Prince Charles - I'm an interfering busybody.

[Admin]

See: Mail on Sunday article (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=378327&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=News&ct=5)

Prince Charles is also lobbying and scheming to get unproven alternative remedies intergrated with the NHS.

I find it unacceptable that one man, in an unelected position, has the power to influence government policy. They may have resisted him in this case, but who knows which strings he's pulling?

It's not just the fact that he's into so much that's Woo; one person who can offer gongs (honours) to those who sympathise with his views and causes has the potential to cause a lot of damage.

To quote a not so wise man:

"What is wrong with everyone nowadays? What is it that makes everyone seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their capabilities?" - HRH The Prince of Wales

[Tony P]

I can only say that it's a good job that the monarchy no longer rule us.

The divine right of kings and all that. Imagine the havoc if Charles was in power!

[Mojo]

To quote a not so wise man:

"What is wrong with everyone nowadays? What is it that makes everyone seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their capabilities?" - HRH The Prince of Wales I had that in my sig over at JREF for a while. The man clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word irony.

[Nucular]

I can only say that it's a good job that the monarchy no longer rule us.

The divine right of kings and all that. Imagine the havoc if Charles was in power!

Personally I can't wait till Charles is in power - I've a strong feeling he'll do no favours either to the monarchy, or the CAM brigade. The poor chap just isn't particularly liked or likeable, and so his propensity for shooting his mouth off about his pet subjects may well bring about more harm than good.

This bulging-eyed optimism doesn't take into account sycophancy and/or the common British confusion over what exactly consitutes patriotism, however ???

[Dr B]

I thought the royal family were all shape-shifting reptiles anyway?? ;D ;D

Look closely enough and you will see the complete absence of evidence - so it must be true!!!! :D ;D

[Dr B]

Does Prince Charles cast a shadow - and if so does it have horns??? These are the questions that demand an answer.....

[Jocky]

To resurrect this topic, Charlie's horny shadow was cast over "complementary medicine in the NHS" yesterday. His ill-informed comments make the headlines just because of who he is. Grrrr >:(

[Dr B]

;D ;D "charlie's horny shadow" ;D ;D it could catch on......

[median]

Don't be too hard on the chap. Genetics can be so cruel ;)

Hundreds of years of inbreeding can have profound effects ;D

[Admin]

Hundreds of years of inbreeding can have profound effects ;D


Fortunately, those effects can be controlled with homeopathy. ;D

[Blue Wode]

He’s been at it again today:




Prince in warning on nature's power

The Prince of Wales has warned that dismissing the healing power of nature would be "sheer folly".

He called for a greater recognition of the benefits of combining conventional and complementary treatment during a speech at an awards ceremony to recognise pioneering health projects.

-snip-

…he said: "What on earth is the point of throwing away our lifeline; of abandoning priceless knowledge and wisdom accumulated over thousands of years relating to the treatment of the human condition by natural means?

"It is sheer folly, it seems to me, to forget that we are part of nature and to imagine we can survive on this earth as if we are merely a mechanical process divorced from and in opposition to the unity of the world around us."

He added: "That is why for the last 25 years, I have been determined to encourage the establishment of a truly integrated approach to healthcare in the UK.

"A system where the most valuable strengths of science and technology and all that they offer, can be aligned with the best that can be identified and deployed through complementary measures and time tested traditional therapies."

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jU-9ROMSdIauIlp792tfYHjVG6fQ (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jU-9ROMSdIauIlp792tfYHjVG6fQ)


Note that those traditional therapies get his seal of approval because they’re time tested.

[Admin]

The thing is, modern medicine is eclectic and would assimilate any form of treatment or therapy that can be shown to work.

There must be several orders of magnitude more knowledge in 21st century medicine than has been accumulated in all the combined alternative medicine systems throughout history.

Apart from not working, alternative medicine never advances. When was the last great medical breakthrough from a homeopath or an acupunturist?

Charles's 'best of both worlds' argument is a non-starter. These alternative practises simply add nothing to what we already have - and because they don't advance, they never will.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

The Prince of Wales has warned that dismissing the healing power of nature would be "sheer folly".

Is this the same 'nature' that evolved the human body's ability to self-heal? Because he might be right there...

Oh wait....::)



…he said: "What on earth is the point of throwing away our lifeline; of abandoning priceless knowledge and wisdom accumulated over thousands of years relating to the treatment of the human condition by natural means?



Because thousands of years ago, people lived to the grand old age of....30 maybe?



