Apology: "Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts"

[onewheeldave]

 

 

I didn't say there's no point in knowing the content or methodology. To clarify: I don't think full text access to original research papers is the most appropriate, useful or accessible means by which a typical layperson might inform themselves about a subject.

 

 

But, many laypeople may disagree with your point of view about what is appropriate or accessible to them in terms of the reading material they wish to use to form their opinions. They should have easy access to the full papers.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure very many people outside a given research community are able to absorb the the detail of relevant medical journal articles, and find that those papers adequately inform them about an area of healthcare in which they were previously relatively ignorant. I'm equally sure that very many others appreciate the efforts of organisations and individuals that aim to present scientific, medical and technical information in a way that makes it accessible to the non-expert.

 

I'm also sure many find it a usefull service.

 

However, when it comes to issues like this (the removal of homeopathy from the NHS), where there are suspicions that the actual methodologies being used in the relevant clinical trials are inapropriate when it comes to homeopathy, then, access to the full papers is necessary, so that the public can examine them.

 

Free access- these are issues of public health.

 

 

Because, most members of the public may not be especially scientific (though many are) and some may even be 'stupid', but what they tend to share is a real dislike of being patronised, and, many of them are going to be (justifiably, IMO) suspicious if that engagement and 'collective ownership/understanding of clinical research' is only in the form of information 'filtered' by the status quo into a form considered suitable for the general public.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with simplified summaries- as long as the full papers are easily and freely available as well.

[Guest]

But, many laypeople may disagree with your point of view about what is appropriate or accessible to them in terms of the reading material they wish to use to form their opinions.

 

They should have easy access to the full papers.

 

I'm also sure many find it a usefull service. ...

Excellent. Tell it to the publishers. Online access to full text journal articles is supplementary to the publication of journals in the traditional format. Such journals, like all other publications, are typically not and never have been available for free, as librarians struggling with budgets will attest.

 

For those who require instant gratification, then the online pay-per-view route is available for many full text articles. For others, journals are available for reference in libraries.

...However, when it comes to issues like this (the removal of homeopathy from the NHS), where there are suspicions that the actual methodologies being used in the relevant clinical trials are inapropriate when it comes to homeopathy, then, access to the full papers is necessary, so that the public can examine them. ...

The key is that it's the methodologies of those who present evidence in apparent support of homoeopathy that are at fault when homoeopathy is held up to the same standards applied to conventional medicine.

 

It's ironic that in a previous post you suggest that us 'rationalists' might fail to read the references we quote, when information about this issue in reference to homoeopathy is covered quite extensively in the article you quote above.

[onewheeldave]

Excellent. Tell it to the publishers. Online access to full text journal articles is supplementary to the publication of journals in the traditional format. Such journals, like all other publications, are typically not and never have been available for free, as librarians struggling with budgets will attest.

 

For those who require instant gratification, then the online pay-per-view route is available for many full text articles. For others, journals are available for reference in libraries.

 

 

I'm not disputing the fact that the system is set up to require payment, or that currently it's not available freely online.

 

But, I'm sure you can see that there is a potential problem when it comes to online discussion, in that these papers are being cited in discussions, but, inconveniently, the relevant sections cannot be copied-and-pasted.

 

And, while scientists are probably happy to take on trust that the papers are relevant and valid, when the issues being discussed are concerning the actual validity of the methodologies used, obviously, the fact that the relevant sections cannot be quoted, makes such discussion problematic.

 

 

 

The key is that it's the methodologies of those who present evidence in apparent support of homoeopathy that are at fault when homoeopathy is held up to the same standards applied to conventional medicine.

 

It's ironic that in a previous post you suggest that us 'rationalists' might fail to read the references we quote, when information about this issue in reference to homoeopathy is covered quite extensively in the article you quote above.

 

To save the potential for confusion that has previously occurred in this thread, could you do a copy-and-paste of the section/s that you feel addresses my concerns with methodology? I suspect that, when you do, I'll be able to show that there is still an issue with the application of the methodologies to homeopathy, because I think there's a good chance that you may have misunderstood the issue I'm talking about.

[RichJay]

I'm not disputing the fact that the system is set up to require payment, or that currently it's not available freely online.

 

But, I'm sure you can see that there is a potential problem when it comes to online discussion, in that these papers are being cited in discussions, but, inconveniently, the relevant sections cannot be copied-and-pasted.

 

And, while scientists are probably happy to take on trust that the papers are relevant and valid, when the issues being discussed are concerning the actual validity of the methodologies used, obviously, the fact that the relevant sections cannot be quoted, makes such discussion problematic.

 

I don't understand your argument here. The papers aren't available to the general public because you have to pay to access them. The majority of scientists that want to read these papers will have access to them through their place of work because a licence will have been bought. Scientists aren't taking anything on trust they will have read the full paper.

[onewheeldave]

from the library link you provide-

 

"External readers

 

Anyone with a genuine reason to use the material and services located within the University Library is welcome to do so on a reference basis only. If you would like to consult material from the University Library's collections, there are a few formalities. Introduce yourself to Library staff at the counter of the appropriate site and be prepared to show some form of identification on request. Please bear in mind before visiting that the University Library is usually extremely busy, services to members of the University of Sheffield have priority and you may expect only limited Library staff time. For Library services available, please see the final section in this guide."

 

I wonder what constitutes a 'genuine reason'- some clarification on that would be useful, because it sounds like that could limit access to, say, those employed in a scientific context- can a simple 'member of the public' access them?

 

Additionally, of course, it's still reference of hard copy only, so not really of use in a online discussion.

 

We've been living in the internet age for quite some time now- pretty much any materials that are necessary for free and transparent discussion, can be made available online

 

if the following is really truely meant-

 

....Worst of all, they do this at the very time when academics are working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research, and when most good doctors are trying to educate and involve their patients in the selection of difficult treatment options.

 

(quote from badscience.net)

 

then academics need to thinkn about ways to get them available online (free), on the grounds that it would clearly be a very good way "to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research".

[onewheeldave]

I don't understand your argument here. The papers aren't available to the general public because you have to pay to access them. The majority of scientists that want to read these papers will have access to them through their place of work because a licence will have been bought. Scientists aren't taking anything on trust they will have read the full paper.

 

Will they? I see no reason to assume that someone engaging on a online discussion like this, would necessarily have read the paper whose results they are using in the discussion.

 

Besides which, that's academic- if someone's engaging in an online discussion and they want to cite evidence, then they need to copy/paste/quote it, because, otherswise, they may either be lying, or, (more likely), sincere, but they've misunderstood the actual point the other person is making.

 

Clearly, in the interests of fair discussion, if it's being used as evidence, it needs to be viewable.

[RichJay]

then academics need to thinkn about ways to get them available online (free), on the grounds that it would clearly be a very good way "to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research".

 

There are some open access journals. There is a directory of them here...

 

http://www.doaj.org/

 

The trouble (for researchers) with these journals is that they charge the authors a fee for having their work published. For example, BMC Biology has an article processing charge of £1335

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/manuscript/bmcbiol

[Guest]

I'm not disputing the fact that the system is set up to require payment, or that currently it's not available freely online. ...

I didn't suggest that you were disputing those facts. In response to your suggestion that full text of journal articles should be available free online to all, I was providing you with the reasons why in many cases that is not feasible.

...But, I'm sure you can see that there is a potential problem when it comes to online discussion, in that these papers are being cited in discussions, but, inconveniently, the relevant sections cannot be copied-and-pasted.

 

And, while scientists are probably happy to take on trust that the papers are relevant and valid, when the issues being discussed are concerning the actual validity of the methodologies used, obviously, the fact that the relevant sections cannot be quoted, makes such discussion problematic....

But for those who wish to check the references cited in online discussions, statements of the aims, methods, results and conclusions are to be found in the journal abstracts, which are freely available online. Online discussion is limited, you're right, and one of those limitations is that a trip to the library, or a credit card outing, is necessary for those for whom the available reference resources are insufficient. (The freely available online full text report I linked to above discusses the original research in some depth, by the way).

...To save the potential for confusion that has previously occurred in this thread, could you do a copy-and-paste of the section/s that you feel addresses my concerns with methodology? I suspect that, when you do, I'll be able to show that there is still an issue with the application of the methodologies to homeopathy, because I think there's a good chance that you may have misunderstood the issue I'm talking about.

What is your concern with the methodology? Do you believe that randomised controlled trials are not applicable to homoeopathy?

[Guest]

...I wonder what constitutes a 'genuine reason'- some clarification on that would be useful, because it sounds like that could limit access to, say, those employed in a scientific context- can a simple 'member of the public' access them?...

Why don't you enquire? Most university libraries have external user arrangements for the general public. I don't know the details of those for either of the Sheffield universities.

...Additionally, of course, it's still reference of hard copy only, so not really of use in a online discussion. ...

An online discussion is a tiny little spec in the route to being fully informed about a subject particularly if, by 'fully informed', you require information presented to you to the detail and level of that available to workers in the field.

...We've been living in the internet age for quite some time now- pretty much any materials that are necessary for free and transparent discussion, can be made available online

 

if the following is really truely meant-

 

....Worst of all, they do this at the very time when academics are working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research, and when most good doctors are trying to educate and involve their patients in the selection of difficult treatment options.

 

(quote from badscience.net)

 

then academics need to thinkn about ways to get them available online (free), on the grounds that it would clearly be a very good way "to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research".

Making the information available does not necessarily equate to making all information available online and for free in the format of my choice.

 

It would be very nice indeed if I could plug into the internet and have every possible resource available for me for free when I'm researching a particular subject in a professional context. In the real world, I have to visit libraries, consult with experts, talk to people, buy books, journals and magazines.

 

There are many useful, respected sources of public health information available for free and online, but of course those might only be a gateway for further research in the big wide world.

[RichJay]

Will they? I see no reason to assume that someone engaging on a online discussion like this, would necessarily have read the paper whose results they are using in the discussion.

 

Besides which, that's academic- if someone's engaging in an online discussion and they want to cite evidence, then they need to copy/paste/quote it, because, otherswise, they may either be lying, or, (more likely), sincere, but they've misunderstood the actual point the other person is making.

 

Clearly, in the interests of fair discussion, if it's being used as evidence, it needs to be viewable.

 

You said that scientists would probably be happy to take it on trust the papers are relevant. I'm saying that scientists wouldn't take anything on trust and would have access to the papers through their institution so that they can assess the methodologies used and the results for themselves.