Skip to main content

King (to be) Conned

'Let them eat sugar pills!'
We all have someone in the family who has slightly barmy ideas, and that's fair enough. But when that person has huge access to the media and aspirations to be monarch, it's a bit worrying. And what do you know, Prince Charles has done it again.

He has recently told the world that we ought to attack the antibiotic resistance crisis by using homeopathy instead. Specifically (though not solely) when treating animals.

Let's be absolutely clear. There is no significant scientific doubt remaining about homeopathy. It has no medical benefit other than the placebo effect. Homeopathic pills are sugar pills. They are not medicine.

Although the Guardian article linked above is primarily about use in animals it does say that Prince Charles 'proposed a solution to the growing crisis of antibiotic over-use in animals and humans'. Anyone suggesting using homeopathic treatments for illnesses requiring antibiotics is potentially putting lives at risk.

As far as the animal side goes, this is often used as an argument by those who support homeopathy to show that it can't just be a placebo effect, because the animals don't know they are being given medicine. (Clever animals - they aren't.) However, this ignores the good quality trials showing that veterinary applications are just as much placebo as human. The animal might not know it is being given a medicine, but the person who is applying it thinks it is, and this changes the human's behaviour, producing any actual effects. In many cases though, the 'effect' is simply imagined - either the animal would have got better anyway, or the person sees what they want to see.

When I wrote Ecologic, for the section on organic farming I interviewed an organic milk producer who was genuinely upset about the health of his cattle because the Soil Association forced him to use a homeopathic treatment first, and his animals were suffering as a result. Even though we may not be so concerned about the feelings of animals compared to humans, we still shouldn't be putting them through this.

I headed up this article with the word 'conned' rather than 'con'. I believe that Prince Charles is absolutely genuine about this, rather than being in the pay of the suppliers of Duchy Organics etc. However, it is entirely inappropriate for him to make this kind of intervention and shows again the less palatable side of the monarchy.

Image from Wikipedia:

This image was originally posted to Flickr by National Assembly For Wales / Cynulliad Cymru at http://flickr.com/photos/39069511@N03/5842299392. It was reviewed on 29 August 2011 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0.

Comments

  1. Brian
    Leave him alone; he believes in God too but no one attacks him for that bit of ridiculousity. He's allowed his beliefs!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, he is indeed allowed his beliefs. What I don't think he is allowed to do is try to use his unearned position of influence to try to sell his beliefs to others.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense