• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK medicines regulation is now officially non-scientific

John Hewitt said:
You can have my signature whn you can demonstrate that homeopathy, given under those rules, causes anyone any harm.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of cases of posible harm directly atributed to zincam.
 
Last edited:
John Hewitt said:
5. Finally, I am concerned by organizations such as "Sense about Science." I suppose I should be glad to see their efforts at maintaining high scientific standards but, on the other hand, they do represent exactly the same institutions that engage in these cover ups and that leaves some real doubts in my mind. I would have more confidence in the elevated scientific standards of such bodies if those standards did not vanish in a puff of platitudinous rhetoric whenever questions were asked about their own, or their institutes', behaviour.
Click to expand...

Platitudinous rhetoric? Cover ups? Real doubts?

Wanker. Next time anyone you care for falls ill, take them to a homeopath and watch them die.
 
I wouldn't bother trying to talk sense to Dr. Hewitt. His website makes it quite clear that he holds all scientific establishments and most scientists in very low esteem, and would seemingly rather have all scientific findings published without peer review, than run the risk of just one good discovery getting rejected.

The reason? He sees himself as a great cellular researcher who made a stunning discovery about cell surface transport mechanisms, and this great discovery was dismissed and ignored by the establishment, thus robbing him of his rightful place in the scientific history books.

That he was a very good researcher is demonstrably true, he studied at one of the best institutes under one of the greats in the field. He proposed a theory which all agreed at the time had some merit, but which, according to the correspondences on his own website, has no supporting evidence, with all available evidence pointing towards competing theories, to the point that his theory is no longer even discussed. The correspondences are on his website because he was so frustrated about his theory not being discussed that he took it upon himself to write to a large number of senior researchers to ask why they weren't researching his theory. Not surprisingly several of them were quite miffed at this line of enquiry.

During his posts in this thread I believe he has made it quite clear that he doesn't understand that the general public lack any knowledge or understanding of how medicines are developed, and would probably think that "placebo" refers to a group of drugs in much the same way that "antibiotic" does. That they trust that the medicine their doctor prescribes them will be the best available for their condition. He is clearly so intent on grinding his axe that he apparently doesn't care who gets caught between it and the whetstone.
 
John Hewitt said:
1. Doctors have always prescribed placebos and, since, I have never heard of any doctor being prosecuted for this act, its legality, or otherwise, seems to me immaterial.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to comment on this statement as a physician working in the US and Canada.

It is now considered unethical for a doctor to knowingly prescribe a placebo (in line with the general shift from a paternalistic to an informed consent approach following the Nuremberg trials). The act would be dealt with through the relevant professional organization, rather than through prosecution, and it is unlikely you would hear about it. It would not be dismissed as immaterial, but rather would be given serious consideration. It is an issue of importance to physicians when regulations are put in place that contravene the principles of ethical medical practice.

Linda
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
I wouldn't bother trying to talk sense to Dr. Hewitt. His website makes it quite clear that he holds all scientific establishments and most scientists in very low esteem, and would seemingly rather have all scientific findings published without peer review, than run the risk of just one good discovery getting rejected.

The reason? He sees himself as a great cellular researcher who made a stunning discovery about cell surface transport mechanisms, and this great discovery was dismissed and ignored by the establishment, thus robbing him of his rightful place in the scientific history books.

That he was a very good researcher is demonstrably true, he studied at one of the best institutes under one of the greats in the field. He proposed a theory which all agreed at the time had some merit, but which, according to the correspondences on his own website, has no supporting evidence, with all available evidence pointing towards competing theories, to the point that his theory is no longer even discussed. The correspondences are on his website because he was so frustrated about his theory not being discussed that he took it upon himself to write to a large number of senior researchers to ask why they weren't researching his theory. Not surprisingly several of them were quite miffed at this line of enquiry.

During his posts in this thread I believe he has made it quite clear that he doesn't understand that the general public lack any knowledge or understanding of how medicines are developed, and would probably think that "placebo" refers to a group of drugs in much the same way that "antibiotic" does. That they trust that the medicine their doctor prescribes them will be the best available for their condition. He is clearly so intent on grinding his axe that he apparently doesn't care who gets caught between it and the whetstone.
Click to expand...

I have said my piece on homeopathy. I do not intend to respond to your ad hominem remarks or to the distortions you choose to attribute to me.

My opinions on cell surface dynamics are described on my web site, "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat." The observational evidence supportive of my views is given in chapter 7. If you wish to discuss that evidence, or the factual history of this field, I suggest you create a separate thread.
 
John Hewitt said:
My opinions on cell surface dynamics are described on my web site, "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat." The observational evidence supportive of my views is given in chapter 7. If you wish to discuss that evidence, or the factual history of this field, I suggest you create a separate thread.
Click to expand...
Let's get back to the topic of this thread then: the fact that the MHRA are allowing the manufacturers of homeopathic "medicines" to make therapeutic claims for products which you have conceded are worthless. Why do you think it is not worth doing anything about this? Why do you make a distinction between scientists not telling the truth, which you appear to take very seriously indeed, and the manufacturers of homeopathic remedies not telling the truth, which you don't appear to feel is worth bothering about?
 
asthmatic camel said:
Seems that Hewitt is less than impartial, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Indeed. But in fairness, we hardly expect impartiality on a personal website.

I read Candace Pert's book "The Molecules of Emotion" some time ago. This site reminds me of it.

