Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ok this is a complete side track.
Despite my fairly obvious dislike of alternative medicines there are some that have interesting science associated. While I personally got no value from acupuncture there is interesting science coming to bear of how acupuncture might work.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35301/title/The-Science-of-Stretch/
Essentially, what we are starting to see is that stretching connective tissue under the skin may have beneficial effects. If done properly (big big if there) acupuncture can stretch connective tissue and stimulate cell repair and pain relief.
So while I am dubious about most of the practitioners of sticking needles into people it is plausible that acupuncture could have value.
-
Hard News: No Red Wedding, in reply to BenWilson,
At worst, the alternative medicine is not effective.
No
At worst alternative (ineffective) medicine takes money away from therapies that are effective. This isn't a bottomless pool of money, every dollar you spend on a therapy that fails is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere.
That isn't to say alternative medicines can't have value, at the very least they have placebo value and for some (eg acupuntcure) there are suggestions that more research may show some value. But again it's an either/or situation, if there is only money for one treatment I want the government spending money on the treatment with the best chance of success.
And even worse, ineffective alternative treatments can cause people to choose to avoid or defer effective mainstream treatments. At that point they do actual harm.
So no, for a government in power with the responsibility to do what is best, it is not simply a matter of OK sure we'll give this treatment a bit of cash for the hell of it.
The worst part of medicine is that there are real hideous choices that have to be made by people like those in Pharmac. They deserve the respect of every New Zealander for making those choices. They also deserve to have the government respect those choices by ensuring funding decisions match up to the rigour of the choices the physicians have to make. Not to say those decisions can't be questioned either.
That's why I'd balk at the idea of seeing the Health portfolio in the hands of The Greens at present. But that is just a speculation anyway.
-
Hard News: No Red Wedding, in reply to TracyMac,
“science has all the answers”
Fair point. My apologies, it is hard to try and write some of this stuff and make sure my tone is that same as the tone you read it. It is not my intent to sound patronising.
I would say though, is that idea is not that "science has all the answers" but that "science is the best way we know to find out the answers". All scientists know that there is a huge amount we don't know but good science is about trusting the methods to get to the answers.
That's why I am concerned about the Labour caucus dropping science out of the main picture. It is the same thing they did during the Clark era and as has been reinforced during this National government - a dismissal of the value of science to the country. Replacing Science with Innovation doesn't work.
-
Hard News: No Red Wedding, in reply to Keir Leslie,
But Hague’s fine on that stuff.
Yeah, I find most of what he says to be reasonable and sensible. It's the policy that I'd like to see change to match much of their other science and evidence based policy.
And I suspect I'm not alone in wanting to see them push stronger into being the party based firmly is the real rather than the ideaology. If they did that I think they'd be a really great compliment to Labour.
-
Hard News: No Red Wedding, in reply to bob daktari,
NRT’s take, is interesting,
Health, Conservation and Transport.
Transport is a slam dunk given the expertise The Greens can bring to bear ... actually having someone who knows what the hell they are talking about lead a portfolio!
Conservation is also an obvious match for The Greens.
But Health? Bearing in mind The Greens still publically believe in fake medicines, it would be a huge call to give one of the biggest and most important (to voters) portfolios to a party that has ... er ... interesting veiws on what counts as health care.
-
Hard News: No Red Wedding, in reply to Russell Brown,
She definitely has science cred:
Yup she was a scientist before she moved into politics so that's a plus.
Oddly given some of the policy coming out of the The Greens I wouldn't be too upset to see Science go to a Green MP ....except of course for the couple of odd areas where they seem to utterly abandon science for ideology :(. Sadly those few areas are enough to prevent me supporting them.
But on the whole much of The Green policy is based in science which suggests they have some folks who actually understand and could represent Science as a portfolio ... as opposed to National and Labour who have spent the last few decades treating science as some kind of badly performing manufacturing company.
And yes it hurts my head to think that The Greens could better represent Science in/for NZ than any other Party.
-
It's a pity Science is no longer on the front bench. Can't say I'm a huge fan of calling science "innovation" and burying it in MBIE, but given the business focus of MBIE then Megan Woods is probably an appropriate choice.
I know nothing about Moana Mackey the spokesperson for science and she may get a bigger role in the next govt but it feels very much like Labour (still) doesn't believe science is of any value to society.
I know IT is a big focus of folks here but IT only exists because scientists created it for our own needs.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: History, motherfuckers, in reply to Russell Brown,
It's not clear to me why Mr Drinnan would feel the need to defend Mr Sweetman. I can't see the value in that position.
I'm pretty certain nobody has suggested Sweetman should not be "allowed" to post his opinions.
What many people have made clear though is that they found his review to be lacking in factual basis and containing personal and nasty attacks on someone who as far as any of us can tell has done nothing to deserve such attacks.
And perhaps most relavantly people pointed out there was no actual music reviewed in the review.
Where is Drinnan's value in stepping in on the side of the reviewer?
-
Hard News: Friday Music: History, motherfuckers, in reply to Dean Papa,
Why do they claim to be so offended?
My apologies for what is below it is angry and may be offensive to some...
I can't answer for them. But I can answer for me.
I'm offended by the statement for a number of reasons. The first is that it is a lie. It is not true in any shape or form and hence you stating it as if it were a truth is a lie and I am offended by liers.
The second is the intent of the lie which is to argue that women's opinions are less important. While not explicitly stated (I can't remember if you were such a douchbag as to explicitly state it or not) but it is certainly implied.
The third is that it attacks women's intellect in general. I find such an attack on a whole gender to be deeply offensive. As offensive as an attack on any other groups' intellect without any basis.
Finally what I find deeply offensive is your characterisation of the thoughtful, articulate, competent, talented women who post here as "aggressive feminists". An attack intended to diminish them and dismiss thier opinions and ideas.
Your ideas and words disgust me.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Paul Campbell,
How real is this?