukraine as a trading partner would have provided.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[fustakrakich]

They never had a chance against the Brits, not once. Even the Romans couldn't hang on that long..

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Coren22]

Oh sorry, that's "fighting terrorism" and the occurrence of valuable natural resources in those areas is just a massive coincidence.

Considering that all that was needed in order to buy the oil from Saddam was to relieve the sanctions we had on him, I can't imagine why you think going to war was easier.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Personally, I'm not sot so sure; nobody expected that Corbyn would be anything more than a loser in the leadership election, yet he won.

That "nobody expected" wasn't really true for more than a few days after the campaign started, though, and it didn't help that the other three candidates weren't exactly political giants.

I think the challenge for Corbyn and his team is that they have won a modest degree of influence for now, but they've done it by essentially reducing the Labour Party to the "idealistic protest vote" role held by the Liberal Democrats until a couple of elections ago. Just think about that for a moment: a party which has formed the government for three of the last five administrations in the UK has successfully replaced a party that in one of the last five general elections managed to form a coalition giving it power for the first time in generations and then mishandled that opportunity so badly that they lost almost 90% of their MPs and their leadership disintegrated at the next election. (Have you heard anything from the Lib Dems since the election? I literally haven't seen any Lib Dem speaking about anything since that time, not even a quick news sound bite from their new leader.)

At this point, four years from another general election, it's easy for Corbyn and company to criticise widely and take an idealistic stance of many issues. No-one's really going to challenge them and force them to defend those positions in the face of reality. But three years from now, if the same Labour leadership has survived the inevitable coup attempt(s), they're going to have to start explaining exactly who they are going to hurt personally with those higher taxes, and how they're going to make up for the jobs that are lost by their heavily anti-business economic policies, and how they're really going to pick up over £100,000,000,000 in uncollected tax revenues that no previous generation has found. They're going to have to explain how they will protect our country if the laudably diplomatic approach to international relations that they propose doesn't work with some bad people. They're going to have to deal with whatever happens as a result of the EU referendum. And so on.

I agree with you that Corbyn's election will probably be very good for the country in the short term. For the first time in a long time we might actually have an official opposition who are actually opposing some of the government's policies with more than lip service and sound-bites. Given the complete lack of effective opposition from any of the other English parties since the general election, that is no bad thing at all.

However, I reckon he's probably got until the party conference season next year to convince people that he can actually do real politics as well. If he can't then, in the words of a UK political drama, I expect his candle will burn brightly, but briefly. Labour just lost one election standing by someone even though a lot of them didn't really think he was a credible leader. They won't be quick to make the same mistake again.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

The current labour leadership are a total joke who will never be elected, so it doesn't matter what they think about anything.

But that's what they said about Corbyn in the Labour Leadership election. He started out a 500/1 outsider. And yet he didn't only win, he's won by a bigger margin than any previous leader.

And you know who else they said was unelectable? Margaret Thatcher. Who went on to win 3 general elections.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

He thinks Britain should leave NATO, but recently backtracked [telegraph.co.uk], saying that there's no "appetite" among the public to do so at the moment and he'll respect that.

Since when was a politician listening to what they public want a bad thing?

Russia basically endorsed him today.

Russia basically pointed out that Cameron is a moron today:
https://twitter.com/RussianEmb...

Re:Nothing to worry about

[smittyoneeach]

In all three cases, to say nothing of ours, defeat seems to come from within.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rakarra]

Oh sorry, that's "fighting terrorism" and the occurrence of valuable natural resources in those areas is just a massive coincidence

What Coren22 said. And are you implying that the trillions of dollars the US has spent in that region will somehow be offset by... by what? We suck out the oil and we'll get how much in return? Those numbers were never going to add up.

And if we -were- going to spend that much money to extract oil from hostile nations, that we'd actually be good at getting the oil for ourselves.

The "we're there for the oil" argument has never made sense.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rakarra]

Ooh, hyperbole, never seen that before on the internet.

Except it wasn't really hyperbole. Whether Ukraine wanted stronger trade ties with the west or not, in no way did it justify the Russian invasion.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[aybiss]

Yep trillions of dollars. So about as much money (although arguably imaginary money in the first place) would be missing all of a sudden if the oil-driven economy of the US were to collapse. Without getting into the details of why, it's ludicrous to believe we have any other interest in the area.

Well, except that whole Jewish state thing you guys set up...

Re:Nothing to worry about

[jandersen]

Well, it is certainly going to be what the Chinese would call interesting. I like Jeremy Corbyn, and I hope he will manage to get things together in time. To my mind, politics should be idealistic and inspiring, although of course realistic - perhaps not an easy balance to strike. It is not surprising that the Tories have been hemorhaging towards Mr Toad of of UKIP, and that Labour has simply been losing their voters, because they have both been slippery old-boys clubs for too long.

I heard on the news this morning how Corbyn had said one thing and some of the shadow ministers had contradicted him; I actually thought that was nice, in a way. We all know that they can't really fully agree all the time, and that any policy must be a compromise - how refreshing that they feel they can be open about it. It seems honest. Yeah, I like what I am seeing so far. It would be good if this can work out.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

So, you think there was no western influence in the decision of the Ukraine to attempt to join the EU?

As for hanging on to old territories, let's not forget that much of eastern Europe was Russian in our lifetime, I don't see western Europe renouncing a lot of territory either.

In the sense you're using the term, of people who are actually important trying to get Ukraine into the EU?

No. There has been absolutely no western attempt to get Ukraine into the EU since we gave up in adding them to NATO in the 90s. They add nothing of use to either the military alliance, or the economic union and bring a lot of baggage that they are unable to deal with on their own. The current EU can't handle 10 million Greeks, it couldn't handle the 50-million strong, significantly poorer, ethno-political puzzle that is Ukraine without significant powers going to Brussels (real powers: as in the kind that David Cameron can't interfere with at all).

In the sense that ordinary Ukrainians preferred the EU to being part of the Eurasian Union, and ordinary Europeans were unwilling to allow their governments to sit by while Putin couped Yanukovych and had the replacement massacre the activists in the Maiden prior to creating a new Iron curtain on the Dnieper?

Yes, that happened.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

Corbyn's not much better. But he's a useful better to the Russians.

Corbyn's OK on economic policy. But his understanding of foreign affairs is firmly grounded in the 1960s, and it bleeds over to his economic policy because he really doesn't seem to be capable of understanding that the major reason the UK's economy survived losing the Empire is that it got a new one when it joined the EU. A much better one morally, because the EU's hoi polloi all get to vote for the EU Parliament. But since those non-English hoi polloi occasionally get in the way of what Englishman Corbyn wants to do he's nuetral on the concept of the EU.

If I was Brit I'd probably be looking hard at those idiotic LibDems who ruined the country over the past few years. And in the States I'm proud of my status as a left-wing loony.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

For him to become PM a couple things have to happen:

1) The SNP must lose ground in Scotland. Corbyn can't get a plurality over the Tories in England and Wales, so he has to win a couple in Scotland, and you tend to get shut out in a region if somebody's getting 45-50% of the vote. The SNP must drop a good 10 or 15 points or he's doomed.

2) The LibDems have to come back. When the Tories sweep rural England they get a plurality.

3) He's got to appeal to broaden Labour's appeal enough that he gets some of the folks Blair did.

So keep on eye on Scotland polls.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

But his understanding of foreign affairs is firmly grounded in the 1960s

Corbyn has been an MP from 1983 to the present. And actually visits those countries that you only see on the TV news. The idea that you are in a position to say he doesn't know about foreign policy is ridiculous, and even more so that his understanding of those affairs dates back to 20 years before he was an MP.

The concept of the EU is good. And in years gone by it was a positive force. But these days it's been assimilated by the neo-liberal machine. Their appalling treatment of the Greek economic crisis and their total inability to deal with the refugee crisis is the result. That's the ambivalence towards the EU. Great to be a part of if it can be turned back to a progressive institution. But as it is right now, it's counterproductive.

Lib Dems are a spent force.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[3.5 stripes]

The US, and other countries have had quite a bit to say (and do) about coups in countries where their interests are at stake...

Stop acting like its something only russia does, and stop acting like it's a binary issue, especially since it's 1. not a Russian invasion and 2. the west supplies plenty of "rebel" groups with arms and training in many countries..

Re:Nothing to worry about

[phantomfive]

Poorly considered diplomacy? Like invading another country to conquer it?

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rakarra]

The whole Israel thing is a far more believable story than the oil that the left likes to say the US is after, which somehow it never claims.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rakarra]

The US, and other countries have had quite a bit to say (and do) about coups in countries where their interests are at stake...

The US's hands are certainly not clean. The installation of the Shah in Iran, for instance, was a mistake that came back to bite them for the last 35 years.

Stop acting like its something only russia does, and stop acting like it's a binary issue

Castigating Russia for this does not imply that only Russia has done this sort of thing. However, when it happens, it deserves to be called out.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

But his understanding of foreign affairs is firmly grounded in the 1960s

Corbyn has been an MP from 1983 to the present. And actually visits those countries that you only see on the TV news. The idea that you are in a position to say he doesn't know about foreign policy is ridiculous, and even more so that his understanding of those affairs dates back to 20 years before he was an MP.

The concept of the EU is good. And in years gone by it was a positive force. But these days it's been assimilated by the neo-liberal machine. Their appalling treatment of the Greek economic crisis and their total inability to deal with the refugee crisis is the result. That's the ambivalence towards the EU. Great to be a part of if it can be turned back to a progressive institution. But as it is right now, it's counterproductive.

Lib Dems are a spent force.

So he agrees with the idea of a pan-European coalition in principle, but dislikes what the European people have their pan-European coalition doing; therefore this particular coalition is clearly a tool of Neo-Liberals? How is this an advance over the 60s obsession with capitalist-running-dog-lackeys?

The reason Europe is neo-liberal is that the zeitgeist, and the people themselves, concluded neo-liberalism was the right strategy in the 80s and 90s when one alternative (Communism) collapsed and another (European Social Democracy of the kind advocated by Corbyn) created massive problems that could only be solved by neo-liberal ideologues like Thatcher. It really doesn't help that the new guys (ie: Eastern Europe) have done quite well under the neo-liberal regime.

The solution to the Europe being neo-liberal problem is to make the EU government more like the UK government, where there's one guy whose responsible for making policy work goddamnit and he knows perfectly well that repeating neo-liberal failures because they poll well in the short term will fuck him over long-term. That's why the Germans (who are getting reamed for the ineffectiveness of the bail-outs) were proposing actual ideas during the last round of talks, rather then simply saying "we'll make them fuck over their own retirees and declare victory again so the far-right won;t kick our ass in the next election."

The current model is way too consensus-based for any change to work.

Corbyn's strategy of not opposing the EU but refraining from campaigning for it is perfect for a curmudgeonly, not terribly important MP. It is terrible if you are an important person who wants his ideas to be taken seriously by the EU's technocrats.

The nuclear disarmament thing is even worse. The UK would be giving up ann actual lever it could use to improve the world in hopes that the Russians won;t take to the concession and do the "fuck you" dance whenever you ask them to reduce their arsenal.

Corbyn really reminds of a bunch of idiotic old fogeys I met back in Detroit who could go on and on forever about why Trotskyism was a grand idea destroyed by Stalin's evil; but had no fucking clue that you are not the movement of the future if your meetings consist of a) 50-somethings and b) artists whose entire ouvre is designed around the principle of pissing the median voter off.

As for the LibDems, I woulda agreed. Before I heard Corbyn was a nuclear disarmament/EU-skeptical dinosaur. Now they're my only hope the UK is still a country in 10 years. Seriously when your serious parties are a) the Torys, b) a guy who thinks that getting rid of the only bargaining chip he has to reduce Russian nuclear stockpiles is a good idea, and c) secessionist Scots that's not a viable country.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

but dislikes what the European people have their pan-European coalition doing;

What the EU is doing has nothing to do with the people's will.

meetings consist of a) 50-somethings and b) artists whose entire ouvre is designed around the principle of pissing the median voter off.

Observation of Corbyn's huge rallies indicates that his supporters are of all ages and types.

Before I heard Corbyn was a nuclear disarmament/EU-skeptical dinosaur.

Just because your favoured policies are different from Corbyn's doesn't make Corbyn wrong, let along "a dinosaur". Neither nuclear weapon nor EU arguments belong in the past. They are very important issues of the past, present and future. People who talk of political dinosaurs are simply demonstrating their own political blinkers.

The idea that British nuclear weapons are a "bargaining chip" against Russia is nonsense. Russia only does these trade offs with America, not Britain. We're too insignificant a nuclear power to bother with.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

but dislikes what the European people have their pan-European coalition doing;

What the EU is doing has nothing to do with the people's will.

Merkel is elected. Hollande is elected. Cameron is elected.

You'll note the most pro-austerity one of the bunch (Merkel) is probably the only one who get to 50% in a national confidence vote. Hollande has followed in the tradition of French Presidents who are loved for three months and then hated forever, and Cameron got his majority by collapse of the LibDems nationally and Labour in Scotland.

Again, a clear 60s parallel. The people are consistently voting against you, and you're arguing that's because they've been brainwashed.

Do you consider yourself a member of the Vanguard Party, Comrade? Thinking deep thoughts about the future of things in your own room, coming to conclusions, and then simply knowing that five years from now everyone will agree because you;re never wrong?

meetings consist of a) 50-somethings and b) artists whose entire ouvre is designed around the principle of pissing the median voter off.

Observation of Corbyn's huge rallies indicates that his supporters are of all ages and types.

We'll see how long that lasts. Corbynmania happened at a time when what most people knew about him was that he opposed austerity, and was as different from the establishment as humanly possible. But the establishment was selected by the people in previous elections, which means quite a few of his anti-establishment opinions aren't very popular.

For example, Nuclear Disarmament polls at under a quarter in the UK.

Before I heard Corbyn was a nuclear disarmament/EU-skeptical dinosaur.

Just because your favoured policies are different from Corbyn's doesn't make Corbyn wrong, let along "a dinosaur". Neither nuclear weapon nor EU arguments belong in the past. They are very important issues of the past, present and future. People who talk of political dinosaurs are simply demonstrating their own political blinkers.

The idea that British nuclear weapons are a "bargaining chip" against Russia is nonsense. Russia only does these trade offs with America, not Britain. We're too insignificant a nuclear power to bother with.

It's not a matter of whether I favor them.

My problem is that these are arguments my parent's generation made, and lost. Rather then do the adult thing, and conclude the people disagree with him and therefore further fighting on the issue is a non-productive waste of time, Corbyn insists on continuing the fight. that's charming in a quirky uncle/Prince Charles sort of way; but it's an absolute fucking disaster in a political leader.

As for who Russia does these trades with, that's the kind of thinking that led Blair into becoming Dubya's poodle.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

Merkel is elected. Hollande is elected. Cameron is elected.

And it says something about the problem with democracy as it's practiced is that Merkel and Cameron don't represent the views of most of their respective countries. Merkel's party got 41%. Cameron got 36%. Only Socialist Hollande got 51%.

Do you consider yourself a member of the Vanguard Party, Comrade? Thinking deep thoughts about the future of things in your own room, coming to conclusions, and then simply knowing that five years from now everyone will agree because you;re never wrong?

No, I went to one of Corbyn's Rallies. It was packed. As were all the other ones. The Labour party has grown to it's biggest ever from a low point, purely down to Corbyn. There's no lonely dreaming, this is the biggest mass party political movement in Britain in living memory. That's why your establishment is so worried.

For example, Nuclear Disarmament polls at under a quarter in the UK.

Actually that has a quarter in favour of replacing with something equivalent, a quarter with replacing it with nothing, and a third interested in somewhere between the two. You couldn't get more balanced than that.

My problem is that these are arguments my parent's generation made, and lost.

Perhaps you ought to listen to your parents.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

Merkel is elected. Hollande is elected. Cameron is elected.

And it says something about the problem with democracy as it's practiced is that Merkel and Cameron don't represent the views of most of their respective countries. Merkel's party got 41%. Cameron got 36%. Only Socialist Hollande got 51%.

Germany's PR. Nobody gets 50%. She's Chancellor because the number two party got 26%, and refused to form a government with the Left Party because they're ex-Communists. Hollande got 29% in the first round when there were more then two candidates on the ballot.

Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it either), the consensus of the people world-wide is that Neo-Liberalism is the way to go.

Do you consider yourself a member of the Vanguard Party, Comrade? Thinking deep thoughts about the future of things in your own room, coming to conclusions, and then simply knowing that five years from now everyone will agree because you;re never wrong?

No, I went to one of Corbyn's Rallies. It was packed. As were all the other ones. The Labour party has grown to it's biggest ever from a low point, purely down to Corbyn. There's no lonely dreaming, this is the biggest mass party political movement in Britain in living memory. That's why your establishment is so worried.

The latest poll seems to indicate that a small section of the country (31%) is obsessed with him and thinks he walks on water. 34% are unhappy with his election. It would be much better if they'd done a simple head-to-head to see whether hie's convinced voter5s to drop the Tories, because presumably some of the "dismayed" 34% are Labour voters who will come home and some of the 31% are Tories who think he's beatable, but what we've got is what we've got. And the fact the only issue he's trusted on is NHS (which is dead simple to be trusted on -- all it takes is convincing people you would borrow money rather then cut their Doctor's pay) implies he's got work to do.

We're actually seeing this in the US with Bernie Sanders. As a white progressive almost all of my friends are obsessed with Bernie Sanders. They create internet memes, dogpile on anyone who pints out the guy losing in South Carolina by 50, etc. But blacks, other minorities, etc. see no reason not to support Clinton. And they're most of the primary electorate.

He's gonna go 2-48 in the primary, but we'll convince ourselves he's ahead because the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) have primary electorates that are overwhelmingly white.

For example, Nuclear Disarmament polls at under a quarter in the UK.

Actually that has a quarter in favour of replacing with something equivalent, a quarter with replacing it with nothing, and a third interested in somewhere between the two. You couldn't get more balanced than that.

He's not at the balance point. He's at the extreme of getting rid of it completely.

It's true Cameron is also at the extreme, but voters who say they want a smaller deterrent have historically been much more likely to give the Tory the benefit of the doubt then Labour. Whether this is because they care less about the issue then the Tory base does, or they figure that abolishing Trident won't be followed by buying two or three nuclear subs after the next election; I honestly don't know.

My problem is that these are arguments my parent's generation made, and lost.

Perhaps you ought to listen to your parents.

I do. They've given up on disarmament, because it only works as a political argument for the SNP and New Zealand, and we live in the American Midwest.

Getting the UK out of the EU won't make the EU more centralized (and thus smarter), it will just make it smaller. And then getting back in becomes an amazing trick, because they ain't gonna go with a parallel EU set up by Corbyn.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it either), the consensus of the people world-wide is that Neo-Liberalism is the way to go.

I don't agree with your analysis. People are constantly fed neo-liberal propaganda. The neo-liberals have been winning a cultural war, by buying as much of the media as they can. Look at the hostility there has been towards Corbyn. That's an establishment that's worried.

Re the poll, I refer you to a Newsnight focus group where they interviewed about Corbyn at the start. The Mostly negative. Then they viewed PMQs, and a number of the previously negative people said very positive things about him. Initial views (which the polls mostly measure) are based on a hostile media. When people actually listen to Corbyn himself, they become more positive. We've got 5 years to go. That's a long time for both the propaganda against and also for people to actually hear from Corbyn himself. Maybe people will begin to see that the media are not being unbiased here.

As to Bernie Sanders, it's good that there's someone saying this stuff there. But the neo-liberal propaganda is much stronger there, and he has no chance.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it either), the consensus of the people world-wide is that Neo-Liberalism is the way to go.

I don't agree with your analysis. People are constantly fed neo-liberal propaganda. The neo-liberals have been winning a cultural war, by buying as much of the media as they can. Look at the hostility there has been towards Corbyn. That's an establishment that's worried.

Why do you act like this is unusual?

Of course the establishment is hostile to guy trying to upset the establishment. They're the establishment. That's what they do.

What you're missing is the reason they became the Establishment is previous Labour-dominated Establishment was so ineffective the country suffered an economic collapse, and Third World Argentina would have conquered the Falklands if Thatcher hadn't been wearing the pants by the early 80s.

Thus the people concluded market-based solutions overseen by whip-smart businessman schooled in Friedmanomics, combined with a strong Tory defense policy, was the way to go. If you want to replace that consensus I'll be fine with it. My problem with Corbyn is he doesn't seem to have learned any of the lessons of the late 70s and early 80s, so he thinks the policies of the 60s that led up to them are great.

Re the poll, I refer you to a Newsnight focus group where they interviewed about Corbyn at the start. The Mostly negative. Then they viewed PMQs, and a number of the previously negative people said very positive things about him. Initial views (which the polls mostly measure) are based on a hostile media. When people actually listen to Corbyn himself, they become more positive. We've got 5 years to go. That's a long time for both the propaganda against and also for people to actually hear from Corbyn himself. Maybe people will begin to see that the media are not being unbiased here.

It's theoretically possible he could win.

But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: everything has to go right for him to win.

I suspect he'll get Labour up in the polls for a few months as the people feel him out, and then the Tories will start hammering him. For example, the UK have lets most of the world go independent since the 50s, but the British people are known for tenaciously holding on to economically useless bits of territory with marginal strategic value (ie Northern Ireland, the Falklands) because a bunch of local farmers go on TV and cry when they talk about the Queen. Saying anything but "The Falklands are ours as long as the islanders want us to stay there" is gonna get him in trouble. And his official position is some ridiculous legal contrivance known as "shared sovereignty," which will a) cause said Falklandish sheep-fuckers to go on the Beeb and complain that they only want to be loyal to the House of Windsor and not that creepy lady who should cut down on the makeup and hair dye in Buenos Aires, and b) is virtually impossible to make work in the real world as is evidenced by the fact the Joint Spanish-British Sovereignty of the late 18th century has caused a territorial dispute that is still around.

The Tories start hammering him on that, point out to the 75% of the country that wants to keep nukes that he wants no nukes; plays up his Euro-skepticism, etc. and he'll come back to earth. The Euro-skepticism could be the killer. It won't send votes to the Tories, but it might send them to the LibDems.

People respect a guy who holds a contrarian, yet ideologically coherent set of positions. But they don't vote for him.

As to Bernie Sanders, it's good that there's someone saying this stuff there. But the neo-liberal propaganda is much stronger there, and he has no chance.

You over-estimate the amount of difference between Sanders and Clinton. He calls himself Socialist, and as American pols go he's pretty damn close, but in terms of measurable shit he tends to be right there with

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

What you're missing is the reason they became the Establishment is previous Labour-dominated Establishment was so ineffective the country suffered an economic collapse,

The previous Labour dominated establishment was Blair/Brown. But I get the feeling you're going all the way back to 1979. The 60s and 70s were see-saw years. Labour had only been in for one term at that point. And the crisis dated back to the previous Tory administration. Tory Heath couldn't keep the lights on. There were rolling power cuts and a 3 day week under him.

As to Argentina the only reason it was invaded was that Thatcher cut the navy ship that was protecting it. A ship which had been there under Labour. She really lucked out that a crisis she herself caused, brought her nationalistic popularity, Because economically she had failed. She's run on a platform of "Labour isn't working, but she turned 1 million unemployed into 3 million. She was on track to lose the next election as a deeply unpopular leader but for the falklands farce.

Thatcherism wasn't a success because everyone suddenly realised neo-liberalism was a good thing at all.

As to the supposed "economic success" that came along later in the 1980s, that was due to the windfall of North Sea Oil - which Thatcher was not responsible for. And for selling off national assets such as council houses and the privatisations. It wasn't neo-liberal success.

Your idea that left-wing alternatives to neo-liberalism failed is just not correct.

Always remember: Neo-Liberalism was our idea

Ha. No it wasn't. It's not called the Austrian School for nothing. That's where Thatcher got it, and Regan got it from Thatcher.

There's a natural fit with the American Dream and with American's ideas of freedom. But Neo-liberalism wasn't American.

Still, I'm mostly nit picking here. What you write is more politically insightful than 99% of the stuff on Slashdot. Enjoyed it.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

What you're missing is the reason they became the Establishment is previous Labour-dominated Establishment was so ineffective the country suffered an economic collapse,

The previous Labour dominated establishment was Blair/Brown. But I get the feeling you're going all the way back to 1979.

Blair took the Thatcherite Establishment and convinced it he was one of them. And he was. To his toenails

Gordon Brown was a bit softer on t6he new Thatcherism, which is why he lost his election.

The 60s and 70s were see-saw years. Labour had only been in for one term at that point. And the crisis dated back to the previous Tory administration. Tory Heath couldn't keep the lights on. There were rolling power cuts and a 3 day week under him.

As to Argentina the only reason it was invaded was that Thatcher cut the navy ship that was protecting it. A ship which had been there under Labour. She really lucked out that a crisis she herself caused, brought her nationalistic popularity, Because economically she had failed. She's run on a platform of "Labour isn't working, but she turned 1 million unemployed into 3 million. She was on track to lose the next election as a deeply unpopular leader but for the falklands farce.

Thatcherism wasn't a success because everyone suddenly realised neo-liberalism was a good thing at all.

As to the supposed "economic success" that came along later in the 1980s, that was due to the windfall of North Sea Oil - which Thatcher was not responsible for. And for selling off national assets such as council houses and the privatisations. It wasn't neo-liberal success.

Your idea that left-wing alternatives to neo-liberalism failed is just not correct.

And if you did a poll of the British people about what happened back then would 50% of them say any of that?

She went into power saying that shit was going to suck before she could fix it, and shit did indeed suck. For a year or two.

Then it turned around, at roughly the same time the Falklands War was happening. For her next term she busted the unions.

American progressives of a certain generation have some really great rationalizations of Reaganite ineptness, which they are extremely careful to not repeat anyplace actual voters are because you do not win a political debate in the US by calling Ronald Reagan an asshole. Everybody, including the people who privately agree with you, would have to jump down your throat if a voter caught you saying that shit. You guys are a bit more diverse in your opinions, but I sincerely doubt "I will undo the legacy of that lucky incompetent Margeret Thatcher" is gonna get a plurality in England. In Scotland and Wales, yeah. But England is 5/6 of the country.

Always remember: Neo-Liberalism was our idea

Ha. No it wasn't. It's not called the Austrian School for nothing. That's where Thatcher got it, and Regan got it from Thatcher.

There's a natural fit with the American Dream and with American's ideas of freedom. But Neo-liberalism wasn't American.

Reagan's ideas between his endorsement of Goldwater in '64 and election to the White House didn't change much.

This is America. Rather then spend years developing a logically coherent, academically defensible, body of work to justify our ideology we simply do what we want. Then some Euro notices it works (and by "works" I mean it allows us to conquer a continent from stone age Indian tribes, and develop that continent into the first superpower, morally it does not IMO actually work) and develops a coherent ideological and academic system to explain why it works, and we don't really understand why he bothered.

Still, I'm mostly nit picking here. What you write is more politically insightful than 99% of the stuff on Slashdot. Enjoyed it.

Slashdot's an interesting place to meet foreigners.

So far I've managed t

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

And if you did a poll of the British people about what happened back then would 50% of them say any of that?

No, because they believe what the papers tell them. And the papers are owned by the neo-liberals. Even the supposedly left wing Guardian.

She went into power saying that shit was going to suck before she could fix it, and shit did indeed suck. For a year or two.

No I don't think that's true. I don't think she did say that. That's revisionism.

Then it turned around, at roughly the same time the Falklands War was happening.

Also not true. Falklands happened in the middle of 1982. Thatcher called the general election in the middle of 1983 when unemployment was still rising. It wasn't till late 1983 when unemployment peaked and began to fall. And it didn't fall below 3 million till 1987. (Remember the supposedly failed Labour government had 1 million unemployed.)

Her win was entirely due to the jingoism surrounding the Falklands victory.

For her next term she busted the unions.

That she did. And many other damaging things.

I sincerely doubt "I will undo the legacy of that lucky incompetent Margeret Thatcher" is gonna get a plurality in England.

Depends where in England. It's notable that they cremated her even though she had a state funeral (unusual) the reason surely being that many wanted to desecrate her grave, such was the hatred she inspired. They did though manage to get "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" to number one in the official national music charts the week she died. Hard to say whether those that admire her outnumber those that hate her. Over Britain in total - and that's the country that Westminster and the PM overs, I'm sure more hated than admired.

(In UK politics the winning party doesn't get more than 50%. Thatcher's peak was 43.9% after the Falklands.)

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

The last poll I could find on Thatcher had a mixed but generally positive (except for the poll tax issue) verdict on her legacy on the issues, and a 50-34 split on whether she was good for the country.

I don't doubt the 34% who disapproved of her are very committed, and wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are more like 45-39 now that the funeral's over.

And, as you pointed out, if the Tories can keep that 45% they'll have a super-majority.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

When was the poll? If it was one taken around the time of her death, you have to remember that half the people asked won't actually remember her in office. You have to be over 50 to have been politically aware from the beginning of her premiership, and over 40 for the end.

I think this is pretty much in line with what I've said:

"On average during Mrs Thatcherâ(TM)s premiership, 40% of the public were satisfied with the way she was doing her job while 54% were dissatisfied. But at the peak of her popularity (in June 1982, after the recapture of the Falklands), 59% were satisfied with her performance, while her rating fell as low as 20% satisfied (in March 1990, the month in which there were riots in London against the introduction of the âoepoll taxâ).
Average satisfaction with the way her government was running the country was 32%, compared to an average 59% who were dissatisfied. The low points were 16% satisfied in March 1981 and again in March 1990. The high point was a rating of 51% satisfied in June 1982. (Only Tony Blairâ(TM)s government, for a few months when he first took office and later briefly after the 9/11 attacks, ever had higher satisfaction ratings in our polls)."
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/res...

And here's one of the ceremonial burnings of her effigy when she died. In one of the communities she destroyed. This has never happened with any other prime minister. None has been as hated.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

Sorry missed the link for that last comment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

It was taken around the time of her death.

I'm not looking for how popular she was when she was in office -- in my experience almost every political leader is more popular out of office then in it* -- I'm looking for how voters today would view it if your entire platform was "Thatcher was an idiot whose reforms must be undone." In certain very specific areas of the country, that would play really well. But that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea nationally.

To figure that out you have to get relatively recent polling data on her, or extrapolate from the fact no Prime Minister has been elected on an anti=-Thatcher platform.

*Almost every US President, for example, instantly goes from being the most hated man for 45% of the country to a respected elder statesman the second he leaves office. Even Dubya and Jimmy Carter; who are widely remembered as failures of such historic magnitude that they single-handedly discredited their party's ideology for a generation; tend to get the rose-tinted glasses treatment. With Obama it was quite striking because Republicans would routinely deride him as a worse President then Bill Clinton, which implies they liked Clinton; and then you do the research and they voted to impeach Clinton. Which they have not done, and almost certainly will not even try, for Obama. What's going on is that they forget all the political bullshit that made them angry at a past President (in this case Clinton), and assume since there's ample political bullshit surrounding Obama that he's worse.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

It was taken around the time of her death.

So as I say it's worthless as many of those polled don't even remember her term in office. A friend of mine, who is progressive and a feminist was sticking up for Thatcher a while ago, saying she was attacked just because she was a woman. Now for sure she would not have been defending Thatcher had she been old enough to actually remember her term of office. Her Feminist assumption that the attacks were based on her gender would be replaced with the knowledge that she was the most callous prime-minister we ever had.

or extrapolate from the fact no Prime Minister has been elected on an anti=-Thatcher platform.

There hasn't been one to vote for. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been votes were one offered. See the complete surprise of both the Labour establishment and the media over the landslide election of Corbyn as Labour leader. He was 100/1 or more before the voting started.

It's clear there has been a change in the political weather. Not just in the UK but internationally. In the 70s and earlier there was a mix of left and right government, but in the 80s through to the 00s, Right wing Neo-Liberalism rose internationally. If you're young, it may have seemed like the natural order, because it's all you ever saw. But it was just a phase. There was a time before it. And now we're beginning to see a time after it. Socialist parties in Greece and Spain. Socialist Corbyn winning the popular vote over Neo-liberal New Labour.

Even In America - A black president, "socialist" obamacare, gay marriage and cannabis decriminalisation. No one would have believed it a decade ago. And now, I see the front runner in the polls for the Democrats is Socialist Bernie Sanders. Quite something for such a neo-liberal country. I'm not saying he's going to get all the way to the Whitehouse, but it's certainly an indication that the times, they are a-changing.

Finally - you can't extrapolate the US respect for (ex)presidents to the UK. It's not even slightly similar. We don't even understand it.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

It was taken around the time of her death.

So as I say it's worthless as many of those polled don't even remember her term in office. A friend of mine, who is progressive and a feminist was sticking up for Thatcher a while ago, saying she was attacked just because she was a woman. Now for sure she would not have been defending Thatcher had she been old enough to actually remember her term of office. Her Feminist assumption that the attacks were based on her gender would be replaced with the knowledge that she was the most callous prime-minister we ever had.

This is kinda my point.

Objective truth is irrelevant to politics if the voters are delusional, therefore what maters politically today is that voters whether Thatcher as a good PM.

BTW, every poll I've seen has Thatcher polling higher among older people who remember her tenure.

or extrapolate from the fact no Prime Minister has been elected on an anti=-Thatcher platform.

There hasn't been one to vote for. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been votes were one offered. See the complete surprise of both the Labour establishment and the media over the landslide election of Corbyn as Labour leader. He was 100/1 or more before the voting started.

If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?

It's clear there has been a change in the political weather. Not just in the UK but internationally. In the 70s and earlier there was a mix of left and right government, but in the 80s through to the 00s, Right wing Neo-Liberalism rose internationally. If you're young, it may have seemed like the natural order, because it's all you ever saw. But it was just a phase. There was a time before it. And now we're beginning to see a time after it. Socialist parties in Greece and Spain. Socialist Corbyn winning the popular vote over Neo-liberal New Labour.

I'm a history major. You're missing a lot of countries when you say "internationally." You pretty clearly mean white, Anglosphere countries. France, for one, was run by Socialists from '81-95.

The reason the 80s were a right-wing utopia in the Anglosphere was that the policies of the 60s and 70s failed miserably. In the US you had stagflation. In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments, who lived through some painful corrections in the early 80s, and then in the late 80s were much better positioned then the rest of the world. Too much economic stability was leading to stagnation, government debt was trul;y unsustainable (you literally could not have sold a government bond at 10% interest), etc. which meant everyone's economy was dying a slow death.

Now, in many way, you have the opposite problems. We've got too little economic stability, with no social safety net the people who lose the instability game get screwed (especially if they live in Greece, which has, despite it's Prime Mister's preferences; a less socialized economy then the UK or US); government could fix the problem and generally pays less then inflation on it's notes; but debt is verbotten.

But that doesn't mean you're gonna convince a bunch of people who lived through that period, and their kids (who listened to history books about how shit changed during the period) that being the anti-80s right wing candidate is smart. Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.

Even In America - A black president, "socialist" obamacare, gay marriage and cannabis decriminalisation. No one would have believed it a decade ago. And now, I see the front runner in the polls for the Democrats is Socialist Bernie Sanders. Quite something for such a neo-liberal country. I'm not saying he's going to get al

Re:Nothing to worry about

[BasilBrush]

If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?

Falklands. Which isn't really Thatcherism. Thatcherism is economics (monetarism).

In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments

Not really. As I said Labour were campaigned against for having 1 million unemployed. Thatcher took it to 3 million. And the apparent wealth of the late 80s was North Sea Oil revenue, plus selling off nationalised companies, selling off public housing plus people feeling richer due to house-price inflation. None of these are part of a real sustainable economic boom, they are selling off the family silver. Thatcherism was economically illiterate, and a failure.

Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.

The closing of the mines was never about economics. Thatcher closed them because the mineworker's union had brought down the previous Tory government. For sure there's been times since when mining wouldn't have been worth it due to the world price, and other times when it would. But they aren't going to be reopened - they are destroyed. And Corbyn values the environment.

Sanders the front-runner? What are you smoking?

Just something I heard in passing on Colbert. Looks like it was in Iowa and or New Hampshire. It's still remarkable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ba...

probably because said friend has read the economic data (which shows that, on balance, Thatcher was right), but never seen the bits of the UK Thatcher had to destroy to be right economically.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong on all counts.

Here's the thing. For the past 25 years, neo-liberalism has been the only game in town. People have become to accept is as being the natural way. That's why Corbyn is getting a lot of opposition right now. But the election os 4.5 years away. That's a long time for the idea of a real alternative to become familiar. And when it comes to it, more than left/right ideology, what the UK electorate votes for is a leader with conviction. That appears to believe what he says and says what he believes. Miliband didn't have that. Corbyn does.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[NicBenjamin]

If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?

Falklands. Which isn't really Thatcherism. Thatcherism is economics (monetarism).

Can't explain 1987, or John Major's defeat of an anti-Thatcherite in '92.

In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments

Not really. As I said Labour were campaigned against for having 1 million unemployed. Thatcher took it to 3 million. And the apparent wealth of the late 80s was North Sea Oil revenue, plus selling off nationalised companies, selling off public housing plus people feeling richer due to house-price inflation. None of these are part of a real sustainable economic boom, they are selling off the family silver. Thatcherism was economically illiterate, and a failure.

If that was the case you would expect that the UK would have had an economic collapse in the mid-90s, when there were no more things to privatise and the oil price was in the teens.

Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.

The closing of the mines was never about economics. Thatcher closed them because the mineworker's union had brought down the previous Tory government. For sure there's been times since when mining wouldn't have been worth it due to the world price, and other times when it would. But they aren't going to be reopened - they are destroyed. And Corbyn values the environment.

Sanders the front-runner? What are you smoking?

Just something I heard in passing on Colbert. Looks like it was in Iowa and or New Hampshire. It's still remarkable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ba...

Like I've said, he's almost certain to win those two states.

His problem is that most Democrats aren't rural white progressives. Those guys have been wiped out over the past 20-odd years.

probably because said friend has read the economic data (which shows that, on balance, Thatcher was right), but never seen the bits of the UK Thatcher had to destroy to be right economically.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong on all counts.

Here's the thing. For the past 25 years, neo-liberalism has been the only game in town. People have become to accept is as being the natural way. That's why Corbyn is getting a lot of opposition right now. But the election os 4.5 years away. That's a long time for the idea of a real alternative to become familiar. And when it comes to it, more than left/right ideology, what the UK electorate votes for is a leader with conviction. That appears to believe what he says and says what he believes. Miliband didn't have that. Corbyn does.

Economic growth in the UK beat Europe which didn't buy into the neo-liberal agenda with nearly the fervor of Thatcher. Ands if she's too young to remember any of the Thatcher years it's rather hard for her to have seen the coal-mining towns Thatcher gutted, now isn't it?

Corbyn's got a chance. The Opposition always does. But he's going to have top flesh out his anti-Thatcherism into something that takes into account that in 1980 most of what she did was a good idea; if he plans on convincing anyone outside the "Ding dong the witch is dead" community to vote for him.

Oh really?

[silviuc]

Is that the official position of the party or of individual members? What the "anonymous reader" forgets to point out is that the letter signed by members of the labour party was also signed by conservative party members as well as liberal democrats and a bunch of others.
As for Heidi Alexander, here's a quote from the linked buzfeed article
“I must admit I’m not totally convinced at the moment but I’ll have to look at it. I know my own parents are great believers in homeopathy. It’s not something that I would immediately support but I’m going to have to look at a whole range of issues. It’s not something that I have given hours of consideration to.”
Oh yeah, definitely a *huge* backer.
How nice of slashdot to become a place for anonymous political shills. In this case I guess it's a Tory sympathizer.

Re:Oh really?

[Rei]

@leftoutside I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments ‘convential’ meds. they both come from organic matter

— Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) March 5, 2010

Re:Oh really?

[Rei]

Link

Early day motion 1240

NHS HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITALS

        Session: 2006-07
        Date tabled: 28.03.2007
        Primary sponsor: Vis, Rudi
        Sponsors:
                Campbell, Ronnie
                Conway, Derek
                Meale, Alan
                Russell, Bob
                Wareing, Robert N

That this House welcomes the positive contribution made to the health of the nation by the NHS homeopathic hospitals; notes that some six million people use complementary treatments each year; believes that complementary medicine has the potential to offer clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients, including chronic difficult to treat conditions such as musculoskeletal and other chronic pain, eczema, depression, anxiety and insomnia, allergy, chronic fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome; expresses concern that NHS cuts are threatening the future of these hospitals; and calls on the Government actively to support these valuable national assets.

  Total number of signatures: 206

        Show:
        Supported byWithdrawn signatures

Showing 206 out of 206
Name Party Constituency Date Signed ...

Corbyn, Jeremy Labour Party Islington North 17.04.2007

Re:Oh really?

[Calydor]

Her invitation for arguments almost reads like, "Go on, I need a good laugh."

Re:Oh really?

[Halo1]

Other than the compliments/complements thingie and the "organic matter" tidbit, he does have a point about the fact that they can be complementary. Back in the days, Slashdot even posted a real story on this topic, which linked to a pretty interesting article.

Re:Oh really?

[thegarbz]

Of course. All conventional medication says to use homeopathic fluids to assist taking orally.

Re:Oh really?

[silviuc]

So? Did you even bother to look at the 206 signatures? Labour Party, Conservative, Lib. Dems and some other parties.

Re:Oh really?

[Rei]

Never said that woo isn't bipartisan. Just pointing out that yes, Corbyn is a woo supporter. Because hey, it comes from "organic matter", just like actual medicine!

Re:Oh really?

[TapeCutter]

Homeopathic medicine is fucking water, that's it, plain old water. You may get some minor placebo benefits from drinking magic water, but literally ANYTHING (including real medicine) can act as a placebo if the patient has blind faith it will work.The problem here is that the vast majority of politicians do not understand how to research an everyday scientific question, which is ironic because they all claim to follow science based policy. The real problem is the don't need to understand the philosophy of science to get elected because the vast majority of the electorate either don't understand it, or don't appreciate its utility.

Re:Oh really?

[Halo1]

Homeopathic medicine is fucking water, that's it, plain old water.

I know.

You may get some minor placebo benefits from drinking magic water,

Or major placebo effects.

but literally ANYTHING (including real medicine) can act as a placebo if the patient has blind faith it will work

The thing is that some people tend to place way more faith into magic water than in real medicine :) In particular if real medicine hasn't worked for treating their symptoms (for whatever reason).

The problem here is that the vast majority of politicians do not understand how to research an everyday scientific question

The problem here is that a bunch of people are throwing a hissy fit because some consistently leftwing backbencher managed to get elected as president of the previous mirror image of the Conservative party, and they're pulling out the stops on all fronts. I mean, Slashdot as a platform to wage a campaign against the leader of the UK Labour Party, really?

Look at the actual letter the guy signed. What they mention there does make sense. They don't argue in favour of placebos as cancer or pneumonia treatments, but rather as an aid for treating things that are hard to treat using traditional medicine (probably exactly because they may often primarily be the result of things wrong "in the head" rather than of infections or other identifiable, medicine-treatable causes). And to be clear, with "in the head" I don't mean "mentally ill", because e.g. chronic and phantom limb pain have nothing to do with mental illness and are very real, but can also be treated sometimes by tricking the brain.

Re:Oh really?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Well, exactly. That's why it can work.

All the mummery and ritual that go into the production of homeopathic remedies add to the convincing impression that it has some efficacy.

That's not incompatible with saying that you believe it works for some people. Neither is saying that incompatible with knowing full well that it's hokum, if you want to humour those of your constituents that believe in it, just as you wouldn't trample on someone's religion.

If I was in a position to make policy about it... I'd probably mumble something about it being bad policy to support something with such an inconclusive body of supporting evidence, and make damn sure not a penny of state money went on it.

And quietly support the prescribing of a range of state-manufactured placebo drugs to replace it.

Re:Oh really?

[ColdWetDog]

True enough but billions of people get real, sustained relief from life's travails by believing in magical religions that promise one hell of a lot more than surviving your cold.

I mean, eternal life beats the pants off off no hemorrhoids any day.

Re:Oh really?

[ColdWetDog]

It's got acolytes .... er, electrolytes!

Re:Oh really?

[thoromyr]

"Homeopathic medicine is fucking water, that's it, plain old water."

Except for when it isn't. Actually, IIRC, it would be mostly a light alcohol, but that's being picky. What annoys me about most of the anti-homeopaths is that they conflate homeopathic remedies with homeopathic philosophy. While the philosophy is complete bunk (and I really liked a comment about proponents in office resigning so that their "imprint" would be more potent) the fact of the matter is that the ingredients may well have beneficial properties -- at least if they aren't diluted to nothing.

However, my favorite is Edgar Allen Poe's quip, "The homoeopathists did not give him little enough physic, and what little they did give him he hesitated to take." [http://www.online-literature.com/poe/2199/]

That's right, homeopaths have been disrespected for a *long* time (and deserve it). The folk medicine employed is a separate matter and each "remedy" would have to be evaluated separately.

Re:Oh really?

[tehcyder]

For better or worse, the placebo effect of homeopathic medicine is as real as that of praying to God, taking "multivitamins" or sticking energised crystals up your arse in a yurt.

Re: Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Homeopaths crave electrolytes.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

How nice of slashdot to become a place for anonymous political shills.

Welcome to the shill-pocalypse, UK edition. Corbyn's term as Labour leader is going to be a singular education in just how nasty modern media propaganda tactics now are in a major political setting. We're going to see the entire spectrum of techniques deployed to permanently demoralize and discredit this attempt to re-popularize the Labour party and it will be a real eye-opener for the generation which has to date never really experienced real political brawling in our present age of "consensus".

In this case I guess it's a Tory sympathizer.

Unlikely actually. The Tory's are having a chortle, but the real opposition to Corbyn and the potential direction of Labour is coming from the Blairite "New Labour" faction; people who are nominally "liberal/left/socialist", but who in reality are solidly middle class cultural, economic, and political conservatives, who regard good causes as a chic feelgood status symbol. This rather vapid "centre left" core will never support actual reform and will get very, very nasty if they are ever called upon to actually perform, if their ideas are challenged, or especially, if they are threatened with being exposed for the conservatives they truly are.

Not a surprise to see this at Slashdot either. Geekdom had its own Corbyn-esque run in with the "new left" during Gamergate. Screaming cultural reactionaries drummed up a moral panic, lied, sensationalized, and slandered and entire industry to the point where the public image of video games went back to the 1990s. The people who did this claimed the moniker "progressive", but in word and deed were cultural conservatives of the worst sort. Slashdot came down firmly on their side, against the video game industry. There wasn't even a pretense of impartiality.

This site belongs to the "New Left". To mendacious hipsters, psychopathic journalists, and neo-reactionary social media starlets. The comments section yet belongs to at least half way critically thinking geeks, but how long is that likely to last with stories like these polluting the front page. All I know is that these types get ugliest and nastiest when dealing with people they nominally consider to be their "allies". The attacks on Corbyn are coming from this faux-liberal class fostered, educated, and encourage by Blair and his ilk. People who are most naturally at home in cozy consensus with the economic right, and whose major political contribution is to repress and contain the class consciousness of the wider public by any and all necessary means. Corbyn will be the test of whether or not their political paradigm can survive. Expect this to get very, Very, ugly.

Re:Oh really?

[AmiMoJo]

Which is why it makes sense to consider offering it on the NHS. If you simply ask the patient "do you believe in homoeopathy?" and then offer then a 50p bottle of water if they say yes, you have potentially saved large sums of money on things like painkillers, anti-depressants and unnecessary antibiotics. If they say no, you move on.

Actually, the real lesson here is that talking really helps. Much of the benefit derived from homoeopathic "medicine" comes from the "doctor" taking the time to listen to the patient. Normally a GP has 10 minutes allocated per patient, including preparation and paperwork. So if a guy with "Dr." in front of his name sits down, listens to the patient complain for an hour and then offers them a jar of magic water as if they really care it often has a very positive psychological effect.

Re:Oh really?

[owski]

Well, exactly. That's why it can work.

So does religious prayer. Do you support it as well?

Re:Oh really?

[owski]

the fact of the matter is that the ingredients may well have beneficial properties

Since these aren't present in the remedy, what was your point exactly?

Re:Oh really?

[arkhan_jg]

I think the placebo effects often come from getting to spend some real time and sit down with someone who will discuss your problem at length, come up with a 'solution' and tailor it just for you.

They then hand you your bottle of water, and off you go, happy that you've been given proper attention and care by a 'professional', compared to the 7 minute appointment where the over-worked and rushed GP had to try and figure out what was actually wrong, whether it was treatable, and what treatment or referral to give, without actually lying to the patient.

So it gives some people relief for symptoms because they've been given reassurance and time they don't get on the NHS. Rather than funding homeopathy, we should be funding more GPs. And change the rules to allow them to prescribe sugar pills if they want, instead of sending patients away with nothing...

Re:Oh really?

[jez9999]

What annoys me about most of the anti-homeopaths is that they conflate homeopathic remedies with homeopathic philosophy

What the fuck are you talking about? Of course we do; the two are completely inseperable. You're talking about "weak" solutions maybe having a beneficial effect on someone's illness; well that's just regular medicine. Homeopathy would probably say that that solution wasn't diluted enough. It's not fucking homeopathy if there's anything left except almost 100% water.

Re:Oh really?

[Rakarra]

Are you confusing homeopathic remedies with alternative medicine as a whole? Homeopathy is the dilution of substance until there there is nothing left of the original substance. You say the ingredients may have beneficial properties, but there is nothing of that original ingredient remaining. Are you suggesting beneficial properties of -other- substances added to the homeopathic water? Well, that's certainly possible, but at that point I don't think you could call it a homeopathic remedy.

Tedious Smear

[FalconZero]

This smacks a lot of the continuing media smear against the new labour leadership - which is getting tiresome for pretty much everyone (whatever their political views).

From the second paragraph of TFA :
She added: “I must admit I’m not totally convinced at the moment but I’ll have to look at it. ... It’s not something that I have given hours of consideration to.”

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

Belief in homeopathy is not a smear in the highest levels of UK government, as the highest-ranking proponents of it are the royal family themselves. There is a homeopathic hospital near Buckingham Palace, and both the Queen and her son have repeatedly made it clear they believe in homeopathy and wish for it to be supported by the government. There are various UK universities that actually provide courses in this stuff.

Re:Tedious Smear

[roca]

Corbyn and McDonnell are on this list:
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2...

Re:Tedious Smear

[silviuc]

So are 204 others including Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Your point?

