NationStates Jolt Archive

((I have not consulted my UN lawyer gnomes on this one. Just an idea. I wonder what you think :) ))

-----

Anti-Quackery resolution

RECOGNISING that the peddling of unproven, and sometimes dangerous, medicines, cures or treatments, has existed throughout human history.

NOTING WITH REGRET that rapid advancements in communication such as the internet have opened the doors for an unregulated market of quack cures and marketing campaigns, as outlets for unprescribed medicines of unknown quality.

AWARE that most people with an e-mail account have experienced the marketing tactics of spamming – touting the newest current trend for miraculous remedies for "weight-loss" and "sexual enhancement"

BELIEVING that medicines, cures and treatments should always be tested, using scientific principles.

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance, drug, cure or treatment which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

DECLARES that promoting, selling and knowingly transporting of known quack cures shall be a criminal offence in all member states.

URGES all UN members to take measures towards eliminating the provision of quack cures.

Get your filthy paws off my silky drawers!

Translation: I like the idea, Mr Koopman, but even I had a slight wince when I realised the UN'd be directly intervening in our criminal justice system, such as it is. We'd accept it, of course -- look at the necrophilia resolution; we've now got laws on our books to stop something that just can't happen in Ardchoille, because of our biology -- but then, we're excessively compliant.

If it were ratcheted back a bit -- URGES or RECOMMENDS that member states make promoting, selling and transporting of known 'quack cures' a criminal offence -- I think you'd have an easier sell.

That said, if you're determined to keep it that strong, we'd still be in favour (provided you fix up the typo in the "DEFINES" clause -- purports). (Though why would any nation with any sense not have brought in laws like this already ... oh, I think I answered my own question there.)

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

The spelling issue has been dealt with, and the offending scribe has been shot.

Now, I do believe that a strong resolution is better than a mewling one that merely makes "recommendations". We might consider weakening the terms a little, but only if the coalition of clueless hippies and pseudo-scientists proves to be too powerful.

~Aram Koopman

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

First, by what standards? What is 'scientifically proven'? According to whom?

Second, if nations want quack cures to be discovered by non-government consumer research groups, why can't we let them? How does it affect the international community that some nations, David6 for example, want to let the market take care of this? The nations that want to ban it can ban it, the ones that don't can allow it.

Well-written, but we'd have to disagree. And if it passed we'd have to make some edits to ACCEL's repeal list.

(Yes, the 'evil rightists' have a schedule for their evil rightist agenda. Are you scared? ;) )

First, by what standards? What is 'scientifically proven'? According to whom?

zzzZZZzzz micromanagement.

Second, if nations want quack cures to be discovered by non-government consumer research groups, why can't we let them? How does it affect the international community that some nations, David6 for example, want to let the market take care of this? The nations that want to ban it can ban it, the ones that don't can allow it.

Where did I call for the creation of a multinational body to research the effects of medicine? Oh wait.

Well-written, but we'd have to disagree. And if it passed we'd have to make some edits to ACCEL's repeal list.

(Yes, the 'evil rightists' have a schedule for their evil rightist agenda. Are you scared? ;) )

OOC: I have been an evil rightist since long before you were created. I fail to be impressed.

First, by what standards? What is 'scientifically proven'? According to whom?

Scientistis, presumably. It's not hard to figure out that trying to pass off mercury as a cure for leukemia isn't going to work.

Second, if nations want quack cures to be discovered by non-government consumer research groups, why can't we let them?


Do you know what "quack" means? It means that it's a fabrication intended to be sold as a workable medicine. Not a test medicine or the like, it's something that is sold as a cure when it is not one.

How does it affect the international community that some nations, David6 for example, want to let the market take care of this? The nations that want to ban it can ban it, the ones that don't can allow it.

You win a prize, "person unclear on the concept." The market doesn't take care of quack medicine on its own- because there will always been some sheister going from town to town trying to pass off soda water as a cure for arthritis without someone putting them in prison.

Well-written, but we'd have to disagree. And if it passed we'd have to make some edits to ACCEL's repeal list.

OOooOOOooO. Scary.

Please. Keep your dick-waving out of this assembly.

(Yes, the 'evil rightists' have a schedule for their evil rightist agenda. Are you scared? ;) )

Not at all.

Rang Erman
Advisor

(Yes, the 'evil rightists' have a schedule for their evil rightist agenda. Are you scared? ;) )

Evil Rightism shall not be tolerated. Only the Divine Enlightened Rightism of Truth is tolerated within the Universe, and the Capitalist Order shall be upheld. Any attack on Master Knootoss of the Capitalist Council shall be terminated with all due RIGHTeousness.

As such, the nation by the self-appelation of "David6" shall immediately become a capitalist, free-market state, oriented at the optimisation of profit through international trade and commerce. Failure to comply shall result in corrective action by the 3rd Suomi Strike Corps ("The Entrepreneurs") to install the Divine Enlightened Rightism of Truth within "David6".

You have two hours.

[OOC: Yes, b0r3d. Sue me.]

*Aram Koopman moves to the underground ready room, with a big world map, and a ridiculously oversized digital countdown clock.*

Advisor Erman is right, too.

The spelling issue has been dealt with, and the offending scribe has been shot.

Now, I do believe that a strong resolution is better than a mewling one that merely makes "recommendations". We might consider weakening the terms a little, but only if the coalition of clueless hippies and pseudo-scientists proves to be too powerful.

~Aram Koopman

Well, then, let us have at it, Mr Koopman, and fight the good fight together. Bare is back without a brother. We have sent several barrels of Findhornian scrumpy to our former colony of Ardchoille to strengthen their delegation's backbone.

However, we must register a protest at the shooting of your scribe. We are, after all, committed to Freedom of the Press, up to and including freedom to mis-type without fatal consequences.

Furthermore, as card-carrying hippies, we object to being associated with pseudo-scientists and we may possibly take issue with you later on the description "clueless".

We hold to the tenets of the great philosopher Asimov, that science, if sufficiently advanced, is akin to magic, and, though eschewing magic ourselves. we have too much respect for the Art to see it bastardised.

-- Brother Tim, UN observer of Findhorn.

Get your filthy paws off my silky drawers!

Translation: I like the idea, Mr Koopman, but even I had a slight wince when I realised the UN'd be directly intervening in our criminal justice system, such as it is.

I'll have you in the sovereigntist camp yet, Ms. Reilly.

Oh, and um...silky drawers? Colour me intrigued...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador t othe UN

Would this passing mean that I would no longer be able to sell Dr. Schmitty's Miracle Tonic out of the trunk of my car anymore?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I'll have you in the sovereigntist camp yet, Ms. Reilly.

Oh, and um...silky drawers? Colour me intrigued...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

A scented note written in flowing cursive script flutters flirtatiously to rest on the Sheik's rostrum.

"IN YER DREAMS, SHEIK!" it says (very politely). "You ain't gonna have me nowhere!"

Being an essentially ladylike note, it refrains from comments about not getting one's knickers in a knot.

Rex Smiley, our UN representative, stands. Friends, fellow, sentients, we object to this legislation as it does not address a certain problem, not all states in nationstates seem to possess the same universal physical laws.

In some states there is something called "magic" which I don't quite understand, but it seems to do the trick. Some countries are "magical" and to any rational person, pretty much everything they do is quackery, but it seems to work for them.

As a representative of one of the many magic-using nations, I believe I can allay Mr Smiley's concerns somewhat.

I assume this clause is the one which he sees as potentially a problem when applying the proposal to magic-using nations:

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess

(By the bye, I think there's a "been" missing there.)

The difficulty is that word "scientifically". If we understand it as applying only to physical science, then it is, indeed, a barrier.

If. however, the non-magical nations accept our word that there is a magical science, the barrier disappears -- by magic, one might say.

We have magical processes which satisfy the scientific requirements that a process be describable, measurable and repeatable by others. We have theories that account for these processes.

The difficulty in aligning our activities with those of the physical scientists is that we describe processes not physically observable. The fact that they are psychically observable puts them outside the ambit of physical science.

To that we say, some physical processes are observable or achievable only by trained scientists. Some magical processes are observable or achievable only by trained practitioners of our art. The question of "giftedness" arises in both disciplines.

We are not going to resolve our differences in one proposal. But, just as a physical scientist can say, "This purported physical process does not work and can never work," so can a practitioner of magic say of a magical process.

Indeed, we are fortunate to live in an era in the Multiverse when both sides of the coin of knowledge can be employed to expose fraud.

If Mr Smiley accepts, as we do, that the phrase "scientifically proven" can apply to magical processes, the difficulty is resolved. It is our opinion that this clause allows sufficient "wriggle room" to cover the magical, as well as the physical, sciences.

If, however, he insists that "scientifically proven" can apply only to physical sciences, then I would ask Mr Koopman if he would accommodate these concerns by simply deleting the word "scientifically", thus:

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not been proven to possess

I would remind Mr Smiley that we are discussing quack cures. Thus, if a person has a proven medical condition, and at the end of the treatment no longer has that medical condition, the treatment must be considered an effective cure.

As magical treatments can vary in their effectiveness from person to person and even from place to place, it seems appropriate to us if the proposal does not attempt to define "quack" cures in any greater detail than currently offered.

This would lmean that, while the broad statement of the legislation would be internationally accepted, the task of managing its intricacies would be left to the relevant national governments, which is, in our opinion, an excellent way to handle UN legislation.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

I must object to this definition. A cure can still be a cure even though it has not yet been scientifically proven. The definition needs to be rewritten so as to limit the definition to those scientifically proven not to be effective. (And not "desirable medical effect" because even nothing can produce a desirble placebo effect.)

The biggest problem with quack cures is actually a case of false advertising. They are promoted and accepted with the certainty of those medicines and treatments scientifically proven. The second problem is that not all cures are equal. Life and death dieases are one thing, cures for arithits and the gout are another. The first priority is that no cure should do more harm than good. The second is that any claims should be proven before asserted.

Bahgum tables a motion that the title of this proposal is offensive to ducks.

Bahgum tables a motion that the title of this proposal is offensive to ducks.

HotRodia seconds the motion, and recommends that Aram Koopman be weighed to determine if he is, in fact, the same weight as a duck.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I must object to this definition. A cure can still be a cure even though it has not yet been scientifically proven. The definition needs to be rewritten so as to limit the definition to those scientifically proven not to be effective. (And not "desirable medical effect" because even nothing can produce a desirble placebo effect.)
This would render the motion completely ineffective in dealing with those miscreants it is aimed at. As long as each new advertisment references a different name, then this 'new' piece of quakery will not have been proven ineffective. All that the resolution would then limit would be the shelf-life of the label on the bottle.

We would observe that the use of the term 'scientific' should not be an issue for more magically inclined nations. In the context, it simply refers to the use of the scientific method, which applies as well to products of the magical arts as to physical or psychological sciences, if sufficient care is taken in the testing. We only have issues in regard to its application to the philosophical and theological sciences as concerns the difficulty of devising repeatable experiments in those fields.

Brother Tim, we were given to understand that it was the clarke Arthur who addressed the sufficient advancement of science. Regretably we will have to send back to Gobbannium for the relevant tomes, having had but limited space in our trunks on the journey here. If our recollection is in error, we would be grateful if you could advise us of proper sources to consult on the subject.

The erudition of the Prince convinces me that his title is no empty honour. I bow to it as I would never to mere inherited position.

I would like to address the subject matter of the proposal.

