Posted: Jun 13, 2010 11:55 am
by Ubjon
Shrunk wrote:
Ubjon wrote: There are ways of getting around trading standards laws. Primarily getting lifestyle magazines to write articles about how effective they in return for generous donations. The homeopathy companies are making no direct claims and therefore aren't required to substantiate them. Alternatively they make vague claims which people believe without realising that they don't amount to anything. Stuff like '80% of people say it worked for them' convinces many people but means absolutely nothing.

Interesting, then, that homeopaths like Nancy here will claim that there is good scientific evidence to support the efficacy of their treatments, but refuse to subject them to the same pre-marketing testing that actual drugs are subjected to.

They can't put those claims on the packaging though and those claims they do make are suitably vague (i.e. this may help with your hayfever). Most the people who work in the drug marketing industry have previously worked in the some kind of trading standards organisation. They know exactly where the loopholes are in the law and how to exploit them. Where they do cite scientific papers these sources don't hold up under scrutiny which is something that the trading standards should really do something about but perhaps lack the expertise. Thats why I like the Cochrane institute site as the people there do know what they are doing and are objective.

Its also rather telling how psuedoscience nonsense peddlers like homoepaths would rather settle debates in the courtroom rather than through scientific discourse.