Re:Tedious Smear

[DNS-and-BIND]

It must be strange living in Bizarro world where there is no persistent left-wing bias in the vast majority of Western media and reporting facts about your preferred politicians is perceived to be "a smear".

Re:Tedious Smear

[Capt.Albatross]

The beliefs of the royals does not matter. Those of a potentially government-forming political party do.

Re: Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the media in your world looks like, but it's very different to mine. There is a very clear right wing bias in the press. There is also probably a liberal bias however, that may be what your confusing with left wing. Remember left/right is about economic systems, liberal/illiberal is about social systems.

Re:Tedious Smear

[squiggleslash]

Are any of these other people leaders of their respective political parties?

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be strange living in Bizarro world where there is no persistent left-wing bias in the vast majority of Western media

Uh? There is quite clearly a persistent right wing bias in the majority of UK and US media at least.

Re:Tedious Smear

[silviuc]

Opinions of leaders are not always the opinions expressed by the parties themselves.

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

"This smacks a lot of the continuing media smear against the new labour leadership - which is getting tiresome for pretty much everyone (whatever their political views)."

No, it's really not. I just wish the same amount of smears had been levelled against Farage, though for some reason he was instead turned into a media darling for a while in the run up to the European and national elections.

The fact is that people on the fringes that spout populist nonsense to try and get elected NEED to have their ideas challenged.

Populism is a disease, a horrible, vile, disease, and it should be challenged everywhere it arises, whether that's on the hard right from Farage, or on the hard left from Jeremy.

Jeremy's hopes, ideas, and promises sound too good to be true because they are, and that's the problem with him because unlike Farage, his party has a chance of being elected (if the Tories really fuck things up by 2020). That is why the media is "out to get him" because it's better to highlight the complete nonsense of his ideas now, than it is to see the country come tumbling down when reality collides with Jeremy's fantasy land in 2020.

There are just too many questions over Jeremy's thoughts and ideas, and he's not answering them. He didn't turn up on Marr on Sunday leaving his deputy, Tom Watson (a genuinely good left wing MP), to do his best and he's been ranting about how PMQs needs to change because he's shit scared of having his ideas in response to Tory policy actually debated in parliament every Wednesday.

Jeremy IS dangerous, because he's fed a load of bullshit to 250,000 Labour supporters who have bought it, but there are another 9.1million people who voted Labour back in May who did not vote for his unsubstantiated agenda, and the other Labour MPs in parliament have to pay attention to those, the people who actually elected them, rather than the 250,000 Corbyn voters.

Jeremy's victory is a triumph of populism, and a failure of critical political thinking on behalf of the Labour members who elected him. That is not a sound basis to run a country - as per my previous mention of Tom Watson, it is possible to both be rational as he is, and not full of shit like Jeremy is. I'm not anti-left, but I am very anti-Jeremy because he's so full of shit - there's a reason his biggest fans in politics are people whose economic policies failed when they collided with reality, like those in Syriza, and Argentina's Kirchner.

Make no mistake, Jeremy is to the left what Farage is to the right, populist, full of shit, and dangerous. The sort of idiot that upon gaining power results in such gems of history as Stalin and Mussolini. Extremists in power never, ever has a good outcome.

Re: Tedious Smear

[jcr]

There is a very clear right wing bias in the press.

Talk to your doctors and get your meds adjusted. You're full-on delusional.

-jcr

Re:Tedious Smear

[TapeCutter]

What the royal family thinks may not matter to the commoner but it certainly matters to a "potentially government-forming political party". Not so-much in a legal/constitutional sense, but in a social-networking sense they can cannot (in practice) be totally ignored by anyone with political ambitions in the United Kingdom.

Re:Tedious Smear

[squiggleslash]

It was a Yes/No question. I'll ask again: Are any of these other people leaders of their respective political parties? Are any of the other major political parties currently lead by people who have publicly announced support for homeopathy?

Re:Tedious Smear

[squiggleslash]

It must be strange living in bizarro-world where there's no persistent pro-establishment/right-wing bias in the vast majority of Western Media. Most newspapers are describing Corbyn using terms like "leftist", "left wing extremist", etc - yet he's a fairly conventional liberal from everything I've read about him, just not pro-establishment. Can you imagine any of these newspapers - indeed, any media outside of some self-published left wing newsletters - describing Ron Paul or Donald Trump as "right wing extremists"?

That said, a quote out of context is a smear. The article isn't as big a smear as many critics are suggesting, but the attack on Alexander is out of line.

Re:Tedious Smear

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope! It's leftist. It's just that you are so far to the left yourself that anything to the right of Mao Zedong looks like crazy talk. Take this quick test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? The answer is so blatantly obvious as to be, well, blatantly obvious. If you do not answer this question correctly you are a raving nutbag.

Here is the correct answer to this test, as printed in the pages of the Grey Lady herself. If you failed the test, think long and hard about just how far out you are and just how few people share your views, and that you live in an echo chamber where dissent is either not allowed or quickly deleted.

Re:Tedious Smear

[N1AK]

Most newspapers are describing Corbyn using terms like "leftist", "left wing extremist", etc - yet he's a fairly conventional liberal from everything I've read about him, just not pro-establishment. Can you imagine any of these newspapers - indeed, any media outside of some self-published left wing newsletters - describing Ron Paul or Donald Trump as "right wing extremists"?

Trump would certainly be considered extremely right wing by the population of the UK. From a UK perspective Corbyn is genuinely left wing. He wants state nationalisation of railways and energy, wants higher taxes on businesses and is interested in the idea of a 'maximum wage'. Given that the centre-ground in UK politics is notably more socialist than America that would almost certainly make a Corbyn extremely left wing by US standards.

Re:Tedious Smear

[silviuc]

You've seen one too many police flicks.

Re:Tedious Smear

[squiggleslash]

No, I just know when someone is avoiding giving an answer because of strictly partisan reasons. You've posted this apologia for Corbyn's pro-homeopathy stance multiple times now.

What current UK major party leaders, other than Corbyn, have said they support homeopathy?

Re:Tedious Smear

[squiggleslash]

The New York Times can define itself however it wants. However, it doesn't change either its content, which is broadly pro-establishment, and nor is the NYT somehow representative of Western Media media. The Times hires occasional leftish commentators, such as Krugman, but has plenty of commentators who espouse right wing positions too. Is the NYT advocating the Democrats pick Sanders for President? Advocating an expansion of social security? Did it carefully analyzed the drumbeat for war in 2001-2003 and ultimately oppose it before it started? Did the NYT not lionize Paul Ryan when he proposed fiscal reforms supposedly to clear the deficit?

The NYT may or may not be right wing, but it's certainly not left wing.

The US media's bias is difficult to measure because there are very few significant papers with national reach, with most of the media concentrated in local publications. And few US newspapers explicitly back a political party. However, the UK is much easier. The main national dailies are:

Conservative: Times, Sun, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Star
No party or frequently swinging: Independent, Financial Times
Liberal or left wing: Guardian, Daily Mirror

If you're looking for a picture of media bias in Western Media, that couldn't be better one.

People who can afford to own newspapers rarely want left wing governments.

Re:Tedious Smear

[silviuc]

Nah, you're just angry that I don't want to play ball. You had such a nice line of questioning prepared and I simply don't care.
Like they say, no battle plan survives the first contact with the "enemy" :)

Re:Tedious Smear

[DNS-and-BIND]

You're a left-wing extremist if you think the NYT isn't solidly liberal. It is, it has admitted it in print, and still you don't believe it. Delusional beliefs and rejecting facts that don't fit your value systems are all symptoms of an extremist. You and Stormfront have a lot in common, though you would never admit it because then your brain would see itself lying to itself, and the cognitive dissonance would cause a mental breakdown. It's a self-defense measure by the psyche.

Re:Tedious Smear

[squiggleslash]

Still dodging. It was a simple yes/no question. Someone interested in discussion would have answered them or acknowledged the consequences of the answer.

You're not interested though. You're a partisan coward, throwing out apologia for when someone you politically agree with does something stupid, but not even able to post apologia that's fair and reasonable, and unable to even acknowledge it. You can't bring yourself to answer the question because you know Corbyn is, actually, on the wrong side of this issue.

You could have just stayed quiet. Instead, pretty much every time someone has raised the issue of Corbyn signing on to a document explicitly praising the the subsidization of homeopathy, you've posted the same blatantly misleading and impossible to justify "defense".

You're not helping anyone by doing this, least of all yourself.

Re:Tedious Smear

[silviuc]

"Still dodging."
And you're still not getting it.
Me anticipating your ridiculous conclusion does not mean I did not answer. You might not be satisfied with my answer, but that is of little consequence to me. Tell your PR dpt. to prepare a better script next time which anticipates "rebels" and out of script answers to the questions.
As for my "partisanship", dude, I'm not even native to that part of the world nor do I live there. Thank God! I would be driven out of my mind by your ridiculous nanny state.

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a left-wing extremist if you think the NYT isn't solidly liberal. It is, it has admitted it in print, and still you don't believe it.

I could admit in print that I'm a unicorn, but that wouldn't make it true.

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

Most newspapers are describing Corbyn using terms like "leftist", "left wing extremist", etc - yet he's a fairly conventional liberal from everything I've read about him

In what way is Jeremy Corbyn a liberal? He is clearly in favour of more government intervention in the economy and in society. He has been an outspoken proponent of several decidedly socialist proposals and his overal world view seems very much socialist. Even the vast majority of the Labour Party seem to view him as a left-wing member.

Re:Tedious Smear

[3.5 stripes]

The new york times is a liberal (you keep using that word...) newspaper only in the US, where everything is skewed so far to the right that the center is what most of the western world calls conservative.

BTW, if you're talking about echo chambers, don't go throwing rocks as you're likely to break a few windows.

Re: Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you are being called out and you still hide behind your wall of text. Why not answer his question instead of dodging it. Are you afraid that he is correct and you are wrong? If so, it happens.

I'll answer it for you. no they are not. He is the only one. How hard was that? I think you were scared to answer because you knew you were wrong and wanted to save face. But you just made it worst for yourself.

I think you might be a fucking shill.

Re: Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow,
This is what it's come to. You extreme left wingers are fucking stupid && delusional.

Go back to your echo chamber and keep spouting random shit.

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

David Cameron has several times appointed people to relevant ministries who are outspoken in favour of homeopathy - in particular, of Health (Jeremy Hunt) and of Science (Greg Clark). So, there is your clear statement by the present prime minister in support of homeopathy as of health and scientific benefit - of far greater impact on health and science policy in the UK than a vote in favour of placebo treatment.

I look forward to the, "B-b-but he didn't declare the opinion himself!" rebuttal, which is as intellectually dishonest as a dictator pointing out that they didn't personally torture anyone, just personally appoint a lot of people who he knew would do so.

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

From a UK perspective Corbyn is genuinely left wing.

Depends on when you were born / how rich the mogul owning your newspaper. "Genuinely left wing" = either state or worker ownership of the means of production, i.e. no capitalism, i.e. no private ownership of an organisation except by virtue of working there.

He wants state nationalisation of railways and energy, wants higher taxes on businesses and is interested in the idea of a 'maximum wage'.

So, Corbyn is a centrist, i.e. a social democrat, who believes in renationalisation of SOME of the commanding heights - on this, he is no further to the right than many pre-neoliberal Tories.

The "maximum wage" concept is bollocks-talk which implies that the only way of making a lot of money must be to own a business or inherit it - this runs contrary to socialist (not communist) principles, which vaguely says that it's ok to earn a lot of money as long as it's from the "sweat of your brow" rather than investment. IOW it ends up being feudalist rather than left wing. His drum-beating on this is more likely in practice to translate into higher tax rates for the highest earners.

Re:Tedious Smear

[BasilBrush]

This question that you are asking time and time again. This was BEFORE Corbyn was a party leader. And the answer to whether there is another one is:

YES.

In fact there's two of them. Nick Clegg, former leader of the Lib Dems, and Tim Farron, current leader of the Lib Dems both appear on that list.

YOU LOSE.

And you lose big time because you repeated the question so many times, unaware that you were wrong.

Re:Tedious Smear

[BasilBrush]

"By US standards" is irrelevant to the UK.

By rest-of-the-entire-world standards, everyone in American politics is right wing. Meaning that anyone in the Republican party is far right.

Re:Tedious Smear

[BasilBrush]

You're a far-right loon. Of course everything looks left wing to you.

Re:Tedious Smear

[BasilBrush]

Oh the royal family won't be ignored by Corbyn. He'll continue to to point out that they are an anachronism with no place in the 21st century.

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

By rest-of-Western-Europe standards, everyone in American politics is right wing. Meaning that anyone in the Republican party is far right.

FTFY

Re:Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

It's kind of interesting how you keep conflating pro-establishment with pro-right wing. I don't think that it's an accurate grouping; plenty of right-wing papers are anti-establishment.

Re: Tedious Smear

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that only stupid, delusional, extreme left wingers can point out logical fallacies?

Re:Tedious Smear

[N1AK]

Yes, but when discussing politicians with someone from another country, then if you are an effective communicator, you would put it in context. You'd have noticed I talked about both individuals extensively in a UK context before making one in an American context if you'd stopped to think instead of instantly jumping on the opportunity to make an irrelevant point.

Re:Tedious Smear

[N1AK]

Depends on when you were born / how rich the mogul owning your newspaper. "Genuinely left wing" = either state or worker ownership of the means of production, i.e. no capitalism, i.e. no private ownership of an organisation except by virtue of working there.

You can make up definitions all you like but it doesn't mean they'll be accepted. Left wing from a UK perspective is by definition decided by what the current population of the country believe it to mean. I think the % who would define it as no capitalism would be nominal, and the vast majority of the population would consider it as defined by the position on public services, taxation, and social care policy.

Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[jellomizer]

Just to show you, your political leaning has nothing to do with your understanding, or acceptance in science.
Homeopathy is medicine based on rumors and gut feelings, not by actual full science. Sure sometimes you may randomly get something that hasn't been studied yet that has a positive effect. But for the most part it is just snake oil, and sometimes it will be more hazardous then actually getting a pill, that had found the healthy elements, took out much of the bad ones, and dosed at the optimal level. Via years of experiments and research.

In general if Science research is saying something is bad, then the conservative groups will ignore/disbelieve it. As if something is bad then you will need to change you behavior which is against conservative natural instinct. So the science is distrusted as influenced by liberal groups trying to maintain control of the population.
If Science says something is good, then liberal groups will not believe the science. As it is in their nature to find problems and come with a solution to fix it, even if it isn't broken. So Science stating something isn't harmful, causes distrust and blamed based on corporate interest pushing such results.

Science is a process, and it will not always fit nicely into peoples political views. Sometimes ideas you hold most dearly are wrong.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Stuarticus]

Few medical treatments are as effective as placebos, and homeopathy seems to be a particularly powerful form of placebo for some people.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Steve Jobs and his homeopathy cancer treatments. From what I understand, it was easily treated with real medical procedures.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[gsslay]

Homeopathy is medicine based on rumors and gut feelings, not by actual full science.

Or just "science", as it's more properly known.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA (although just the headline would have been enough). Labour supports homeopathy. The LibDems do not.

In general, liberals are rarely anti-science. Politicians are usually anti-science when they feel scientific observations are at odds with their agenda. This is far more often the case with conservative or socialist politicians, since they tend to have far more opinions on what people should and should not do than liberals.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[3.5 stripes]

Homeopathy (or other placebos) are an excellent cure for GPs or other front line doctors to offer for cvommon viral infections like the common cold, instead of antibiotics (which many patients insist on).

I don't support homeopathy (except as a placebo), but it's a damn useful tool for first world hypochondriacs..

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true, but fact is, common viral infections such as the common cold, there are no tested effective medical treatments, as the powerful antivirals developed for AIDS and the like have not been tested on common viruses, so in those cases, yes, homeopathy are fine, since medical science generally recommends bed rest. But to say that often homeopathy is better than medical treatments as the GGP said is just plain false.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Crashmarik]

In general, liberals are rarely anti-science..

The giant festival of quackery called the social sciences not withstanding ?

It's amazing how everyone thinks their particular god is on their side, even supposed atheists.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a drug that was/is being developed for the common cold that fits into a pocket of a highly conserved area in the viral capsid and prevents insertion of its genes into the host cell. Of course any drug like this will never be 100% effective.

http://www.futurity.org/to-beat-a-virus-find-its-%E2%80%98pocket-factor%E2%80%99/

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[AmiMoJo]

Most of the benefits seen are actually attributed to medical staff taking the time to listen to the patient for an hour or more at a time. It's not even placebo, it's just psychological therapy.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Talderas]

> But to say that often homeopathy is better than medical treatments as the GGP said is just plain false.

That's being generous. Not only are they false, to propagate their usage over other medical treatments that do work is negligent and harmful.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[blackbeak]

Science is a process, and it will not always fit nicely into peoples political views. Sometimes ideas you hold most dearly are wrong.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell

If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine (with iffy at best science behind it), might as well let in the homeopaths, no? Fair is fair.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do social "sciences" have to do with liberalism?

