|
U-Know! Forum » Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 11:51
|
||
|
Cancer can get you no matter how much money you have. You could have a private army of the best doctors on the planet and it wouldn't make a difference. And the treatment is harsh... many people who have to undergo it again and again will simply give themselves up to it rather than put themselves thru another round of chemo. So sometimes, 'legit' western medicine is almost as much a crapshoot as any alt-medicine. I don't blame the desperate for choosing unproven methods when the arsenal of approved ones fail.
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 12:34
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: pooley wrote: good luck with it if you get heart disease, cancer, or ANYTHING that wont go away on its own! So...say you have incurable cancer. No conventional medical treatment is working. Would you not try alternatives, just in case? Despite my scepticism, I suspect I would be tempted...after all, what have you got to lose except some cash? And as they say, you can't take it with you... Mind you, I can't help but agree that in all likelyhood you would be lining the pockets of quacks and charlatans. Then again, you may be one of the lucky ones who find a successful treatment outside the mainstream, like the friend I mentioned in my first post. And that sense of desperation is exactly what these snake oil peddlers rely on. Giving the sick water. My dad was ill with cancer (the type you dont get better from) some well meaning idiot said take vitamin c, cress and bannanas!!!
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jan 29, 2010, 12:36
Jan 29, 2010, 12:36
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: They also sell other products such as 'complementary medicines' - as well as perfumes, reading glasses, food, photographic materials and insect repellent. Not on the pharmacy bit erroneously labelled as being efficacious for medical conditions they don't. Sell them in shops - preferably the sweets counter given they're just sugar - but having them in the pharmacy making unfounded claims for their medical effectiveness is misleading and dangerous. dave clarkson wrote: Where have they said they are 'useless'? Paul Bennett, Boots' Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 25 November. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc45-i/uc4502.htm He conceded there was no evidence to say homeopathy was effective beyond placebo but it 'was about consumer choice' dave clarkson wrote: People have choices. Some people believe they work. Yes. Would that make it OK for a pharmacy to sell cola for post-sex vaginal douching as a contraceptive? After all, some people think it works. Would Boots sell paper condoms? As Evan Harris said to the Boots guy at the Commons: "If someone believed that paracetamol was efficacious in preventing heart disease and the paracetamol said on it "this can be used to prevent heart disease" you would not be happy and I am sure Jayne Lawrence would not be happy with that. So what is it about homeopathy which does not give you qualms when they make claims which you say you do not believe stand up? No-one is saying you should not sell them and you should not sell them as certified as safe and well-manufactured and the box says what is in it, which is nothing - that is fine - but do you not have qualms about selling things that have assertions on about clinical effectiveness that do not have evidence behind them and evidence that you do not believe?"
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 12:38
|
||
If you've got something to say that contradicts something I've said, either a fact or a moral perspective, say it. but non-specific thumbings of the nose don't refute anything, and actually undermine your credibility. You're smarter than that, Dee.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 12:48
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: People will as readily go to Holland and Barrat, or wherever sells the stuff, so why just protest against 'Boots' I wonder? Boots has far more of a position as a 'real' healthcare provider. It's the biggest pharmacy in the country. Whereas That said, if Boots withdraw homeopathy, or at least put it outside of the medicines section where it belongs, I dare say some people would want to do protests against other places. sanshee wrote: If it was about genuine concern for 'the ill', then the campaign wouldn't just be focused on the biggest of the players. That's precisely who you should protest against first! Just cos you can't hit a whole industry simultaneously doesn't de-legitimise your protest against part of it. Picketing a department store for selling fur, targeting Eon for its coal-fired power stations, all of these are open to a charge of 'but others do it, you're just picking on this one for some other reason'.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 12:54
|
||
|
Squid, I don't doubt that homeopathy's worked for your friend. Squid Tempest wrote: Apparently for her it really works, and in ways that it is hard to fit in with the placebo effect. real, physical differences. I think you misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It *does* deliver real, physical differences. It really medically works for some people. Ben Goldacre's excellent article on placebo says there was even a study where people were told they were getting a placebo with no actual medicine in and some of them responded. http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/all-bow-before-the-might-of-the-placebo-effect-it-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/ Squid Tempest wrote: Could it possibly be that there is something going on here that science has yet to suss out? If it actually worked as actual medicine, tests would show that. WE don't need science to show *how* it works - there is a lot of mystery and much that we don't yet know - but trials do need to show that something *does* work. And the extensive trials of homeopathy show that it does not, beyond placebo.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 13:08
|
||
|
So is the placebo effect hinging on a leap of faith, so to speak, or on a deception? You can't sell sugar tablets as sugar tablets and have anyone bother with them. It'd be unethical, of course, for a doctor to present a prescription as one thing but secretly slip sugar pills into the bottle, but it'd probably work if the patient were no wiser in at least some cases, as you admit. But that's not what's happening with Homeopathic remedies, is it? Do licensed doctors prescribe it, or is it merely available to people as a choice? As I said elsewhere here, I don't see a problem with marketing the stuff as long as there is full disclosure that clinical trials disprove the efficacy of the stuff. People continue to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol even tho they actually DO harm, and we allow it because we believe in the freedom of adults to choose their own poisons. Some people will accept that it's just water, some will continue to use it anyway. As homeopathic remedies can do no further harm in themselves, I say let it go. If people believe in it, and it works for them, and they don't mind forking over big bucks for a tiny vial of H20, let 'em.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 13:11
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Squid, I don't doubt that homeopathy's worked for your friend. Squid Tempest wrote: Apparently for her it really works, and in ways that it is hard to fit in with the placebo effect. real, physical differences. I think you misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It *does* deliver real, physical differences. It really medically works for some people. Ben Goldacre's excellent article on placebo says there was even a study where people were told they were getting a placebo with no actual medicine in and some of them responded. http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/all-bow-before-the-might-of-the-placebo-effect-it-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/ Squid Tempest wrote: Could it possibly be that there is something going on here that science has yet to suss out? If it actually worked as actual medicine, tests would show that. WE don't need science to show *how* it works - there is a lot of mystery and much that we don't yet know - but trials do need to show that something *does* work. And the extensive trials of homeopathy show that it does not, beyond placebo. Merrick, I don't misunderstand the placebo effect. I have a strong scientific background. I said "in ways that are hard to fit in with the placebo effect". In other words, way beyond what you would expect from a placebo. It might be possible for that to be attributable to a placebo, but the odds against it would be stacked high. And don't place so much faith in "extensive trials". These have a habit of only "proving" what the person running the trial wants to prove. You've only got to look at the way cannabis has been re-assessed and re-assessed over the years, each trial "proving" something different. Don't get me wrong, I'm still sceptical about homeopathy, but I intend to retain an open mind until I've seen some pretty conclusive proof for myself one way or the other.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 13:16
|
||
|
pooley wrote: And that sense of desperation is exactly what these snake oil peddlers rely on. Giving the sick water. My dad was ill with cancer (the type you dont get better from) some well meaning idiot said take vitamin c, cress and bannanas!!! There is evidence that suggests that large doses of vitamin D can prevent or even roll back tumors. I think western medicine can be a bit snake-oily itself, to be frank... it's compromised by big money. Consumers are led to believe that they have to fork out huge sums to see specialists and purchase pharmaceuticals by the industry, when in many cases (I'm not talking about critical cases, obviously) the patient can heal themselves with some common sense steps... better nutrition, exercise, a better mental attitude, etc.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 29, 2010, 13:19
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: And don't place so much faith in "extensive trials". These have a habit of only "proving" what the person running the trial wants to prove. Quantum physics, perhaps? The observer changes the outcome? Hmm.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