Most of these "quack" cures are ungovernable. For example, at one time old farmers believed that eating mouldy bread was good for them. It turned out they were on to something when penecillian was discovered in mouldy bread.

Aspirin was discovered by making tea from the bark of trees.

Most, if not all of these quack medicines as you call them have at least some basis in fact, and will wind up being used despite government regulations.

And while I salute your intentions, there certainly have been enough weightloss plans that did nothing or were dangerous, trying to regulate everything people wish to put into their bodies is beyond the scope of government.

I should point out that SOME DUCKS are quite large. Not as large as hippos but still quite large.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/239315956.jpg

I should point out that SOME DUCKS are quite large. Not as large as hippos but still quite large.

*image snip*

OOC: In response to RWP's post there, I say this (http://simplythebest.net/sounds/WAV/WAV_files/cartoon_WAV_files/despicable.wav) to him.

:p

Folk remedies are rather different than quackery. This (http://quackwatch.org/) is quackery. Think more Chiropractic subluxations as opposed to green tea.

Folk remedies are rather different than quackery. This (http://quackwatch.org/) is quackery. Think more Chiropractic subluxations as opposed to green tea.

While you are correct, some of the quacks we automatically dismiss as having no scientific basis for their claims are eventually proven to have some merit.

Examples from the past would include Surgeons, Accupunturists, Chiropractors, Nutritionists, and I am certain their are others.

Heck, even reflexology and aromatherepy are starting to show promise.

Heck, even reflexology and aromatherepy are starting to show promise.No they aren't.

No they aren't.

OOC : That kinda depends on who you ask...

Personally I am not big on trying to replace traditional medicine with this new age stuff, but I am all for comprehensive approaches to treatment.

Arroma therepy, not as people are commonly using it now, has been shown to have some effect on asthma by stimulating the body's natural systems. For that matter, a more traditional form of aroma therepy, though it's not thought of as such, would be menthol and eucalyptus for the treatment of colds and congestion.

Reflexology, though not in the form commonly thought of, is quite similar to accupuncture and accupressure. And though their are not likely to be any miracle cures out of it, it can increase the state of well being and make it easier for the body to fight off illness.

But, let's consider something else. Most MD's reject alternative treatment out of hand because they have not been proven to work, and let's be honest, some of them are downright dangerous, consider collodial silver for a dangerous one.

However, some of these treatments, as soon as someone actually takes the time to do serious research into them, tend to turn out unexpected results. For example, applying temperature extremes to arthritis and various other ailments was once considered quackery, but that was long enough in the past that physical therapists use them regularly now and think nothing of it. For that matter applying ultrasonic waves to injured muscles seems, on the surface, to be slightly bizzare, but we do it all the time now.

Someone had to go out on a limb at some point and test these cures, and the results they got from them were surprizing, contriversial, and to be honest, rarely what anyone suspected before they were scientifically tested.

But don't get me wrong. There are pleanty of examples of bad experimental cures, often they're just dangerous not matter how they are used, but sometimes they are just dangerous because of the way they are applied.

Not only that, but their are doctors, real licenced medical practicioners, that are just plain nuts, but hey tend to use their credentials to essentially buy legitimacy for their claims.

One example is a Dr. in the Houston area who is convinced that every one of his patients has lyme disease. Furthermore he's convinced that virtually everyone has it. The guy is a real doctor, and he's just cookoo.

And even worse yet, there are people who try to apply these quack medicines to everybody as a gigantic test of a theory. Look at your schools for a good example of this.

The point is, and their really are two of them....

1. Not all quack medicines are bad, they often have some merit, though serious research has to be applied to understand them. And for that to happen someone has to be willing to take major personal, social, and legal risks.

2. If we applied the term quackery to everything in the past that we apply it to now, we wouldn't have anti-biotics, insulin, organ transplants, vaccines, or virtually anything else we take for granted now.

You raise some good points, but you don't seem to be realizing something. Once the cure has been scientifically proven to work, it's no longer considered a quack cure. Without scientific proof to back it up, a method really shouldn't be used to treat people. Once the doctor or salesman or whoever has proof to back up their claims, then they are free to distribute the cure at their leisure.

Sure it may take some time for it to be proven, but no one wants to waste time, money, effort, and even lives on a method that ultimately proves useless.

You raise some good points, but you don't seem to be realizing something. Once the cure has been scientifically proven to work, it's no longer considered a quack cure. Without scientific proof to back it up, a method really shouldn't be used to treat people. Once the doctor or salesman or whoever has proof to back up their claims, then they are free to distribute the cure at their leisure.

Sure it may take some time for it to be proven, but no one wants to waste time, money, effort, and even lives on a method that ultimately proves useless.

So...

What do you propose as a method of getting from A to B?

What time frame?

How many people are allowed to die to perfect a cure that will save possibly millions?

For that matter, if something starts out considered a quack cure, and then is proven, essentially illegally, to be a valid treatment, are the people who broke the law for experementation still subject to punishment for violating the law?

So...

What do you propose as a method of getting from A to B?

What time frame?

How many people are allowed to die to perfect a cure that will save possibly millions?

For that matter, if something starts out considered a quack cure, and then is proven, essentially illegally, to be a valid treatment, are the people who broke the law for experementation still subject to punishment for violating the law?

Well, the way I read the proposal suggests selling the method as a cure is considered illegal. Whether it be a chemical, solution, or procedure if you prescribe the treatment to a consumer in exchange for money, then you are considered to be selling a "quack cure."

On the other hand, the proposal doesn't explicitly mention testing or simply using a method. Most scientific testing I know of doesn't involve selling the product to be tested to the people its tested on.

That's how I interpreted it. I guess it begs the question, once something is considered a "quack cure" does that substance or procedure forever become illegal to use in any way, shape, and form? Or is it all right to use as long as a profit is not made? That, I'll admit, seems a bit unclear.