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. There are supporters of homeopathy in all three main parties - Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. None of these parties has an offcial policy of support homeopathy however.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[meza]

No, you draw the wrong conclusion. What we do when we find out that work that should be scientific did not follow sound scientific methods (here for instance by being heavily influenced by economic incentive) is not to LOOSEN the requirements and say "whatever, if some scientific studies were bogus, let's just give up and believe what ever the next guy is trying to sell", instead, what we do, and what I assume Dr Angell was aiming for, is to rat out the phony work and require a HIGHER standard for what we consider as scientific.

The goal of the scientific project is the pursuit of truths. The methods we use and the statements we believe on the way are not necessarily optimal or correct. Therefor we try to learn from mistakes, use the most updated methods and best-practices for instance when performing measurements (e.g. use the best known equipment) and drawing conclusions (e.g. use the best known statistical methods) and always keep our eyes on the goal: the truth.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the science is distrusted as influenced by liberal groups trying to maintain control of the population.

Why would a liberal group try to exert control over the population? That is, by definition, the opposite of what a liberal wants.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[ColdWetDog]

The vast majority of homeopathic 'treatments' are for either self limited conditions (colds) or complex, mulitifactorial problems like Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue and similar life altering symptoms (I'm not going to call them illnesses in sense we can find a causal agent(s)). "Regular" medicine is notably poor at treating these folks. We give them drugs whose basic function is to replace one set of annoying symptoms with another. We occasionally send them to psychotherapy which occasionally helps. Mostly we string them along because we don't have a cure or even decent symptom amelioration.

Homeopathy has the cure. So so a number of religions (take your pick). That's important for a whole raft of people.

Just because it makes no rational sense and isn't real has very little to do with the issue.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[ClickOnThis]

Few medical treatments are as effective as placebos

Citation please?

You're saying that placebos rank in the highest percentiles of effective medical treatments. I don't buy it.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Stuarticus]

For the majority of ailments that people visit a doctor for a placebo would be the best treatment option, no-one is saying try and treat cancer with them. If you are being prescribed penicillin or anti-depressants or even mild painkillers you're probably better having nothing at all.

http://www.madinamerica.com/20...

Again, I'm not saying that is better than most drugs, because after all that's how drugs are tested for effectiveness - they must be better than placebos (which are usually also effective!). However in many cases rather than increasing antibiotic resistance or risking addiction issues you'd probably be better having some quack waving a crystal over you.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[HornWumpus]

All medical treatments for imaginary diseases is placebo.

But that doesn't mean you pay the snake oil salespeople, it means real doctors should prescribe placebo when they are dealing with nuts or members of the British royal family.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[HornWumpus]

Definitions change. 'Liberal' means the opposite of it's original definition.

Libertarians are modern 'liberals'.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Well, then, if it's 'just "science"', I'm sure you wouldn't EVER use conventional medical treatment if you're ill.

Nope, just placebos for you, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

Riiight...

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Xrikcus]

Isn't that a statement of the obvious? Most drugs are not beneficial for most conditions - clearly not, they all tend to be good for specific conditions. So not doing anything, for any given condition, is better once side effects are taken into account than almost all drugs. For any self-limiting condition for which drugs offer no real benefit, a common cold, most back pain, imaginary diseases and so on, which are common reasons to visit a doctor, then not doing anything is the best treatment.

Once we realise that, placebos fall out trivially depending on the answer to one very important question: is it better to lie to someone and say they are getting a treatment, knowing it does nothing, or better to tell them their condition is self-limiting and it is best to give them no treatment?

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[ClickOnThis]

I'm not saying [a placebo] is better than most drugs, because after all that's how drugs are tested for effectiveness - they must be better than placebos (which are usually also effective!).

Actually, you did say that, although now I think you didn't mean to do so. Your linked article says that placebo effectiveness appears to be increasing in studies of anti-psychotic medications, but that doesn't mean it has overtaken the latter.

Your OP said that placebos were more effective than most drugs, and that's what I was challenging. Now I think you're (rightly) saying a placebos is better than an actual drug if you shouldn't be taking anything in the first place.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Most medical treatments are more effective than placebos, as they - in the US and EU - have to be better than placebo in clinical trials in order to get approved and be on the market. For individual patients, some medical treatments may not work as well, but on the whole, they're better than placebo.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when and by whom? I've never heard the word 'liberal' being used to describe anything other than, well, liberal. Is this something local?

Using a word to denote the exact opposite of its meaning sounds to me as confusing and dishonest.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Stuarticus]

That's exactly the point though, placebos do work, hence the placebo effect! Furthermore a variety of placebos seems more useful than a simple sugar pill, though the jury is out on the differences between their usefulness.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Stuarticus]

I concede the point on my use of the word effective in that context, maybe I should have been clearer.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[HornWumpus]

Liberal used to mean 'in favor of liberty'.

That has not been true in my lifetime. Now it means 'socialist opposed to liberty'..

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Rakarra]

Pretty sure he meant that "actual full science" could have just been reduced to "science" and retain the same meaning.

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, all excellent points - thanks! - but just to nitpick, blackbeak (OP) said "If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine ...". Which could reasonably be taken as a warning about why we shouldn't do so...

Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why have I never seen it used in that way before? Is this a local thing maybe?

Someone fitting your description would usually describe himself as a social democrat and speak negatively about how 'anti-social' lberals/libertarians are.

Alternative alternative medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one am a strong supporter of an alternative to alternative medicine: sociopathy. The practitioner of this method, called a sociopath, can treat sufferers more effectively than homeopathy ever could, and would suggest that people who believe in homeopathy should try seeing a sociopath too for increased effectiveness. Although unaware, when they go to a homeopath they might be seeing a sociopath too, at the same time, and think it's really homeopathy that helped them.

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always suspicious of this *rabid* anti-homeopathy strand found in The Slashdots: I mean, what's the problem? Not your medicine? Don''t take it.

I don't understand this emotional involvment unless... it's a paid shill for Big Pharma, that is?

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[dominux]

Because they are selling for money stuff that doesn't work, and persuading people to not trust medicine that does work. Thus they are profiting off harming vulnerable people. This is obscene.

Re: Alternative alternative medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see why people would get upset about something they see as a scam... especially as a scam committed on sick and desperate people?

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I was thinking that we should put this newly discovered set of rocks near Stonehenge to use. Maybe a few human sacrifices there would appease the Gods, and improve the health of the folks in the UK . . . ?

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is obscene . . . and is fully part of one's liberties to choose to manage their own body however they want.

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[Cederic]

I don't see people on Slashdot arguing that someone poorly shouldn't drink water.

I do see people arguing that telling poorly people they'll get better by drinking water is (when their issue is not dehydration) fraudulent, damaging and dishonest.

That doesn't stop anybody managing their own body however they want. We need an abortion debate for that.

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[thegarbz]

fraudulent, damaging and dishonest.

If a doctor ignored conventional wisdom and resulted in a person's needless death then the words used would not be so mild. Malpractice, murderous, career-ending would be more appropriate.

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[shutdown -p now]

1. Because it's a fraud, and the people selling it resist attempts to point out that fact. Fraud is generally illegal in most other cases. Even from a pristine libertarian viewpoint, a transaction is only good when both sides have full and complete knowledge and understanding of what they're gaining and losing - only then it is truly fair. If one party is intentionally deluded, then it's no good.

2. Because in the UK in particular, healthcare is state-funded, and if homeopathy is recognized as health care, it means that everyone's tax money is wasted.

Re:Alternative alternative medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

there is nothing at all immoral in deciding to put homeopathic placebos in your own body. There is nothing massively wrong in making novelty homeopathic placebos and selling them as novelty items. People may manage their own bodies however they like. The problem is not the consumers (who are merely deluded) but the suppliers who are deceiving others. Being deluded is a liberty, harming others by deception is not a liberty.

Placebo

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[trout007]

The real deal is NHS is killing the UK. So if they can get people to use homeopathy instead of science they can save money while letting stupid people die. This is typical rationing with state healthcare.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Calydor]

As opposed to not going to a doctor or hospital at all because they would face financial ruin for doing so?

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[gsslay]

You know nothing about the NHS, or indeed state healthcare. Keep swallowing the misinformation and lies fed to you by the commercial interests in US healthcare and you get the health system you deserve.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[emj]

The real deal is NHS is killing the UK.

One could argue that people who see no use for NHS is the ones doing all the killing of your citizens.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it hurt being that dumb?

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most stupid thing I have read, even more stupid than the article itself, today. Congrats.

Protip, the NHS is one of the best healthcare systems in the world, in the top 5. (I think it was 3rd, the other 2 countries ahead of it spending more money per person)
Whereas private healthcare-driven countries are some of the worst in the modern world.
The US for example, the "king" of private healthcare, is the worst and most expensive of all modern countries. Shocking! Call the presses!

State-sponsored healthcare protects people from the bullshit that big pharma like to pull for a quick buck.
Now it is being perverted by those Conservative twats in power now, who have destroyed the NHS in England and then have the CHEEK to complain about it not working 24/7, even though it does! FUCK Tory Scum.
But now that Labour has this moron heading their party, there is no real competition to Conservatives.
SNP is pretty much Scottish only, Lib Dems are still hilarious, Green party too, UKIP are too "racist" for a large number of people.
BRB, literally leaving the UK, it is all shit from here on out. Nothing good will come of the UK now.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[swb]

I don't think this is that far off the mark.

Most homeopathic "medicines" are unpatented herbal potions of inexpensive origin and most homeopathic hands-on therapies involve nothing much more expensive than marginally trained hands using extremely low-tech facilities and tools.

It's not hard to see politicians endorsing their use, both as a purely political way of not offending people who believe in them and as a diversion from more expensive, real medical care.

And maybe there's some practical value to it, too. If some portion of the population is prone to overconsumption of medical care -- seeking doctor visits, tests and medicines for ephemeral conditions for which there are no clear cures or definitive treatments -- then maybe cheap and relatively harmless homeopathic treatments aren't bad policy. They keep people who aren't really sick from using expensive medical care.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the actual value in homeopathic "medicine" wasn't biochemical or even specifically placebo, but psychological -- having someone listen to their ill-defined concerns in a sympathetic manner and tell them they have a therapy which will address them.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[trout007]

Tell that to my Canadian friends sister who lived in Canada. She was 30 years old when she was diagnosed with Stomach Cancer. Of course it took her too long to get the scans she needed and when she was finally diagnosed they couldn't afford to treat her. She was single with no kids so I'm guessing it was an easy call to make for them to make. Sacrificing an individual to keep costs down is typical. That's how you get the best overall outcome per money spent.

If she lived in the US she would be alive. Maybe she would have been bankrupted by the costs if she didn't have insurance but at least she would have been alive.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[dave420]

Quick! Everyone! Ignore the actual studies showing the effectiveness of the NHS because some muppet has an anecdote and an ideology-enforcing guess of an alternative outcome!

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence for your remarkable claim please.

Reminds me of my American friends brothers uncles next door neighbour's buddy....who was only 21 when they diagnosed him with cancer of the elbow, after making him wait 20 years for a doctor to hit that little rubber hammer on it to see it kinda jerk about and thus scan for cancer.

Once they broke the news to him (via carrier pigeon) they then sent a government mandated Death Squad around to his house, dragged him out into the street and shot him on the spot for the crime of being a sub standard work unit.

They then urinated on his grave. Well, when I say "grave" I really mean "dumpster".

True story.

Wow, this "making up total bullshit" is easy!

Re: Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely this

I had an operation 2 weeks ago, less than 24 hours from first going in to the walk in clinic to being under the knife (they were going to do it then and there, but I had to fast for my general anesthetic.)

The details of the operation were well explained, including the process they were going to follow, the recovery process and the risks involved.

Since then, I've been having a surgical dressing changed most days by a nurse (as I opted to do the slower recovery process which reduces the risk of a repeat issue), they have all been friendly, professional and caring.

All this has been essentially free, other than paying for the bus faires to the hospital and back (as an outpatient). Even this would be free if i was in need (elderly, disabled etc..).

Sure, I pay for it in tax money, but surely that has to be worth it?

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Shados]

Most homeopathic "medicines" are unpatented herbal potions

Nope. Homeopathy != herbal remedy, natural medicine, or whatever else. It is something very specific. If it contains anything else but water (on top of whatever it takes to make a pill or whatsnot) and negligible traces, if any, of active ingredient, it isn't homeopathy

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to my Canadian friends sister who lived in Canada. She was 30 years old when she was diagnosed with Stomach Cancer. Of course it took her too long to get the scans she needed and when she was finally diagnosed they couldn't afford to treat her. She was single with no kids so I'm guessing it was an easy call to make for them to make. Sacrificing an individual to keep costs down is typical. That's how you get the best overall outcome per money spent.

If she lived in the US she would be alive. Maybe she would have been bankrupted by the costs if she didn't have insurance but at least she would have been alive.

Well your anecdote beats all the statistics I can find.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Xest]

As opposed to the US system where she wouldn't have been able to afford to pay and the insurance company would've found an excuse to void the policy she'd been paying into for a decade and so she couldn't even get on a list in the first place?

Great. That's much better.

Sacrificing an individual to keep costs down is exactly how the US healthcare system works, that's exactly what happens when you throw capitalism and profit into the mix - you have to grow profits by maximising the amount of people who pay and how much they pay and minimising the amount of people you actually treat in practice.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[swb]

So it's even cheaper from a material perspective and even more psychological in its benefit.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

And why then didn't that mythical friend's sister just grab all her money and pay for her treatment in the US?

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew that NHS coverage extended to Canada.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[cold fjord]

You know nothing about the NHS, or indeed state healthcare.

You don't say? Live and learn, I guess. Or is that live and don't learn? What do you think the Veterans Administration is in the US? Hint: State healthcare - fully government owned and operated healthcare. It has been a source of major scandals for years, and manages to kill people in the process. Of course the NHS does make the news from time to time, doesn't it?

Thousands of cancer patients to be denied treatment

Common drugs for breast, bowel, prostate, pancreatic and blood cancer will no longer be funded by the NHS following sweeping cutbacks

Elderly patients condemned to early death by secret use of do not resuscitate orders

New NHS spending scandal: £3.3 billion wasted on agency doctors

Thousands die of thirst and poor care in NHS

Up to 40,000 patients die annually because hospital staff fail to diagnose a treatable kidney problem, a figure that dwarfs the death toll from superbugs like MRSA

The US healthcare system would probably stand a chance if it weren't for the so called "Affordable Care Act" passed by the Democrats. Big problems are coming.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[cold fjord]

She had stomach cancer, didn't she? Hmmmm....

Thousands of cancer patients to be denied treatment

Common drugs for breast, bowel, prostate, pancreatic and blood cancer will no longer be funded by the NHS following sweeping cutbacks

What a relief, stomach isn't on that list.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[3.5 stripes]

Nice that you're pointing out how the right wing gutting the NHS means that cancer patients can't get expensive, mostly pointless drugs.

Let's ignore the fact that they're just life extenders ("Kadcyla, currently prescribed to around 800 women a year, which has been shown to extend life by an average of six months"), and that the US healthcare system (insurance) probably wouldn't pay for them either.

They'd probably be better off spending the money to send these people and their family on a nice 2 week vacation, instead of extending their lives so they can feel shitty for a bit longer, and still die...

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[gsslay]

All of which are nothing compared to the scandal of the astronomical sums charged for basic healthcare in the US, the ridiculous profit margins enjoyed by the companies that run it, and the tragedy of millions of Americans being unable to afford it.

This, in the richest country on the planet.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[gzuckier]

Most homeopathic "medicines" are unpatented herbal potions

Nope. Homeopathy != herbal remedy, natural medicine, or whatever else. It is something very specific. If it contains anything else but water (on top of whatever it takes to make a pill or whatsnot) and negligible traces, if any, of active ingredient, it isn't homeopathy

Indeed.
I once got a copy of a early treatise by J. B. S. Haldane, who later went on to make significant contributions to the fields of physiology, genetics, etc., on the method of action of enzymes, and in its complete wrongheadedness one can discern the thinking behind homeopathy. The gist of his hypothesis was that the enzymes serve to alter the structure of the water they are dissolved in, such that the water in its altered state facilitates hydrolysis of glucose, or whatever the enzyme does. Luckily, in later life he abandoned this dead end concept in favor of the current and well established view of enzymes as molecule sized machines, but homeopathy operates on a similar theory; whatever you put into the water in the first place alters the properties of the water in some way, so that you can then dilute it until your original substance is no longer present but the altered water persists. Lovely theory, but no evidence whatsoever that there is any truth to it.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Canadian friend's story is at odds with my Canadian parents' stories. Still, if you want to post the particulars of the tale, like what province it is that has death panels which decide to blow off 30year old mothers to save costs, that would generate some interest.
If you were to say that an 85 year old with a lot of problems who wasn't all there upstairs got shortchanged, then I'd be inclined to take your friend's word for it. As for waiting times for scans, I had to wait 6 months in the US to get an MRI for a back problem so bad I couldn't walk, and I actually work for an insurance company (which is why i'm anonymousing, i want to keep my job). Of course, by that time the problem had gone away.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[gzuckier]

As opposed to the US system where she wouldn't have been able to afford to pay and the insurance company would've found an excuse to void the policy she'd been paying into for a decade and so she couldn't even get on a list in the first place?

