Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[teamsaint]

I would have thought that most people in the UK believe in what they understand to be the principles of natural selection and evolution. I am not sure if lots of us understand these very clearly, or the implications of natural selection in areas such as Pabmusic highlights, but then that applies in are number of areas of education. literacy hour and 12 years of compulsory schooling still leave around 20% of kids close to functionally illiterate, for example.

[Julien Sorel]

The NHS should provide treatment that actually works, and the general public are not the people who are qualified to decide what works

Which shouldn't be an argument for "the general public" (or the individual patient) taking everything clinicians do on trust bordering on faith: there are questions which should be asked about the role of pharmaceutical companies in sponsoring research and promoting drugs, as there are questions concerning the pharmaceutical and a-social treatment of depression over such a wide spectrum (of the kind Steven Rose has been asking for years).

[Pabmusic]

...12 years of compulsory schooling still leave around 20% of kids close to functionally illiterate, for example.

Too true. Where's that paracetamol?

[jean]

No, she wasn't keen. Hence why it was clear what she thought. But she knew what a vet was.

She did have preconceptions.

But they were the wrong sort of preconceptions for your thesis.

If she had had preconceptions that the vet would make her better, ease her pain, whatever, then you might argue for the placebo effect in her case.

But if not, not.

[Flosshilde]

No, my second comment is not irrelevant. All treatments offered need to be assessed , in a variety of ways. If conventional treatments are not working, or being poorly adminstered, then they need careful scrutiny.

I agree that doctors should not make the same mistakes as their patients. Sadly,In the case of antibiotics, for just one example, they frequently do.

Antibiotics work, if they are prescribed for the right thing. They don't work if they are prescribed for things like colds.

And IMO it is really important that the public do have a say in the kinds of treatment offered. ... there are choices to be made.

As long as they are informed choices. The NHS page on homoeopathy that Mr GG linked to at the start doesn't provide enough (or any) information, & Prince Charles certainbly doesn't. For many people the fact that he supports it is enough to make it 'all right', & for that reason he's a dangerous, ignorant meddler.

[Julien Sorel]

Antibiotics work, if they are prescribed for the right thing.

The problem is they don't now work in an increasing number of instances if prescribed for the right things. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...l-8320551.html

[Resurrection Man]

..... And yet evolution is still not taught in schools to any appreciable depth even in the UK, ....

And in some faith schools, either not at all or actively disavowed.

[Ferretfancy]

Of course it didn't.

It knew nothing whatsoever about what was being administered to it. It had no preconceptions about what effect it was supposed to have.

The placebo effect does not work on animals.

Think about it.

Precisely, jean, by comment was intended to be humorous -do try to keep up !

[Resurrection Man]

...... For many people the fact that he supports it is enough to make it 'all right', & for that reason he's a dangerous, ignorant meddler.

Not sure what point you are making. Is it (a) "anyone" whose views you do not agree with but whose views nevertheless have a certain amount of weight which make it 'all right' for some people..."anyone" becomes a dangerous and ignorant meddler? Emphasis in bold.

Or is it that (b) you don't agree with any views that Prince Charles has and so therefore he is a dangerous and ignorant meddler ?

Or (c) both...

Regardless, not sure by what criteria your views suddenly become elevated ? It could be argued that maybe some of us think that you are a dangerous and ignorant meddler ?

[Resurrection Man]

The problem is they don't now work in an increasing number of instances if prescribed for the right things. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...l-8320551.html

Part of the reason for resistance to antibiotics was that people stopped taking them before the course of tablets had ended.

[jean]

Precisely, jean, by comment was intended to be humorous -do try to keep up !

I realise that.

But you didn't spot that your humorous comment in fact made a serious point, which undermined the rest of your argument.

(Do try to keep up!)

[Julien Sorel]

Part of the reason for resistance to antibiotics was that people stopped taking them before the course of tablets had ended.

Why would that cause bacteria to evolve a resistance to antibiotics?

[teamsaint]

the other big problem with antibiotics , of course, is that drug companies won't invest in developing new ones.

[Resurrection Man]

Why would that cause bacteria to evolve a resistance to antibiotics?

THE danger to the individual is that the infection will recur, and will be more difficult to treat when it does. The danger to the rest of us is that the general population of the infecting bacterium will become more resistant to the antibiotic concerned. If you fail to complete a course of antibiotics, some of the bacteria causing the infection may survive - and these will be the ones with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. This is an unnatural version of natural selection, and will result in the bacterial population in the afflicted patient having a higher than normal resistance to that antibiotic. As the surviving bacteria reproduce, the resulting infection would not be treatable with the same antibiotic. If the infection is passed on to someone else, their infection will also be resistant to the antibiotic.

[Pabmusic]

...If you fail to complete a course of antibiotics, some of the bacteria causing the infection may survive - and these will be the ones with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. This is an unnatural version of natural selection, and will result in the bacterial population in the afflicted patient having a higher than normal resistance to that antibiotic. As the surviving bacteria reproduce, the resulting infection would not be treatable with the same antibiotic. If the infection is passed on to someone else, their infection will also be resistant to the antibiotic.

Yes, but it is pure natural selection, rather than an unnatural form.

After any course of antibiotics, there may still be bacteria left - not enough yet to reach an active level (so the infection is 'cured') but some nevertheless. Some may be alive still because they were never exposed to the antibiotic anyway, but (and here's the natural selection bit) some may have been exposed, but carry a mutation that gives protection against the antibiotic. It only takes one bacterium to carry such a mutation and, all other things being equal, over time the proportion of bacteria carrying the mutation will increase within the population until it becomes the dominant form. Hence resistance.

People who do not complete courses are responsible (1) for allowing more active bacteria to survive than could do, with the risk of reinfection, and (2) for introducing more antibiotics into the system than needs to be the case, giving a greater chance of resistance occurring because the antibiotics they do take are less effective or even useless.