Prince Charles to tell doctors of the world to use sCAM

[Blue Wode]

Apparently he’s not going to be mentioning homeopathy, but he will be advocating other sCAM therapies:

The Prince of Wales will urge doctors to start using unconventional techniques such as chiropractic, acupuncture and herbal medicines to treat serious illnesses, in a speech to the World Health Organisation next week.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article447784.ece

[The Don]

Another great advert for republicasnism

[andyandy]

No...i think it's great that Charles is getting involved......

it gives alternative therapy even less credibility :D

[Rolfe]

Another great advert for republicasnismI don't suppose there's any practical point in nominating that for the Language Award, but it's the killer response.

Rolfe.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Apparently he’s not going to be mentioning homeopathy
Wonder why not, worried about giggling at the back perhaps.

The WHO is notoriously creduloid about scam see - http://www.health24.com/natural/Therapies/17-670-684.asp "Homeopathy has proven consistently effective in treating conditions for which conventional medicine has little to offer. The World Health Organisation has recognized the value of homoeopathy as one of the systems of traditional medicine that should be integrated world-wide with conventional medicine in order to provide adequate global health care"

Yuri

[Zep]

I suppose you can't blame Charlie. He got this particular Woo's Disease from his mum, who got it from her mum, who got it from the rest of the Godforsaken family in the 19th century. I think it was Albert, wasn't it, who started the trend by bringing homeopathy with him from Germany? A pity really - in many other respects, he was a very modern thinker for his time.

[Deetee]

The Prince of Wales will urge doctors to start using unconventional techniques such as chiropractic, acupuncture and herbal medicines to treat serious illnesses, in a speech to the World Health Organisation next week.
He doesn't get it, does he. "Serious illnesses"??
SCAM only appears to work for chronic illnesses that are inconsequential or relatively minor, or those that are likely to show spontaneous remission.

:cuckooclo (insert Charles' speech bubble here)

[Cynric]

The WHO is notoriously creduloid about scam see - http://www.health24.com/natural/Therapies/17-670-684.asp "Homeopathy has proven consistently effective in treating conditions for which conventional medicine has little to offer. The World Health Organisation has recognized the value of homoeopathy as one of the systems of traditional medicine that should be integrated world-wide with conventional medicine in order to provide adequate global health care"


:jaw-dropp

This is the WHO that is mandated to deal with pandemics and newly emerging diseases?
Well, no fear about bird flu then. Magic water all round.

To be fair, though, that article was written by a homoeopath, not renowned for good relations with the truth.

[Blue Wode]

The WHO is notoriously creduloid about scam

It seems to be. Here’s the WHO’s Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Chiropractic:

http://www.chiroeco.com/50/bonus/WHOguidelines.pdf

Yet another official resource that’s content to offer up vague descriptions of chiropractic ‘subluxations’ instead of saying that they remain scientifically unproven. No doubt the disproportionately large number of sCAM proponents who participated in the development of the guidelines - including the Chief Executive of HRH’s Foundation for Integrated Health – had something to do with it.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

To be fair, though, that article was written by a homoeopath, not renowned for good relations with the truth.
There is a WHO guidelines paper on the integration of homoeopathy, I've got the link somewhere, just not here unfortunately. The link I posted serves to show just how readily homoeopaths will clutch at any proffered straw no matter how cautious or 'even handed' it might be and spin it to appear like support. People read "the WHO supports homoeopathy" but how many bother to go to the source reference (especially as it's not usually given in such web-sites).

Yuri

[T'ai Chi]

If he is saying 'look we need to put more emphasis on preventive medicine, lifestyle choices, diet, and exercise' then that is a good thing.

If he's saying (which I doubt) 'we need to replace heart surgery with acupuncture', than that is a bad thing.

[CFLarsen]

If he is saying 'look we need to put more emphasis on preventive medicine, lifestyle choices, diet, and exercise' then that is a good thing.

If he's saying (which I doubt) 'we need to replace heart surgery with acupuncture', than that is a bad thing.

What part of "chiropractic, acupuncture and herbal medicines" don't you understand?

[Yuri Nalyssus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4312780.stm
"Complementary therapies should be given a greater role in the NHS, a report commissioned by the Prince of Wales has said"
I'm sure he wouldn't want to treat heart failure solely with homoeopathy, that sort of thing might be a bit of a give away (nothing like dead bodies to spoil a good thing) but his interest certainly extends further than just making sure you eat lots of fruit.

Yuri

ps ...(as a pure ad hominem self indulgence) he also talks to plants.

[Hindmost]

maybe this is why his mom won't let him be king.

glenn:D

[Thing]

So that makes three Fellows of the Royal Society with pro-homoeopathy views that I know of. Makes me feel a lot better about the fact that I'll never be one. Well, a little anyway

[Zep]

maybe this is why his mom won't let him be king.

glenn:DYep - the last mad one lost them a whole continent, and there's not much left of the British Empire left to lose these days.

[tkingdoll]

A pity really - in many other respects, he was a very modern thinker for his time.

Well, homeopathy was modern thinking for his time.

It's just not modern thinking for our time, along with public hangings, corsets and cleaning your teeth with coal dust.

[Zep]

Well, homeopathy was modern thinking for his time.

It's just not modern thinking for our time, along with public hangings, corsets and cleaning your teeth with coal dust.Actually, homeopathy was well debunked even in Victoria's time, and the placebo effect well understood. The UK led the world in a number of medical advances in that time - anaesthetics, antiseptics, modern surgery, etc.

[Mojo]

If he is saying 'look we need to put more emphasis on preventive medicine, lifestyle choices, diet, and exercise' then that is a good thing.

If he's saying (which I doubt) 'we need to replace heart surgery with acupuncture', than that is a bad thing.Prince Charles will claim that such major chronic illnesses as diabetes and heart disease, which affect tens of millions worldwide, could be successfully treated using complementary medicines and a "whole body" approach to healthcare.Note the word "treated" in that sentence.

[Euromutt]

This is the WHO that is mandated to deal with pandemics and newly emerging diseases?Well, kind of. The WHO is a UN organization, which means it's under pressure not to openly rubbish sCAM from various member states which practice different varieties of sCAM. The WHO can't proclaim that TCM (including acupuncture) is bogus, for example, without the Chinese getting huffy, and it can't proclaim that homeopathy is bogus without the various European countries (among others) who have incorporated it into their socialized medicine systems getting huffy.

But despite the lip service, you won't find the WHO recommending any variety of sCAM in practice. The organization isn't actually creduloid, it just has to pretend it is.

[Meffy]

But despite the lip service, you won't find the WHO recommending any variety of sCAM in practice. The organization isn't actually creduloid, it just has to pretend it is.
That's... erm, quasi-comforting. In a way. Pardon me, I have to go cringe for a while over the whole issue.

[aggle-rithm]

maybe this is why his mom won't let him be king.



By not dying?

[Meffy]

She could always abdicate orf o' it.

[headscratcher4]

I'd say he has a point...but, before I buy it, I'd like him also to say that strange women lying in ponds distributing semitaras is no basis for a system of government...

[Hellbound]

I'd say he has a point...but, before I buy it, I'd like him also to say that strange women lying in ponds distributing semitaras is no basis for a system of government...

Right. If I went around claiming to be emporer because some watery tart threw a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherit in the system!

[/MPQHG]

[Blue Wode]

The WHO can't proclaim that TCM (including acupuncture) is bogus, for example, without the Chinese getting huffy, and it can't proclaim that homeopathy is bogus without the various European countries (among others) who have incorporated it into their socialized medicine systems getting huffy.

…which means that certain sections of the WHO’s guidelines on developing consumer information on proper use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicines are likely to be completely ignored…

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr44/en/index1.html

And it doesn’t look like accurate consumer information will become much of a priority with the Prince of Wales’s Foundation for Integrated Health either:

http://www.fih.org.uk/

[Cynric]

Just caught our beloved future king on telly; tail end of an interview, so only a soundbite (I think it was related to the Prince's Trust, which does do very good work).

The interviewer asked whether it was appropriate for the future monarch to be involved in "various causes".

Future monarch replied [paraphrase]: "To be honest, I think it would be, sort of, criminally negligent of me to travel round the country seeing these things and not commenting on them."

Not melodramatic in the least. :rolleyes:
Perhaps a little neglience of topics outside one's expertise would be appropriate?

[luchog]

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. Think of it as Darwinian natural selection in action. It's nature simply eliminating those whose brains are not sufficiently adapted for survival in the modern world.

[Hindmost]

By not dying?


I was thinking along the lines of abdicating....however, I wasn't really serious. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, but there should be level of critical thinking required before someone becomes a king...or president.

glenn:D

[tkingdoll]

Just caught our beloved future king on telly; tail end of an interview, so only a soundbite (I think it was related to the Prince's Trust, which does do very good work).

The interviewer asked whether it was appropriate for the future monarch to be involved in "various causes".

Future monarch replied [paraphrase]: "To be honest, I think it would be, sort of, criminally negligent of me to travel round the country seeing these things and not commenting on them."

Not melodramatic in the least. :rolleyes:
Perhaps a little neglience of topics outside one's expertise would be appropriate?

What a moron. What crime does he imagine that would fall under? First degree apathy?

[Hellbound]

I was thinking along the lines of abdicating....however, I wasn't really serious. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, but there should be level of critical thinking required before someone becomes a king...or president.

glenn:D

Or a parent, or a voter, or a teacher, or a doctor, or, well, being able to breath.

Alas, in a perfect world...

:D

[Darat]

What a moron. What crime does he imagine that would fall under? First degree apathy?

Lack of Divine Right perhaps?

[CFLarsen]

Lack of Divine Right perhaps?
..."by their Creator"...

[headscratcher4]

Charles' problem isn't that it would be "criminal" for him not to comment on the things he sees, it that if he wasn't in his position because of his genes and birth order, no one would give two cents without his having achieved a position ON HIS OWN MERIT that commanded public respect and attention.

He basically is saying "I, by virtue of my genes, understandably need to comment on the weighty issues of the day and be listented to..." Even the increasingly insufferable Bono had to go out and create himself a superstar through his own hard work before he was deemed so important a person as to merit attention...

[Mojo]

Well, if he didn't keep on making a fool of himself people might begin to notice that he doesn't actually do anything...

[Rolfe]

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. Think of it as Darwinian natural selection in action. It's nature simply eliminating those whose brains are not sufficiently adapted for survival in the modern world.Um, well, at least one of his kids looks as if he probably isn't, if you take my meaning, so it's a start.

Rolfe.

[Asolepius]

If he is saying 'look we need to put more emphasis on preventive medicine, lifestyle choices, diet, and exercise' then that is a good thing.

If he's saying (which I doubt) 'we need to replace heart surgery with acupuncture', than that is a bad thing.
Oh come now. He is recommending St John's Wort for post-natal depression, "instead of anti-depressants". What a plonker - SJW is an anti-depressant. It's indicated for mild to moderate depression, but NOT post-natal. Also it interacts dangerously with 50% of prescribed medicines. Depression is a serious, life-threatening disease and is not to be trifled with. What qualifies this aristocratic airhead and amateur politician to tell anyone, let alone the planet's top doctors, what works and what doesn't, other than an accident of birth?

I get persistently depressed by this lumping together of evidence-based risk factor control, and sCAM. They are totally different.:mad:

[Physiotherapist]

I have to say that if I was depressed, Prozac is the last thing I would take. Some years ago now, a friend of my wife's was depressed. She went to her doctor and was put on Prozac. She took it and went round feeling like a zombie and totally numb for most of the time. She could not feel anything at all. In the end, she stopped taking them with the consent of her doctor. He then referred her to a psychiatrist who then referred her onto a good psychotherapist and she recovered.

I do feel that at times, anti-depressants can just mask symptoms, rather than getting to real causes and it is unfortunate that they are sometimes overprescribed by doctors. (My opinion from what I have seen and witnessed).

[Mojo]

Oh come now. He is recommending St John's Wort for post-natal depression, "instead of anti-depressants". What a plonker - SJW is an anti-depressant. It's indicated for mild to moderate depression, but NOT post-natal. Also it interacts dangerously with 50% of prescribed medicines.In other words he's gone off on a "harmless natural remedies" v. "harmful drugs" kick. Either something works or it doesn't. Either something has side effects/interactions with other medication or it doesn't (and if it has any desired effect it's pretty much inevitable that it will also have undesired effects). Whether something is "natural" or not doesn't have any bearing on any of this.

But you'll still get clowns like Chazza pushing things purely on the basis that they're "natural".

[Rolfe]

I have to say that if I was depressed, Prozac is the last thing I would take. Some years ago now, a friend of my wife's was depressed. She went to her doctor and was put on Prozac. She took it and went round feeling like a zombie and totally numb for most of the time. She could not feel anything at all. In the end, she stopped taking them with the consent of her doctor. He then referred her to a psychiatrist who then referred her onto a good psychotherapist and she recovered.

I do feel that at times, anti-depressants can just mask symptoms, rather than getting to real causes and it is unfortunate that they are sometimes overprescribed by doctors. (My opinion from what I have seen and witnessed).I wouldn't totally disagree with you, but it does seem as if these SSRIs act differently on different people. Doctors tend to assume that everybody should react the way the "ideal" patient does, the way the package insert says it should happen. Which is probably the majority of patients to be fair. However, some individuals will experience a different and possibly adverse reaction. At this point a good doctor nees to realise this and stop insisting that a little more perseverance and it will all be OK.

The point is, don't make the opposite mistake, of thinking that because someone you know had an adverse reaction, that this is the majority experience, or would necessarily be your experience. There is a reason the drugs are quite popular.

Nevertheless I do agree with your experience, just dishing out the pills instead of trying to get to the bottom of the psychology and treating the cause is too common.

Rolfe.

[Asolepius]

I have to say that if I was depressed, Prozac is the last thing I would take. Some years ago now, a friend of my wife's was depressed. She went to her doctor and was put on Prozac. She took it and went round feeling like a zombie and totally numb for most of the time. She could not feel anything at all. In the end, she stopped taking them with the consent of her doctor. He then referred her to a psychiatrist who then referred her onto a good psychotherapist and she recovered.

I do feel that at times, anti-depressants can just mask symptoms, rather than getting to real causes and it is unfortunate that they are sometimes overprescribed by doctors. (My opinion from what I have seen and witnessed).
Surely you have been on this forum long enough to know how unreliable anecdotal evidence is? :)

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Oh come now. He is recommending St John's Wort for post-natal depression... It's indicated for mild to moderate depression
Even NCCAM isn't sure on that one http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm
These people aren't even convinced of its usefulness in mild depression http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000426/ and http://tinyurl.com/oj67e

The evidence is by no means certain.

Yuri

[Mojo]

Even NCCAM isn't sure on that one http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm
These people aren't even convinced of its usefulness in mild depression http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000426/ and http://tinyurl.com/oj67e

The evidence is by no means certain. But if it is useful in depression, isn't it, by definition, an antidepressent?

[brodski]

But if it is useful in depression, isn't it, by definition, an antidepressent?
Don’t be silly, anti-depressants are made from nasty chemicals, ST Johns Wart is a natural herb, so it doesn’t have any chemicals in it.

[Blue Wode]

I do feel that at times, anti-depressants can just mask symptoms, rather than getting to real causes and it is unfortunate that they are sometimes overprescribed by doctors. (My opinion from what I have seen and witnessed).

That’s a fair point, but it’s worth remembering that in some parts of the UK there are lengthy waiting lists to see NHS psychiatrists/psychotherapists so in the interim prescribing anti-depressants may be all that a busy doctor can do for a depressed patient (and it’s probably a far safer situation for a patient to be in as opposed to being under the dubious care of some sCAM practitioner).

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, what we definitely don’t need are prominent people being allowed to get away with promoting sCAM just because it fits in with their own beliefs – beliefs which seem to be further validated by cosy little chats:

Prince Charles:
I was talking to patients earlier this afternoon at the homeopathic hospital, and one lady said homeopathy had totally transformed her irritable bowel syndrome in a matter of 12 hours."

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speeches/health_12102005.html

Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales:
"Complementary therapies, like homoeopathy, get to the cause - rather than just treating the symptoms… I know from my own experience that they work... I've had a lot of discussions with Prince Charles about it and I think he's right… I'd like to see doctors prescribing homoeopathic treatment on the NHS."

http://money.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/09/nmed209.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/09/ixnewstop.html


BTW, here’s what Professor David Colquhoun at University College London has to say about the forthcoming speech by HRH:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#hrh1

[Asolepius]

Even NCCAM isn't sure on that one http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm
These people aren't even convinced of its usefulness in mild depression http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000426/ and http://tinyurl.com/oj67e

The evidence is by no means certain.

Yuri
Does uncertainty ever disappear? The business of science is in reducing it. Sertraline didn't break any records in this study either.

[antihippy]

I wouldn't totally disagree with you, but it does seem as if these SSRIs act differently on different people.

This is true.

Perhaps I have been lucky, but my experience of the UK NHS provision of anti depressants is not what I have seen other people experience.

In all cases, with different branches of my family, the story has been that anti-depressants were reluctantly prescribed; usually with the doctor saying "this might not work", when poor reaction to treatment was reported GPs hauled that person to reassess their treatment, where psychiatric help was required it was given - although this was the part that seemed the most difficult to acquire. For various reasons I am unwilling to relate too many presonal details, but on the whole the Media have got depression treatment wrong.

Anti-depressants are not the cure - patients are. Anti-depressants are basically a chemical crutch which allows wild mood swings to settle down while a patient finds (hopefully with assistance) a way out of their current predicament. It is my belief that mild depression is often confused with sadness or unhappiness - which being a [hopefully] transient state will pass and therefore not suitable for treatment with anti-depressants. It's these cases that I think lead to the common misconceptions.

As I say, my experience of the way the GPs have dealt with the episodes depression, that I am aware of, within my family has been quite positive. I may well have been lucky. It's also my experience (and completely anecdotal) that the NHS is better in Scotland than in England; despite the headlines; so that may also play a part.

[Asolepius]

HRH won't get away with this unchallenged. Watch the news on Tuesday.

[Blue Wode]

What qualifies this aristocratic airhead and amateur politician to tell anyone, let alone the planet's top doctors, what works and what doesn't, other than an accident of birth?

Maybe he should be cut some slack…

Prince Philip took out a subscription to Flying Saucer Review in the mid-1950s. With such an unpromising upbringing, the odds were that his son would turn out peculiar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1558087,00.html

…but then again, maybe not:

Booklets, funded by the Department of Health and produced by Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health, will be distributed to every GP surgery next month, describing a list of free therapies including osteopathy, acupuncture, aromatherapy and homoeopathy.

Prince Charles, a long-term advocate of complementary and alternative medicines, was influential in persuading ministers of the benefits of such treatments. The Prime Minister is said to be particularly enthusiastic.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/09/nmed09.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/09/ixnewstop.html

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Does uncertainty ever disappear?
er... I'm not really sure.