Great. That's much better.

Sacrificing an individual to keep costs down is exactly how the US healthcare system works, that's exactly what happens when you throw capitalism and profit into the mix - you have to grow profits by maximising the amount of people who pay and how much they pay and minimising the amount of people you actually treat in practice.

Gotta love the arguments against not even universal care in the US, just adding a few tens of millions to the insured via the ACA/Obamacare; that the system can't deliver that much extra care and costs will go up and waiting and blah blah.
so, the argument would be that our system is inherently incapable of its fundamental purpose, i.e. delivering health care to the American public, if more than a fraction of them could afford it, and at the same time "we have the best system in the world".

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[cold fjord]

In short you have essentially no familiarity with healthcare in the US.

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[cold fjord]

Nice that you're pointing out that socialized medicine denies people care, and you think they should. I think one of the best instances of that I've heard of was the state being unwilling to pay for treatment, but they we're willing to spring for a suicide pill. Isn't socialized medicine wonderful? Feed the compassion.

I also like the contrasts. People here get all upset and indignant at the idea that an insurance turning town treatment (which tends to be rhetorical in these discussions) but cheer on the state telling people, "Meh, we don't want to give you any medicine, you're just going to die." I wonder what they will think when it is their turn?

Re:Homeopathy as euthanasia.

[3.5 stripes]

Diminishing returns, if a hugely expensive medicine will let someone with cancer live about 6 months longer (then die), or pay for 20 life saving operations, where the life expectancy for the patients you measure in years or decades, I am quite happy to chose the second.

It's not like insurance where the saved money goes towards buying the CEO a second yacht.

Public money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it say that homoeopathy will be publicly funded?

Re:Public money?

[Cederic]

It's pretty much a given that it wont be. If Corbyn gets in there'll be no fucking economy left to fund it anyway.

I know somebody who knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is an overall absence of sound statistical evidence of therapeutic efficacy, which is consistent with the lack of any biologically plausible pharmacological agent or mechanism. [2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Evidence_and_efficacy

It's good to know that Heidi knows people who know about the benefits of homeopathy. Guess what,
I also know people who know fortune tellers who correctly predicted a life event for them!
Heck, maybe I share mutual friends with a future British cabinet member, I'm so excited!!

Christ, is even /. anti-Corbyn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Homeopathy has an obvious placebo effect, so on that they're right that it is cheaper and more effective in many cases than either nothing or something medicinal. That's not enough to sponsor homeopathy, of course.

Until this reflects policy, I fail to see how politicians two days into their appointments effectively saying, "Hmm my constituents like it but I don't know yet," is a bad thing.

Re:Christ, is even /. anti-Corbyn?

[thinkwaitfast]

Expensive Placebo Works Better Than Cheap One

Homeopathy :Dangers.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the only danger you are in using homeopathic treatments is of drowning.

Sad for Slashdot

[Harold Halloway]

So now even Slashdot lazily swallows and unquestioningly regurgitates a smear against Labour? Whoever you are, Samzenpus, you've just lost Slashdot a reader.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

So you believe that it is simply not possible the the party you support is led by an imbecile?

You won't be missed.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[Chrisq]

So now even Slashdot lazily swallows and unquestioningly regurgitates a smear against Labour?

True, What we have is a "noncommittal answer" ... not a surprising thing in a day old cabinet when policies have not been determined. And its not as if any other party has announced a policy that homeopathy is unscientific and won't be funded. As others have pointed out it may not even make sense to do so, as homeopathy is a cheap placebo ... and if that avoids more expensive treatments for some people then that has to be good.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Homeopathy isn't a cheap placebo. Sugar pills and saline injections are a cheap placebo, because those that manufacture them don't pretend that they have physics-defying magic powers.

Homeopathic preparations, OTOH, are presented as being real medicines with physiological effects as though they had active ingredients, and are priced accordingly.

In the UK, tax money is spend on buying magic beans at a mark-up of 400% or more over the price of an honest placebo.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the effectiveness of the placebo is related to how expensive it seems. So, it can't be _that_ low cost...

http://psychologyofpain.blogspot.com/2008/10/ig-nobel-prize-for-study-on-placebo.html

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[HornWumpus]

Especially if they are not paying for it, you can tell the patient his treatment cost $10,000/dose, doesn't have to be true.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[roman_mir]

We are talking about a party that just elected an insane collectivist as its leader, yes? Collectivists are thieves and need to be stopped in their tracks or they end up destroying everything they touch in the long run. In the short term it must feel good: steal from those who are in a minority and give it to yourself - the majority. Borrow and spend, print and spend, steal and spend.

In the long run that's what destroys the economy and society. Collectivism is brain cancer.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[BasilBrush]

roman_mir, I'm pretty certain the majority of the Slashdot readership would say it's you who is insane.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[BasilBrush]

Unfortunately, the alternative SoylentNews is even more infiltrated by partizan right wing editors.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[roman_mir]

BasilBrush, and I will quote you this: Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. Being in the majority and being right are completely different things and I am right and the majority is wrong on this.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[BasilBrush]

It's not a question of you being right or wrong, It's a question of your mental ill-health.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[roman_mir]

Of-course, if you are not with the majority (that is wrong on an issue) you are mentally ill. That's what they did to dissidents back in the USSR, by the way, imprisoned them in the mental institutions because they did not obey and did not atone.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[DickMardy]

Even "left wing" in America tends to mean "somewhere a bit to the right of Genghis Khan".

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[BasilBrush]

Mentally ill people seldom recognise it in themselves. Go get help.

Re:Sad for Slashdot

[roman_mir]

So, doctor, your diagnosis of me is that I am mentally ill. My diagnosis of you is that you are an asshole, you should be getting help but they don't really treat it that well (maybe a beating, but even that doesn't really fix the problem).

Re:Politics of SHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

So a little while ago I felt like I had a great big healthy shit coming on. I mean it makes sense. I have been adding more fiber to my diet lately. So I sat on my white porcelain throne and then ... *unghhnhhghhghh* *PLOP* Ah. Wow that was a big one. Damn it this is a big, wide, long log. It'll probably fold in half and get stuck and clog the fucking toilet. Again. Ah well. I will deal with that if and when it happens.

It was such a wide turd-log with such girth though. Amazing that my otherwise virgin asshole can expand that wide. Hmm that could be a problem. So I start to wipe. Damn it this could take a while. I got feces smeared on the sides of my ass cheeks from the girth of that turd. I wipe some more and ... oh no. I feel something knotty. Yup, what I feared from this turd has come to pass. I have lots of hairs around my asshole. I suppose most men do. Nature's way of saying "I love you! But not that much."

There it is. I can feel it through the single ply paper. A great big DINGLEBERRY. Naturally I try to awkwardly grab it with a folded sheet of toilet paper and dislodge it. I pull. Ouch. I pull harder. OUCH. Wow during its brief passage past the asshair, this turd-let really securely managed to get caught on some ass hairs. I can't just pull the dingleberry out without ripping the hairs right out. I have no idea if that caries the possibility of breaking the fecal encrusted skin and leading to an infection or what, but I know it would hurt so I want other options. I try gathering lots of sheets of toilet paper. I repeatedly wipe the same area over and over, hoping to wear this fucker down. I manage to whittle it down a little but this is taking far too much time. This turd is really determined to stay in its new home!

I can't very well pull my underpants back up now, that would get them all shitty and smelly. If I wanted to smell bad all the time I would let myself get fat. Maybe some water will help. I awkwardly reach for the faucet, turning it to a slow stream, and wet some toilet paper, making a mental note to disinfect the faucet handle later. I can't see the damned thing but judging from the brown stains appearing on the sheets of toilet paper, I am at least making progress. Now my hands are wet and shitty smelling and I am thinking this better be worth it. I use a dry sheet to feel for the dingleberry again. It did shrink but it's still there, dangling from my ass hairs, mocking me. WTF have I been eating lately to produce such a persistent turd? Nature does abhor a vacuum, which is why lots of gas has entered my bowels where the big turd-log recently was. I enjoy a nice after-defecating loud fart while I wonder what to do next. I chuckle because when the fart is your own, you don't think it stinks but you know somebody else would evacuate the area. Ok time to stop laughing, this is a serious predicament.

I toy with the idea of getting some scissors or something to try and cut the dingleberry out. Then I consider this is a sensitive area, I cannot see what I am doing, and it's too close for comfort to my cock and balls to be wielding a bladed item. I am starting to get angry. I am starting to not care anymore about the consequences of just yanking the damned thing out. I tried the easier ways and they failed. Fuck it, I have places to be and things to do. I can't very well spend all day in the bathroom playing a not-so-fun game with a turd. I double up on toilet paper and get a good secure grip on the dingleberry. Okay fucker, you're going DOWN. *YANK* Yeouch, fuck that hurt as much as I thought it would. And there it is, in my hand, nestled in the folds of toilet paper: my dingleberry! Ha ha ha, you won the battle, dingleberry, but I just won the war! I rub my sore ass cheek. Then I ceremoniously plop that fucker in the toilet bowl, to briefly swim with his big brother log. Oh man, you never heard such a satisfying flushing sound in your life. I rub some aftershave around my

go4t

[Anonymous Coward]

[anti-slash.org] Approximately 90% the project to consistent with the man walking. It's of the founders of backwards. To the And Michael Smith ass until I hit my base for FreeBSD something cool i'm sick of it. fucking confirmed: I have a life to propaganda and and easy - only balance is struck,

The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Choose your poison.

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The left is nuts AND evil. Government funded dead baby parts salesmen.

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

That means the right is dumb and evil..

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

That means the left is manipulative and corrupt.

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pity the right is too dumb to be manipulative..

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[PopeRatzo]

Actual exchange:

"The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil"

"The left is nuts AND evil."

"That means the right is dumb and evil.."

"That means the left is manipulative and corrupt."

I love political debate on Slashdot.

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[thinkwaitfast]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[Cederic]

I love the fact they're not even debating, they're just discussing and implicitly agreeing.

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[3.5 stripes]

You ignore the possibility that they're just baiting their hooks.

Re:The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil

[gzuckier]

Actual exchange:

"The left wing is nuts, the right wing is evil"

"The left is nuts AND evil."

"That means the right is dumb and evil.."

"That means the left is manipulative and corrupt."

I love political debate on Slashdot.

On slashdot? that's the public discussion of policy in the US in a nutshell.

Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Corbyn isn't GCHQ/NSA approved, so if they have any dirt on him, I bet they'll leak it.

Fucking mass surveillance.

Re:Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[Anonymous Coward]

He is one of those rare creatures, an honest man with no motivation other than to make the world a better place. I would venture that he has very little dirt to leak, and is probably the most selfless politician in a generation.

This all makes him incredibly dangerous.

Re:Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes him dangerous is that he has terrible plans, despite his good intentions,.

Re:Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[TapeCutter]

I know jack shit about the guy but most western politicians* are "honest" and virtually all of them firmly believe they are "making the world a better place". That doesn't stop the opposition's attempts to make mud from dust.

* - For example, Trump is clearly a xenophobic lunatic, but it's hard to argue he is insincere.

Re:Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[ColdWetDog]

* - For example, Trump is clearly a xenophobic lunatic, but it's hard to argue he is insincere.

Which actually relates to the underlying theme here. Humans are illogical bags of psychotropic chemicals and bacteria. Belief trumps (so to speak) reality every single time.

Re:Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[TapeCutter]

They say perception is everything, but does it just appear to be that way? ;)

Re:Jeremy Corbyn is not GCHQ approved

[jez9999]

Right, so giving the Falklands to Argentina would make the world a better place, would it? Just caving in to bully boy tactics? Yeah, that would set a real good precedent.

The guy's a pathetic pacifist. Fuck him.

Remind us how well that worked for Steve Jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since he forgo all conventional cancer treatment, went with pure homeopathy, and spent the last 6 months of his life in agony because his body didn't decided to magically heal itself.

Re:Remind us how well that worked for Steve Jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some excellent articles in the Grauniad about how doctors tend to forego treatment when they know the game is up, because it tends to provide suffering when all one really needs in the last few months of their life is comfort. It is laypeople who are desperate to squeeze out that last minute of life, even when it's entirely without quality.

Jobs was no idiot, and if avoiding things that didn't work in his case while a bit of peaceful woowoo kept him from losing his mind while he was losing his body, I wouldn't hold it against him. I wouldn't hold it against any terminal cancer patient, just like I wouldn't hold it against them to watch the sun rise and imagine flying to the stars before they're drowned out by the new day.

Re:Remind us how well that worked for Steve Jobs?

[Capt.Albatross]

Jobs was no idiot, and if avoiding things that didn't work in his case while a bit of peaceful woowoo kept him from losing his mind while he was losing his body, I wouldn't hold it against him.

Except that when he chose this course of action, he wasn't seeking a peaceful end to his life, and he later reversed that choice and regretted not doing so sooner.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...

Re:Remind us how well that worked for Steve Jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need to know about the failures of Homeopathy here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-treatment-regrets/

Re:Remind us how well that worked for Steve Jobs?

[Rakarra]

There are some excellent articles in the Grauniad about how doctors tend to forego treatment when they know the game is up, because it tends to provide suffering when all one really needs in the last few months of their life is comfort. It is laypeople who are desperate to squeeze out that last minute of life, even when it's entirely without quality.

Jobs was no idiot, and if avoiding things that didn't work in his case while a bit of peaceful woowoo kept him from losing his mind while he was losing his body, I wouldn't hold it against him. I wouldn't hold it against any terminal cancer patient, just like I wouldn't hold it against them to watch the sun rise and imagine flying to the stars before they're drowned out by the new day.

That's kindof the opposite that happened in Jobs's case. He went woo for the first nine months after the initial diagnosis. When his confidants finally managed to convince him this was idiotic, he went full-scientific-treatment and managed to live another eight years. However, that 9 months when his cancer was allowed to spread virtually unimpeded was fatal, as it had spread to his pancreas.

Selective news

[Coisiche]

The ridiculousness is not limited to the Labour party; the Conservatives actually put a deluded believer into an *actual*, not shadow, ministerial position and to top it all it was minister for health.

The UK press has been full of negative comments about Corbyn, more so since he became leader this weekend, so why is Slashdot joining in? Why don't you run articles on the front pages of the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc. for today and yesterday? During the leadership campaign it wasn't just the right-wing press either since many Labourites didn't want him since they think that they can only regain government by being more like the Conservatives to the point that they are now frequently referred to as the "Red Tories".

Personally, I didn't care about the Labour leadership election because I think that the sooner Scotland can get away from the rest of the UK the better.

Re:Selective news

[serviscope_minor]

I think that the sooner Scotland can get away from the rest of the UK the better.

Well, thing is though, Scotland voted to stay.

Re:Selective news

[thinkwaitfast]

Ridiculousness is limited to politically motivated people.

Re:Selective news

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, that may be. But No True Scotsman would ever vote to stay in a union with the likes of England! Clearly your so called "vote" is worth less than a sheep's fart.

Re:Selective news

[serviscope_minor]

But No True Scotsman would ever...

Well played, Sir, well played. :)

Re:Selective news

[gzuckier]

I think that the sooner Scotland can get away from the rest of the UK the better.

Well, thing is though, Scotland voted to stay.

smart people, those scots. why, they could dig a trench at the border for years and years and still not be able to cut themselves loose.

I heard homeopathy might fix climate change

[smittyoneeach]

Are we comfortable with failing to exhaust all possibilities in the fight against changing climate?
Homeopathy, it is said, might be willing to take on income inequality after climate change has been rendered a fangless constant.

Re:I heard homeopathy might fix climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we comfortable with failing to exhaust all possibilities in the fight against changing climate?

Homeopathy, it is said, might be willing to take on income inequality after climate change has been rendered a fangless constant.

You, sir, win the internets +1 :-D

Re:I heard homeopathy might fix climate change

[PopeRatzo]

Ronald Reagan believed in astrology and thought aliens were going to attack the world. Even more ridiculous, he believed in the pseudo-science of supply-side economics.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05...

Re:I heard homeopathy might fix climate change

[alzoron]

We should dilute the sun with 10,000 parts water and see if that fixes global warming.

Re:I heard homeopathy might fix climate change

[smittyoneeach]

And just two administrations after his, we suffered a Vice President who said:

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

For comparative foolishness, I'll take the Gipper.

Re:I heard homeopathy might fix climate change

[smittyoneeach]

That's it! The answer I've sought! I knew it was the old fiery orb all along!

"If only there were some... natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun."

Can we stop the bullshit reporting here please?