"It is sheer folly, it seems to me, to forget that we are part of nature and to imagine we can survive on this earth as if we are merely a mechanical process divorced from and in opposition to the unity of the world around us."

He added: "That is why for the last 25 years, I have been determined to encourage the establishment of a truly integrated approach to healthcare in the UK.


Sounds a bit like a logical fallacy to me. The second paragraph in no way logically follows the first. Who are the people suggesting we are 'mechanical' anyway? I would have said biological O0



"A system where the most valuable strengths of science and technology and all that they offer, can be aligned with the best that can be identified and deployed through complementary measures and time tested traditional therapies."


Fair enough if you are going to suggest a criteria other than 'time tested' which is completely meaningless.

How do the royals gain this ability to speak with such vagueness?

[Blue Wode]

The entire speech is now available online and it includes this gem:



Ladies and Gentlemen, believe it or not I have been advocating the development of a truly integrated health system – one rooted in appropriate regulation and supported by rigorous scientific evidence – for the best part of twenty five years.

More…
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/ (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/)



He's also pushing the development of "a coherent module of integrated health as part of basic medical training" which he hopes, in time, will be be in place in all the U.K.’s medical schools.

Isn't it in place already? Here's Ernst on "integrative health":


Creating a new type of medicine that stands for incorporation of unproven practices into medical routine would, however, be a violation of our duty to be responsible advisors to patients. Responsible advice has to be based on evidence, not on ideology. Decision-makers rightly insist on data, not anecdote.

In conclusion, the term integrative medicine is superfluous since it stands either for wholeperson medicine (a concept already a part of primary care) or for the promotion of integrating well-documented CAM modalities (already being done with evidence-based medicine).

The danger of integrative medicine lies in creating a smokescreen behind which dubious practices are pushed into routine healthcare. I believe this would be a serious disservice to all involved—not least, to our patients.

Second thoughts on integrative medicine
Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FRCP, FRCPEd

http://www.jfponline.com/pdf%2F5402%2F5402JFP_FamilyMedicineForum.pdf

[Blue Wode]

It's good to see that Ernst et al seem intent on keeping the pressure on HRH. This published by The Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/alternative_medicine/article3760857.ece

[tkingdoll]

Well, it looks more like a publicity stunt to sell the book, but yes, it's great that big names are publicly calling the prince and his woo minions on their dangerous claptrap.

I wonder if it will have any effect. Even the Daily Wail is coming out pro-Singh and Ernzt.

[Blue Wode]

I wonder if it will have any effect. Even the Daily Wail is coming out pro-Singh and Ernzt.

I think it will in the long run, but it’ll probably require a sustained effort.

BTW, here’s the actual letter from Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3760311.ece

And there’s also this piece by Simon Singh which was published in the New Statesman today:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200804170029

Although he mentions in “Homeopathy by numbers” that 42% of GPs refer patients to homoeopaths, it’s not likely to be the great endorsement of homeopathy that homeopaths would have people believe. As Mojo pointed out over at JREF not so long ago, many of those GPs are likely to be referring purely at the patient’s request:

Research carried out for the recent consultation about funding of the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital found that although 52% of GP practices in West Kent referred patients to homoeopaths, less than 1% of the patients in those practices were referred, and referral was almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clinical decision.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3041905&postcount=75

[tolman]

I'm sure there are some patients that the average GP would be happy to refer to a witch-doctor, if it would keep them away from the surgery.

[Mojo]

Would that be TEETH or TTFO?

[Blue Wode]

What is TTFO?

(For those wondering, TEETH = Tried Everything Else Try Homeopathy.)

BTW, there’s more from Ernst in this editorial which was published in this month’s BMJ Clinical Evidence:

Complementary medicine and evidence: like fire and water?http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/complmed.doc (http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/complmed.doc)

Interestingly, he seems to be reminding the sceptic community to play fair:


Those sceptics who are emotionally opposed to CM have a knack of ignoring the evidence that relates to this field. This proclivity is aggravated and perpetuated by the fact that mainstream journals rarely publish positive findings in CM[1]

[tolman]

What is TTFO?
Told To F*** Off.

[Blue Wode]

Thanks, Tolman. I was 50% correct with my guess.

[Cuddles]

This proclivity is aggravated and perpetuated by the fact that mainstream journals rarely publish positive findings in CM

Has he considered the fact that the reason journals rarely publish positive findings is that there are rarely any positive findings to publish?

