Reply With QuoteYou may or may not be right, but as it stands your argument is a straw man. What evidence do you have that the interviewer in question would have gone any easier on a chiropractor or a homeopath?Originally Posted by NorthernSoul
I'm just watching BBC news and the anchor man is giving a cosmetic surgeon a really hard time about his profession, and it occurs to me that if he was a chiropractor or a homeopath they would probably get a much easier interview, why is this? Is it intentional? Poor and ill-informed journalism? what?
You may or may not be right, but as it stands your argument is a straw man. What evidence do you have that the interviewer in question would have gone any easier on a chiropractor or a homeopath?
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Re: Priorities?
Trinoc is right, but I'll humor it anyway.
Because the journalist probably knows next to nothing about homeopathy or chiropractics, whist he probably does know enough (or at least think he knows enough) about cosmetic surgery to allow himself to give the interviewee a hard time?
Do you ever get the feeling we're just really smart monkeys?
Just an idea but does a cosmetic surgeon publish papers or adhere to some medical or scientific bodies.
And as we know the others don't, so would getting ammunition for the grilling be easier for a surgeon.
Or perhaps a personel bad experience from a man in the pub.
And Breast implant silicon of times gone by would not have helped, easy to remember bad stuff happening. Hard to remember good stuff.
Also, cosmetic surgery is mainly for vanity (obviously there are exceptions), and a lot of people judge that as superficial. It's easy to condemn someone for pandering to a 'shallow' motive, but less easy to condemn someone for wanting to help ill people.
Of course, that assumes that homeopaths et al believe their treatments are effective. I don't know if they believe or if they're scammers, but it's reasonable to assume that the placebo effect works on the sellers as well as the buyers.
As a guess this is what was under discussion:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/11/...ger-eyelashes/
The Next Botox: A Drug for Longer Eyelashes
Posted by Jacob Goldstein
In another century, Botox was a drug to treat eyelid spasms and other neuromuscular problems. Then Allergan, the company that sells the drug, seized on a side effect — the way it makes some wrinkles vanish temporarily — and turned the drug into a cosmetic superstar.
The same thing could happen with Allergan’s Lumigan, a glaucoma drug with a potentially lucrative side effect: It makes eyelashes longer.
Lifestyle drugs are regarded with suspicion by the Media. Since plastic surgeons are regarded as the main purveyors of 'lifestyle' therapies, it puts them in the firing line for this particular example of erosion of values.
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
Obviously any "evidence" I could possibly present would be subjective. But the same BBC anchor-team is going to be interviewing someone about cAM shortly so I'll get back to you.
Ms. Maggie Dunn has just been interviewed on BBC news in regards to this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7828593.stm
She was allowed to say, and I'm paraphrasing here "There are some cowboys but most complementary medicine practitioners are hardworking, highly skilled professionals"
In my subject view, she was not challenged about that remark in the slightest, keeping in mind it is likely that she is talking about herbalists, reflexologists etc.
The interview lasted, perhaps 5 minutes, compared to the interview I noted originally which was a ~10 minute grilling.
At least homeopathy doesn't make you look stupid (physically).
My wife's friend botoxes and she is only in early to mid 30s. She doesn't look natural.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks