Prince Charles on the rack tonight

[Jekyll]

There is as much ancient wisdom as there is ancient foolishness. We have a methodology to remove one from the other.

If it works why do we still have a monarchy?

 

[Darat]

If it works why do we still have a monarchy?

Well nothing's perfect.... but good to see Charles is helping!

 

[cyborg]

If it works why do we still have a monarchy?

Tradition - but I don't think you can compare monarchies and homeopathy in that way.

Besides civilisation seems to have coped okay with hereditary governmental structures so I hardly think one could call it totally foolish.

 

[wahrheit]

Homoeopathy ... Something works, isolate that, and don't give it the illusive title of placebo effect and I'll go stand on a soap box in parliament square and yell Eureka.

Even a clock that does not work is right twice a day.

— Polish Proverb

 

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Disney could produce an animatronic Royal Family. That would answer the arguements that they are 'good for tourism'. They aren't good for anything else now.

I found the replies from Clarence House interesting particularly regarding the medical part of the programme. It would appear that they think that trying to be polite, inclusive and satisfying everyone's point of view is the way to produce recommendations these days. As opposed to science and fact.

 

[jon]

It is true that his knowledge of science is limitted (he studied anthropology didn't he?) but he is at an intelligent lay person level. I would have thought that institutions should be aiming to communicate at that level.

I'm not convinced about the intelligent part - he had an incredibly expensive, 'high quality' education, which he scraped through with only 2 indifferent A levels and a 2:2 undergrad degree. His discussion of medical and science issues certainly doesn't suggest any particular intelligence or knowledge.

At best, I'd say he's on the level of an 'only slightly stupid layperson, who can't be bothered to learn anything much about what they discuss (despite having lots of access to advisors, and having lots of time on their hands due to not having a proper job)'. I'm not sure if this is a particularly appropriate audience for scientists to aim at.

 

[tkingdoll]

At least His Royal Ears is prepared to consider other things. How long ago was aspirin considered as quackery or witchcraft? Even the thought of that plants may provide cures as some form of heresy? Seems, too many people forget the roots of many things in the name of shouting the odds and fluffing up the feathers of self pompousness.

If aspirin was considered quackery for over 200 years, as homeopathy has been, then you might have a point. But aspirin was proved to work very quickly indeed and as such became an accepted and acceptable drug. Aspirin was patented in 1899, sold as a powder, and was, according to wiki, an instant success. That's mainly because if you have a headache and you take aspirin, the headache goes away. It doesn't rely on magic spells or being prescribed by a special aspirinopath in order to work. It doesn't need to be beaten against a leather book to be effective.

There is no comparison whatsoever. Give me another example of a drug or medical treatment that was considered quackery for 200 years then suddenly proven effective.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Again out of curiosity - do you know him?
Really - evidence?
Never.
Never. (ETA - that's probably not 100% accurate - there probably have been some ancient societies that decided using plants for "cures" was heresy.)
We at least agree that he does this!

What's knowing him got to do with liking him? I like the man. I like you, but I don't know you. Good job too, I may dislike you on contact and next thing you know; you find yourself being stuffed, basted and chopped 'n' dropped on to a bed of mixed lettuce leafs. Next entering a tunnel and finally splashing down a pan of water. So hah!


ETA, Oh do be quiet and go dust something.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

If aspirin was considered quackery for over 200 years, as homoeopathy has been, then you might have a point. But aspirin was proved to work very quickly indeed and as such became an accepted and acceptable drug. Aspirin was patented in 1899, sold as a powder, and was, according to wiki, an instant success. That's mainly because if you have a headache and you take aspirin, the headache goes away. It doesn't rely on magic spells or being prescribed by a special aspirinopath in order to work. It doesn't need to be beaten against a leather book to be effective.

There is no comparison whatsoever. Give me another example of a drug or medical treatment that was considered quackery for 200 years then suddenly proven effective.

Penicillin? great for cheese and other things. Quackery?
ETA. I'm not that ancient, I remember a time when it was considered old wives tales that yew cured you of any ills. Now it treats breast cancer among others.

My point being, if I had one.
40 people take homoeopathy splurge. 40 take the same but marked 'placebo' sugar pill. 20 of group 1 go yippee it worked. 20 of group 2 go give me my money back, you corrupt bunch of quacks. Sceptics, scientists go, yay! Placebo effect. Convenient. NO. Stop hiding behind it. Remove it from the equation.

Placebo effect loved by quacks and scientist alike. Me I say, remove that, tell me what is the result and I then will go stand in Parliament Square yelling Eureka!

I think homoeopathy gets more people's knickers in twist, when there are other more knicker twisting things out there. Then you all go acting like a bunch of hyenas on a killing spree. You think I'm woo, go ahead think it. Peck me heck me, I care little about it. I don't use homoeopathy or do I recommend its usage to people. If asked I say it as it is, sugar pill, nice energy boost if that. But until the full results are in, this judge is going to sit on her sentencing of homoeopathy.

Lighten up.
Homoeopathy-nice sugary pill, peddled by con artist. Until that placebo marker is removed you'll never stop con flow. Good grief, is it that hard to understand?

ETA, not meant as harsh as it comes across. Not aimed at you Teek solely either. Bad day today = cranky me.

 

[Cuddles]

Penicillin? great for cheese and other things. Quackery?

Let's see. Blue mould growing on bread is said to cure some illness. Some years later we invented science and medicine. Blue mould growing on bread is found to cure some illness. You obviously have a very different idea of quackery than the rest of us.

ETA. I'm not that ancient, I remember a time when it was considered old wives tales that yew cured you of any ills. Now it treats breast cancer among others.

Does yew cure breast cancer, or does something derived from it, or more likely something synthesised in a lab that is simmilar to something derived from it, cure breast cancer? Breast cancer aside, does yew, in fact, cure you of any ills? No? Then yew curnig you of any ills is in fact an old wives tale.

My point being, if I had one.
40 people take homoeopathy splurge. 40 take the same but marked 'placebo' sugar pill. 20 of group 1 go yippee it worked. 20 of group 2 go give me my money back, you corrupt bunch of quacks. Sceptics, scientists go, yay! Placebo effect. Convenient. NO. Stop hiding behind it. Remove it from the equation.

What are you talking about? No-one is hiding behind anything. Homeopathy has exactly the same effect as water, therefore it doesn't work. End of story. I don't know what you think the placebo effect is, but it certainly isn't what you think it is. The fact is, if you give someone something and tell them it is a drug, they will fell better. They will not acutally be any better, but they will tell people they are, for a short time at least. Unless you propose breaking into people's houses and drugging them while they're asleep there is no possible way to avoid the placebo effect, which is precisely why medical trials have to control for it.

I think homoeopathy gets more people's knickers in twist, when there are other more knicker twisting things out there. Then you all go acting like a bunch of hyenas on a killing spree. You think I'm woo, go ahead think it. Peck me heck me, I care little about it. I don't use homoeopathy or do I recommend its usage to people. If asked I say it as it is, sugar pill, nice energy boost if that. But until the full results are in, this judge is going to sit on her sentencing of homoeopathy.

The results are in and the judge and jury have convicted, sentenced and gone off to the pub. The only problem now is making people understand this. Clearly you don't.

 

[Soapy Sam]

CC The results have been in for some time.

Some nonsense is relatively harmless, perhaps even benign, but that does not justify public figures pretending their ignorance is actually profundity.

I agree there are worse than Chuck out there, I suspect he really is quite an endearing loon when you get to know him, but his high profile influence (especially on establishment figures and systems) requires him to square up to the facts before expressing his opinions , because his opinions influence people who know better, but see personal advantage in supporting his notions. Noblesse oblige.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

That's your right, such is my right is to sit on my verdict and I darn well will.

Plus there's a pint of fizzy wating on the bar for you. If you don't mind I'll sit in the beer garden and wait for the full results before damning anything.

 

[drkitten]

My point being, if I had one.
40 people take homoeopathy splurge. 40 take the same but marked 'placebo' sugar pill. 20 of group 1 go yippee it worked. 20 of group 2 go give me my money back, you corrupt bunch of quacks. Sceptics, scientists go, yay! Placebo effect. Convenient. NO. Stop hiding behind it. Remove it from the equation.

Unfortunately, that's not how the experiments are run. That's not how the experiments can be run.

The comparison isn't between quackery-labelled-as-medicine and quackery-labelled-as-quackery. The comparison is between quackery-labelled-as-medicine and a proposed-treatment-labelled-as-medicine, and the whole purpose is to see whether the people get better.

If you give people aspirin, thirty-nine out of forty will report their headache improved. If you give people sugar pills that look like aspirin, you'll probably get twenty out of forty. There's a clear difference, and you can repeat this as often as you like, for as many people as you like.

Now, what happens when you give them "super magickal homeopathic essence of headache"? Twenty out of forty report improvement.

Does this make the homeopathic treatment effective?

Is there any reason at all to support homeopathy? is there any reason even to take homeopathic treatment seriously?

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Probably none. But until you rule out the possibility, even if it is placebo effect. You won't quash homoeopathy. I won't yell Eureka in Parliament Square.

Some people ignore the science, they look to a cure, it might not work but they will give it ago. If some sugar pill, shows a sign that it works, even if science says no it doesn't. they'll chose to believe the small percentage of it works.

You have got to rid yourself of the placebo. It gives false hope or whatever it does. That's the point.

 

[drkitten]

You have got to rid yourself of the placebo.

That's simply not possible. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that sentence is completely bonkers.

Some people get better all by themselves. If you think about it, there are really only two choices for a medical condition left untreated -- you'll either get better (eventually), or you'll die. In the case of a headache, almost all people will get better, simply because headaches are so rarely fatal. (Less so in the case of acute appendicitis, which is part of why there are so few bogus cures for appendicitis on the market.)

One major source of the "placebo effect" is coincidental recovery. People are dumb, and are quick to attribute cause to things that simply happened -- that's why so many golfers have "lucky hats" and so forth. If I drink a glass of orange juice and my headache clears up, that's enough for people to seize on as a statement that orange juice cures headaches.

How do you "rid yourself" of coincidental recovery?

Another major source is that people lie. How do you prevent people from lying about whether or not they feel better? How do you "rid yourself" of untruthful people?

Et cetera, et cetera.

What do you think "placebo" means?

 

[fishbob]

. . . it is good to see somebody pricking inflated pomposities. . . .

You came to the right place.

 

[fuelair]

He talks to his plants, like I talk to my food before I eat it. I like him. He may have some quacky ideas, but haven't we all at one time or another.


You may witch hunt me for this, I care not. Homoeopathy, until somebody can show me that the placebo effect is removed from the equation. I'll reserve giving my vote on it as totally useless. Something works, isolate that, and don't give it the illusive title of placebo effect and I'll go stand on a soap box in parliament square and yell Eureka.

At least His Royal Ears is prepared to consider other things. How long ago was aspirin considered as quackery or witchcraft? Even the thought of that plants may provide cures as some form of heresy? Seems, too many people forget the roots of many things in the name of shouting the odds and fluffing up the feathers of self pompousness.

To the best of my knowledge, aspirin was never considered quackery or withcraft - and the willow bark tea it was made from was pretty well known long before that. They had an advantage over homeopathietic crap - they worked and were seen to work over and over.

 

[Asolepius]

But I would like to say a word on his behalf - I like him. He is perfectly sincere and it is good to see somebody pricking inflated pomposities.

It is true that his knowledge of science is limitted (he studied anthropology didn't he?) but he is at an intelligent lay person level. I would have thought that institutions should be aiming to communicate at that level.

As for selective use of evidence? Well now, are we saying scientists would never do a thing like that?

I'm not sure how you can remotely measure his sincerity, but I'll let that go. What on earth do you mean about inflated pomposities? Who could be more pompous that he is? He clearly hates anything modern and is still living in the 17th century. He makes statements about science and medicine without exposing himself to challenge. Nobody is ever allowed to debate these subjects with him. He gives a speech, leaves the platform, and there is no `questions please'. Where is the peer review? What could be more pompous than that?

He did study anthropology and archaeology, but changed to history. I remember at the time that he could not get the grades to enter Cambridge but they accepted him anyway. They originally cobbled together a 2-year course because he wasn't expected to take a degree, but they tacked on a third year in history and he was awarded a 2.2. You see what I mean about obsessed with the past? What do you mean about communicating with that level? There is no communication with HRH, if you mean a dialogue. We are all expected to listen to his ex cathedra statements with rapt attention, and are never allowed to criticise in person. You may despise scientists as much as I despise HRH, but at least they do (mostly) enter into debate.

HRH surrounds himself with a coterie of sycophants who are queuing up for their gongs. We had Stephen Holgate, MRC Professor of Immunopharmacology in Southampton, speaking last week at a debate, and opposing the motion that all NHS treatments should have evidence of effectiveness. Holgate, whom I have known on and off since he was a registrar, is an adviser to HRH's Foundation, and now puts out stuff which is diametrically opposed to his long and distinguished record as a scientist. Such is the corrosive effect of the honours system and royal patronage.

 

[John Hewitt]

Out of curiosity how do you know this?
(that Charles s sincere.

Well, actually, I don't know that and I don't know him. However, I was a near contemporary in his college and opinion seemed to be that he was OK. I should add that I did not have a privileged upbringing.

Perhaps for communication you are right however that is not the level I would like to be used to formulate policy.

No, it would be nice to see policy formulated on the basis of best expert knowledge but there are two problems with that.
First, policy makers are generally not scientists and they do weigh political considerations *at least* as highly as scientific considerations. The general body politic therefore needs to be persuaded about a course of action.
Second, expert scientific opinion is very often not giving best objective advice but coloring their advise with their own vested interest. Lay oversite is the only real protection against such behaviour.

I can't speak for you but no I'm not saying that. (Asserting that scientists are not selective)

No, I realise that but you have got to know that I think some scientists can be very selective indeed and that you can find quite a few of them in the vicinity of Charles' alma mater.

 

[John Hewitt]

What on earth do you mean about inflated pomposities? Who could be more pompous that he is? He clearly hates anything modern and is still living in the 17th century. He makes statements about science and medicine without exposing himself to challenge. Nobody is ever allowed to debate these subjects with him. He gives a speech, leaves the platform, and there is no `questions please'. Where is the peer review? What could be more pompous than that?

He did study anthropology and archaeology, but changed to history. I remember at the time that he could not get the grades to enter Cambridge but they accepted him anyway. They originally cobbled together a 2-year course because he wasn't expected to take a degree, but they tacked on a third year in history and he was awarded a 2.2. You see what I mean about obsessed with the past? What do you mean about communicating with that level? There is no communication with HRH, if you mean a dialogue. We are all expected to listen to his ex cathedra statements with rapt attention, and are never allowed to criticise in person. You may despise scientists as much as I despise HRH, but at least they do (mostly) enter into debate.

Your comments, if correct (which I have no reason either to doubt or accept) would be a fair critique of his behaviour. My target is real scientists who claim to engage in debate and, in reality, make nothing but ex cathedra assertions.

HRH surrounds himself with a coterie of sycophants who are queuing up for their gongs. We had Stephen Holgate, MRC Professor of Immunopharmacology in Southampton, speaking last week at a debate, and opposing the motion that all NHS treatments should have evidence of effectiveness. Holgate, whom I have known on and off since he was a registrar, is an adviser to HRH's Foundation, and now puts out stuff which is diametrically opposed to his long and distinguished record as a scientist. Such is the corrosive effect of the honours system and royal patronage.

Yes, power corrupts and few people can exercise power without finding themselves corrupted. It is good that possible corruption is pointed out among royalty and it would be nice to see the same thing occurring among the scientific community.