Representing for Christ » « Canada is sharing in Christian shame The BMJ is using an online poll? I’m shocked that such a serious journal would find any value at all in running a web poll, but there you go. They’re everywhere. How about giving them a lesson in the frangibility of polls? Should homeopathy be allowed on the NHS? Yes 35% No 65% Share this:PrintEmailShare on TumblrTweet Representing for Christ » « Canada is sharing in Christian shame
It’s less fun when the right answer is already in the lead!
I can’t see that poll.
All I see is one with a long list of names?
Am I blind?
Nerd of Redhead, OM says
A poll on woo. Ah, that felt good.
Arnold T Pants says
Oh, not the BMJ! Maybe Lancet will run a poll about MMR and autism.
'Tis Himself, OM says
Look in the column starting with “What’s New”. The poll’s about a third of the way down the page.
24% “yes” 76% “no” now.
How about giving them a lesson in the frangibility of polls?
I don’t know what you mean by this. Do you mean we should vote “yes” on this one to skew it? Or vote the expected answer of “no” on this one and skew it in a way that they’re probably expecting it to be skewed (and thus just reinforce their existing belief and to my eyes not teach the object lesson that “web polls are useless pieces of junk and you shouldn’t be doing them”)?
I love manhandling web polls because people need to learn that they are pointless. I don’t like the idea of giving homeopaths a victory to point at.
'Tis Himself, OM says
A supposedly competent medical journal should know better than to post an on-line poll. If they wanted to know how people react to the question, there are legitimate ways of finding out. Polling organizations like ComRes, ICM and Populus specialize in gathering this type of data. An on-line poll is not a legitimate method of determining anything other than how many clicks on a button will happen.
Why do polls like these always lack the “Hell, NO” opion?
I’ll run a bath…
That depends on what they mean by “allowed.” Do they mean “allowed to be mocked and laughed at”? Because if that’s what they mean, I say “YES!”
Another poll that needs some serious input! The American Family Association have a poll on gays in the military. Currently the bigots are well in the lead, but that can be changed, right?
It involves leaving an email address, but these are easy to opt out of.
As long as the NHS won’t pay for Placebos, they need to continue to pay for homeopathic treatments. Doctors need to be able to prescribe something for people who don’t need anything.
Something Arbitrary says
Personally, I’m all for the use of placebos in the NHS. Let the gullible take their magic water if it keeps them out of the queue to see the real doctor.
Better yet, have the NHS manufacture the “medicine” itself and introduce an “Alternative Medicine Co-Payment” charge of 10000% of the cost of production (about £1.05), so their voodoo helps to pay for my scientifically valid treatment.
Note: I don’t seriously advocate cashing in on other people’s stupidity.
86 per cent saying NO now.
I’m astounded that the BMJ would even consider having a poll like this.
*googles ‘picard-ryker double facepalm’ for the benefit of their web editor*
I’d guess the online poll is the web staff’s idea, and that the web staff are PR staff largely independent from the editors.
There’s a comments option on the poll too.
I’m sure there’s a death panel joke to be made here.
Iain Walker says
Don’t you people realise that by voting “No” you’re diluting the pro-homeopathic vote, thereby making it more powerful?
They’re down to 13% now, which puts them way ahead.
This is different to the normal pointless polls, normally they’re rendered pointless because the posters are trying to use them to demonstrate their odd-to-insane views by being on a site for people that share the aforementioned views.
This one is rendered largely pointless by the fact that the rational result is already massively represented by the fact that the readership of the BMJ are at least notionally rational.
My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, I present… the Self-Pharyngulating Poll…
87% and counting
Yeah, but you’ve got to shake them *just* the right way.
I did my bit to water down the poll.
Did anyone else notice that they have a journal of “Accupuncture in Medicine” here:
Speaking of homeopathy, Ebert has a great line in his journal entry today – “As it now stands, if it’s any more watered down, Obamacare will be homeopathic.”
David Marjanović says
Ahh, but, a diluted item has the opposite effect it would have had, making our position even stronger, for the weaker their position, the stronger they make ours… or something like that.
FrankT at #14 has a good point. Time was when GPs in the UK could prescribe ADT. Then about 20 years ago the NHS forbade them from prescribing all kinds of cheap and not particularly effective products, for indigestion and so on. The consequence was that GPs substituted up, so to speak, and prescribing costs across the NHS increased sharply. Doubtful if there was any overall health gain, quite possibly the reverse as people suffered adverse effects from medicines they didn’t need.
Homeopathy at NHS!!!!!! Absolutely not!!!!!! God says marriage should be between a nan abd a woman!
If we’re meant to show how stupid the poll is, shouldn’t we be voting “YES”? Or are those bozos actually going to act in favor of the winning category?
Yes 20% – 1308
No 80% – 5367
I think phyrangible would be a better spelling in this case.
16 to 84
Chip Cherry says
It’s now at N0 501 (6%) – YES 7630 (94%).
I can’t help but think that just maybe Pharyngula was involved. I never thought it was so easy to influence proper scientific polls such as this one.
Jan Witkowski says
I have just lef the following comment on the BMJ site:
I have come across a lot of idiotic things in my time and this poll is very close to the top in idiocy. First, homeopathy does not work and so the question is pointless. Second, online polls like this are meaningless. Third, even if they weren’t, is the editor of the BMJ going to give up her decision-making authority to populist voting? In this case, I hope that the answer is “yes” and that homeopathy is never going to make an appearance in the printed or online versions of the BMJ.