Yuri

[Asolepius]

BBC Breakfast TV tomorrow at 07:10. Also `Today' on Radio 4, but I'm not sure of the time. Possibly NewsNight tomorrow as well.

[Blue Wode]

The front page of The Times this morning (and most of the second page too):


NHS told to abandon alternative medicine

A GROUP of Britain’s leading doctors has urged every NHS trust to stop paying for alternative medicine and to use the money for conventional treatments.

Their appeal is a direct challenge to the Prince of Wales’s outspoken campaign to widen access to complementary therapies.

Public funding of “unproven or disproved treatments” such as homoeopathy and reflexology, which are promoted by the Prince, is unacceptable while huge NHS deficits are forcing trusts to sack nurses and limit access to life-saving drugs, the doctors say.

The 13 scientists, who include some of the most eminent names in British medicine, have written to the chief executives of all 476 acute and primary care trusts to demand that only evidence-based therapies are provided free to patients.

Their letter, seen by The Times, has been sent as the Prince today steps up his crusade for increased provision of alternative treatments with a controversial speech to the World Health Organisation assembly in Geneva.

The Prince, who was yesterday given a lesson in crystal therapy while touring a complementary health unit in Merthyr Tydfil, will ask the WHO to embrace alternative therapies in the fight against serious disease. His views have outraged clinicians and researchers, who claim that many of the therapies that he advocates have been shown to be ineffective in trials or have never been properly tested.

Read on…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2192360,00.html


Here too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1781148,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5007118.stm

[Blue Wode]

Surprisingly, it's in the Daily Mail too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=387335&in_page_id=1774


ETA

Just noticed that a Dept. of Health spokeswoman said this:

"Patients rightly expect to have clear information about the range of treatments that are available to them, including complementary therapies.

Patient guides, such as that produced by the Foundation of Integrated Health, are an important way of making sure this information is easily accessible to patients and ultimately help them to make the right treatment choices."

[brodski]

Surprisingly, it's in the Daily Mail too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=387335&in_page_id=1774


ETA

Just noticed that a Dept. of Health spokeswoman said this:
Did you notice that in the Times' Guardian's and the BBC's coverage the letter was written by "leading" or "eminent" Doctors, but in the Mail it was only a letter by "scientists" who "dismiss" alt med. A nice example of subtle bias in the press.

[Asolepius]

Did you notice that in the Times' Guardian's and the BBC's coverage the letter was written by "leading" or "eminent" Doctors, but in the Mail it was only a letter by "scientists" who "dismiss" alt med. A nice example of subtle bias in the press.
Did you look at the reader comments? Reminds me of Goebbels again - "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it".

God I'm knackered - up at 5:30 to get to the TV studio and phone going crazy. If you are in the north listen out for BBC Radio Humberside at 11:30 tomorrow. There will be stuff on main news and I think Newsnight today as well. We are on our way!:)

[Rolfe]

This is the way to get them, Les. Keep saying that you only want to hold them to the same evidence-based standards as everyone else who wants to market medicines to the public is forced to adhere to. That message will stick.

Rolfe.

[brodski]

Did you look at the reader comments? Reminds me of Goebbels again - "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it".

God I'm knackered - up at 5:30 to get to the TV studio and phone going crazy. If you are in the north listen out for BBC Radio Humberside at 11:30 tomorrow. There will be stuff on main news and I think Newsnight today as well. We are on our way!:)
I find those "readers comments" sections much like the BBC's "have your say" section far far too depressing to read most of the time. I despair for the human race.
But well done to you Asolepius, keep up the good work!

[JimTheBrit]

Charles' speech is live via the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/) in the very near future (link on right-hand side).

[Deetee]

Also from today's Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=387270&in_page_id=1770&ct=5).
At least some things are available on the NHS which have been shown to work.