Well, the way I read the proposal suggests selling the method as a cure is considered illegal. Whether it be a chemical, solution, or procedure if you prescribe the treatment to a consumer in exchange for money, then you are considered to be selling a "quack cure."

On the other hand, the proposal doesn't explicitly mention testing or simply using a method. Most scientific testing I know of doesn't involve selling the product to be tested to the people its tested on.

That's how I interpreted it. I guess it begs the question, once something is considered a "quack cure" does that substance or procedure forever become illegal to use in any way, shape, and form? Or is it all right to use as long as a profit is not made? That, I'll admit, seems a bit unclear.


Worse yet, in modern society, the profits to be made from the data produced in experimentation are enormous. Consider the billions being mad attempting to find uses for genetics.

If we limit this based on profit motive, would those studies be banned?

(And yes, there is a growing scientific consensus that genetics are being misapplied and misunderstood. The results from genetic tests are considered by some groups to be incomplete because the show tendencies without taking into account the environment and therefor do not produce accurate results. Would this concensus turn an established field into quackery?)

"Right. You boys and girls have been busy little bees, so I'd better throw the more sane of you a bone or two, and deal with the comments.

Hmmmm. Anti-scribe-shooting protest, clueless hippies etcetera..... protest noted. Glad to have you on board.

To the specific remark made by Mr. Flibble's assistant.... I would like you to continue selling Dr. Schmitty's Miracle Tonic, but would personally recommend that you relabel it as a chemical detergent, rather than medicine.

The magic using hippies... hmmm.. President Reilly of Ardchoille dealt with your concerns sufficiently, I believe. I stand by his remarks.

As for the concerns voiced by the Retired WerePenguins" (mumbled: who comes up with this shit.) "... I disagree. Prince Whatshisface from Gobbannium already put it far more eloquently. Indeed, a cure can indeed still be a cure even though it has not yet been scientifically proven. The quickest solution would then be to test the cure, in a scientific manner, in the procedures prescribed therefore. Here, have some of my cure for cancer."

*Aram tosses one of the Werepenguins a pair of used batteries.*

"It was never disproved that batteries, if properly chewed on, do not cure cancer. Therefore, I suggest you try it. I just might be on to something here. I'd like you to pay me back for those batteries though, preferably before actually eating them. Point being: it will allow quacks to claim all sorts of things, without actual scientific backup.

More seriously though, I do not agree with the premise that people can use all sorts of stuff on 'non-lethal diseases' because they are less serious. People who suffer from arthritis deserve reliable medicine, too.

Let it further be known that the Dutch Democratic Republic is pro-duck (http://www.hawaiifruit.net/Pduck.jpg). Ducks are a delightful food product, which ..... erm..... delightful species deserving of protection.

As for the Seabear..." (*rolls eyes*) "representative.... is the delegate recommending that we allow everything to be labelled and sold as medicine, on the off chance that some medicinal use might be discovered for it in the future? That seems to me quite preposterous. I can also assure you that eating mouldy bread is still detrimental to ones health. This isn't a ban on stupidity, however. It is a ban on making unproven claims about the medical advantages of quack cures. If I were to package mouldy bread into pills, and sell it as a cure for AIDS, that would be quite criminal. This resolution governs the claims, not what people choose to put in their bodies.

The Hack representative provided some very adequate examples about quackery. Read them.

The representative from Aduross is quite right. Also, I can reassure him that the confusion being sown by some others is quite unnecessary. By definition, if some substance or procedure is proven to have medically beneficial effects, it can no longer be a quack cure.

Also, I ask the delegate from the aforementioned country named after a numbered aquatic mammal, does he willingly misinterpret the resolution text? My reply to his questions, if I may endeavour to be brief, would be "no".

Thank you."

-Aram Koopman

I am not recommending that everything be allowed to make any claims it wishes, and I agree that something needs to be done about the crap that people try to foist off on the desperate and the gullible.

However, I do not think this is the way to deal with this, and I believe that resolving this issue is beyond the scope of the UN.

I am not recommending that everything be allowed to make any claims it wishes, and I agree that something needs to be done about the crap that people try to foist off on the desperate and the gullible.

However, I do not think this is the way to deal with this, and I believe that resolving this issue is beyond the scope of the UN.

Thank you for playing.

Anyone else, comments etc? Or should I just submit this?

I don't see how it's beyond the UN's scope. It defines "quack cure", explains in what way distribution of quack cures is illegal, and from there it's the individual nations' responsibility to prosecute the offender and appropriately punish them. Seems totally feasible to me.

I can't see any room for improvement. Should this reach quorum you will have full support from the nation of Aduross. Good luck to you.

((Thanks. Also there is still the tiny matter of which UN category it should be >>))

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"



This is not an effective definition because governements will have to give the proofs that the substance has no desirable medical effect and it's very difficult with the placebo effect.

This will be a more effective definition :

"a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect whereas it is scientifically proven that it has an undesirable
medical effect"

But this is useless because it's like poisoning.

It is necessary to condemn any breach of trust but it is already
envisaged in the laws of the majority of the nations. Well I think so.

*Aram tosses one of the Werepenguins a pair of used batteries.*

"It was never disproved that batteries, if properly chewed on, do not cure cancer. Therefore, I suggest you try it. I just might be on to something here. I'd like you to pay me back for those batteries though, preferably before actually eating them. Point being: it will allow quacks to claim all sorts of things, without actual scientific backup.

"That's one thing I do like about you Aram, the ability to propose one thing and debate something completely different. Last time I checked your proposal wasn't about 'claims' but about the sale, posession and distribution of a product. Now where did I put the resolution..."

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

DECLARES that promoting, selling and transporting of known 'quack cures' shall be a criminal offence in all member states.

