Prince Charles : use CAM to stop allergies

[iain]

In an article in today's Guardian, our factually-challenged heir to the throne is bemoaning the huge rise in allergies in modern times (reasonably) and prescribing that everyone should take alternative medicines to solve the problem (absurdly).

He's recommending that CAM should be more widely available on the NHS (i.e. paid for by the taxpayer).

Unfortunately, I don't think the article itself is online, but here is the Guardian Online's report of it .

Maybe it has escaped the Prince's notice that, along with allergies rising in the UK over the last 20 years, the use of CAM has also risen massively. If these alternative medicines are so effective, why aren't they working now?

 

[Zep]

Hmmm. One MORE reason I would prefer Australia was a republic, and not a constitutional monarchy with this guy at the helm...

 

[Martin]

Like anyone listens to Charlie anyway.

 

[iain]

Like anyone listens to Charlie anyway.

Plenty agree with him though.
Apparently, a recent poll said that 75% of people wanted alternative medicines available on the NHS.

I've found the actual piece by Prince Charles : it's here

 

[Zep]

75% in a poll? You mean, they actually asked Winston Wu, Gary Schwartz, Uri Geller and James Randi these questions?

 

[geni]

On the other ahnd some of his recent activities may have been a serious blow to CAM. He manged to get the goverement to pay out some reasurch funds. Unfortunetly for the CAM crowd they went to real scientists.

 

[Beausoleil]

I'd rather people were prescribed homeopathic placebos than pointless antibiotics for viral infections.

 

[wipeout]

Maybe it has escaped the Prince's notice that, along with allergies rising in the UK over the last 20 years, the use of CAM has also risen massively. If these alternative medicines are so effective, why aren't they working now?

Perhaps the alternative/complimentary medicines are causing the allergies...

 

[Rolfe]

On the other ahnd some of his recent activities may have been a serious blow to CAM. He manged to get the goverement to pay out some reasurch funds. Unfortunetly for the CAM crowd they went to real scientists.

Yes, it will be interesting to see the results of these studies.

On the one hand, setting up trials of things with approximately zero intrinsic probability of being efficacious seems like a horrible waste of money. On the other hand, the crazy claims by these people are forcing the money to be spent in this way.

You know what bugs me? Who pays for the trials of real medicines? Mostly, the drug companies (OK, some basic research is publicly funded, but for the things that are coming to market, it's the prospective vendor). So why can't they just hold everybody to the same standards, and insist that anything that's being marketed with even an implied efficacy against disease has to demonstrate safety and efficiacy first?

Rolfe.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I'm not sure that's a good idea. It's not a good idea to let drug companies perform their own studies in the first place - permitting the homeopaths to submit "studies" of their substances would worsen the problem.

 

[geni]

I'm not sure that's a good idea. It's not a good idea to let drug companies perform their own studies in the first place - permitting the homeopaths to submit "studies" of their substances would worsen the problem.

Since there are fixed regulations on how the studies must be caried out and failing to follow these regs can prevent your porduct being lisensed it don't see it as too much of a problem.

 

[Rolfe]

Since there are fixed regulations on how the studies must be caried out and failing to follow these regs can prevent your porduct being lisensed it don't see it as too much of a problem.

What he said.

These regs are very tight. It's very difficult to falsify the data and get away with it. And any study submitted by a homoeopath would be examined within an inch of its life.

Actually, homoeopaths would dearly love to get a proper product licence for their magic sugar pills - it would give them enornous credibility. Various attempts have been made over the years, and they've all failed on total inability to demonstrate efficacy.

Time the diplomatic immunity was removed, in my opinion.

Rolfe.

 

[Prester John]

I'd rather people were prescribed homeopathic placebos than pointless antibiotics for viral infections.

I'd rather neither was done.
However presciption of antibiotics for viral infections is usually to prevent secondary bacterial infections, but that said antibiotics are overused.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

What does computer aided manufacturing have to do with allergies?

 

[ceptimus]

Presumably, homeopathic medicines - the ones that are just water, don't require any testing for safety before being placed on the market. As they contain no active ingredients, they should be exempt from regulations.

This gives the homeopathic drug dealers a big edge over their conventional counterparts - they can make huge economies, by not having to undergo expensive trials.

 

[Rolfe]

But the homoeopaths claim that they do have active ingredients - vibrations, or water clusters, or quantum entanglements, even white holes!

And they also claim alarming side-effects.

One of their "we can cope with any eventuality" wrinkles is to assert that, whenever a patient gets worse on treatment, this is a "homeopathic aggravation", and proves that the remedy is really working. Some of these "aggravations" are very nasty.

Also, if a healthy person takes a remedy, they will experience "proving" symptoms which may make them very ill. This is a good excuse if challenged to take the JREF Challenge by doing-a self-proving - "I daren't, I'd get ill. I'd throw my vital force into a right tizzy."

Yes, we believe these claims are delusional, but why does that mean they shouldn't have to pass safety tests? By their own admission, they aren't safe.

Also, why should homoeopaths be allowed to sell medicine which hasn't proven its efficacy? Nobody else is, and the practice is commonly known as "fraud".

Rolfe.