Feedback is our weekly column of bizarre stories, implausible advertising claims, confusing instructions and more
Does Brussels impose quackery?
People in the UK are bracing for the debate on whether to stay in the European Union 鈥� the Conservative party, just elected, promised a referendum by 2017. One anti-EU newspaper has set a disturbingly low bar. On the eve of the general election The Daily Telegraph that 鈥� which came into force in January鈥� forces organic farmers to treat sick livestock with homeopathy.
Advertisement
That system of ingredient-free remedies is more associated with Conservatives than the EU: Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has backed it. Feedback imagines that entertaining cognitive dissonance ensued among Telegraph readers.
But the admirable truth-hounds at on : there is no such directive. Regulations dating from 2008 say organic farmers should use herbal and homeopathic thingies, 鈥溾��. So not at all, then. The Telegraph report seems to be based on protests by Norwegian vets, who have apparently just read the rules.
Wait a minute, we hear the informed Feedback reader say 鈥� Norway isn鈥檛 in the EU. No, but it is in the European Economic Area free trade zone, so has to meet EU rules, without having any say in what they are 鈥� a situation Britain could find itself in shortly, if this is the standard of information it gets about those crazy regulators in Brussels.
Chris Rogers reports an offer of 鈥渆verything half price 鈥� plus 60 per cent off selected items鈥�. If he actually wanted any, he might find out whether he gets paid to take them away鈥�
Homeopathy roundly condemned
THINKING of homeopathy reminds us of Edzard Ernst, who told New 杏吧原创: 鈥淚 still think homeopathy works鈥� 鈥� adding that this was because a long, empathetic consultation had a placebo effect (20 August 2011, p 27).
He seems to have changed his mind. In March this year : 鈥淎s a boy, I was treated by homeopaths; my first post as a junior doctor was in a homeopathic hospital, later I researched homeopathy and published more than 100 papers on the subject鈥︹��
Then: 鈥淥ur trials failed to show that homeopathy is more than a placebo鈥� claims made by homeopaths to cure conditions like cancer, asthma or even Ebola were bogus; the promotion of homeopathy is not ethical.鈥�
He refers to a report from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council confirming this, and its re-report in the face of the unsurprising hostile reaction, which confirmed it again. Congratulations on persevering with the evidence.
We muse a homeopathic ocean
OUR report on a homeopathic kit, complete with dilution instructions, sold by a company promoting placebos (16 March 2013), inspired reader Philip Starr. 鈥淚f all the toxins in the world end up in the sea and all water molecules end up in the oceans at some point, isn鈥檛 sea water the ultimate dilution? Could it be that all water is potent against all ills?鈥� He concludes: 鈥淢y head is spinning 鈥� I need a glass of water.鈥�
Water good against dinosaurs
IN THE same vein, Feedback has long sought estimates of the rate of urination (or, strictly, cloacal fluid evacuation) by dinosaurs, and their mean population.
Why? We want to know whether the world鈥檚 rivers, lakes and oceans are a homeopathic dilution of dinosaur pee. Or are they a homeopathic dilution of unsullied water in dinosaur pee?
Homeopathic risk rank rule
FURTHER, Miriam Ashwell responds to our discussion of risk (7 March) by musing on whether there is a point at which a risk of simultaneous failure becomes so dilute that, on the homeopathic principle, it is inevitable.
Miriam also considers an analogy with the periodic table of the elements. There are suspicions of an 鈥渋sland of stability鈥� in this, in which the general rule that the heavier an isotope, the less stable it is against nuclear decay, does not apply.
She proposes that, contrary to the assertion that 鈥渕illion-to-one chances鈥� crop up nine times out of 10鈥� (11 April), it is 鈥渕ore likely that there is an island of anti-risk stability at the million-to-one mark, since I don鈥檛 seem to be winning the lottery 13 times out of 14鈥�.
Law battle: Murphy versus Sod
MANY readers have written to clarify our reference to 鈥淢urphy鈥檚 law, also known as Sod鈥檚 law鈥� in exploring ideas on risk (11 April). Rod Tranchant representatively states that 鈥淪od鈥檚 law and Murphy鈥檚 law are not the same. Sod鈥檚 law is about things 鈥� the bit you really want to see on an electron micrograph is under a minute bit of crud. Murphy鈥檚 law is about people 鈥� if a job can be done wrongly, it will be.鈥�
Toward a universal law
FINALLY, either Murphy鈥檚 or Sod鈥檚 law can, perhaps, be generalised. Angus Russel points us in this direction with reference to O鈥橳oole鈥檚 Commentary: 鈥淢urphy is an optimist.鈥� And Jim Russell discusses the theoretical difficulties in going further: 鈥淟ong ago colleagues at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and I realised that any comprehensive hypothesis would necessarily be too general to be stated.鈥�
Natural language, however, came to their rescue with the observation that: 鈥淭he perversity of the universe trends to a maximum.鈥