The Daily-Mailers / the chattering classes of middle England have a number of health obsessions - one is the use of "wonderful" natural alternative remedies which they tend to enthusiastically endorse, another is a concern that they (the females that is) will get diseases such as breast cancer. [When the chips are down, at least the vast majority have the sense to make the correct treatment choices].

I believe the alternative therapy market is worth about £1/2 a billion annually. And what is there to show for it? If money like this were channelled into conventional research and treatments for diseases such as breast cancer, the world would be a far, far better place.

[Deetee]

Charles' speech is live via the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/) in the very near future (link on right-hand side).
Listening to it now........ wish he'd get to the point.

[EHocking]

Charles' speech is live via the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/) in the very near future (link on right-hand side).... and a transcript should be available here (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speeches/) soon.

[Deetee]

I can see at least 2 people nodding off in the auditorium.

///

Well, he didn't seem to say much except blow his own trumpet in promoting his Integrated Health Foundation, and publicise the Smallwood report, and talked about how it shows sCAM can fill the gaps in helping to treat "stress, anxiety, depression, post-operative nausea, and osteoarthritis of the knee".
Wow! He certainly knows his market. I bet the health ministers from the Third World are falling over themselves in a mad rush to get some of this miraculous sCAM stuff to give to any of their starving, HIV/parasite-infected and diarrhoea-ridden populations.
Worryingly, he ended by advising each UN country develop a 5-year "Integrated Health Care" plan. Hopefully he will be ignored.

[Mojo]

I have already said that today’s burden of long term disease is, in part, the legacy of having treated our bodies and our world as a collection of unrelated components. Yes, Chazza, "today’s burden of long term disease" is in part a result of modern medicine extending peoples lives. Perhaps you'd prefer the alternative.

[Blue Wode]

... and a transcript should be available here (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speeches/) soon.

The full text is available now:
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speeches/health_23052006.html

BTW, thanks to JimtheBrit for posting the link to the live speech. :)

[Rolfe]

David and Les and their cronies seem to have gazumped him rather effectively. Well timed.

Rolfe.

[JimTheBrit]

Les' interview is available to watch again on BBC Breakfast here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/5007256.stm)

Edit: Report on Five news in a few minutes time.

Further edit: Channel 4 report (http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2416)

[Mojo]

Quite a good piece in, of all places, the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=387522&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=) (despite the headline, which seems to have been written by a sub who didn't look too closely at the story).

[Darat]

I've just fallen off my chair in astonishment over that article - are you sure the Daily Mail site hasn't? been hacked? I mean it doesn't even mention house prices...

Seriously that's a good clear article, I've even submitted some positive comments.

[Darat]

My comments have been put up but I also see a "but cows get better" post :( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=387522&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#c11622051

[Deetee]

My comments have been put up but I also see a "but cows get better" post :( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=387522&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#c11622051
You'd be the one with the rather unusual first name of "Davdi", I take it?
:)

[Asolepius]

David and Les and their cronies seem to have gazumped him rather effectively. Well timed.

Rolfe.
More in The Times today. Clarence House sounds furious. Worth catching PM's questions in the House this afternoon if you can, judging by what MPs are saying. As for the timing, quite by chance it worked out well;).

I do love it when a plan comes together.

[Darat]

Why would Clarence House be furious? Surely all HRH has done is use the evidence available to form his conclusions and when new evidence appears he will of course change his mind? I think it would be criminal for a person in his position not to be basing his public statements on facts and evidence :p

[JimTheBrit]

If you are in the north listen out for BBC Radio Humberside at 11:30 tomorrow.This is now available to listen to via the BBC Radio Humberside listen again (http://www.bbc.co.uk/humber/local_radio/programmes/index.shtml) option (right-hand side). Unfortunately, the quality isn't too great. There's also articles in the Times (p6,7,T2) and Guardian (p3) and an opinion piece in the Express.