Topic: Laughable News

[chand]

As for your article about the baby with eczema, it does look more like a straightforward child abuse case involving homeopathy, than homeopathy actually killing somebody.

Of course; it's impossible to kill someone with homeopathy because homeopathy does literally nothing. But when homeopathy is used as a treatment in place of ones that have been shown to work, that's when it becomes a problem.

[Danger Man]

But for some reason, people like you think it's acceptable to allow homeopaths to carry on making claims and treating people with something which doesn't work.

People like me think it's acceptable for other people to have whatever treatment they want, whether we like it or not.  'Visible' treatment, i.e. pills and things, and 'invisible' treatment, placebos and being spoken to, etc.  It's their choice.

That poor baby didn't have much choice, granted, but as I've already said, his case looks more like child abuse than the proof that homeopathy is nonsense. I think he was on borrowed time regardless of how much Avena Sativa his parents rubbed on him.

You intentions may be honourable but your prose style barely hides the fact that you just want to tell other people what to do.

[chand]

You intentions may be honourable but your prose style barely hides the fact that you just want to tell other people what to do.

You just called it child abuse, sounds a bit judgemental. Who are you to tell other people what to do with their child?

[Danger Man]

You just called it child abuse, sounds a bit judgemental. Who are you to tell other people what to do with their child?

Good point. Libertarian philosophy does tend to get a bit stuck on the rights of pre-schoolers.

[Entropy Balsmalch]

People like me think it's acceptable for other people to have whatever treatment they want, whether we like it or not.  'Visible' treatment, i.e. pills and things, and 'invisible' treatment, placebos and being spoken to, etc.  It's their choice.

You're so confused.

So, homeopathy is actually a "visible" treatment given the fact it's most commonly given out as a pill or tincture? Not "invisible" as you seem
to be saying before.

And placebos are "invisible" ? How? What placebo isn't given in pill/injection/syrup form?

Is acupuncture visible or invisible on your already confused scale? As it taps into something we can't see but involves a visible process?

I don't think you've actually thought about this at all.

That poor baby didn't have much choice, granted, but as I've already said, his case looks more like child abuse than the proof that homeopathy is nonsense.

I didn't say for one minute it was proof that homeopathy is nonsense. We didn't need the death of a child to prove that as time after time clinical research has shown homeopathy to have no discernible effect whatsoever. The sad things is we allow to be sold to people and in this case a child died.

I think he was on borrowed time regardless of how much Avena Sativa his parents rubbed on him.

What does that mean exactly? The child would just have died anyway? Are you some kind of fatalist?

You intentions may be honourable but your prose style barely hides the fact that you just want to tell other people what to do.

Oh dear. That's really quite pathetic.

[Danger Man]

You're so confused.

Not at all, but I seem to have confused you.

To be clear, I used the terms 'visible' and 'invisible' to describe two methods of how any given medicine might work on a person.

A solution of something that has been diluted to the point where it is arguably just water is obviously an 'invisible' form of medicine. The water is still there and is visible but the medicinal powers, if any, are invisible to the eye (or any other method of recording data). Likewise, any 'speaking' based therapy such as counselling may cure people of their problems but there is nothing there apart from chat.   

A 'visible' form of medicine might be, for example, a painkiller. The specific chemicals within the painkiller can be clearly shown to have an effect on a person and we can easily see how the medicine works.

Again, as far as I am concerned, if a person with say, cancer, decides to forgo any standard treatment (such as chemotherapy) and instead decides to embark on a course of coffee enemas (or flower remedies, or whatever) then that is entirely their choice. It's their body, their illness and it's up to them what they do with it. As far as I can make out, you wouldn't allow them to do that because you aren't happy with the science behind it. It appears to me that you are using your concerns about certain types of medicine as a means of curtailing other people's freedoms.

Are we clear now?

[Entropy Balsmalch]

To be clear, I used the terms 'visible' and 'invisible' to describe two methods of how any given medicine might work on a person.

A solution of something that has been diluted to the point where it is arguably just water is obviously an 'invisible' form of medicine. The water is still there and is visible but the medicinal powers, if any, are invisible to the eye (or any other method of recording data).

Still not making any sense I'm afraid - are you saying "invisible" to you means "shows no evidence of working..."

Likewise, any 'speaking' based therapy such as counselling may cure people of their problems but there is nothing there apart from chat.

 

But it's shown to work. And in actual fact the process itself, particularly in CBT is certainly easy to observe - despite being only spoken (which it isn't anyway, a great deal of it involves writing about you feelings and observing situations you become involved in)

A 'visible' form of medicine might be, for example, a painkiller. The specific chemicals within the painkiller can be clearly shown to have an effect on a person and we can easily see how the medicine works.

I think you've got yourself a little confused here again. The effect can be shown, but in a large number of medicines including such things as asprin and anesthetic, we have no idea how they work. None at all. However, we can show they do work through clinical trials.

Homeopathy fails these same tests. I'm not bothered that it sounds ludicrous, if it works great. I'm sure the first person who said "You head hurst? Go and suck on that branch..." got strange looks but its continued efficacy led to the aforementioned asprin. But homeopathy doesn't work.

Again, as far as I am concerned, if a person with say, cancer, decides to forgo any standard treatment (such as chemotherapy) and instead decides to embark on a course of coffee enemas (or flower remedies, or whatever) then that is entirely their choice. It's their body, their illness and it's up to them what they do with it. As far as I can make out, you wouldn't allow them to do that because you aren't happy with the science behind it. It appears to me that you are using your concerns about certain types of medicine as a means of curtailing other people's freedoms.

You still have failed to answer my previous question and have raised the same point again.

I have no problem with people making an informed choice about their treatment - but so often they are not.

I'm quite happy for homeopathy to be sold so long as it has a sticker which says clearly on it "There is no proof that this works".

It is nothing to do with curtailing people's freedoms, but instead it's about making sure people are fully informed about how effective any treatment choice they make may be.

Are we clear now?

I've always been clear, but you seem to have confused the concept of civil liberties with our responsibility as a society to make sure everyone has the information available at their disposal - something which so many alternative therapies are at pains to hide.

[chand]

Again, as far as I am concerned, if a person with say, cancer, decides to forgo any standard treatment (such as chemotherapy) and instead decides to embark on a course of coffee enemas (or flower remedies, or whatever) then that is entirely their choice. It's their body, their illness and it's up to them what they do with it.

I don't know anyone who would ban homeopathy, but I do know a lot of people angry with the false and unevidenced claims made for it, claims that stop people making informed decisions about it. I'm also not too hot on people foisting it on their kids instead of taking them to a real doctor.

[Danger Man]

I'm quite happy for homeopathy to be sold so long as it has a sticker which says clearly on it "There is no proof that this works".

Well...that isn't quite right is it? The sticker would have to say "Some people swear by this but as it doesn't fit today's current scientific orthodoxy it is therefore very unfashionable and some rather nannyish people insist it carries a sticker because they are so concerned that you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself without their help"

I think that would be closer to the mark. Again, it's quite clever hiding behind the 'informed decisions' argument but it's still trying to get people to do what you want.

Well, I hope it is. It's either that or the stunningly patronising idea that you know what's best for 'society', at least when it comes to medicine.

[Entropy Balsmalch]

Well...that isn't quite right is it? The sticker would have to say "Some people swear by this but as it doesn't fit today's current scientific orthodoxy it is therefore very unfashionable and some rather nannyish people insist it carries a sticker because they are so concerned that you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself without their help"

I think that would be closer to the mark. Again, it's quite clever hiding behind the 'informed decisions' argument but it's still trying to get people to do what you want.

Well, I hope it is. It's either that or the stunningly patronising idea that you know what's best for 'society', at least when it comes to medicine.

Seriously, do some reading about evidence based medicine.

It's pointless arguing with with you when you lack even the most basic understanding of the difference between efficacy testing and scientific understanding.

There is not one single shred of evidence to demonstrate homeopathy's effectiveness - regardless of the scientific stuff around it.

If any homeopath seriously wanted to to demonstrate it worked they would routinely test all their products in double blinded randomised studies.

They get a double boon from this too - as not only would they open up a whole new realm of medicine, they would also open up a whole new area of physics to study.

Strangely they don't. Well, not strangely, because every rigorous study shows time after time that it is about as effective a treatment as taking a small sugar pill that's been dipped in water.

What do I have to gain from getting people to "do what I want?".

Also, follow your arguments to their logical conclusion and perhaps we should remove health warnings from cigarettes because of these interfering scientific nannies with their fashionable claims of lung cancer and let's go back to blood letting because of this trendy new idea that things which are mass marketed as medicine need proof.

[Lady Beaner]

I'd like a laughable news story please. Fanx. xx

[the midnight watch baboon]

Christmas hats on VerbWhores' avatars are down 68% this year.



sorry, that's not laughable or even true.

[Danger Man]

Also, follow your arguments to their logical conclusion and perhaps we should remove health warnings from cigarettes because of these interfering scientific nannies with their fashionable claims of lung cancer....

Well at least we've found something we can agree on! 'Buyer beware' is the only warning anyone needs and it should apply to everything.

Now, for those wanting laughable news....

BBC News - Bank charges challenge is dropped by regulator

(I'm not sure it's 'laughable' in the 'funny haha' sense....)

[Entropy Balsmalch]

Well at least we've found something we can agree on! 'Buyer beware' is the only warning anyone needs and it should apply to everything

We haven't at all. But frankly I'm tired of you.

[Danger Man]

We haven't at all. But frankly I'm tired of you.

Now we genuinely are in agreement.

[sirhenry]

Now, for those wanting laughable news....

(I'm not sure it's 'laughable' in the 'funny haha' sense....)

It's laughable in that even the regulator didn't know that the banks had a loophole written into the law that meant that they weren't liable to be regulated by their regulator. Or anyone else. "We're not above the law, just outside it."

[massive bereavement]

Supermarket bum sniffer hunted by police (includes cctv footage)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/21/supermarket-bum-sniffer-hunted-by-police-115875-21913891/

[mycroft]

I love that the article ends with a link to a competition to win Peter Kay tickets.

[rudi]

Supermarket bum sniffer hunted by police (includes cctv footage)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/21/supermarket-bum-sniffer-hunted-by-police-115875-21913891/

"...............??"

[Ambient Sheep]

Supermarket bum sniffer hunted by police (includes cctv footage)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/21/supermarket-bum-sniffer-hunted-by-police-115875-21913891/

He looks like Kevin Eldon in a Jam sketch!

Unless I've missed it, the article seems deliberately worded so as to obscure the sex of the victim; however since it seems to be a bloke in the video, I'm not sure why...maybe it isn't after all.

[chocolateboy]

Unless I've missed it, the article seems deliberately worded so as to obscure the sex of the victim; however since it seems to be a bloke in the video, I'm not sure why...maybe it isn't after all.

It says the sniffee is a bloke:

The offences only came to light when the employee became suspicious and informed his manager who checked the in-store video.

You bring up a good point, though. If the sniffee was a woman, it would be creepy. I think my sense of humour needs some lessons in gender equality...

I can't help thinking that some sort of hourly bum-sniffing rate is the best solution here.

[sirhenry]

No, no, not nude.

[biggytitbo]

This reminds me of the butt bandit: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/butt-bandit-vandals-town-with-greasy-groin/2008/09/12/1220857788232.html

Beginning more than a year ago, some man has been skipping from one business to another at night, pressing his naked behind - sometimes his groin, sometimes both - on windows. Store owners, church workers and school janitors have had to wash lotion and petroleum jelly off the windows he selects.

During one particularly brazen session, virtually all the windows at a local hotel were imprinted.

[Ambient Sheep]

It says the sniffee is a bloke:

So it does.  That's what happens when you scan for pronouns while half-asleep.

To be honest I think it's just as disturbing whether it's a man or a woman.

This reminds me of the butt bandit:

Beginning more than a year ago, some man has been skipping from one business to another at night, pressing his naked behind - sometimes his groin, sometimes both - on windows.

Did they ever catch him and was he a Brit called Duncan?

I only ask, because I went to primary school with a kid called Duncan who did this once when we were in what would now be called Year 6.  We were lucky enough to have our own (outdoor) swimming pool, and the changing rooms were a tiny hut partitioned equally in two for boys and girls, each side having a large frosted window for light.  Unfortunately, with a gender ratio of something like 3:1, the boys' one was hopelessly over-crowded, and so we were given licence for some of us to get changed on the grass round the back of them.

So there we were, about ten of us or so, getting changed, when suddenly, a bare arse pressed itself up against the inside of the frosted window.  And wiggled about.  And wiggled about some more.  Then it turned round, and we got the A-side pressed against the window and shimmied about in a funky manner in all its tripartite glory.  At those sorts of pressures, the frosting didn't do much good, really.

Somebody - I honestly don't remember who - then alerted the girls, who came rushing out from inside their own changing room to join the staring party as Duncan did his stuff.  Most were quite fascinated, although a couple looked quite ill.  Of course, eventually our teacher arrived - a young-ish (early-mid-30s?) but quite frumpy woman - and she watched for a while too.  In fact, I'm not sure it wasn't her that got the girls round to look at "the silly boy making a fool of himself".

Eventually she decided enough was enough, and went round to get him.  Cue a very red-faced Duncan, wrapped in a towel, being hauled by his upper arm back round the side of the huts to meet his audience.  All he could say was: "Why didn't you TELL me?", and to our answering yeah-like-we'd-do-that-in-front-of-her shrugs, he replied "I just thought she was a tall one of you!".

So...although my initial question was intended to be humorous, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were him after all.  Fake EDIT: Damn, just read the article, he has "a dark complexion, and...dark hair".  Duncan was pale as fuck with blonde curly hair.  Not him then.

[Blumf]

http://degenerasian.blogspot.com/2009/12/revenge-of-facebook.html

What's a 'V-card'? (Oh... makes sense I suppose. These kids and their jive words...)

[Ambient Sheep]

Wow, that's impressive.

_{^{Nit-picky EDIT: although we do have a Facebook thread for things like that, y'know...}}

[niat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8870571

I clicked on this from the "breaking news" ticker on the front page of the Guardian website, as the headline "Guilty glamour model faints in dock" intrigued me.

"Former Playboy Model of the Year Louise Glover, 26, slumped to the floor of the dock after being convicted of assaulting Maxine Hardcastle, the daughter of 80s' musician Paul Hardcastle.

When she recovered, Glover sobbed and launched into a largely incoherent tirade at Judge Charles Kemp who shouted at her to calm down."

The Paul Hardcastle element greatly adds to this story. I feel a Google image search coming on...

[Blue Jam]

He looks like Kevin Eldon in a Jam sketch!

He does, and I feel guilty for laughing as hard as I did. It's something about the repetition of it, it looks like good comic timing... but obviously it's really rather sad and disturbing.

[Braintree]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8870571

I clicked on this from the "breaking news" ticker on the front page of the Guardian website, as the headline "Guilty glamour model faints in dock" intrigued me.

"Former Playboy Model of the Year Louise Glover, 26, slumped to the floor of the dock after being convicted of assaulting Maxine Hardcastle, the daughter of 80s' musician Paul Hardcastle.

When she recovered, Glover sobbed and launched into a largely incoherent tirade at Judge Charles Kemp who shouted at her to calm down."

The Paul Hardcastle element greatly adds to this story. I feel a Google image search coming on...

Louise Glover was in a BBC3 documentary about Page 3 models. It was clear her career was dying and she was attempting to be a photographer. I like the fact that after all the toilet bashing in her and the husband aren't even together now.

[Tokyo Sexwhale]

Her biography on her own website is a bit depressing after the first bit.

http://www.louiseglover.com/aboutlouise.asp

In summer 2007 Glover turned down WWE Wrestling and the big move to Tampa, Florida, as she was happily married and had work contracts in Europe.

Sounds like she missed her true calling!