"The question should not be a binary one but a trinary. The effects of any procedure are either known effective, known ineffective or some shade of we just don't know. Secondly there are in fact two questions, one on positive good and the second on negative harm. If something cures X but causes Y then if Y is greater than X this is a very bad thing."

"So let's consider a good example of a quack cure. Cherries and a disease of the concentration of monosodium urate crystals also known as the gout. Some people insist that consuming cherries can reduce the accumulation of these crystals. So are cherries a 'quack cure?' What about every grocery store that sells cherries as a matter of course? What about those who like cherries jubilee?"

"No the problem of a quack cure is not the cure but the promotion of the false claim. Claiming that anchient bigtopians have used a herb for ages is a reasonable claim. Claiming that something does X without reasonable proof is quite another. Suggesting that something may help with something but there is no complete scientific evidence is also a reasonable claim. It's the claims, not the cures that should be regulated."

Respublica Romanorum -- first, welcome to the UN. May you make many worthy decisions Senatus populusque Romani.

Second-- many proposals you will see from now on will make you say, "But why should the UN bother with that? Any nation with a lick of sense would already have laws about it!"

However, having a lick of sense isn't a requirement for UN membership.

So saying that the UN shouldn't legislate on something because "it is already
envisaged in the laws of the majority of the nations" is an understandable reaction, and may very likely be true, but it's not a good argument.

On this point --

"It's the claims, not the cures that should be regulated."

-- I thought that was the main idea of this proposal. The definition is subordinate to the ban on "prompting, selling and transporting known quack cures".

That is, the proposal doesn't go into detail about how you decide that something is a quack cure. It says that when you do decide it is, it's a crime to promote, sell or transport it.

Works as is for me. But it's still in the drafting stage. How would you tighten up the phrasing?

Respublica Romanorum -- first, welcome to the UN. May you make many worthy decisions Senatus populusque Romani.

Second-- many proposals you will see from now on will make you say, "But why should the UN bother with that? Any nation with a lick of sense would already have laws about it!"

However, having a lick of sense isn't a requirement for UN membership.

So saying that the UN shouldn't legislate on something because "it is already
envisaged in the laws of the majority of the nations" is an understandable reaction, and may very likely be true, but it's not a good argument.

On this point --


This was not an argument, I just noticed but for me the definition is not effective.

((Thanks. Also there is still the tiny matter of which UN category it should be >>))

OOC: I'm assuming you intended your post as OOC, Knoot, so I'll respond in kind (however, if I'm wrong, I'd be more than happy to have Nadnerb respond ;) ). Please don't submit this. It's not something that needs to be addressed on an international level, as some have already said.

-- I thought that was the main idea of this proposal. The definition is subordinate to the ban on "prompting, selling and transporting known quack cures".

My point is I think this is wrong. If we define a quack cure as something which is promoted to do something it has not been proven to do then we should limit the promotion. Basically it's the false claim that makes a quack cure dangerous, not the cure itself.

The resolution should be against promoting things that implies something is true without any factual scientific evidence to back it up.

Do you remember not to long ago when practically every UN resolution CURED CANCER? :p Talk about quack cures!

This proposal would cure cancer!

Oh bugger...that would make it illegal by its own standards now, wouldn't it? :p

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

((Well, I do think the resolution text already addresses why it is an international issue. It is even more an international issue then many other UN resolutions that I could mention. So I do hope to submit it.

As for the naysayers, sticking to just a ban on promotion is not enough. It shouldn't be sold as a medicine. And, no, this resolution does not ban medical research. I am willing to judge alternative ways of phrasing on their merits. However, do I think turning around the burden of evidence from the quacks to the medical community would be a fatal error.

I have several categories in mind which this could fit in, moral decency or civil rights, who knows. Input on that matter would be deemed helpful.))

I'm going to color code your comment because I want to hghlight our two different approaches.

As for the naysayers, sticking to just a ban on promotion is not enough. It shouldn't be sold as a medicine.

I agree with the last sentence in general. But I tend to emphaisze the latter half - the part in dark green, not the part in dark red. It's not that it should not be sold, but it should not be sold as "a medicine" which is basically promoting a product by labeling.

The problem with this type of legislation is that it can easily enter into the herbal supplment market. (Which I implied by the cherries and the gout.) Selling cherries as medicine is right out. Selling cherries should not be. Suggesting that cheries may have some benefit should also not be.

Of course there is the real quack medicines. CokaCola and Pepsi Cola both started out as quack medicines. (Coke was invented because the original formula with cocane and wine got into trouble during prohibition.) The real problem with quack medicines - like wine and cocane - is not that they don't care what they are claimed to cure but that they can cause serious harm and this resolution doesn't technicaly do anything about that.

I agree with you, and I do believe we are on the same wavelength.

This resolution (as it is currently worded) only bans things from being sold as a quack cure. It does not ban these substances in general.

So, producing, selling, or promoting chalkpowder is not banned. However, producing, selling or promoting chalkpowder that is bottled and labelled as "Aram Koopmans Universal Cure for Cancer" would be banned.

I agree with you, and I do believe we are on the same wavelength.

This resolution (as it is currently worded) only bans things from being sold as a quack cure. It does not ban these substances in general.

So, producing, selling, or promoting chalkpowder is not banned. However, producing, selling or promoting chalkpowder that is bottled and labelled as "Aram Koopmans Universal Cure for Cancer" would be banned.

And that is something that can be handled perfectly well on a national scale. It's not an issue this body needs to address.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

To the specific remark made by Mr. Flibble's assistant.... I would like you to continue selling Dr. Schmitty's Miracle Tonic, but would personally recommend that you relabel it as a chemical detergent, rather than medicine.

Actually I originally planned on selling it as a spot remover. The problem with that was that when I tested it on a stained shirt, it removed the stain but left behind a hole. After I tweaked the formula to stop it from doing that, it no longer removed stains.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

This is not an effective definition because governements will have to give the proofs that the substance has no desirable medical effect and it's very difficult with the placebo effect.

This will be a more effective definition :

"a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect whereas it is scientifically proven that it has an undesirable
medical effect"

But this is useless because it's like poisoning.

It is necessary to condemn any breach of trust but it is already
envisaged in the laws of the majority of the nations. Well I think so.

I could almost go for that, but what do we do about side effects?

I agree with you, and I do believe we are on the same wavelength.

This resolution (as it is currently worded) only bans things from being sold as a quack cure. It does not ban these substances in general.

So, producing, selling, or promoting chalkpowder is not banned. However, producing, selling or promoting chalkpowder that is bottled and labelled as "Aram Koopmans Universal Cure for Cancer" would be banned.

Would this ban books on Alternative medicines?

How would this affect religous freedoms in religons that promote these items internally?

Are you saying that people would have no right to choose an alternative therapy that had not been proven, because it implies that it may have theraputic value?

This is not an effective definition because governements will have to give the proofs that the substance has no desirable medical effect and it's very difficult with the placebo effect.
The onus is on the vendor, not the vendor's government, to provide the proofs that the medicine does in fact do what it says. One might hope that trials to this effect would be carried out in any case.

This will be a more effective definition :

"a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect whereas it is scientifically proven that it has an undesirable
medical effect"
We would submit that this would primarily be a different definition of a different, though equally alarming, problem. As such it would be better suited to a proposal on the much thornier problem of side-effects in the use of drugs, some of which we are given to understand may take years if not decades to become noticable.

The issue we would have with it as a definition for that purpose is that implicit within it is the assertion that either the substance has its purported primary effect, or that it has an undesirable secondary effect. This leaves the issue of substances which have both positive primary and negative secondary effects in a somewhat ill-defined position.

The onus is on the vendor, not the vendor's government, to provide the proofs that the medicine does in fact do what it says. One might hope that trials to this effect would be carried out in any case.


It's not so sure. In our country for example, with the Roman law, who is charging must first provide his proofs since there is presumption of innocence.
So what if somebody is cured with vitamines only through placebo effect? If somebody is cured by his "shaman" with plants that possess no "scientifically proven" desirable medical effects but provide some substances with which the pharmaceutical industry produces drugs?

We would submit that this would primarily be a different definition of a different, though equally alarming, problem. As such it would be better suited to a proposal on the much thornier problem of side-effects in the use of drugs, some of which we are given to understand may take years if not decades to become noticable.


You're right. We could say it so : "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect whereas it is scientifically proven that they does not possess it".

Nevertheless, I think that we must fight all "breaches of trust" types in general.

Best regards.

Would this ban books on Alternative medicines?

How would this affect religous freedoms in religons that promote these items internally?

Are you saying that people would have no right to choose an alternative therapy that had not been proven, because it implies that it may have theraputic value?

No.

Not.

No.

You're right. We could say it so : "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect whereas it is scientifically proven that they does not possess it".

Nevertheless, I think that we must fight all "breaches of trust" types in general.

Best regards.

The most simple way is to test medicine before releasing them. It is better to apply a consistent high standard than to use customers as guinea pigs. That is what real guinea pigs are for.

Still awaiting input on the category.

-Aram Koopman

No.

Not.

No.

Despite the best of intentions, sadly, you are wrong.

This is not a simple problem that can be dealt with by simple blanket laws.

This is where you explain your comments. I see nothing in the proposed law that would ban books on alternative medicine.

... Still awaiting input on the category.

-Aram Koopman

I'd go more for moral decency than for civil rights, because it's restricting the civil freedom to say what you like about a product and to buy what you like, however stupid.

If you are willing to listen, I am willing to talk...

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

DECLARES that promoting, selling and transporting of known 'quack cures' shall be a criminal offence in all member states.

Given that most if not all alternative medicines and treatments are or have been considered Quack cures at one time. This includes, among other things, organ transplants, vitamins, anesthetic, and chiropractary. Then anything not restricted to mainstream medical science, having not yet been proven, would, under this resolution be banned from use.

Religons could not use faith healing, because there is no proof that it works.

Definition of Promoting : Exploring and presenting opportunities.

Scientists would be blocked from research, despite intentions, because they would eventually have to test on humans, therefor promoting a drug that is not yet proven to work.

Heck, even herbal supliments would be banned because they are perported to promote health, and probably do to a certain limited extent, but because they have not been tested properly (another bone of contention with the resolution) would not be adaquately proven.

Well, as long as it's on the table, how exactly does something become proven when the wording of the resolution makes it illegal to test anything on humans? (actually, it could ban it from testing on animals, too due to the vague wording of the proposal.)

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some control over this. Many of the things that are intended to be banned by this resolution need to be banned. Some of these alternative medicines are outright dangerous. I pointed out collodial silver a while back, and that is one that over time can kill you, (even if it does not kill you, the cosmetic effects are disasterous) this is widely known, and well documented, yet people still take that crap.

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

If we change this to...

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which is proven to be dangerous without offering any appreciable bennefit"

Then add in exceptions for religons...

Established practices among religons can and will be exempted from enforcement to allow for religous tollerance, but these organizations will not be excluded from liability laws unless granted further exemption by the nations in which they practice.

And Research...

Testing and development of alternative medicines must be performed using established testing methods, for example but not exluding other methods the double blind method, by corporations, universities, and organizations licensed by the host governments to perform medical research.

Then I think I could support this bill.

If you are willing to listen, I am willing to talk...You are really, really reaching here.

Given that most if not all alternative medicines and treatments are or have been considered Quack cures at one time. This includes, among other things, organ transplants, vitamins, anesthetic, and chiropractary.Well, vitamins and chiropractic are quackery for the most part. Organ transplants have been proven, which is all this Proposal needs, and anesthetic was never considered quackery or alternative.

Then anything not restricted to mainstream medical science, having not yet been proven, would, under this resolution be banned from use.Which is how it should be.

Religons could not use faith healing, because there is no proof that it works.They simply couldn't promote it as a cure. You could still go to a faith healer and have him lay hands. Granted, it couldn't be sold, but there's ways of scamming your way around stuff like that (see: Fois gras in Chicago)

Scientists would be blocked from research, despite intentions, because they would eventually have to test on humans, therefor promoting a drug that is not yet proven to work.You have a very curious way of reading. A test is not selling a cure. Human clinical trials are not "promoting".

Heck, even herbal supliments would be banned because they are perported to promote health, and probably do to a certain limited extent, but because they have not been tested properly (another bone of contention with the resolution) would not be adaquately proven.And they should be banned. They have no effect other than to screw up real medicine. However, as long as the supplier didn't claim they cured illnesses, they could be sold. Again, look at real life. St. John's Wort doesn't say "CURES DEPRESSION!", it uses weasel words and phrases that would still be allowed under this Proposal.

If anything, this Proposal doesn't go far enough.

Well, as long as it's on the table, how exactly does something become proven when the wording of the resolution makes it illegal to test anything on humans?That's only because you're choosing to read it in the most ridiculous fashion and being exceeding creative in your use of the word "promote".

Seriously. To try and link "promote" with research because of "explore" is the height of idiocy. Is mental masturbation a common pastime for Mensa members?

Furthermore, I have no idea where you got that definition from.
Main Entry: pro·mote
Pronunciation: pr&-'mOt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·mot·ed; pro·mot·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin promotus, past participle of promovEre, literally, to move forward, from pro- forward + movEre to move
1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : RAISE b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade
2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : FURTHER <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : LAUNCH c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
3 slang : to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuityThe Proposal is clearly using definition 2c, and it's not his responsibility to tell people which dictionary and which definition to use. Not that any of these definitions have anything to do with exploration or research.

OOC : Actually, I pulled Promote off of a google search for the deffinition to verify that I had the deffinition correct.

And while you are stating that organ transplantation is established, it was not always so. Hundreds died trying to perfect the techniques, yet thousands have been saved by them. For that matter, at one time surgery itself was considered the height of quackery, don't believe me? Ask a medical historian.

And while we differ on our views of herbalism, you might want to take into account that Aspirin is nothing but boiled distilled Willow bark, or at least that is where it was discovered, and it's nature is not at all unique in modern medicine.

As for faith healing, if a religous text says that all healing can be accomplished and must be accomplished by the laying on of hands, who are we to judge that group's beliefs? Are we to force them to edit their beliefs and religous text's? Because that, even in your definition violates the wording of the proposed resolution.

As for vitamins, basic nutritional needs are hard to argue with.

By the way, I think 2a fits rather well.

BTW : I believe my proposed changes would help to satisfy everyone.

I support the propositions of Seabear70 in the message #59.

Still awaiting input on the category.
I'd say moral decency because you're restricting people's rights to indulge in quackery. This is a tough one to categorize since part of what you're restricting here are economic liberties. We usually do that through environmental or SJ resolutions, but this plainly isn't either of those. As for the strength, I would say mild since you're only addressing medical quackery. If you were addressing falsely advertised products in general (perpetual motion machines, 500 mpg carburetors, holistic troll-be-gone spray) then it would be stronger.

BTW : I believe my proposed changes would help to satisfy everyone.

Then you believe incorrectly.

Then you believe incorrectly.


Would you care to expand on that?

Would you care to expand on that?
Not really, but since you insist.

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

If we change this to...

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance or drug which is proven to be dangerous without offering any appreciable bennefit"

Since one of the important things that this proposal seeks to stamp out is the fundamental dishonesty of the claims to positive benefit, then we cannot accept this redefinition. We are more concerned about quack cures that are actively harmful, that is correct, but it is no reason to weaken the proposal with regard to lying.

Then add in exceptions for religons...

Established practices among religons can and will be exempted from enforcement to allow for religous tollerance, but these organizations will not be excluded from liability laws unless granted further exemption by the nations in which they practice.
Given the nature of spiritual healing, we don't particularly see the need for the exemption, and the precise wording is causing some unease we cannot easily pin down.

And Research...

Testing and development of alternative medicines must be performed using established testing methods, for example but not exluding other methods the double blind method, by corporations, universities, and organizations licensed by the host governments to perform medical research.
We really don't see the need for this, since the proposal as it originally stood only debarred research if you took a particularly illogical reading of it.

*pounces*

Right. Just because there was a Communist revolution in Knootoss (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12499358&postcount=2), we can still push ahead with this revolution! Errr. Resolution!

..... Whatever.

Now, lets see.

I think it should be pressed forward as a mild moral decency resolution then. It is kind of disgusting that Knootians should be the ones pushing for something with such an anti-freedom term as "moral decency", but alas.

For reasons already explained, most of the "seabear" amendments would actually destroy what the resolution is trying to accomplish. I agree, personally, with the sentiment voiced by the Hack - but this resolution is something that can conceivably pass. If it were up to me, those hippy quacks would all be burnt at the stake to make hippy barbecue. Alas.

The resolution as I originally worded it does not, in any way, prevent scientific research for taking place. In fact, passing the draft resolution as I proposed it would constitute a huge boost for scientific research.

I'll include some fuzzy words in the draft resolution to make this clear:

BELIEVING that medicines, cures and treatments should always be tested, using scientific principles.


Also, it came to my attention that treatments were not included in the original definition of a quack cure. The definition has been amended to include quack treatments:

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance, drug, cure or treatment which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"


Happy now? No? Good.

