Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

British MPs Tell Gov’t: Stop Funding Homeopathy

Posted in Science Based Pharmacy by Skepdude on February 22, 2010

READ THE FULL ENTRY AT SCIENCE BASED PHARMACY

In a clear statement on the absurdity of public funding and regulation of homeopathy, British MPs instructed government to stop paying for homeopathy, shut down homeopathic hospitals, cease all homeopathy clinical trials, and to crack down on homeopathic efficacy claims.

Committee chairman Phil Willis MP said; “We were seeking to determine whether the Government’s policies on homeopathy are evidence based on current evidence. They are not.”

Homeopathy doesn’t work. It can’t work. If it did, physics, biochemistry and pharmacology as pharmacists know it would be false. Yet this elaborate placebo system persists, supported in part by the pharmacy profession, which seems comfortable selling products with no active ingredients and no evidence of efficacy.

I have blogged previously about the British inquiry into homeopathy, the public relations disaster for Boots the Chemist (selling their own store brand of homeopathy), and the effectiveness of the “10-23″ protesters, who staged a mass homeopathic overdose, where, not surprisingly, nothing untoward happened to anyone.

The final report from the British inquiry has been released. It scrutinized government policies on homeopathy, and gives direction to the National Health Service.  But the recommendations apply to any country (like Canada) that legitimizes homeopathy.

Here is the Press Release which summarizes the 273 page report :

In a report published today, the Science and Technology Committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.

The Committee carried out an evidence check to test if the Government’s policies on homeopathy were based on sound evidence. The Committee found a mismatch between the evidence and policy. While the Government acknowledges there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect (where a patient gets better because of their belief in the treatment), it does not intend to change or review its policies on NHS funding of homeopathy.

The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.

READ THE FULL ENTRY AT SCIENCE BASED PHARMACY

Advertisements

God “warns” rape victim

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on February 22, 2010

Unfortunately, the warning came a bit wee too late to do her any good, not that she minds that apparently.

The wife of gospel singer Louis Brittz, who was raped by a robber on Monday night, has told how the Lord had warned her that she was to be raped.

However, as it will become apparent, god’s “warning” was more of a you’re-screwed kinda statement rather than a proper warning, which name carries with it the implication that the victim-to-be has a chance to do something about it. The victim in this case never got a chance!

Later the robbers took him away. One stayed with Hettie where she lay with her hands tied, half under the bed.

She said while she was lying like this, she heard the Lord tell her: “Hettie, you are my bride”.

She answered: “Yes, Jesus, I know.”

She said the Lord then told her that the man would rape her but not hurt her. The rapist was also not violent.

Well, not violent except for the forcefully having his way with her that is! Now can someone explain the creepy “you are my bride” comment from god? I thought she was married already! I’m confused, but then so are many christians.

She said this didn’t mean the rape was unimportant. It was also not unimportant to the Lord. He said after all that he collected people’s tears and that the blood of believers was precious to him.

I am sorry but I’d much rather he made sure such tears and blood were never shed instead of collecting them. What’s that mean? Does he have little jars in shelves in some heavenly warehouse?

She said she knew people would say she was living in denial. She herself was a therapist, however, and knew what trauma involved.

And people would be right to say that. Any therapist worth her salt would probably say that a person undergoing a trauma probably shouldn’t be self treating her trauma, not anymore than a surgeon should be performing his own appendectomy at home, because, you know, he’s a surgeon; he knows what an appendectomy involves.

Do climate change sceptics give scepticism a bad name?

Posted in News by Skepdude on February 22, 2010

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT THE GUARDIAN

There is a crucial difference between scepticism and non-belief in the face of overwhelming evidence

Consulting a dictionary
What’s in a name ? Scepticism has been described as a method rather than a position

In January a group of self-declared “sceptics” hit the headlines with an attention-grabbing publicity stunt. If you instinctively interpret that sentence as a reference to the battle-scarred topic of climate change, then it is a mark of how successfully those opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change have appropriated the term sceptic”.

In fact, the event in question is the mass homeopathy “overdose” staged by the Merseyside Skeptics. Do the Merseyside Skeptics (and hundreds of other groups like them) share much common ground with the army of Freedom of Information requesters currently swarming around climate science databases? Or could it be that climate change sceptics are giving wider scepticism a bad name?

Over the past three months climate change scepticism seems to have reached new levels. The Guardian’s investigation into the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia has shone a rather uncomfortable light into the sock-drawer of science. But it has revealed nothing that challenges the fact that the climate is changing – or that human activity is responsible. Trust has been diminished, embarrassing exchanges have been revealed, but the clunking wheels of the anti-climate change lobby have gone into overdrive, falsely claiming that the case for human-caused climate change has been discredited.

Climate change sceptics often position themselves as the antidote to the hysterical, exaggerated claims of climate scientists and environmentalists, adopting the tools and language of “rational enquiry”. But something is missing from this picture – where are the voices of the truly sceptical thinkers that the climate sceptics claim to represent?

The website of the long-running US magazine Skeptic describes scepticism as a method rather than a position, and one that is embodied in the scientific method. A search of the magazine’s online archives reveals not one article disputing the science of climate change. However, there are several debunking unsubstantiated claims that climate change sceptics have made. The not-for-profit organisation UK Skeptics is even less welcoming to climate sceptics, with a helpful note stating:

We are nothing to do with opposition, activist, or denialist groups who wrongly refer to themselves as ‘skeptics’ because they adopt a position of non-belief (eg global warming skeptics, vaccine skeptics, etc).


READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT THE GUARDIAN