Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Fake pills and fake hope

I've been following with interest the recent revelations about homoeopathic medicine (I'm loathed to call it medicine) and whether or not the government has used scientific evidence properly in granting licenses for such "alternative" remedies. A spokesman from Boots the chemists said at the house of commons science and technology committee that homoeopathy didn't work, in his view there is no evidence for efficacy whatsoever, however since these pills have a license then Boots is happy to sell them. I don't quite understand why this isn't a "Ratners" moment for Boots, but when you read the rest of his statement and also if you watch the committee hearing you start to understand why.



As the minister himself points out the underlying rationale for the decision to grant these licenses is not that the medicine is effective, safe or even beneficial, its that these pills (or more accurately the idea of them) are popular. The minister (Ian Stewart) actually says that it is of no consequence that there is no positive evidence for homoeopathy, the fact that there are "some" doctors (i.e. the ones that sell the pills) who "believe" it works is sufficient to continue to waste public money on research (trying desperately to find something good to say about it) and to license the pills for sale to the public. If the promise is large, the sales pitch is compelling (delivered by so called "experts") and pills are licensed by the Government then obviously they become popular, if they become popular then the government supports them, and round and round we go. With such financial and emotional investment no one ever seems to stop to ask "does it work?" or if they do they are dismissed as spoil sports and told to shut up (Atheists know all about this phenomenon!). This cycle of stupidity may sound baffling to right minded rational folk, but then we don't really need to look too far to find similar embedded thinking.

Many people I'm sure would argue where's the harm? why not just live and let live (or die), if someone wants to believe that sugar water is curing their cancer then let them. This kind of attitude may be fine in the leafy suburbs of Reading or London where "real" medicine is also on hand to pick up the pieces, however if we transplant "faith" based thinking to a different setting then the reason why this is a cynical and dangerous philosophy pulls into sharper focus.

I read an interesting story that supports this idea yesterday, it's a piece about a PHD student who filled some spare time in his academic career by doing some research work at an HIV clinic in Haiti; what he found there tells a similar tale of "faith" based thinking and where it leads. Here is a fragment from his story,

"One particular day in the STD clinic proved particularly eye opening. When asked if they had more than one partner, women would usually reply “no.” But then when asked about their husband, many calmly replied that he had many partners.

If asked about their husband’s condom usage, the answer was often “never.” After we explained the risks inherent in this behavior, one response from a woman was “God will protect me, I am a Christian.” Another said, “My husband is a Christian and says the Bible says not to use condoms.” Or better yet, I also heard, “If I get sick, it is God’s will.”

These were some of the most devout women I had ever met. Most of them had never been to school. Illiterate, yet they persisted with an unshakable faith. This surprised me because I had heard religious U.S. citizens describe Haiti as dark, unreligious and even God-less.

This issue of faith overriding evidence/science came to light later in the year, when in a meeting with some of the clinicians an argument broke out as to whether mission work was harmful. Several physicians were claiming that with missionaries came more patients claiming that prayer would heal any malady they might face, and thus HIV prevention and/or treatment mattered little"

Of course what these women don't know, because most of them can't read, is that the the success rate of HIV cures through praying alone is zero percent. Faith may well provide these women with comfort in their undoubtedly hard and unenviable lives no one can dispute that, however this faith also has a dark side, less well publicised by the missionaries, priests and ministers, it also kills them.

6 comments:

Gerrarrdus said...

Hi Steve

Homeopathy strikes me as bad science rather than faith, but either way it's clearly rubbish.

"Faith" on medical matters is amazing. When sharing the communion chalice was banned as a precaution against swine flu, I had people tell me that you couldn't catch anything from the chalice because it was holy. And bear in mind that I'm the ordained minister (and, ironically, researched Flu!) Needless to say I did my best to persuade otherwise....
Haiti being a largely Catholic place, I daresay there's the usual vested interest in discouraging the use of condoms. I'm not even going to try and defend it. It's wrong.

Steve Borthwick said...

G, I agree it's scary what some people think about things they can't see or touch (like viruses); education, education of course.

I'm trying to connect the two things with a thread of "believing stuff without evidence or in direct contradiction of evidence", I feel this is the essence of the faith described in these cases, even though clearly it's not that simple, i.e. there are also evidence based "faiths", like love and team spirit etc.

Gerrarrdus said...

Might be interesting to hear your views on human causes of alleged global warming then? If I had a week I could expound my theories on secular apocalyptic...

Steve Borthwick said...

G, when you say "alleged" are you saying that you think Global warming isn't man-made?

I'm convinced by the evidence; I thought that the science museum had a pretty good campaign running recently regarding this here a nice aggregation of the various threads to it.

Gerrarrdus said...

When I say "alleged" I mean I think it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt, not that it's not of human origin. And the "green lobby" is a remarkable mix of random New Agers, failed politicians and real scientists. But of course real scientists have grants to win. A good friend (and moral bloke) jumped on the CJD bandwagon with a vengeance when there was obviously money in it. Hence the fun at UEA recently?
Not that I think it's a good idea to burn all available fossil fuel either way, but I still have to be convinced that we're warming a world that's been cooling for the last few years. I think the jury's out but we should probably play it safe.

Steve Borthwick said...

G, it's not a simple problem that is certain, I must admit I haven't done a deep dive into this, however I have taken a cursory look at the evidence for past warming and how that correlates with atmospheric carbon (i.e. primarily the ice core evidence and sea bed sediment analysis) seems pretty convincing to me.

I'm not sure what else I would need to be convinced, alternative explanations seem thin on the ground. This UEA thing is a wonderful bit of "frothing" by vested interests in advance of Copenhagen IMO, worse case is that we discount all Phil Jones' data; it still leave a mountain of other people's data that reaches the same conclusions.

I agree with you hydrocarbon resources are finite anyway so we have to sort it out at some point anyway, might as well address it now rather than later;