If magnets worked that way then MRIs would kill you - very very messily. If they work it is some other mechanism.
Close but not quite right. You just need to expand your sample size to the point where you get statistically significant data. Often the biggest problem I have with alternative medicine is n = 1.
When you get significant data it stops being alternative and becomes part of the establishment. What is interesting is that at that point many adherents move onto something else.
I know what she means. Occasionally I get caught up in that dichotomy when talking to my GP, he is very very good, also a couple of decades in the job, but he calls me Dr Janssen, to honour my degree, but that plays with my perception of him as the "all knowing healer".
One part of me wants the power of the all knowing healer to work magic, one part wants to be certain he is right after merely spending 5 years to get his degree.
Most GPs appreciate the power of the placebo effect…
as do most scientists.
One of the cool studies of the placebo effect showed that surgury>injection>pills>nothing. That is, the more "ceremony" involved, the stronger the effect.
Agreed Rich. Pharmac has been one of the most powerful tools for optimising the use of money in health care and screwing those folks over the way National did simply to buy votes was despicable.
+1 James, much more coherent than I.
Specifically referring to regulation of dietary supplements.
I would much rather have compounds that are sold to the public purporting to improve health be regulated by someone. At the moment the only regulatory standard available to us is the one developed by the Australians. It is all very well to suggest (rightly or wrongly) that local regulation could do a better job but until such time as local regulations are in place I believe it is appropriate to have some regulations in place.
My understanding of Ms Kedgely's stance is that until such time as we develop our own policy we should leave them unregulated. I am pretty certain I have heard her say that on the news (I may be remembering incorrectly). Or in your words, laissez faire for now until we get around to developing regulations of our own.
That stance does not seem consistent with a desire to protect the health of New Zealander's.
And yes I read what James quoted, but not the entire Green party policy. I'm not yet tempted to read it - I will when the public announcements of the Green MPs stop including what I believe is non-science. That said I do very much agree with many of the Green party policies.
That's my fear - so much of the policy hangs on the definitions of words like "restrictive", "safe" and "effective".
If those definitions are made by scientifically significant evidence then great.
Even if the Greens were to rigorously purge the policy of anything that hadn’t been signed off for evidence-basedness by a committee of five PhDs and a Nobel laureate, we’d still be told that they were a bunch of tree huggers who believe in homeopathy.
This is the party that argued that "natural" remedies didn't need to be safety tested or have any kind of labeling, because like nature is so friendly and beautiful how could it be dangerous to eat random plants but the GE foods need to have fluoro warning labels and alarms bells just in case someone accidentally ate them?
Sorry but yes they do need to inject evidence based policy into their manifesto before I will vote for them.
Which is a pity because much of what they stand for is stuff I strongly support.
the public likes Key
I am so bamboozled by this obvious fact that I have no suggestions for Labour.
But that's the problem. The way we choose to vote is to select the person we like the most instead of voting for the bastard who will best manage the country.
So long as we treat voting as a popularity contest we will continue to get popular useless leaders. Instead of competent capable worthwhile leaders.
And that is a state of mind on the part of the voters.