[tolman]

I'm sure there are positive 'findings', but possibly few resulting from properly-conducted trials.

[Blue Wode]

Has he considered the fact that the reason journals rarely publish positive findings is that there are rarely any positive findings to publish?
He does touch on that point, but it would seem that his main concern is that patients aren’t given a false impression about CAM whilst attempts are made to reach them with factual and accurate information:


Those sceptics who are emotionally opposed to CM have a knack of ignoring the evidence that relates to this field. This proclivity is aggravated and perpetuated by the fact that mainstream journals rarely publish positive findings in CM[1] (while CM journals hardly ever publish negative ones[2]). Thus, the typical reader of the NEJM, for instance, would get the impression that, firstly, very little serious research is being conducted in CM, and, secondly, that all the studies that do emerge demonstrate CM to be utterly useless, or even dangerous.

The truth, however, is more complex.

-snip-

The loser in these everlasting quibbles and debates is, of course, the patient. If they listen to the “there is no evidence” argument, they might not benefit from those forms of CM that are beneficial. If they follow the “science does not apply” notion, they might end up receiving treatments that generate more harm than good….change is necessary, and positive change is best achieved if we begin to produce reliable information specifically for lay people….

http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/complmed.doc (http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/complmed.doc)

[Mojo]

This proclivity is aggravated and perpetuated by the fact that mainstream journals rarely publish positive findings in CM

Has he considered the fact that the reason journals rarely publish positive findings is that there are rarely any positive findings to publish?

I've been finding a different problem on Wikipedia recently. When there are apparently positive studies, it seems to be quite rare for anyone to get a critique published in the journal - critiques published on blogs, web forums etc are not regarded as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia. The recent "memory of water" issue of Homeopathy was a notable exception to this, but that was largely down to Ben Goldacre's journal club (and in one case, because a homoeopath boasted that one of the papers was a "bomb" that he was waiting to drop on us).

[Cuddles]

I've been finding a different problem on Wikipedia recently. When there are apparently positive studies, it seems to be quite rare for anyone to get a critique published in the journal - critiques published on blogs, web forums etc are not regarded as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia. The recent "memory of water" issue of Homeopathy was a notable exception to this, but that was largely down to Ben Goldacre's journal club (and in one case, because a homoeopath boasted that one of the papers was a "bomb" that he was waiting to drop on us).

I guess the main problem there is that they're often not published in real journals. Since only quacks tend to read quack journals, no-one with either the knowledge or motivation to write a critique will see most papers.

Another problem, which may or may not be a problem, depending on how you look at it, is specialisation. Most doctors tend to mainly read about studies in their own field, so general ones on homeopathy just aren't relevant. If a study claims that homeopathy works better than placebo on arthritis, why would a head and neck cancer surgeon, for example, care? Obviously there is the risk of doctors becoming isolated from the rest of the medical community if they focus too narrowly on their own field but they could spend all their time reading journals and still wouldn't be able to see them all, so specialisation is certainly needed.

[Mojo]

I guess the main problem there is that they're often not published in real journals. Since only quacks tend to read quack journals, no-one with either the knowledge or motivation to write a critique will see most papers.


One of the authors of the reply to the Rustum Roy paper commented, "but do I list this one in my CV? Oh, the embarrassment!"

[Blue Wode]

Bottle of snake oil to be delivered to Clarence House in the New Year:
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=1688 (http://counterknowledge.com/?p=1688)

[Trinoc]

Bottle of snake oil to be delivered to Clarence House in the New Year:
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=1688 (http://counterknowledge.com/?p=1688)




I trust no snakes will be harmed in the process.

[barricades]

Someone needs to grab Prince Charles by the ears and tell him to shut up. He's an authority on nothing. So shut up Charlie.

[Nukapai]

Time for a revolution. >:D

[lost thought]

Time for a revolution. >:D
Sorry we have already had one it failed these royalist are sneaky buggers..:cheesy:
Oh Oliver why did you have to be christian with a capitol "C" not mention being a bloody puritian as well probally the worst combination..>:D

[Nukapai]

Wasn't it Churchill that said something about the secret of success being able to keep going despite failure? :tongue:

[Julia]

Someone needs to grab Prince Charles by the ears

God knows they're a big enough target. ^-^

[Tim the Mage]

The good thing about our future Monarch is that his cranky views are just his. We should be more worried about all those MPs and Lords prepared to endorse alternative medicine. Is there a list?

[Matt]

of sorts

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33006