Discussions

Well, I can't disagree with your conclusions, because there is, clearly, a problem with the people arguing on both sides.

When you have a duel, there's no mileage in admitting to wounds! - and so although the orthodox "scientific" medical approach knows full well it has a problem with diagnosis issues (and mis-diagnosis, in particular) it stoutly maintains "But this is scientific!" Well, in a sense, it is: there's a scientific basis for the research that goes on in the labs. But what goes on in the hospital (as Wendy says in her article) is far more bloody random!

Similarly, the value of homeopathy placebo can't be denied. Let's not actually argue (right now) about whether there's more to homeopathy than placebo; let's just admit that, whether there is more, or whether that's it, we can both accept that there is placebo, OK?

That being accepted let's quickly admit that placebo plays a large part in "scientific" cures, too. Statistics show that Ibuprofen isn't as effective as Nurofen - the brand name for the best-selling Ibuprofen product in the UK. But chemically, Nurofen is identical to the cheapest generic Ibuprofen you can buy. Placebo, no argument! Doesn't mean Ibuprofen is only placebo, does it? - but it does mean we should accept that placebo is there, too.

So: if homeopathy ointment uses a placebo effect, we can be pretty sure that the patient's conviction that "it works" is an important factor. So, naturally, the homeopath isn't going to stand up and say: "Actually, all this potentisation, and thumping the mixture so many times with a leather ball, well, it's just mumbo-jumbo." Conviction is important! It works!

My summary is a fairly simple statistical one.

We know that diagnosis is, almost always, guesswork. It's intelligent guesswork, and it's based on a lot of experience in the case of most practitioners (on both sides). But we also know that if you go to a therapist with a complaint, it's very rare that they'll take a blood sample, send it off to a laboratory, and ask the lab to provide a full spectrum analysis of all possible pathogens. (And even if they did, that's not going to tell you definitely what illness you actually have).

What they actually do is apply the "IIDWIAW" test. That means, they say: "Hm, looks like thrush; rub this ointment in, and If It Doesn't Work In A Week, come back." Or "take these pills" or "try these eye-drops" or "don't drink milk" - and if that doesn't work in a week...

Now, if you have a serious illness which needs immediate treatment with a powerful drug or YOU'LL DIE! then obviously, a correct diagnosis and the prescription of exactly the right powerful drug - or surgical procedure, or anti-allergy precaution - is essential. Placebo isn't enough.

Alternatively, if you have a simple illness like man flu or earache, and you give the patient something poisonous and powerful in the belief that it's the plague, you can seriously damage their health.

So, what are the stats?

How many patients die each week, because they presented with critical symptoms, which some homeopath ignored and treated with chalk or glycerine?

And how many patients are given antibiotics each week, or blood thinners, or beta-blockers, who are going to show up seriously ill with any of the known side-effects of such powerful drugs - when they actually would have got better in a week anyway?

Irriatingly, nobody has the numbers.
<hr?

Medicines.

One problem I have with the "scientific" appoach to medicine is, they ignore empirical results, and only "back" those cures and treatments which they can *explain*.

Without doubt at the far end of the scale are quackeries which at best merely do not work.

But that leaves a HUGE amount of stuff in the middle gound, which *works*, with masses of (yes, even repeatble) epmirical evidence to support it. But because the scientifics can't explain WHY it works, it's "not allowed".

Pity really - since last I checked the pharma types still weren't even *quite* sure how aspirin works, and had a particular bunch of aborigonals not widely chewed the bark of a willow tree to cure headaches, we would probably be told it was something which migh have a placebo effect but of which nothign else can be proved...

I've not tried homeopathy - my crainal osteopath thinks I should, mind you, and I know that what she does is good stuff...

Argument? - NOT PERMITTED!

Wendy and the Editor (me!) don't altogether agree on all points about "alternative" therapies. But when it comes to freedom of speech, we are of one mind. And when a body which claims scientific backing sues a dissident scientist rather than debating the issue, Wendy is rightly incensed.

