Government reshuffle

[french frank]

Why? Quack remedies are just that - quack, and in the case of homeopathic ones they are just water because of the extent of the dilution. They certainly aren't dangerous and have no side effects but they have nothing in them which might treat serious illnesses effectively. Scientifically-based remedies by contrast have undergone significant testing and trials to determine a) that they really are effective in treating particular ailments and b) that their side-effects are understood and documented and deemed not to outweigh the benefits of taking the medication.

I don't disagree: it's dangers v. efficacy. I was responding to (and quoted) MrGG's point in Msg #99 about the "dangers" involved in taking the quack remedies, and pointing out that when it comes to dangers (as distinct from efficacy) it's trading anecdotes and statistics. Both carry 'dangers'. But in one case it's the danger that the condition you have won't be getting the scientifically-approved treatment needed to cure/alleviate it and will therefore become worse; in the other, it's that the scientifically approved product will have a dangerous effect and cause something you don't have.

As for scientifically based remedies, this was the one I was taking. The research even queries the degree of efficacy, as well as the dangers. But take your pick.

[mercia]

who's taking over from Paxo on Newsnight?

Evan ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28401058

[amateur51]

Evan ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28401058

Cheers mercs.

Who will keep Sarah Montague & Jim Naughtie awake on the Today programme now?

I can see Evan coping quite nicely with Gove in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

[MrGongGong]

Evan ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28401058

YOU SEE
IT IS A GAY CONSPIRACY :winkywotsit:

No wonder Scotty has gone

[aeolium]

I don't disagree: it's dangers v. efficacy. I was responding to (and quoted) MrGG's point in Msg #99 about the "dangers" involved in taking the quack remedies, and pointing out that when it comes to dangers (as distinct from efficacy) it's trading anecdotes and statistics. Both carry 'dangers'. But in one case it's the danger that the condition you have won't be getting the scientifically-approved treatment needed to cure/alleviate it and will therefore become worse; in the other, it's that the scientifically approved product will have a dangerous effect and cause something you don't have.

I agree with that, and don't dispute that with some scientifically approved drugs for complex conditions they may be less efficacious and cause side-effects which are only manifested to a significant degree when there is a wider evidence base, i.e. when the drug has been in use for some time. But I would query whether the dangers of non-scientific vs scientific remedies should be treated as equivalent. The danger of using a non-scientific remedy to treat a serious and progressive disease is that the user is relying purely on faith rather than evidence that the remedy will work - and in the case of homeopathy it is pretty much the same as taking no remedy at all (other than perhaps drinking a bit more water). With the scientifically approved remedy the user is at least relying on the evidence that the medical profession has accumulated that the remedy is partially and in some cases wholly efficacious (I am not thinking of remedies for colds here where homeopathy might be equally effective!).

No-one of course is compelled to take any medicine, but given the choice between a scientifically approved or a homeopathic one to treat a serious condition I know which I would go for (and I know several people who I think would not be alive were it not for NHS medicines).

[french frank]

pretty much the same as taking no remedy at all (other than perhaps drinking a bit more water).

Though many people would benefit from that! :-D

But there are weird oppositions: knowing too much to be taken in by 'primitive mumbo-jumbo': knowing too little to prescribe sophisticated, potentially dangerous/lethal, pharmaceuticals with complete safety. In the end, one's outlook must be coloured by personal experience of illness and disease.

[aeolium]

I must read Roy Porter's book "The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present". I'm sure there are a fair few horror stories about medicine and medical practices in there (not least in the time of Dr Johnson from whose words the title was taken).

[vinteuil]

I must read Roy Porter's book "The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present". I'm sure there are a fair few horror stories about medicine and medical practices in there (not least in the time of Dr Johnson from whose words the title was taken).

... if I recall aright, Sam: Johnson, suffering from scrofula*, the "King's Evil", was taken to be touched by the monarch, such a touch then deemed to be a sovereign (hem hem) cure for the ailment †. The fact that no cure ensued was attributed by Johnson to the fact that the monarch was a Hanoverian rather than a Stuart ‡...


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubercu..._lymphadenitis

† http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/brou...kingsevil.aspx

‡ EDIT - I must have mis-remembered - he was touched by Queen Anne...

[Dave2002]

Though many people would benefit from that! :-D

But there are weird oppositions: knowing too much to be taken in by 'primitive mumbo-jumbo': knowing too little to prescribe sophisticated, potentially dangerous/lethal, pharmaceuticals with complete safety. In the end, one's outlook must be coloured by personal experience of illness and disease.

V. Sorry to read about your bad drug experiences. For myself I sometimes dose myself up with salt, particularly during the summer. I know it's arguably bad for me, but then I have had experience of salt deprivation, which was horrible, and I think I recognise the symptoms now. It is, apparently, possible to survive without salt but very few people can do it. African pygmies seemingly can, though if they are given salt something irreversible sems to happen, and then they have to keep taking it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Science as we know it is a variable truth. When I was at school, I read what I believed was an authoritative book in astronomy (maybe the Teach Yourself book?). It stated that it was likely that Venus was rich in vegetation beneath its dense atmosphere. Now we think otherwise.
My point is that some of the truths of today may be thought quaint in a few years' time.

[MrGongGong]

My point is that some of the truths of today may be thought quaint in a few years' time.

Clapping between movements ?