A UK parliamentary panel this week recommended against public funding of homeopathy, as Susan Perry of MinnPost.com wrote.
“[E]xplanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible,” the panel said.
She cited one estimate that Americans spend $830 million on homeopathic products each year.
Meantime, British physician and writer Ben Goldacre wrote that the BBC had hit rock bottom by giving more than five minutes of airtime to a woman who claimed her cancer was cured by homeopathy. Here’s the clip:
For a bit of background, go to this link to see an interesting video featuring BBC health correspondent Branwen Jeffreys explaining homeopathy.
Some websites, predictably, have pulled out the following BBC comedy spoof of homeopathy.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Dr. Lawrence Kindo
February 25, 2010 at 4:32 amI think we should come to terms with modern medicine earlier than damage is done. Unfortunately, we are too deep already. India, for example, is neck deep in traditional medicine while modern medicine is lagging behind. The problem is not in embracing alternative medicine but in neglecting modern medicine. Strict supervision of other systems is a problem everywhere.
Kudos to this move. More countries should join the bandwagon.
Walter Lipman
March 1, 2010 at 11:59 amScience isn’t fun. Science was hard in school. Scientists are dull conversationalists. Anything but science to cure us, please!
This is how we get ads for things like “Cancer Treatment Centers of America”, appealing to the manner in which a practitioner speaks to a patient, rather than what ability that practitioner has.
Is it any wonder that, in an America where global warming is treated as theory rather than scientific fact, we lead the world in the amount spent on nonsense such as homeopathy? The woman whose cancer either went into remission or responded to the scientific treatment she underwent claiming case upon case of documented “cures” wrought by homeopathy produced not one of these as evidence of her position. That’s how those who make their livelihood lying against science work, and there certainly is centuries of evidence to back MY position–a cursory search of graves in any large, old cemetery proves this.
Good work, Dr. Schwitzer.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like