Category: Traditional Chinese Medicine

The homeopathic drugs DO work. Because they’re drugs

homeopathicdrugs

So, how can it be that homeopathy sometimes seems to work? Well there are a few possible explanations:

  1. The universe is broken
  2. Placebo etc.
  3. They’re cutting the stuff with real penicillin

Full marks to those of you who selected #3. Because, that’s right, it’s yet another example of alternative drug pushers contaminating their products with undeclared industrial additives. Continue reading “The homeopathic drugs DO work. Because they’re drugs”

Po Chai Pills: May contain stuff, etc.

image

So I got me some of them reasonably famous Po Chai Pills here in Hong Kong. The name means “protective aid” pills, but you won’t be able to tell much from that. And the box info deploys the standard ass-covering elusiveness that alternative medicine types have been perfecting over the years: it says that the stuff “is good for relieving” (note, not “is a cure for” or “will relieve“) the following:

fever, diarrhoea, intoxication, over-eating, vomiting and gastrointestinal diseases.

Yep, they’re saying it’s good for relieving intoxication. As opposed to hangovers. Good luck in court with that one.

The ingredients include a hodge podge of common traditional Chinese medicine bits and pieces, including poria, pogostemonis, and, erm, semen coicis (don’t worry, it’s just a plant seed). Worryingly, the ingredients list ends with an “etc.”

Continue reading “Po Chai Pills: May contain stuff, etc.”

Skeptics vs. Quacks: Who’s winning?

http://twitter.com/#!/bengoldacre/status/60028892009861120

Last week, the British market research firm YouGov published findings from a national UK opinion survey on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). While the survey focused on CAM in general, YouGov chose to focus on the findings for homeopathy in their publicity materials. In summary, 43% of the sample believed homeopathy to be either “definitely” or “possibly” effective. Given that 20% reported not having a particular view (i.e., “Don’t know”), this meant that only 37% explicitly reported skepticism. In other words, of those adults willing to express an opinion, the majority expressed some level of belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy. This is despite the well established biological implausibility and medical inefficacy of homeopathic treatment.

Similar results emerged for other CAM treatments, suggesting that belief in pseudoscientific medicine continues to prosper in the UK. Noted science writer, blogger, and top skeptic Ben Goldacre even posted a tweet implying that the figures undermined claims that science advocates were “winning” the war on quackery (a point he elaborated in a subsequent blog post). However, should we really be that pessimistic? Because despite these initial impressions, the details within the figures may actually contain some encouraging signs. Continue reading “Skeptics vs. Quacks: Who’s winning?”

%d bloggers like this: