Government hand-out for sCAM - again

Asolepius

Graduate Poster
Asolepius
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
1,150
Have you seen this article in today's Guardian? I think the government should be challenged, because it has steadfastly resisted supporting proper research into the evidence for sCAM, and instead throws money into this facade which exists largely because of an accident of birth. Of the pifflingly small research funding provided so far, most of it goes to sCAM apologists who bend the rules and the data.

Why is this so-called `regulation' not based on making practitioners provide evidence? Outcomes matter, not whether they have had a 3-week or a 3-year course in reflexology (it would make no difference which). OK folks, get busy with those emails to ministers and the media.
 
Hi,

Its time to play: Spot the logical fallacy!

"There are so many examples of people off the wall really, which are then used to damn the whole industry."
/Maybe no true scottsman? Anyway they are claiming alternative medicine works, but a few bad apples ruin it.

"It seems extraordinary to me that despite a recent poll indicating that 75% of people want complementary medicine available to all on the NHS, there are still only a handful of clinics offering integrated healthcare for free."
/appeal to authority-a vague, non linked poll which sounds scientific.

Then there is this absurdity:
"Take reflexology - there are courses which may not last terribly long. There are also some very good ones that last full-time over three years. The difference in terms of proficiency is significant,"
/Will you UK people supply medical school grants for people to learn reflexology?!?? Can you imagine paying 60,000 pounds to learn to do cold reading while administering foot massage. Three years is just one year short of a full MD!
Of course, most people will not see this as a move to form a marketing network for dietary supplement sales, and keep out the competition while controlling wages for CAM practitioners. Love that CAM propaganda. Remember "it works" and "it will save government money."
 
Quite agree.
I think that complementary practitioners should have to be accountable to a body something like the GMC - except the committee should be filled with scientists and medics who are versed in evidence-based practice principles.
Currently, a scam practitioner has to virtually kill a patient before anything might get done. Conversely, moves are under way to make nearly everything a medic does to try and help someone become grounds for compensation if anything doeasn't work out right, or dismissal if enough complainants shout loudly enough in the right ears.
 
Groups cannot change their position as fast as indivduals. Groups can be sued. When it comes to alt med their lack of unity is their strength.
 
geni said:
Groups cannot change their position as fast as indivduals. Groups can be sued. When it comes to alt med their lack of unity is their strength.
Click to expand...
So who's going to do something about this? It's the government that's behind this move, not individual practitioners.
 
Asolepius said:
So who's going to do something about this? It's the government that's behind this move, not individual practitioners.
Click to expand...
Who do we write to?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Who do we write to?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know yet, but I'm sure I can ferret it out. I've no time tonight, but a starting point may be Cabinet Office or DoH press releases. Just keep searching relevant government web sites - and don't forget we have freedom of information coming up. Sounds like interesting work for the holiday period. I'm still trying to find some MPs who really care and that's proving difficult. But I've been asked to help with this so I will.
 
Asolepius said:
Well, I don't know yet, but I'm sure I can ferret it out. I've no time tonight, but a starting point may be Cabinet Office or DoH press releases. Just keep searching relevant government web sites - and don't forget we have freedom of information coming up. Sounds like interesting work for the holiday period. I'm still trying to find some MPs who really care and that's proving difficult. But I've been asked to help with this so I will.
Click to expand...
I believe that several MPs are members or associates of the National Secular Society - it might be worth approaching them, since they are likely to be fairly rational.
 
The Mighty Thor said:
The sCAM influence is very close to the PM.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1463042004

Sad and a little frightening.
Click to expand...
OK, it's quite simple. Just send a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. They are duty bound to investigate spurious claims. They are very efficient and quite quick, and I have them investigating a local acupuncturist right now. If 20 of us sent in a complaint this charlatan could be taken apart, and consequently Cherie's credibility dismantled. One thought occurs to me. Cherie is a leading barrister, but does she understand what evidence is?
 
Asolepius said:
One thought occurs to me. Cherie is a leading barrister, but does she understand what evidence is?
Click to expand...
This puzzles me as well. Basically, a barrister can't make any statement of fact in court that isn't backed up by admissible evidence, and they can also be asked for the original basis (case law/legislation) of any statement of the law that they make.

On the other hand, a statement by a witness that they saw something happen is admissible evidence, and I suppose that much of the evidence in favour of sCAM is of this type (e.g. "I treated the patient and they got better...").
 
Rolfe said:
Who do we write to?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Look at this DoH news release. It clearly identifies Lord Warner as the responsible minister. His address is:

The Lord Warner
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NS

Actually I'm not sure he is one of the sCAM mafia. I had a constructive reply from him a few months ago regarding the EU Clinical Trials Directive, although I have heard nothing yet in response to my letter of 6.12.04 about regulation of herbals. I will be writing again about this Prince of Wales issue. Example questions are:

* Why does the news release not mention any requirement for practitioners to show the evidence for what they do?

* Why are practitioners not funding their own regulation - like drug companies are forced to?

* Why does the government fund an organisation like this instead of properly supporting objective research into CAM?

* Why is the government supporting this and not a NICE appraisal of CAM?

I'm sure you can all think of more - get writing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom