BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Green Party

 
 
Loomis
08:46 / 13.04.05
The Green Party Manifesto 2005.

I've heard a lot of people say they have no leftish alternative to Labour but what about the Greens? They haven't been a one-issue party for a long time, and they address many of the social and economic issues that Labour have left far behind in their march to the right.

I'm curious as to what the lith thinks of the Green Party, as they are the only party that comes close to my opinions. It's unlikely that they'll ever be running the country, but I think the more Green MPs in parliament the better. At least they'll be able to raise awareness of important issues, not to mention that the more votes the Greens get, the more Labour might be inclined to address these issue to get those votes back.

The most important thing for me is that I am in agreement with their broad aims and they are the only party I would trust to work towards the kind of society I want. However I don't really know enough about the nitty gritty of politics and economics to be able to dissect their manifesto with much skill so I'd like to see what more clued-up people think of it.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:08 / 13.04.05
I'm not as happy with the manifesto as I'd like to be. I agree, for example, with the priorities on transport, but I don't know that I like the expression 'tackling the root causes of the demand for mobility". And while more public transport and less in the way of unsustainable, increasing air travel are things I believe in, I'm not persuaded by the concept of re-examining the way we lay out towns and so on. Sure, new towns and regenerations could be laid out better, but existing cities can't be re-made to suit a new model of construction and living without major cost, both monetary and enivonrmental.

I agree that true costing needs to be brought in across the board, and that any subsidies (like the lack of aviation tax) need to be brought into the spotlight and acknowledged. But some of the manifesto makes me twitchy -

1. 'citizen's income - this seems wasteful; there are any number of people in the UK who have no need for it, ang God knows, there's plenty in the manifesto which will need paying for.

2. 'simplification' of the benefit system; everyone talks about simplifying things, but if you actually do, you risk blanket solutions to local problems.

3. Health ane Education sections basically says 'you can have it all back, plus some extras'. Well, great. But how much will it cost? Plenty. How will it be paid for? Unanswered. Eco-taxes get mentioned a lot, but these are supposed to discourage unenvironmental behaviour, and thus are aimed at their own diminshment.

5. Environment policy includes an end to all animal experiments. I have a problem with ending animal experiements for medical research.

6. Frequent mention of the precautionary principle. Although I like the principle for some things, I'm not happy with it regarding, for example, stem-cell engineering, nanotech and so on. I'm concerned that this, in combination with the proposed ban on animal research, indicates an anti-scientific bias in the manifesto.

Set against that, many of the policies listed are excellent, but the wholee document is light on detail.
 
 
Loomis
09:38 / 13.04.05
I'd like to add an extra question to my original post. I'm still interested in what people think of the manifesto, but seeing as they won't be in charge, how much does the manifesto matter to you? It gives us an indication of how a Green MP would vote on legislation proposed by the government, but should deficiencies in their manifesto prevent us voting for them?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:50 / 13.04.05
I think however you vote, you have to assume it can have a consequence roughly in line with the policy of your chosen party or candidate. Otherwise the whole process is a joke. So the deficiencies in the Green Party manifesto are important. Sure, it would take a slightly mad situation to achieve it, but...

Suppose it came right down to the wire on Labour's over all majority; suppose Labour lost a lot of marginal seats to the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, and the balance of power was held by independents and minor parties. All of a sudden, a Green MP is in a position to do some heavy deals.
 
 
sleazenation
11:10 / 13.04.05
But at them moment there ARE NO Green MPs, right? They are hoping to get their first this election in Brighton, I believe. So even if it came down to the wire a lack of representation in Westminster leaves the Greens still on the sidelines - even if they managed to return an MP it would be the larger marginal parties such as the DUP that would be sought out...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
19:18 / 13.04.05
Well, yeah, like I said, you pretty much have to construct a scenario purely in order to achieve a Green swing vote. It was just an illustration of the simplest reason why you should vote as if you, er, mean it.
 
 
sleazenation
22:08 / 13.04.05
Returning to the question in hand, I have not read any of the party's manifestos. Nor do I plan to. Rightly or wrongly, I tend to expect journalists to hack away at the candidates for the various parties based on their manifestoes for me, thus highlighting the important bits... Under such circumstances, manifestos become something akin to a job application. A good manifesto alone will not get you elected just as a good letter of application will not automatically get you a job. However, a bad manifesto will lose you any chance of getting a seat...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:24 / 14.04.05
Ah, but that's quite interesting. My complaint about all the manifestos I've seen has been that they're light on substance. Even Labour's novella feels like a brochure rather than a genuine pitch. If it was for a car, I'd want to see the stats at the back and (and here we are agreed) a few tests and reviews from WhatCar and TopGear.

If everyone expects the manifestos to be torn apart, then what is a 'good' manifesto? One which, under torture, will reveal nothing because it knows nothing...

The Green Manifesto has that in its favour - there's absolutely no question what they are committed to. The problem, of course, is that that also makes it feel amateurish and enthusiast, rather than grown-up and aware of the complexities of government. Of course, there may not be nearly as much in the way of complexities as the main parties would have us believe unless you want to exempt so-and-so from paying higher rate tax because they provide such-and-such and they might leave blah blah.
 
 
Loomis
09:44 / 14.04.05
The Green Manifesto has that in its favour - there's absolutely no question what they are committed to. The problem, of course, is that that also makes it feel amateurish and enthusiast, rather than grown-up and aware of the complexities of government.

That's a fair point Nick but I think it would be a shame if they lost votes because of it, especially because they won't be forming a government so really what need do they have to know where to allocate every penny? The first job of an MP is to represent hir constituency rather than from a government. What I'm looking for is an MP who will vote roughly the way I would want on the issues that are important to me, and the Greens are the only party that do that.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:00 / 15.04.05
Basically, yes, they do have to account for every penny. That's the difference between being a pressure group and a valid political party. Pressure groups get to shout and desire all they want. Governments - and the parties which aspire to have a hand in government, which the Greens unquestionably do - don't get to be fuzzy about money, because whatever else money is, it's the system of tokens by which governments assign resources, and you can't govern or even expect to have a reasonable influence on government if your token-distribution doesn't work. You can be easily dismissed by those who don't wish to listen, or you can get yourself into a position of power and slowly run your economy into the ground. (Can we name a country currently engaged in this process, boys and girls?)

Green initiatives are vital. They are also complex and economically sensitive. Done right, a shift to environmentally sound industry and energy is an economic blessing. Done wrong, it's a nightmare of increased cost, decreased efficiency, inadequate power generation and a sudden drop in production - which in turn decreases the chance of other nations following suit, and diminishes the power of the nation concerned to influence others.

Yes, more has to happen now. But getting the numbers wrong just makes Greens look more marginal, more impractical, less serious when they need to look real, practical, and positive.
 
 
Tom Morris
09:37 / 25.04.05
They are opposed to genetically modified food. I'm for it because I think it will help us feed millions more people.

They are for organic food, which is pure pseudoscientific nonsense.

And what the fuck does "demarcating drug-taking as a health rather than a crime issue" (p. 24) mean? Would it just be easier to say "legalise/decriminalise more drugs"? Because that would be cool in a Bill Hicks way.

"One of the problems is that the conventional economics doesn't measure the more intangible things that make us feel happier or more secure" (p. 7). Good. Economics shouldn't be bothering to work out whether we feel happier or feel more secure. That's subjective. Whether people are more able to get food or more able to find employment or start a business or buy and sell things, and the financial effectiveness we have is what economics is about, not whether our yoga classes are making us feel less stressed or not.

As for "alternative and holistic health treatments" (p. 15)? The provision of plain pseudoscience on the NHS is one of the reasons why I will enjoy not voting for these nutters come May. If you want to take unproven bullshit, do it on your own coin, not mine.
 
 
jeed
10:34 / 25.04.05
They are opposed to genetically modified food. I'm for it because I think it will help us feed millions more people.

They are for organic food, which is pure pseudoscientific nonsense.


We don't actually need GM food in this country though do we? Granted, if you're a subsistence farmer in Bangladesh, and can get salt-resistant GM wheat that is able to grow on land that's been recently flooded, where normally you'd have to wait years, then bonus. But how often does that happen in Kent?

And what part of organic farming is pseudoscience? That less chemicals in the ecosystem is a good thing? That widespread pesticide use damages biodiversity?

New Scientist article

And what the fuck does "demarcating drug-taking as a health rather than a crime issue" (p. 24) mean? Would it just be easier to say "legalise/decriminalise more drugs"? Because that would be cool in a Bill Hicks way.

Because it seems that they're not advocating opening the floodgates to selling kids smack, but rather a more measured approach that recognises some peoples' wishes to change their consciousness. From what I understand, they take the view that unless a crime occurs as a result of that drug use, or drug use becomes a health issue to the user, then the use of drugs should be a private matter.

"One of the problems is that the conventional economics doesn't measure the more intangible things that make us feel happier or more secure" (p. 7). Good. Economics shouldn't be bothering to work out whether we feel happier or feel more secure. That's subjective. Whether people are more able to get food or more able to find employment or start a business or buy and sell things, and the financial effectiveness we have is what economics is about, not whether our yoga classes are making us feel less stressed or not.

I think this is an idea that came from E.F. Schumacher: that standard economic models don't actually ascribe value to what is being measured. So, looking at the pure economics, a £300 gold pen is seen to be worth 30 times more than a £10 dose of anti-HIV drugs. I think I understand what you're saying about economics being this dispassionate way to measure spending habits, but I think they're making the point that economic growth, based on the back of rising debt levels, might not be the most sustainable of courses, and maybe the rules by which we measure economic processes fall short somehow.

From the Green's site
"EC310 Conventional economic policy uses economic growth, inflation, balance of payments and unemployment as 'economic indicators', the normal criteria against which progress is measured. Although it is the most usually quoted indicator, gross national product (GNP) is a poor indicator of true progress and does not adequately measure people's sense of well-being. It measures only the activity in the formal sector, regardless of what that activity is. In consequence, current economic theory fails adequately to reflect the real effects of human activity within a finite ecosystem, and is used to 'validate' economic activities which are ecologically unsustainable and/or socially unjust"

Economic Policies

As for "alternative and holistic health treatments" (p. 15)? The provision of plain pseudoscience on the NHS is one of the reasons why I will enjoy not voting for these nutters come May. If you want to take unproven bullshit, do it on your own coin, not mine.

Thing is, i'm guessing 'holistic' also means things like counselling in conjunction with antidepressants, as well as things like acupuncture, music therapy, hypnosis, and tai chi. They don't work for everything, but they seem to for some. Would you call prescribing exercise an 'alternative therapy' by the way?

hypnosis for IBS

Music therapy for dementia patients

acupuncture for osteoarthritis

tai chi
 
 
Nobody's girl
11:18 / 25.04.05
As for "alternative and holistic health treatments" (p. 15)? The provision of plain pseudoscience on the NHS is one of the reasons why I will enjoy not voting for these nutters come May. If you want to take unproven bullshit, do it on your own coin, not mine.

It's worth pointing out that homeopathy is currently available on the NHS, "your coin", I personally visited a homeopath two years ago referred by my GP.
 
 
Nobody's girl
11:45 / 25.04.05
My beef with the Greens is a rather selfish one. I have family in France and the US and their transport policy would make it incredibly difficult for me to afford visiting them. As it is, we have to rely on my mother-in-law to scrape together enough money for a yearly visit to the US, we simply can't pay for it.

Ideologically I think international travel is good for people on many different levels and would encourage anyone who has not visited outside their own continent to do so. If we cannot afford air travel ecologically, then I would prefer the Green party to back funding of research into alternative methods of fuelling 'planes and alternative methods of intercontinental travel than a flat out penalisation of international travellers.
 
 
Brunner
13:16 / 25.04.05
Surely parties like the Greens exist solely to give the major parties a good kick up the arse now and then?

The more popular they become the more inclusive their policies will be, but at the present time, they can formulate their policies from a virtual utopian starting point in order to influence the policy decisions of those in or close to power.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for banning GM foods in this country - we don't need them yet (and if global economics operated under a fair system, neither would the farmer in Bangladesh someone mentioned above). But then, in a few years time, GM foods are predicted to be able to provide some important medical benefits not availalable right now. Do we ban the research and forego these?
I'm also an advocate for organic food - why ingest pesticides that could fuck with your body? But then, if farming was less intensive, a smaller and therefore more expensive supply of meat would be seen as a backward step by many meat eaters.
I'd tax airline fuel - it's madness that I can get a cheap flight to Barcelona for less than the cost of getting to the airport and at great cost to the environment. But then, I'd still like to be able to visit my friends and family in New Zealand every now and then and going by sea is impractical!

I think voting Green is a good thing but, at this time, only as a tool for forcing the major parties to become more serious about green issues.

What we really need is proportional representation!
 
 
Tom Morris
16:27 / 26.04.05
There are no demonstrable health benefits to organics. Pesticide residues contain such a microscopic amount of carcinogens when compared to the carcinogens found in food naturally. There is a way that's better to manage farming than organic - I can't remember the name off the top of my head - but I do know that it's MORE environmentally friendly than organic and has higher yield rates, protects more hedgrows and wildlife and so on. In double-blind trials, nobody can tell the difference between organic and non-organic food of the same kind. Damn it, there's not even a way to determine in a lab that something is grown organically, because it's a made up category designed to take money from the pockets of the chattering classes and assauge their irrational fears. That's pseudoscience.

Homeopathy is available on the NHS. Sure. But the difference between homeopathy and exercise is that exercise has been shown to do you good, and it costs nothing beyond a pair of trainers, a large lump of field or road and some self-motivation. Homeopathy costs a bloody fortune, for something which consistently fails both scientific examination and clinical tests.

Acupuncture "works" in as much as you can stick needles in to people and stuff happens. Acupuncture doesn't work in that you rebalance chi and energy levels do the doohickey and you're cured thanks to a wonderful discovery by the Chinese from thousands of years ago. Why, then, do we fund the acupuncturists on the NHS who go on about chi and energy rebalancing when we could just get a local nurse to stick some pins in to you. There's no difference in effect, so why bother paying someone extra to add a coating of bullshit on a practice that works quite well without it?

Simple reason: it's not fashionable and it doesn't get votes to say that one is in favour of science and reason. Mysticism and nonsense get far more votes than rationality.
 
 
■
20:06 / 26.04.05
Well, my first foray into Switchboard for a while (and I'm not touching that Doc-o-Rock shit). I think the argument that should be stressed for organics is that should be an alternative to the monocultures that result from pesticide/insecticide/fertiliser/hormones use which lock farmers into a cycle that means they must keep buying the chemicals and producing same old tired stuff from dead land so they can produce at unrealistically low prices so the customer gets ridiculously cheap food (which has knock-on effects depressing wages and working conditions).
Then again, there's something about the British Greens which makes me think they really aren't ready for government yet. I'm more than happy to have them in the Scottish Parliament, though. What that says about my attitude to the Scottish Parliament, I don't know.
Just as an aside, I am apparently to the left of 99% of Greens, which seems odd as I'm not even veggieand work fully inside the Man's system.
Anyway. I think it's time to reread Graham Harvey's Killing of the Countryside which I started in 1997 and didn't finish. It's great for all the background on the CAP and organic farming which I forgot a long time ago.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
09:50 / 27.04.05
Mr Morris - ever done Tai Chi? Met a long-time practitioner and compared them with yourself?

Why should a system be divorced from its historical lineage?

Ever seen an 80 year old woman put her legs behind her neck, next to you? Ever checked out the 80 year old women on Typical Street, UKShire?

Ever visited a country which doesn't use any pesticides and eaten the fruit and veg, poultry. Did you not notice any difference yourself, published Pepsi challenges apart?

I met a 126 year old woman in Dominica last year, and she had more vim than me. So you can believe what you like, and take vitamin supplements 'til your piss turns orange, but secular humanism seems to me to be a warty outgrowth of Christianity and its determined faith that 'mankind' can be master of its own destiny, and your faith in science to the exclusion of all other narratives and stories we like to tell each other has not done so well for the planet this past century.
 
 
Nobody's girl
13:03 / 27.04.05
I think the argument that should be stressed for organics is that should be an alternative to the monocultures that result from pesticide/insecticide/fertiliser/hormones use which lock farmers into a cycle that means they must keep buying the chemicals and producing same old tired stuff from dead land so they can produce at unrealistically low prices so the customer gets ridiculously cheap food (which has knock-on effects depressing wages and working conditions).

An excellent point, sir. Also, in my own subjective opinion organic food tastes better.

Homeopathy costs a bloody fortune, for something which consistently fails both scientific examination and clinical tests.

Have you ever used Arnica cream on a bruise? That shit works. Next time you suffer a bump I suggest you test your prejudices.

Perhaps you could consider why the NHS has started to send people to homeopaths? Do you really think they'd waste stretched budgets on a therapy with no proven effect? Has that been your experience of the NHS? Cos I'll tell you, it certainly hasn't been my experience of the NHS. Are you aware that many vets (my aunt, for one) use homeopathy? Animals are patients unlikely to exhibit a placebo effect, aren't they? Why does it work then?

If you think you're a sceptic on this therapy, how do you think the medical establishment reacts to it? Not too positively, eh? Why did they allow it into their government funded treatment options then?

In a similar vein, when I worked in the local hospital the research pharmacist in my department was a major sceptic on hollistic therapies. I questioned his views one day and he explained that in a previous post he'd shared a research budget with a chinese doctor, both working on asthma remedies. The pharmacist eventually admitted that the chinese medicine certainly worked, but angrily blurted out that he wished "they'd do it on their own budgets." I thought that was a very interesting response.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:02 / 27.04.05
Yes, this : it's not fashionable and it doesn't get votes to say that one is in favour of science and reason. Mysticism and nonsense get far more votes than rationality. somewhat bemused me, actually. Could Tom Morris demonstrate his evidence please?
 
 
Tom Morris
15:47 / 27.04.05
Call me Tom. Come as you are, we're all just guys, y'know. (Sorry, too much Morning Coffee Notes).

Could Tom Morris demonstrate his evidence please?

The presence of promises over alternative medicine in the Greens manifesto shows that there is some political demand. The fact that the NHS is funding these therapies means that they have been able, thanks to political pressure, to overcome the guidelines which ordinary medicines goes through.

When it was proposed that the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital should be closed, so that the budget could be invested in the ordinary hospitals, there was a huge outcry about it. There is a political demand for this, despite the fact that there is no evidence homeopathy works beyond a lot of testimonials. The Lancet, in 1997, published a meta-analysis stating: "We found insufficient evidence... that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" (emphasis mine).

If you have a medicine developed in the labs of GlaxoSmithKline, we (quite rightly) demand that it goes through a procedure of clinical and scientific testing to ensure that it's both safe and efficient. But if we have someone kitted out in the Sacred Ways Of The Holy Orient, then the ordinary procedures of actually checking whether this shit works go out of the window. If you think tai chi or yoga or herbalism work, cool. But if it's to be funded from NHS coffers, we should demand that it conforms to the same kind of testing and safety procedures that ordinary (Western, scientific, women-hating, reductionist, "Newton's rape manual") medicine goes through.

Money $hot: So you can believe what you like, and take vitamin supplements 'til your piss turns orange, but secular humanism seems to me to be a warty outgrowth of Christianity and its determined faith that 'mankind' can be master of its own destiny, and your faith in science to the exclusion of all other narratives and stories we like to tell each other has not done so well for the planet this past century.

No, only cured smallpox, created a vaccine preventing millions from suffering from tuberculosis, created aeroplanes and landed on the moon. Not a great deal when you come to think of it. Do I exclude narratives and stories? Of course not. I watch movies, read novels, watch theatre productions, go to art galleries, study philosophy and comparative religion, take an interest in anthropology and history. But I still think that coffee enemas and prayer don't cure cancer, and that pretending they do is an insult both to human reason and to the unfortunate people who are suffering from serious medical conditions.
 
 
jeed
16:18 / 27.04.05
There are no demonstrable health benefits to organics. Pesticide residues contain such a microscopic amount of carcinogens when compared to the carcinogens found in food naturally. There is a way that's better to manage farming than organic - I can't remember the name off the top of my head - but I do know that it's MORE environmentally friendly than organic and has higher yield rates, protects more hedgrows and wildlife and so on. In double-blind trials, nobody can tell the difference between organic and non-organic food of the same kind. Damn it, there's not even a way to determine in a lab that something is grown organically, because it's a made up category designed to take money from the pockets of the chattering classes and assauge their irrational fears. That's pseudoscience.

Exactly how anything would be more environmentally friendy than organic i'm not sure, but show me the evidence and i'll believe it. Which is science. Pseudoscience is ignoring a particular train of thought because it doesn't fit with your worldview, or a refusal to engage in debate: debate being the crux of science in many peoples' view.

The problem you seem to be wrestling with, and it's a problem often unfairly ascribed to the 'chattering classes' of which you chatter, is that you seem to see only the pros and cons of a organic farming as it relates to you. Ok, so you say (and i'm dubious) that a lab can't detect the difference between organic and intensively farmed veg: surely this means that if you can grow an organic tomato indistinuishable from one grown using pesticides etc., then you might as well grow organic? The point is that farming doesn't start or finish with what ends up on YOUR plate. There's a whole raft of processes that occur before it arrives there. Once you've worked on a pig farm and seen antibiotic injections given DAILY to farrowing/pregnant sows, once you've seen 3 tons of pesticide being sprayed on a hectare of rapeseed every week, or had to pull a calf out of it's mother using an oversized ratchet because artificial insemination allows you produce a calf waaay too big for the mother, and then had to stitch the cow up afterwards THREE times in a year (because that's what intensive farming allows us to do, so we do) then maybe you might see organic farming as something other that an intellectual exercise or an affront to your view of science. It's unbecoming to belittle people you believe to be less intelligent than you because they still have a semblance of an open mind. But it's all ok, because you can buy a cheap tomato.

As a sideline...does chi exist? Well, you can say no, that it's unmeasurable in the lab. There is a possibility that we're unable to measure it, in the same way that we're as yet unable to recreate the kick off of the big bang.

Plus:
Yet again...reference from peer-reviewed journal
Use of comfrey ointment for ankle distortion

Simple reason: it's not fashionable and it doesn't get votes to say that one is in favour of science and reason. Mysticism and nonsense get far more votes than rationality.

As Money$hot pointed out above, evidence please. The last time I looked the Wellcome trust wasn't funding that much esoteric stuff, and I could have missed Michael Howard campaigning on the vodou ticket for those hard-to-get lwa votes...though he does have something of the zombi going on...

So ok, maybe the Greens don't have all the answers, but neither do I, and believe it or not, neither do you.
 
 
Tom Morris
17:57 / 27.04.05
I haven't got the details of the study to hand (I'm semi-working), but the procedure is called Integrated Farm Management. It's basically the good bits of what's called organic (ie. crop rotation, hedgerows etc.) with the good bits of fertilisers and pesticides. It's been shown to be better than organic farming on pretty much all fronts: yield, economics, environment, biodiversity.

It gets me my tomatoes far cheaper than organic farming, and is better for the environment. I take what you say about (presumably) your first hand experience. But your experiences do not change the facts. Either organic farming is an efficient manner to farm, or it isn't. Perhaps I'm wrong about IFM, and I'm very open to being wrong, but from what I've seen it does seem to be more efficient than organic.

By saying that we have a choice between organic and heavily intensive farming, you're making a false analogy. We have many choices, and science helps us navigate these choices by rationally determining which is the best, on the basis of what we currently know.

Your chi/big bang example is misleading. The Big Bang is a historical event, where as, from what I've read, chi is supposed to be a soul-like inner force, a vitalistic energy, that can be manipulated through various seemingly medical procedures (acupunture, therapeutic touch, chi-kung/qi gong). The latter, unless I've misread it, should be detectable (or at least manipulable or interactive in some way), which historical science isn't.

As for my point about mysticism being more popular than rationality, it's an inference. Not an expressly scientific one. I gave the example of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. The funds that were being used for this hospital of pseudoscience could be redirected to a real medical hospital. But rather than follow reason and redirect the money back to an ordinary hospital, people made a big stink about it.

Similarly, the public has backed opposition to GM food heavily despite the fact that they operate without rhyme nor reason. Groups like Greenpeace dominate the debate even though they claim their opposition to GM is completely unconditional. There is no evidence you could present to change their position. Even if all their concerns were satisfied, they would still oppose GM. And they get a lot of support in the public mind and in the media. The government has quite happily let them on to committees as a representative voice for the public despite the fact that they misuse evidence, misrepresent others opinions and are extremist in their views.

I'm not going to labour my points much longer, not because I don't believe in them or only believe them half-heartedly. It's because I'm rapidly drawing us far off-topic - we should really be talking about the Green manifesto. I was just chucking my tuppence in. Perhaps someone could start again in the Laboratory on these interesting issues and we could have a lot more fun with it when I've got some time to discuss it properly.
 
 
Nobody's girl
14:15 / 01.05.05
May 1st Observer article entitled- "It's official: acupuncture really works"

"The latest study is from researchers at Southampton University and University College London, who devised a clever trial to determine whether acupuncture worked by carrying out brain scans on patients receiving it.

The patients, all with painful osteoarthritis in their thumbs, were divided into three groups. The first group were touched by blunt needles which did not pierce the skin and had no therapeutic value.

The second had 'sham acupuncture' they believed was real. Their scans showed that one area of the brain associated with the production of natural opiates lit up.

In the third group, who received real acupuncture, the scans showed that, as well as the opiate centre, another region of the brain, the ipsilateral insular, was activated. This region appears to be involved in pain modulation.

Dr George Lewith, a research team member from Southampton, said: 'This shows us that real acupuncture produces a demonstrable physiological effect over and above a simple skin prick."
 
  
Add Your Reply