The "impartial, objective scientist" is as mythical as any unicorn. Real scientists are passionate about what they do. Disappointment and anger at being ignored, rejected, plagiarised or gazumped is a very human response.
In some cases it is more justified by the facts than others.

Whether justified in John Hewitt's case, I am not qualified to judge.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Indeed. But in fairness, we hardly expect impartiality on a personal website.

I read Candace Pert's book "The Molecules of Emotion" some time ago. This site reminds me of it.

The "impartial, objective scientist" is as mythical as any unicorn. Real scientists are passionate about what they do. Disappointment and anger at being ignored, rejected, plagiarised or gazumped is a very human response.
In some cases it is more justified by the facts than others.

Whether justified in John Hewitt's case, I am not qualified to judge.
Click to expand...

And who would be, indeed. The "impartial, objective scientist" is not only mythical, but an unfair expectation: it's the scientific method which is impartial and objective, and is designed specifically to allow partial, unobjective human scientists to perform objective work.

What these emotional fellows then say in non-scientific, un-peer reviewed works about the work they're doing is really not science, though it may be interesting. It can be considered quite apart from their actual scientific endeavour.

That said, I think this John Hewitt chap has some very interesting points of view, and I want to hear what he has to say. From what I've seen so far of his online collection of essays, it seems well-written, thoughtful and knowledgeable (none of which necessarily equals 'true', mind).

I have to agree with the others on this thread that his views concerning this homeopathy legislation are simply inaccurate, but I would actually like to hear what he has to say on the other matters. Let's remember to be sceptical here, and not simply dismissive :)
 
Hewitt freely admits that homeopathy is ineffective, yet seems to have no problem with it being accepted and officially endorsed by government. Hardly unlikely that he'll attract some criticism for taking this stance, is it?
 
asthmatic camel said:
Hewitt freely admits that homeopathy is ineffective, yet seems to have no problem with it being accepted and officially endorsed by government. Hardly unlikely that he'll attract some criticism for taking this stance, is it?
Click to expand...

No, absolutely, and as I said I completely agree with all comments on this thread as regards his frankly odd stance on that whole thing - I think his position there is indefensible. But the odd comment about his other stuff, including the 'Habit of Lies' stuff, just seemed to me a bit less considered, that's all.
 
Nucular said:
No, absolutely, and as I said I completely agree with all comments on this thread as regards his frankly odd stance on that whole thing - I think his position there is indefensible. But the odd comment about his other stuff, including the 'Habit of Lies' stuff, just seemed to me a bit less considered, that's all.
Click to expand...

What I have been trying to do in this discussion of homeopathy is get some comprehension that objective scientific facts are not the only issue in making such decisions. I have no trouble believing that, in many situations, a physician will find it quicker and cheaper to prescribe a worthless homeopathic remedy rather than debate the merits of homeopathy with patients. That position does not strike me as being indefensible.

Moreover, since some people in the NHS want to be able to do this, I might even suggest, horror of horrors, that those people, who actually practice medicine, might be better able to make such decisions than air headed academics who never see patients.

Logically indefensible, I feel sure, but that is my opinion.
 
asthmatic camel said:
Many thanks, S.S. Seems that Hewitt is less than impartial, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Thank you for the Wikipedia reference to Godwin's law, from which I quote below.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions[2], the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and Wikipedia discussion pages.
Click to expand...

I have not introduced Hitler into this discussion and my web site is not a threaded discussion so that Godwin's law, insofar as it is a law, does not apply to it. On the othe hand, Asthmatic Camel did introduce Hitler by the back door, so to speak, by the act of introducing Godwin's law when Hitler had not been mentioned. Thus, paradoxically enough, by the act of invoking Godwin's law, he broke it.

This "Camel" person seems to be rather irrational. He (and here I am assuming masculinity) uses personal invective, makes ad hominem attacks, puts distorted claims into the mouths of his targets and does not understand his own supposed principles. Whatever nonsense will he come up with next? I suggest that readers should take out their battered copies of Thouless and Thouless (Straight and Crooked Thinking) and mark off the various illogicalities in his reasoning as he works through them.
 
John Hewitt said:
What I have been trying to do in this discussion of homeopathy is get some comprehension that objective scientific facts are not the only issue in making such decisions. I have no trouble believing that, in many situations, a physician will find it quicker and cheaper to prescribe a worthless homeopathic remedy rather than debate the merits of homeopathy with patients. That position does not strike me as being indefensible.
Click to expand...

Scientific facts are, I agree, not the only issue here: all in this discussion seem agreed that homeopathy is at best a placebo. What I feel is indefensible is the idea that given this agreement, we should therefore not object to legislation designed to mislead the public into thinking otherwise. This has been clearly stated before on this thread, and I have not seen a satisfactory answer from you; I think accordingly that yes then, this position is indefensible.

Moreover, since some people in the NHS want to be able to do this, I might even suggest, horror of horrors, that those people, who actually practice medicine, might be better able to make such decisions than air headed academics who never see patients.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that this is not the point of the thread, nor of the present discussion, I'm intrigued as to who you mean.

Who, specifically, in the NHS wants to do "this"? What, specifically, do ytou mean by "this"? And who, specifically, are the air headed academics who never see patients?

Do you work in the NHS? I'm just wondering to which category you yourself belong, Dr. Hewitt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom