Comments on: The Earl of Bewdley’s Response to the House of Commons Evidence Check http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:55:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Davidh http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12092 Davidh Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:29:53 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12092 The Earl's list of appointments has been limited to make it look as if he is a simple soul and acting as an interested neutral- before he hands over the the lawyers. In fact he is Chair of the body which accredits Britihs acupuncturists and is on the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. Note the latin tags from the quacks lawyers. The Earl’s list of appointments has been limited to make it look as if he is a simple soul and acting as an interested neutral- before he hands over the the lawyers.
In fact he is Chair of the body which accredits Britihs acupuncturists and is on the Research Council for Complementary Medicine.
Note the latin tags from the quacks lawyers.

]]> By: Pedant http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12087 Pedant Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:13:29 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12087 Why should homeopathic "remedies" [sic] have any adverse effects other than, perhaps, the patient dying from the condition for which he/she was receiving "treatment"? How many people have an allergic reaction to water? Why should homeopathic “remedies” [sic] have any adverse effects other than, perhaps, the patient dying from the condition for which he/she was receiving “treatment”? How many people have an allergic reaction to water?

]]> By: daijiyobu http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12086 daijiyobu Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:55:50 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12086 Bravo. Bravo.

]]> By: Jack of Kent http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12085 Jack of Kent Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:16:49 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12085 In regard to Michael Power's comment, search "lawyer"and replace with "strawman". I am not uncritical of my own profession - and can be quite scathing - but I simply do not recognise Power's characterisation of lawyers. In regard to Michael Power’s comment, search “lawyer”and replace with “strawman”.

I am not uncritical of my own profession – and can be quite scathing – but I simply do not recognise Power’s characterisation of lawyers.

]]> By: wilsontown http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12083 wilsontown Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:49:05 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12083 The bit I particularly noticed was this: "In a paper published in 2008 he [Ludtke] has argued that Shang’s conclusions do not hold when slightly different selection criteria are applied, e.g. by redefining how large is a “large” study, or by including treatment trials but excluding prevention trials. Size is not the only factor in arriving at robust conclusions." Well, I <a href="http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-know-i-said-life-was-too-short.html" rel="nofollow">argued</a> in 2009 that this a lot of shit, and that Ludtke and colleagues had seriously misinterpreted the Shang study. There was also an excellent takedown at <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=242" rel="nofollow">Science Based Medicine</a>. But I don't see that mentioned in this comprehensive review of the evidence. The bit I particularly noticed was this:

“In a paper published in 2008 he [Ludtke] has argued that Shang’s conclusions do not hold when slightly different selection criteria are applied, e.g. by redefining how large is a “large” study, or by including treatment trials but excluding prevention trials. Size is not the only factor in arriving at robust conclusions.”

Well, I argued in 2009 that this a lot of shit, and that Ludtke and colleagues had seriously misinterpreted the Shang study. There was also an excellent takedown at Science Based Medicine. But I don’t see that mentioned in this comprehensive review of the evidence.

]]> By: Rhys http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12082 Rhys Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:03:08 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12082 Exactly. The homeopaths should be glad scientists even bothered to look into it and conduct medical trials, given it's implausibility. But no, they moan that more evidence is needed when these trials undoubtedly show that homeopathy is nonsense. Exactly.
The homeopaths should be glad scientists even bothered to look into it and conduct medical trials, given it’s implausibility.
But no, they moan that more evidence is needed when these trials undoubtedly show that homeopathy is nonsense.

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12081 Le Canard Noir Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:46:23 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12081 I would agree. I think the major mistake that has been made in tackling quackery is to allow clinical evidence to take front of stage when we are discussing superstitious beliefs. It is inevitable that discussion will get bogged down in the interpretation of impossibly small signals being dragged from the noise of poor research. Bewdley's failure here is to place the poor clinical evidence in the context of the pseudoscientific nature of homeopathy and its extreme implausibility. The House of Commons did not make this mistake: that is why they came to the conclusion they did. I would agree. I think the major mistake that has been made in tackling quackery is to allow clinical evidence to take front of stage when we are discussing superstitious beliefs. It is inevitable that discussion will get bogged down in the interpretation of impossibly small signals being dragged from the noise of poor research.

Bewdley’s failure here is to place the poor clinical evidence in the context of the pseudoscientific nature of homeopathy and its extreme implausibility. The House of Commons did not make this mistake: that is why they came to the conclusion they did.

]]> By: phayes http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12080 phayes Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:33:14 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12080 And the grabbing at straws will continue indefinitely while many sceptics and scientists continue to allow idiotic statements like this: “2.1. There have been a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this field, which as the Committee states are the best sources of evidence.” to go unchallenged. And the grabbing at straws will continue indefinitely while many sceptics and scientists continue to allow idiotic statements like this:

“2.1. There have been a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this
field, which as the Committee states are the best sources of evidence.”

to go unchallenged.

]]> By: Michael Power http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12079 Michael Power Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:19:36 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12079 esprit d'escalier A lawyer aims to win his case. A scientist aims to discover error. esprit d’escalier

A lawyer aims to win his case.

A scientist aims to discover error.

]]> By: pv http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12078 pv Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:11:15 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/07/the-earl-of-bewdleys-response-to-the-house-of-commons-evidence-check.html#comment-12078 Sinead on July 23, 2010 at 8:56 pm <blockquote>Grabbing at straws… really odd straws. “There’s no evidence Homeopathy works, therefore more evidence is needed” </blockquote> All the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that homeopathy doesn't work. The administration of homepathic remedies induces at least nothing at all and at most delusions. Who is The Earl of Bewdley? And what, apart from inbreeding, entitles him to his own private facts independent from and contrary to the laws of physics? Sinead on July 23, 2010 at 8:56 pm

Grabbing at straws… really odd straws.
“There’s no evidence Homeopathy works, therefore more evidence is needed”

All the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that homeopathy doesn’t work. The administration of homepathic remedies induces at least nothing at all and at most delusions.

Who is The Earl of Bewdley? And what, apart from inbreeding, entitles him to his own private facts independent from and contrary to the laws of physics?

]]>