For what it's worth, I have a lot of time for homeopathy. No, I do NOT think it is scientifically justified - in the sense that I personally think the ultimate dilution, and water memory theories are junk science. But I do think that homeopathy has a valuable place in medicine.

And my GP agrees with me!

"If it saves just one child..."

The world is over-provided with "success at any cost" activists. Some of them - like the people who would ban all short-range radios on the offchance that it might save some electro-sensitive from discomfort - we can safely choose to ignore.

When it comes to child abuse, however, experience teaches us that you dare not dissent. You will be accused of unspeakable things.

But the protection of children, however important it is (and it is!) is not "at any cost" and idiocies committed in the name of protection, remain idiocies. Wendy explains...

Beware the Truthometer!

She calls it "reality TV" but this week's net.wars column by Wendy Grossman reads more like unreality TV to me.

I mean, a Twitter account operated by a fictional Xerox machine in a popular TV series about advertising?

Anyway, Wendy has been in Hollywood. Will it go to her head? Will she join Kermit and become rich and famous? Waddya think...

Fox in the hen-house?

Actually, for all we know the US bankers who didn't know that what they were doing was dumb, really didn't.

They probably dismissed Warren Buffet as an old fart...

For me, Kate Moss... it's "Art"

Would the picture shown here deprave or corrupt you?

Is it obscene?

If not, why not? If so, why?

Buffy the EULA-breaker

Vampires in Oxbridge? Well, a new Joss Whedon thriller set amongst the dreaming spires or the calm punts would be fun! but this week, the net.wars series explores the future of cloud computing, and what Angel might have done about its terms and conditions.

At least, when I was editing it on my flight from Faro, that's what I thought it was about...

net.wars - doplr-gangers. If you go there, I'm not!

It may be time to join yet another "social networking site" like doplr - and then again, as Wendy so succinctly put it:

"Friends don't LET friends join social networks..."

Edited by author 08-22-2008 08:22 AM

Sir Alan Ayckbourn

You back my scratches, and...

Literary criticism? We haz LitCrit. At least, if you're going to discuss copy protection, "software as a service" and video distribution rights, you'd better discuss someone whose output is worth protecting.

Wendy has been to the Scarborough theatrical production of an Ayckbourn play. Why does Sir Alan prevent publication of video performances?

---

Five ringtone circus...

Smog? Never mind the smog, check out YouTube!.

Edited by author 08-03-2008 05:58 AM

Car boot sale?

In 1980, it was your signature which gave you away.

Today, it's your "spending patterns." Which is clever, when it works, says Wendy. But what's the explanation for when it doesn't?


Image: Walter Matthau as Miles Kendig

Retroactive incentives?

It's easy to see who has the lobbying muscle, when it comes to reforming copyright laws (writes Wendy this week).

Wouldn't it be nicer if the performers, rather than the recording business, got the benefit?

I have to disagree with Wendy about newsletters. I run a mountain biking club, www.bogtrotters.org. We used to publish a printed list of rides with some editorial material every 3 months. It was very tedious filling envelopes, even for just 40 members. I moved the list of activities to our website 6 years ago, combined with a couple of mailing lists for announcements and discussions. In the intervening period the membership has steadily grown, to 115 now. I'm 55, and there are only 3 other members older than me, who seem to be able to cope with electronic delivery perfectly well. There are a few luddites who rely on a quick mobile call to check what's happening

Edited by author 06-27-2008 11:09 AM

That's a Black Goose, that's what...

The sad tale of a Government department that regarded security as a low priority has now been told, in the Poynter Review.
Read all about it, and weep...

Edited by author 06-21-2008 04:48 AM

Print deadlines

The trouble with going for email newsletters is that you can procrastinate forever about when it's finished.

When you give it to an operator of one of Mr Gutenberg's devices, the printer has a schedule, and expects copy the day you booked the presses. It comes out on time that way.

Well, that's one theory, sure...