[dominux]

Someone asked her about homeopathy, she ducked the question. She was far from enthusiastic about it, but said she would be open to hearing arguments about it - which is what politicians say when they have no clue what their policy is and don't want to answer the question. She should have been decisive and said that the NHS should not ever fund anything that does not outperform a placebo and has no plausible theory of action, but she didn't, yet. This failure to respond to the question is now being spun, and slashdot is getting in on the action too. Maybe if she ever actually takes a position on homeopathy then there will be a story to report, but right now, @heidi_mp has not really done anything other than duck a question.

Re:Can we stop the bullshit reporting here please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Her Twitter ID is @heidi_mp?! Oh dear.

Re:Can we stop the bullshit reporting here please?

[Sesostris III]

To be fair, if I was a new shadow minister just given a new brief, and I was asked what could be a controversial question covered by my new brief, I would probably 'duck' answering it until I'd managed to gen up a bit on it!

Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, I am in full support of the NHS supporting Homeopathy.

The less stupid that are alive, the better.
All their jobs are being replaced by robots anyway, we don't need them now.
Bin them like the old busted toys they are.

Re:Fantastic

[91degrees]

A lot of the time, people will get better on their own. But placebos do actually help here. Homeopathy is cheap, and it means that people get the feeling that something is being done, resulting in less hassling of doctors.

Re: Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the biggest impact would be on the ignorant. Ignorance is not necessarily entirely the fault of the ignorant person, and can in many caes be "cured" by a proper education (we may not agree on the definition of that term) and a willingnes to actually use one's brain. Stupidity, on the other hand, requires our sympathy and assistance so that politicians and others afflicted with it may be taught to lead productive and happy lives despite their handicap.

Re:Fantastic

[Dr_Barnowl]

Homeopathy is cheap

If only it were so. It's actually quite labour-intensive to produce ; it involves multiple steps of repeated dilution and agitation - which is often intentionally done manually.

Unless you were some kind of charlatan, of course, who just put a few cheap sugar pills in a bottle and labelled it "Arnica". Sadly, you can't tell the difference. /s

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I not surprised that the same people who are such a55holes about ramming Climate Change (TM) rhetoric down our throats also vehemently defend homeopathic medicine? I suppose there's just as much "science" backing both.

May save lots of money, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Since homeopathic medicines theoretically get stronger as less and less of the "active ingredient" (whatever it may be) is added to distilled water, then why not just use pure distilled water? That would be the ultimate wonder drug for homeopathetic "medicine" and would result in enormous cost savings. Of course, most people would not be helped, but think of the money saved!

It's German nonsense.

[Ihlosi]

Why would the UK want anything to do with that?

Re:It's German nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding, mate? The whole royal family's German nonsense.

I don't give a damn but..

[Dynamoo]

I don't give a damn about homoeopathy. I care rather more about his attitude towards Britain' nuclear weapons programme. His threat to not renew the UK's SLBM system is a significant threat to European defence.

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[Dr_Barnowl]

It's no bloody use right now!

* We can't maintain one-boat-at-sea at all times, because they're falling to bits - they can't even complete readiness drills reliably

* We can't use it anyway : From the House of Commons Defence Select Committee (in 2006) : "the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it"

In short, it's just a way to siphon money into the pockets of defence contractors.

Jeremy's heresy is that he wants to use those resources to build infrastructure to better all our lives instead of just a few rich warmongers.

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[frank_adrian314159]

Why should Britain worry about this? The US has all the nukes it needs to deter and/or punish the other countries having them and last I checked, both the US and UK were in this little organization called NATO. Do you really think the US wouldn't retaliate if Russia or China (or especially Pakistan) nuked Europe? Or do you want first strike capability "just in case" if in 500 years NATO falls apart? I'd think we'd have anti-matter bombs by then.

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[Xest]

I'm actually for consideration of a reduction, or cancellation of Trident, but I'm fairly on the fence with it, I don't think what you say is inherently true:

"* We can't maintain one-boat-at-sea at all times, because they're falling to bits - they can't even complete readiness drills reliably"

That's why we're talking about replacing them, they're nearing the end of their life time.

"* We can't use it anyway : From the House of Commons Defence Select Committee (in 2006)"

This isn't established fact though, it's merely one opinion from almost a decade ago. People made the same argument about the Eurofighter "It's useless in Afghanistan bombing people in caves, what a waste of money!" but it wasn't built to fight the conflict of the day, no weapon necessarily is, it's built for preparedness, and that means anticipating potential future threats. It ended up being quite effective in the open against Gaddaffi's military, and has put a big dent in ISIS armour in Iraq. Similarly now that we're intercepting Russian Bears and Blackjacks off our coast, and participating in Baltic air policing missions against Russian MiGs and Sukhoi's it's suddenly looking quite relevant. The world isn't static, we can't assume that we wouldn't use something, or at least hold it up as a defensive threat, people have always made that argument, and it's always been proven short sighted and wrong. People similarly called the Harrier jump jet a laughable pointless boondoggle that would never be useful in practice, yet it's one of the most combat proven and successful fighter jets of all time and was key to victory in the Falklands.

I think in reality we need to accept that nuclear weapons are a thing, and that proliferation is more likely than reduction regardless of what we do as we see more nuclear states come online all the time (North Korea, Pakistan, India) and others trying (and sometimes failing - e.g. Syria). In light of that acceptance the real decision we need to make is do we want to be a part of the global nuclear MAD shield or should we leave it to someone else. If Argentina joined the list of nuclear weapon states and invaded the Falklands threatening to attack us, or obliterate it should we attempt again to retake it could we count on our allies to back us up and counter that threat? I know from Jeremy's point of view this is a non-issue because he's fine with people not being able to determine their own future and believes places like the Falklands should be handed over to a near failed foreign state like Argentina against the will of the people there, but I'm not and most people aren't. Jeremy is a believe in appeasement, that if you give everyone who is nasty to you what you want that it'll all be fine, but all he's really doing is sending a message that if you want something under Jeremy, all you have to do is start a campaign of killing civilians or just take it by force, and then he'll give you what you want and be your best friend. That has never worked, it's pure fantasy- it'd work if everyone believed the same, but they wont, and without some magical global enlightenment probably never will.

But the decision is complicated further by the fact that if we're willing to be one of those nations that pushes for global treaties that are adhered to it's a one way street - once we're rid, it'll be hard (and more expensive) to justify bringing them back.

In terms of wastage though Trident is positively a bargain compared to HS2 which is costing way too much (for some reason it has a price tag higher than 1.5x the entire cost including salary, transport, munitions, food, first aid, base building (a base the size of Reading), air traffic control, training of Afghan forces, infrastructure projects such as hydro dams in Afghanistan and so on of a 13 year war in Afghanistan) so if you're concerned about finance then infrastructure projects in themselves can be an even bigger waste of money and shift to private individuals, that is after all exactly what HS2 is.

My personal view right now is

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[3.5 stripes]

Corbyn is against HS2 also..

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[Xest]

I know he is, but that still doesn't mean we need to get rid of our nuclear deterrent altogether - it was just making the point that Trident is relatively cheap compared to some of the projects we've done and have planned over the years - even it's £100bn cost is spread over 40 years (so £2.5bn a year - we spend more filling the gap in statutory maternity and sick pay every year - you could save that cost simply by legislating companies to always pay this cost, pay for Trident, and still have £50 million left over each year. For reference we spend £650bn on benefits every year), and it's not clear that cost is even remotely plausible - it was created by Corbyn and his friends at the CND and takes into account things like staffing costs of military personnel over the same time period, whilst not being terribly clear that we wouldn't still have those personnel anyway but in different roles.

The actual cost of the proposed submarines and deterrent is in the £15bn to £20bn range, which is peanuts compared to HS2, and not even double what the Olympics cost at the low end and that was ultimately just a 2 week entertainment event.

So again as I said, I'm not saying there aren't cost savings, I'm also not saying we should definitely keep a deterrent, but I think the probable most sensible solution is to keep a deterrent, whilst scaling it back. My point is simply that Trident isn't that expensive - we happily blow far more and get far less for our money elsewhere - it's not the absurdly unaffordable thing those who are adamantly for complete unilateral disarmament claim.

Hence, my suggestion is, if we're going to put forward an argument against it, it needs to be something other than simply cost - i.e. more compelling evidence that we wont ever need it than mere "We wont, because I say we wont". At least some effort to liaise with other nuclear states and get a broad ranging agreement that they will at least reduce their arsenal also if we disarm - if CND folks at least offered disarmament as a condition of a global nuclear reduction programme it would be something but most the arguments seem to be the same paranoia over the word "nuclear" as we see against nuclear power plants, and those arguments simply aren't based on a firm understanding of the issue.

Put simply, I think we can get a far better deal or solution than simply disarming because some people vehemently go after anything with the word nuclear in it due to paranoia.

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[BasilBrush]

HS2 is a rich man's toy. There's far better things to spend the money on. Like improving the existing railway network that's managed to become both overcrowded AND overpriced since privatisation.

HS2 would only relieve overcrowding on one line. And would do nothing to address the overpricing.

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[gzuckier]

It's no bloody use right now!

* We can't maintain one-boat-at-sea at all times, because they're falling to bits - they can't even complete readiness drills reliably

* We can't use it anyway : From the House of Commons Defence Select Committee (in 2006) : "the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it"

In short, it's just a way to siphon money into the pockets of defence contractors.

Jeremy's heresy is that he wants to use those resources to build infrastructure to better all our lives instead of just a few rich warmongers.

canadian naval maintenance guys are buying repair parts on ebay http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
but as the saying went, http://www.northernsun.com/ima...

Re:I don't give a damn but..

[gzuckier]

I don't give a damn about homoeopathy. I care rather more about his attitude towards Britain' nuclear weapons programme. His threat to not renew the UK's SLBM system is a significant threat to European defence.

what about homeonuclearpathological weapons? you start out with one nuclear weapon and you dilute it down until you have a zillion weapons with no trace of the original nuke....

Snakeoil

[dav3hatt0n]

I'm currently working on a formulation for Homoeopathic Petrol (TM). I'm sure everyone can see the benefits; a limitless fuel source, cleanly produced and it increases in potency as production increases. Does anyone want to fund my venture? It's a sure fire moneymaker. Get in early! BTW, I came up with this idea after a long night of drinking my previous invention - Homoeopathic Beer (TM).

Re:Snakeoil

[Anonymous Coward]

Homeopathic beer is actually a pretty decent idea. The hangovers are far less debilitating for a start.

Homeopathy has a role

[GrumpyPolarBear]

How to utilize the documented power of placebo? What if we could get a ready-made placebo industry. The moral problem for a doctor to subscribe sugar pills and pretend to believe it will work would disappear if we could just all embrace homeopathy. As long as the weaker homeopathy medicine is forbidden (as it is not that diluted and could be poisonous), We would then have a set of people who believe that they are selling remedies that help (or at least are greedy enough to pretend convincingly). It would be costly, but not in comparision with the global medical industry. It's a win-win and will even add more jobs!

Homeopathy = Bullshit

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What utter bullcrap.

Did you hear about the guy who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine? He died of an overdose.

Re:Homeopathy = Bullshit

[gzuckier]

What utter bullcrap.

Did you hear about the guy who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine? He died of an overdose.

shouldn't that be underdose? (neither response makes sense, but underdose sounds funny)

Re:Homeopathy = Bullshit

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Did you hear about the guy who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine? He died of an overdose.

shouldn't that be underdose? (neither response makes sense, but underdose sounds funny)

Noooooooooooo. One of the base "principles" of homeopathy is the more you dilute the "medicine", the stronger it becomes.

No, I'm not making this up. It's one of the key tenets of homeopathy and homeopathic 'theory'.

Re:Homeopathy = Bullshit

[gzuckier]

Did you hear about the guy who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine? He died of an overdose.

shouldn't that be underdose? (neither response makes sense, but underdose sounds funny)

Noooooooooooo. One of the base "principles" of homeopathy is the more you dilute the "medicine", the stronger it becomes.

No, I'm not making this up. It's one of the key tenets of homeopathy and homeopathic 'theory'.

ooooh now i get it. jeez, i really am an idiot

Fine with Homeopathy

[RichMan]

As long as all treatments must pass the same double blind studies as all other drug treatment plans before they can be claimed to be effective and safe.
And that no treatments can be offered until they have passed the studies that prove they are both safe and effective.

All drugs/treatments should be treated equally.

Re:Fine with Homeopathy

[unixisc]

Why is it a political question in the first place of whether homeopathy should or shouldn't be supported? That should be left exclusively to the medical profession to determine

Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

If a homeopathy remedies can be shown to work in scientific studies, then fine, otherwise no. As far as I know, no homeopathy treatment has been proven effective and England should not waste their money.

Re:Prove it

[rs79]

Vaccines came from the homeopathic school, see Harris et al re 1720.

Google homeopathic cocao, click images. Notice the homeopathic label? An apple you eat, cocoa you dilute. It's a technical term not a political ideology. Commercial speech has altered the meaning. Phrases such as "a homeopathic dose of barbiturates" for example are still in common use in medicine today.

The school of homeopathy was the 1700s alchemists way of experimenting. Mercury killed you but tiny amounts cures syphilis. We get digitalis opium ergot and caffeine for the homeopathic school (See Harris).

Any comprehensive book on the history of medicine will explain this.

National Delusions

[Capt.Albatross]

I am curious as to how this became a particularly British national science delusion.

It seems...

[AndyKron]

The Labour Party is full if idiots is seems.

You understand incorrectly

[sirwired]

Steve Jobs' cancer was more amenable to treatment, meaning you get to live for several years after diagnosis instead of several months. Which is exactly what happened. (In fact, since he lived more than five years after diagnosis, technically he was a cancer "survivor" by most metrics.)

Certainly the quackery he tried prior to actual medicine didn't help things, and it's entirely possible (even probable) his lifespan would have been extended at least somewhat further with real treatment, it was never "easily" treated.

Re:You understand incorrectly

[Rei]

Islet cell neuroendocrine tumor has very long average survival time if caught early (like Jobs' was) and treated properly (which Jobs' wasn't). Not just a couple years - over a decade. And that's for regular folk, not for people who count among the wealthiest individuals on Earth and can afford the best care on the planet. These tumors are so passive that 10% of autopsied patients in the general public are found to have had a gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor without ever knowing, and 30% of the tumors are so good at maintaining their original function that there's debate over whether to even call them "cancer". Insulinomas are anything but a virulent form - but they can spread if left to fester. Jobs' cancer was caught very early on, and by all standards he should have had a very long life expectancy had he actually gone with actual medical treatment advised by his doctors (as well as his friends and family). Instead, he committed "suicide by woo", letting it fester until it become something actually bad and hard to remove completely. Something that he deeply regretted later.

Re:You understand incorrectly

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Note the frauds who sold him, and a million others, known ineffectual treatment in place of real treatment, are not rotting in jail.

That is the problem.

The Placebo Party

[Anonymous Coward]

Now is the time to rename the Labour Party as the Placebo Party, the party whose impact into national welfare is less than 20%, but only if the influence is served with big chunks of colourful headlines.

This says it all really......

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Homeopathic ER

Re:This says it all really......

[rs79]

Homeopathy is pharmaceuticals. This is surgury. False equivalence.

I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[DrXym]

Banning woo from the NHS is an incredibly easy way to save money. Don't sit on the fence, don't endorse it, just get rid of it. If people are dumb enough to believe that nonsense then they can pay for it from their own pockets.

Re:I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are dumb enough to believe that nonsense then they can pay for it from their own pockets.

Are we talking about homeopathy or the NHS?

Re:I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[Dr_Barnowl]

They don't dismiss it because people believe that drivel, and no-one likes their beliefs trampled on.

If a politician announced that "Islam is a load of crap!", his career would be seriously stunted, even though any man who claims to be e.g. a devout Catholic implicitly should believe this because their faith dictates that they should. This is why it's a great political insult to call someone out for being an atheist - because it conveys they impression that they are insulting everyone of faith. If you have your own faith, sure, that's fine, you just got suckered by the wrong priests and, hey, we're all human, but atheists? Dammit they spit in the face of ALL gods.

Homoeopathy is a minor religious cult. They believe that tangible actions in the real world have intangible results that then in turn cause tangible actions in the real world, analogous to the prayer - god - miracle relationship. The only reason it survives is because the placebo effect is powerful. No politician willingly insults religion, and this is why none of them come out and say "homoeopathy is a load of bullshit" in public.

Re:I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[rs79]

Well put.

Number of people killed by homeopathy: zero.

Number of people killed by the medical system. Well, that's awkward, the medical system itself if the third leading cause of death in the United States today.

Examining the actual evidence on all sides is appropriate at this juncture.

The medical system third-leading cause of death in the United States.
Starfield B (July 2000). "Is US health really the best in the world?". JAMA 284 (4): 483–5. doi:10.1001/jama.284.4.483. PMID 10904513.

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://journals.plos.org/plosm...

What is medicine's 5 sigma? - Richard Hortonemail - DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S014... http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

Pharmecutical companies write their own "clinical reports", then bribe doctors to put their names on them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...

Such "ghostwriting" is not uncommon at all.
Lacasse JR, Leo J (2010) Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States. PLoS Med 7(2): e1000230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230
http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...

Re:I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[DrXym]

A small percentage of people hold vaguely held views on homoeopathy. It's not a vote winner to keep it there and its not a vote loser to get rid of it either. Let's not forget that the EU banned every health supplement except those on a permitted list and precisely zero governments fell as a result.

Re:I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[DrXym]

I'm sure that the number of people astral projecting are involved in less road collisions than those driving a car. Should we conclude that astral projection is a safe and effective mode of transport? Or even a mode of transport at all? Or that driving isn't an effective form of transport that is generally safe despite accidents? Or that if we rail about how evil the car industry is or that some people misuse cars that it proves astral projection right?

And in a nutcase, that's your argument with homeopathy. It's a stupid argument.

Re:I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[rs79]

Vaccines, opium, digitalis and many more came from the homeopathic school. Suggest you read some medical history and stop guessing incorrectly.

Re: I'm surprised any party endorses this drivel

[DrXym]

Now you're simply lying.

Medically harmless

[Theovon]

I don't like the idea of tax money being spent on something that is scientifically verfiable as completely wrong. And I also don't want people with serious illnesses not getting proper medical treatment.

However, people have the freedom to do stupid things, and homeopathy is relatively harmless. I mean, it's just expensive tap water. Also, it's a placebo, and placebos have been shown to have some limited effectiveness.

Remember diamond water? I should start selling silicon water. It's special water that's been infused with computer antivirus software by having had it in a water-cooled rig. The imprint of the antivirus software on the water has great antiviral effects in humans. :)

Re:Medically harmless

[thegarbz]

However, people have the freedom to do stupid things, and homeopathy is relatively harmless.

Homeopathy is relatively harmless until it is recommended by a person perceived knowledgeable in the medical practice instead of proper treatment. Separating fools from their money is one thing, separating them from their lives is something else entirely.

Medical professionals are held to high standards and when they do something so obviously against the interests of their patients they are often and always should be held accountable. Feel free to drink all the magic water that you want, just don't tell people to ignore their oncologist because you have a better way of curing cancer.

Re:Medically harmless

[Anonymous Coward]

"that's been infused with computer antivirus software by having had it in a water-cooled rig"

I remember neighbors that saw an ad for a vacuum cleaner that could suck dirt and water. They tried the same with their ordinary vacuum cleaner with predictable results.

Re:Medically harmless

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not harmless if it diverts money away from real treatments.

Re:Medically harmless

[gzuckier]

I don't like the idea of tax money being spent on something that is scientifically verfiable as completely wrong. And I also don't want people with serious illnesses not getting proper medical treatment.

However, people have the freedom to do stupid things, and homeopathy is relatively harmless. I mean, it's just expensive tap water. Also, it's a placebo, and placebos have been shown to have some limited effectiveness.

Remember diamond water? I should start selling silicon water. It's special water that's been infused with computer antivirus software by having had it in a water-cooled rig. The imprint of the antivirus software on the water has great antiviral effects in humans. :)

Trouble is, if you go after homeopathy because it's obviously no better than placebo, then you have to go after other useless things like surgery for back pain, which costs a lot more. and then you've got the surgeons on your case and they're well-heeled Republicans, not a bunch of Green party hippies like the homeopathic prescribers.

Missed opportunity

[meta-monkey]

People go to the doctor demanding antibiotics to cure their colds, no? And is not amongst the best advice of doctors that you should get plenty of fluids?

I propose doctors prescribe homeopathic cold remedies instead of antibiotics. "Here you go, get some rest, and drink lots of this homeopathic cold remedy and you'll be better in a few days."

Obligatory Mitchell and Webb skit

[Anonymous Coward]

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

History of medicine, part IV

[rs79]

Hello;

Homeopathy began in the 1720s upon the accidental discovery that milkmaids who get cowpox on their hands never get smallpox. The Homeopathic school assumed this met their criteria for "like protects against like" and from the homeopathic school we got immunization technology in 1720. Saucy wenches too. Woohoo.

Of The things that came from the school of homeopathy unacknowledged are digitalis, opium and more. Dr. Harris coulter MD writes:

"In the second half of the century pharmacology came increasingly under the influence of the allopathic pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, but such medicines remained in common allopathic use even so — often with the note that the "mechanism of action" remains unknown. These would include: belladonna, coffee and caffeine for headaches, ergot for headache (the OTC drug Cafergot), coffee for hyperactivity in juveniles, lobelia and stramonium for asthma (the OTC drug Asthmador), nitroglycerine for angina pectoris, opium and its derivatives for headaches, botulinum poison for strabismus and other visual disturbances, platinum (Cisplatin, platinol) for testicular cancer, cobra toxin in heart conditions and eye diseases, krait venom in myasthenia gravis, rattlesnake venom in epilepsy, honey-bee venom in arthritis, gold salts in rheumatism, quinidine in heart conditions, etc. etc."

These then are homeopathic medicines that quietly got snookerd into "mainstream medicine" that then attacked the school they came from. As the first post said it's political not scientific.

That crap about the magic water and sugar pills, that came out of a crazy guy in france in the 1960s and is nothing to do with it really. Ignore that.

Harris has a long essay which I found rather fascinating, the above is an excerpt and if you're interested in the history of medicine and pharmacology it's very definitely worth a read.

http://orthomolecular.org/libr...

Curiously too the "like works on like" idea is what saved us from ebola but in a post-Pauling world we know it was because a specific molecule disrupted the life cycle of the virus. Two different ways of saying the same thing it turns out. The molecule in question is in the African version o the virus but not the non-pathogenic Asian("Reston") strain. Actually there's 12 of them but never mind that.

So vaccines are homeopathic for one thing. And you want all homeopathic remedies banned? Ok, so digitals and ergot, you meant them right, and you want to ban vaccines? Why? Some of them actually work. Christ, not the flu shot though, that seems to have got stuck in reverse and now it adds to not subtracts from the death rate in seniors. Turns out the importance of those molecule Pauling was talking about turn out to be important, that' bat's beyond the scope of this quick note. The other Linus. he timelines got all messed up and there weren't supposed to e two of them now so that's a little odd too.

Flu vaccine paradox adds to public health debate
'Canadian problem' an example of odd effects of prior vaccination
CBC News Posted: Jan 16, 2015 2:46 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 18, 2015 5:35 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/...

(other articles on CBC around the same time show Canada fond the vaccine doesn't live up to the numbers the Americans sent with it. 23% is not what was promised)

Translation: the more shots you get the more likely you are to die. Since they've never been shown to actually save lives the takeaway point from that is your chances of surviving the flu are great if you don't get a flu shot. Actually they improve if the levels of enzymes, minerals and fatty acids permit the body to overcome the oxidative stress caused by the virus but we'll go into that later. As one immunologist so aptly put it, just take your vitamin and you should be ok and it does turn out to be a dec

Re:History of medicine, part IV

[Anonymous Coward]

Please shut the fuck up you moron. Repasting an entire article you got from 5 seconds of searching google doesn't make you smart or knowledgeable, and this anti-vaxxer shit is something you should have your throat slit for.

Re:History of medicine, part IV

[Cederic]

Homeopathy began in the 1720s upon the accidental discovery that milkmaids who get cowpox on their hands never get smallpox. The Homeopathic school assumed this met their criteria for "like protects against like" and from the homeopathic school we got immunization technology in 1720.

That's utter bollocks.

So vaccines are homeopathic for one thing

No, that's utter bollocks.

Your entire argument appears to be based on stating utter bollocks then using flawed logic to extrapolate some fantasy fucked up argument that is in fact utter bollocks. Please stop.

Re:History of medicine, part IV

[rs79]

I've researched this for many years. It's interesting.

I wrote this from memory, not from "google searches". I use Google scholar anyway.

You have not found an incorrect premise or any flaws in he logic. You don't like it. Ok. So fucking what?

Here's the cleaned up copy I sent to JC's people.

http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s...

Re:History of medicine, part IV

[rs79]

If you don't feel that's correct please alter Wikpedia and they'll explain it to you.

This is from the medical industry's history of vaccination, this is not from any homeopathic sources, so you just disagreed with vaccine stuff.

You did this because you don't actually know a fucking thing about the subject you're attempting to discuss with somebody who has studied it
probably for longer than you've been alive.

Always check, you may not be right ad in a post Internet ra there is no excuse for this ignorance.

UK Labour Party

[Anonymous Coward]

muy estúpido

Why not placebo

[Anonymous Coward]

Placebo is a very successful medicinal practice. So successful that almost all clinical world trials are judged against that. It performs as good as homeopathy at a fraction of cost. May be UK minister should support this as well.

Someone should...

[Anonymous Coward]

...stab Heidi Alexander with a rusty knife and then give her a box of homeopathic medicine to get well with.

Now they can setup the Mitchel and Emergency Room!

[MensaMoron]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

notes on flu

[rs79]

Speaking of flu, it still kills ten 911's worth of Americans every season and none at all needs to die. Flu actually appears to be curable and people have been brought back from the dead with powerful native american medicine. That we put through a gas chromatograph and found ascorbate.

Here's how it happened.

In 1931 pauling publishes his thesis on the hydrogen bond and by 33 lemania had not only merged with omega but ascorbate was identified as the killer of Jacques Cartier's (Cousteau? Not the scuba one the other guy I always get those confused, nice man, avid fisherman) crew, or rather the lack of it and we had a cure for scurvy now. 500 years this had dogged so it was tried on everything and worked on so many things doctors in the day, as Klenner wrote, would tell their nurse to inject ascorbate then begin diagnosis after a man with an insect sting allergy nearly died because he didn't get an injection fast enough - put the electrons back quick enough and anaphylactic shock abates)

Fifteen years prior, Klenner's family had been spared from the 1914 Spanish influenza when everybody around was dying by the herb boneset. He wrote in 1974 near his death:

"Ancient History and Homespun Vitamin C Therapies

Folklore of past civilizations report that for every disease afflicting man there is an herb or its equivalent that will effect a cure. In Puerto Rico the story has long been told "that to have the health tree Acerola in one's back yard would keep colds out of the front door." 1 The ascorbic acid content of this cherry-like fruit is thirty times that found in oranges. In Pennsylvania, U.S.A., it was, and for many still is, Boneset, scientifically called Eupatorium perfoliatum 2. Although it is now rarely prescribed by physicians, Boneset was the most commonly used medicinal plant of eastern United States. Most farmsteads had a bundle of dried Boneset in the attic or woodshed from which a most bitter tea would he meted out to the unfortunate victim of a cold or fever. Having lived in that section of the country we qualified many times for this particular drink. The Flu of 1918 stands out very forcefully in that the Klenners survived when scores about us were dying. Although bitter it was curative and most of the time the cure was overnight. Several years ago my curiosity led me to assay this "herbal medicine" and to my surprise and delight I found that we had been taking from ten to thirty grams of natural vitamin C at one time. Even then it was given by body weight. Children one cupful; adults two to three cupfuls. Cups those days held eight ounces. Twentieth century man seemingly forgets that his ancestors made crude drugs from various plants and roots, and that these decoctions, infusions, juices, powders, pills and ointments served his purpose. Elegant pharmacy has only made the forms and shapes more acceptable.

Early specifications, action and dosages for administrations.

To understand the chemical behavior of ascorbic acid in human pathology, one must go beyond its present academic status either as a factor essential for life or as a substance necessary to prevent scurvy. This knowledge is elementary. Listen to what appeared in Food and Life Yearbook 1939, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 3. In fact even when there is not a single outward symptom of trouble, a person may be in a state of vitamin C deficiency more dangerous than scurvy itself. " http://scarc.library.oregonsta...
(Paling in a 1953 painting. Those molecules spell out "Hello Sweetie" in old Gallifreyan. Good trick BBC.)

"Klenner's paper (Klenner FR. The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. J. South. Med. and Surg., 111:210-214, 1949.) on curing 60 cases of polio in the epidemic of 1948 should have changed the way infectious diseases were treated but it did not." - Robert Cathcart

"should have changed the way infectious diseases were treated but it did not." - keep thinking about that.

Beginning in the 1930s we began using IV ascorbate to relieve oxidative s

Re:notes on flu

[3.5 stripes]

Cathcart's opinion is worth shit, he's an orthopedic surgeon, not an epidimiologist!

Kinda figures this would be the BIG story

[fustakrakich]

All this to evade any real issues brought up by this guy's election.

Anyway, why should homeopathy get any less respect than religion? The bible says *Your own faith shall heal you*...

Strong Support??

[oh_my_080980980]

FTA:

“I know lots of people who know about benefits of homeopathy,” Heidi Alexander told BuzzFeed News. “Whether it’s the right use of public money is another thing altogether. I’m open to hearing the argument as to why people may think it appropriate.”

She added: “I must admit I’m not totally convinced at the moment but I’ll have to look at it. I know my own parents are great believers in homeopathy. It’s not something that I would immediately support but I’m going to have to look at a whole range of issues. It’s not something that I have given hours of consideration to.”

So yeah real strong support there *eye roll* Nice summary ass-hat.

And they were doing so well!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Corbyn all the best, but Homeopathy? Waste of tax dollars^Wpounds sterling it is!

How British

[frovingslosh]

No public money for hetropathy but plenty for homeopathy. I suspect the BBC is behind this.

Re:How British

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even misspell it as "homopathy" to make it a funny joke.

Re:How British

[Anonymous Coward]

The E is silent

Medical paywalls are medieval

[HongPong]

The real medieval belief system is the idea that medical journals should be paywalled or restricted in any way. Homeopathy is a loosely defined term but access restricted paywalls prevent everyone from gaining from the scientific process, and deserve to be jettisoned to the dust bin where they belong, along with other detritus from the Dark Ages.

Re:Medical paywalls are medieval

[rs79]

It's a 300 year old one of many branches of medicine. From that school came vaccines, ergot, caffein and many more.

Google homeopathic cocoa and click images.

"Homeopathic" is a Latin word and it has a very very specific technical meaning. Do the above search and ask yourself how does it differ from an Apple?

Re:Medical paywalls are medieval

[Ihlosi]

"Homeopathic" is a Latin word and it has a very very specific technical meaning.

Actually, it's completely Greek. Not even one of those Latin-Greek hybrid abominations that engineers like to create, but purely Greek.

Well,that was a load of bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

For centuries, we tried homeopathic remedies for things like smallpox (pray to god to get the demons away).

Didn't fucking go.

Tried ACTUAL medical procedures NOT based on "well, sometimes you just get over it", and we've eradicated it.

Easy

[spiritplumber]

Greatly dilute the homeopathy funding. It will be more potent that way.

Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Came for the "hurr durr stupid Brits are anti-science" generalizations.

Was disappointed.

Guess the smug Eurotrash was too busy slagging Alabama for recently changing curriculum requirements to include evolution and climate change for being anti-science to note the shit-stains in their own midst.

Trickle Down Economics

[AGMW]

So what *is* the purpose of policy designed to make the rich richer?

Whilst "... rich richer" may be partially true, I'd -hope- the policy is designed to make -everyone- richer. If(f) that were the case and everyone gets richer at the same rate, then the rich-poor gap would indeed widen, but everyone is -still- getting richer.

Re:Trickle Down Economics

[BasilBrush]

Which is the trickle down economics theory. So it's not a straw man.

As usual, dumb and dumber = labor

[aurizon]

Well, labor is full of badly educated louts who believe in fairies and homeopathy - what did you expect?
If elected they might set back medicine to the days of the leeches and blood letting blades.

Re:As usual, dumb and dumber = labor

[DickMardy]

But they generally tend to be able to spell the name of their party properly.

Re:As usual, dumb and dumber = labor

[aurizon]

Labour party - labor the loutic masses.
http://publicholidays.us/labor...

why not

[gzuckier]

Here in the US we have made homeopathic marriage the law of the land. England should too. Homeopaths have just as many rights as everybody else.

Great Britain and Homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

If I don't use homeopathic medicines, have I forgotten to take my medicine, or is the other way around?

The moral argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to lie to your patient to cure them, I'm not sure where I stand on that.

You are actively deceiving your patient, to trigger the placebo effect to help them. This is a difficult moral issue. If homeopathy was regulated as any other drug, then maybe I would be okay with it, but frankly, all I see is quacks professing TRUE BELIEF in a 'technology' that is clearly based on bunk science at best.

There's no standards for the contents of the product (which should realistically always be 100% pure water, because of the massive dilution levels used, regardless of what they tell you WAS in it in the beginning) and no standards for who can sell it and what their credentials must be.

The worst thing IMHO is the idea that homeopathy is not based on helpful triggering of the placebo effect, and instead works on water's ability to remember, and the "like cures like" hypothesis, both of which are total bunk. Homeopathy is a lie, and could be replaced very simply with sugar pills dispensed by your doctor.

There is no reason this bunk science needs to be supported by public funds.

And, lol, "bewitch" was my captcha

Define 'support'

[DickMardy]

"I'm open to hearing the argument as to why people may think it appropriate." != "I support the idea of homeopathy".