I have recently downloaded Konfabulator on my work PC, as it is now free. I have also been enjoying the 'Interesting' photos from flickr. Fortunately I found a way to display these interesting flickr photos in a widget via a function in the new Google Desktop. I posted a comment about how to do this on a flickr forum.
I also have the new Google Talk thingy!
Friday, August 26, 2005
Placebo
Whilst reading an editorial in The Lancet regarding the evidence against homeopathy I was reminded of an article in the London Review of Books. The article discussed the benefits of the placebo effect. In particular it was looking at evidence that the placebo effect is enhanced when the both the doctor and patient have absolute faith in the treatment. The placebo effect reduces if either the doctor or patient lack faith in the treatment.
The outcome of this trial on homeopathy is that more doctors will tell patients that homeopathy is a proven waste of time, when actually the trial shows that it performs better than no treatment due to the placebo effect. Doctors should always be aware of the delivery of medical advice, keeping it as upbeat and positive as possible, being very cautious not to damage a patient’s faith. Something many an overrun GP will struggle to do.
The true measure of a treatment is not in the understanding of the process but the measurability of success. In my own experience my partner is able to cure, through healing, my stomach upsets and particularly headaches, almost unfailingly. Now I don't care if this is a mystical aligning of auras or just the benefit of someone paying me attention, the key point is it works. Similarly, taking paracetamol is a complete waste of time for me and I am convinced it only works for others due to the placebo effect. No amount of evidence matters, I still have a headache, ibuprofen on the other hand works.
This research on homeopathy shows that conventional treatment has better results than homeopathy, which is good. The concern for me is that those that use homeopathy may either lose faith, and therefore lose any benefit, or worse become angry with the ‘bias’ of conventional medicine and use only homeopathy. It is therefore vital, as the editorial in The Lancet says “doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy’s lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients' needs for personalised care”, my emphasis.
The outcome of this trial on homeopathy is that more doctors will tell patients that homeopathy is a proven waste of time, when actually the trial shows that it performs better than no treatment due to the placebo effect. Doctors should always be aware of the delivery of medical advice, keeping it as upbeat and positive as possible, being very cautious not to damage a patient’s faith. Something many an overrun GP will struggle to do.
The true measure of a treatment is not in the understanding of the process but the measurability of success. In my own experience my partner is able to cure, through healing, my stomach upsets and particularly headaches, almost unfailingly. Now I don't care if this is a mystical aligning of auras or just the benefit of someone paying me attention, the key point is it works. Similarly, taking paracetamol is a complete waste of time for me and I am convinced it only works for others due to the placebo effect. No amount of evidence matters, I still have a headache, ibuprofen on the other hand works.
This research on homeopathy shows that conventional treatment has better results than homeopathy, which is good. The concern for me is that those that use homeopathy may either lose faith, and therefore lose any benefit, or worse become angry with the ‘bias’ of conventional medicine and use only homeopathy. It is therefore vital, as the editorial in The Lancet says “doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy’s lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients' needs for personalised care”, my emphasis.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Friday, August 12, 2005
Forgetting
There is an interesting series of articles about forgetting in the current edition of Index for free expression. With so much activity spent on remembrance these articles are highlighting the benefits of forgetting. Not to forget history but to forget in the sense that the word amnesty is derived from amnesia. A good example is the South African truth and reconciliation committee and bad example is the British attitude towards the Germans. Learn your lessons then put it behind you and move on is the message.
Rugby Second
On a very trivial note I recently started a blog called Rugby Second. It should be of no interest to anybody, I look at it as a form of therapy.
Hammers
Recently someone in our office watched What the bleep do we know?, there followed much mickey taking about the films concept that things don't really exist. I mentioned a Buddhist comment in relation to a discussion on emptiness, which says something like "if you try to argue that nothing exists then the person you are debating with may grab a hammer and hit you on the head", I may be getting a bit John Cleese there!
It left me wondering how I might explain the Buddhist concept of emptiness in an office discussion. Particularly difficult as I do not have a complete grasp of the topic myself. With this in mind I came up with the following, am I on the right lines?
We usually engage with the world as if each object existed in glorious isolation, independent of all around it. It is as if we believe an object just appears and disappears, totally independent. Obviously this may not be how we actually think, but it is certainly how we behave. We seem to forget that there is a continuous process of change that goes in to making a table, there is thought and aspiration, there is construction and decay. No table exists independent of all around, and neither do we.
Everything that exists is connected to and not independent from all other objects around it, this includes ourselves. Where this becomes crucial in Buddhist thinking is when we start to look at the causes of our happiness and suffering. We act as though we exist in complete independence of all around, that our happiness can be developed regardless of the condition of others. This cannot be, in Buddhism we must accept the happiness and suffering of all others as our own, and then we can make progress.
It left me wondering how I might explain the Buddhist concept of emptiness in an office discussion. Particularly difficult as I do not have a complete grasp of the topic myself. With this in mind I came up with the following, am I on the right lines?
We usually engage with the world as if each object existed in glorious isolation, independent of all around it. It is as if we believe an object just appears and disappears, totally independent. Obviously this may not be how we actually think, but it is certainly how we behave. We seem to forget that there is a continuous process of change that goes in to making a table, there is thought and aspiration, there is construction and decay. No table exists independent of all around, and neither do we.
Everything that exists is connected to and not independent from all other objects around it, this includes ourselves. Where this becomes crucial in Buddhist thinking is when we start to look at the causes of our happiness and suffering. We act as though we exist in complete independence of all around, that our happiness can be developed regardless of the condition of others. This cannot be, in Buddhism we must accept the happiness and suffering of all others as our own, and then we can make progress.
Trends
The Anti-Terrorism legislation worries me. If we so easily throw away freedoms that took so long to gain where can we go in the future? How is it that our government can so easily abandon the promise not to harm another human?
The supporters of the legislation work on the theory that the legislation will be used by the "good" guys against the "bad"; and the definition of the two is taken to be self evident. The current government based it's success on dominating the middle ground in politics, the place where the electoral consensus was found. I fear that middle ground was taken only because we had a right wing government and a left wing opposition. Since coming to power the government and the opposition have move steadily to the right, so that we now have a right of centre government and a right wing opposition. My fear is that the electoral consensus has moved somewhere between the two. This movement opens the possibility of more extreme government taking hold, and they will no doubt want to use the anti-terrorism laws against their opponents.
I can never forget that democracy allowed the National Socialist party to take control in Germany in the 1930s. Before coming to power they had a developed an extremism that was popular throughout Europe, but after gaining power it got worse. Admittedly there were extreme conditions in Germany building up to the election victory, but we should never forget that an economic collapse is not easily foreseen. With oil prices going skywards (despite securing the Iraqi oil fields) and in the UK an inflated housing market, we cannot relax and assume that the "good" guys will remain in control.
The supporters of the legislation work on the theory that the legislation will be used by the "good" guys against the "bad"; and the definition of the two is taken to be self evident. The current government based it's success on dominating the middle ground in politics, the place where the electoral consensus was found. I fear that middle ground was taken only because we had a right wing government and a left wing opposition. Since coming to power the government and the opposition have move steadily to the right, so that we now have a right of centre government and a right wing opposition. My fear is that the electoral consensus has moved somewhere between the two. This movement opens the possibility of more extreme government taking hold, and they will no doubt want to use the anti-terrorism laws against their opponents.
I can never forget that democracy allowed the National Socialist party to take control in Germany in the 1930s. Before coming to power they had a developed an extremism that was popular throughout Europe, but after gaining power it got worse. Admittedly there were extreme conditions in Germany building up to the election victory, but we should never forget that an economic collapse is not easily foreseen. With oil prices going skywards (despite securing the Iraqi oil fields) and in the UK an inflated housing market, we cannot relax and assume that the "good" guys will remain in control.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."Martin Niemoeller
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Letting Go
A collection of articles (listed below) have reminded me of the benefit to letting go. Trying to control the world will inevitably lead to unhappiness.
Steve Jobs talk
Techno talk
The LA Times editorial and the Wiki
A very interesting opinion on the future of control
Steve Jobs talk
Techno talk
The LA Times editorial and the Wiki
A very interesting opinion on the future of control
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)