This morning I’ve written to my MP in support of the recent findings, regarding homoeopathy, of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Thought it might be interesting to make this one public and see where we go.
Dear Vera Baird QC,
I am writing to express my support for the recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee findings regarding the efficacy of homoeopathy and, in particular, its recommendation that “The government should stop allowing the funding of homoeopathy on the [National Health Service].”
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report.
Given that homoeopathic practices have not faced Double-Blind placebo-Controlled Randomised Trial, and that practitioners continually refuse to participate in such (actually extremely fair) testing — and also given that the pseudoscience behind their claims has no actual scientific basis (and is extremely preposterous, to say the least) — I find the very idea of continued government funding of such quackery highly lamentable.
From the above-mentioned report (page 46):
“157. By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products.”
Yours sincerely,
Gary William Murning.
A sample chapter of If I Never can be read here.
To buy your copy of If I Never, please click here.
© 2010 Gary William Murning (except for quotations.)
I chuckled just reading the post title. How is homeopathy even the Science and Technology Committee’s business? It is far from being either science or technology.
The Science and Technology committee is therefore ill-qualified to consider the issue. I’m not sure what other committees you have over there, but if I know politics, there should be a large FUD committee with the relevant expertise.
FUD as in “fear, uncertainty and doubt”, “food” or “female urination device”?
Actually, the Science and Technology Committee is perfectly suited to the job of deciding what is and isn’t science and therefore forming educated recommendations on whether or not it should be funded by government and included on the NHS. You are being ironic, aren’t you? It’s Sunday morning and everything’s still a little ill-defined here in my little corner of paradise.
I suppose the Science and Technology committee is qualified to say that it is neither science nor technology, it just sounds preposterous that a committee is needed to say this. Next thing you know they’ll be forming international panels of scientists to produce 300-page reports (the first ten pages being the author list) on astrology, numerology, scientology, ideology and the The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. Actually, the last two would be interesting; I’m sure there are books on the science of the h2g2 trilogy.
I was referring to fear, uncertainty and doubt, but the female urination device is also appropriate. What a load of blatantly fake alternative cock.
Know what you mean. It is ridiculous that a committee is needed to reveal this for what it is — but if that’s what it takes to stop this nonsense being funded by government and available on the NHS, I’m all for it.