~Aram Koopman
Soviet Peoples Federation Ambassador to the United Nations

I wonder if the crime of 'transporting' should be modified to 'knowingly transporting' or similar; it seems harsh to penalise those who inadvertently do so (either through ignorance of their cargo, or through not realizing the products will be sold as quack cures at the end point).

Maybe there could be something in the preamble explicitly stating that quack cures can be very dangerous: it's implied in the opening line, but only in a fairly shoulder-shrugging manner.

Also, on a minor and irrelevant stylistic point, there seems little point putting quotation marks around weight-loss, sexual enhancement, and especially quack cures in the DECLARES clause.

Finally, if you don't want it to be Moral Decency, you could put in a bit more about thorough scientific process and general promotion of medicinal research, and try to turn it into an Educational resolution. Just a thought.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I wonder if the crime of 'transporting' should be modified to 'knowingly transporting' or similar; it seems harsh to penalise those who inadvertently do so (either through ignorance of their cargo, or through not realizing the products will be sold as quack cures at the end point).

Agreed. This will be changed.


Maybe there could be something in the preamble explicitly stating that quack cures can be very dangerous: it's implied in the opening line, but only in a fairly shoulder-shrugging manner.

I do not feel strongly about this, but feel free to propose an amendment. Remember however that most of the voting cattle is both stupid and lazy, so I do not want the resolution to be too long.


Also, on a minor and irrelevant stylistic point, there seems little point putting quotation marks around weight-loss, sexual enhancement, and especially quack cures in the DECLARES clause.

Agreed. Thus amended.

~Aram Koopman


Finally, if you don't want it to be Moral Decency, you could put in a bit more about thorough scientific process and general promotion of medicinal research, and try to turn it into an Educational resolution. Just a thought.

((If the moderators will allow me to put this as an educational resolution, I'd love to. ))

Would this passing mean that I would no longer be able to sell Dr. Schmitty's Miracle Tonic out of the trunk of my car anymore?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

It would mean that you can't allow the sale of Red Bull without first scientifically proving its claim that it gives you wings.

Which brings me to the only real suggestion I have, which you are perfectly free to completely ignore, obviously. If you feel the pressing need to push on with this proposal, make it more general than quack drugs. Target False Advertising as a whole, because that seems to be the underlying issue with quack cures that you are attempting to address.

I'd kinda prefer it if you didn't pursue it, but if you must, then you might as well make it broad enough in scope that people won't feel compelled to imitate this for every other form of product and marketting available, a la Economics Prize. I personally prefer a Caveat Emptor approach to such things, but I can understand the desire to protect the consumer.

False advertising is more general a topic. It should be addressed as a separate resolution, in my humble opinion. If more generalistic legislation is passed, this would be a lex specialis, if you insist on throwing Latin around.

~Aram Koopman
Soviet Peoples Federation Ambassador to the United Nations

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance, drug, cure or treatment which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but wouldn't this rule out holistic medicine and things like acupuncture? Please help me understand this.

As this draft stands right now, we would vote against because people can do whatever they please in terms of doctors. Plus, we have a system implemented wherein all doctors are certified by the government as not being quacks or purporting anything about it. We're very particular about our healthcare.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonadite Undersecretary and
Ambassador to the UN

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but wouldn't this rule out holistic medicine and things like acupuncture? Please help me understand this.

As this draft stands right now, we would vote against because people can do whatever they please in terms of doctors. Plus, we have a system implemented wherein all doctors are certified by the government as not being quacks or purporting anything about it. We're very particular about our healthcare.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonadite Undersecretary and
Ambassador to the UN

The UN resolution does not ban acupuncture. People can even call themselves acupuncturists. The draft resolution does make it an advance to advance unproven claims about the medical benefits of treatments.

The UN resolution does not mention specific practices which would be defined as quackery - and I refuse to be drawn into a debate about specific "cures" which may or may not be quackery. I am not a doctor, so I am simply put not competent to judge. What this proposal does, quite sensibly, is having the experts make that judgement.

Your national government will have to implement procedures to answer some tough questions: is there a scientific basis behind acupuncture? Are there scientifically discernible medical benefits? If so, what for? Even for one particular treatment, the answers are not simple. A "doctor" using acupuncture to allegedly treat AIDS would still be a quack, even if medical researchers were to find the treatment to be helpful in other areas.

~Aram Koopman

DEFINES a quack cure as "a substance, drug, cure or treatment which purports to have some desirable medical effect which it has not scientifically proven to possess"

DECLARES that promoting, selling and knowingly transporting of known quack cures shall be a criminal offence in all member states.

...But that would ban the use of placebos!

Placebos are substances that purpot to have some desriable medical effect which it has not scientifcally proven to possess. But they work. Giving people sugar pills, and telling them that it will cure them makes the body thinks it is being cured and therefore, volia, the body cures itself!

Doctors can't come out and say that a sugar pill is a sugar pill because it defeats the purpose of the Placebo Effect. The pill is useless, and it has no desirable medical effect...but it is the "placebo effect" that works. Often times, prescribing actual medication for a cold or a cough would make people more sick, due to side-effects, as well as it would waste money. Hence, the placebo is a main and important part of doctors.

If you are going to ban Doctors for "lying" to patients about giving a placebo pill...then you are harming the scientific community as a whole and harming the patients. This is the main reason why the UN shouldn't micromanage at all, to avoid this sort of nonsense. Here's something to note: Leave an exemption to allow doctors to use placebos.

Placebos can definitely still be used, in double-blind tests. Such methods are part of proving that a drug does indeed work.

What you are suggesting, that placebos are regularly used by the general public, is a shocking breach of ethics. If your nation allows this to happen, then I can only pity the people of your nation.

Sebastian Ennuk

Placebo drugs are used in experiments to test drugs. They are not cures. Seriously.

~Aram Koopman

False advertising is more general a topic. It should be addressed as a separate resolution, in my humble opinion.

I don't really see why it would need to be a separate resolution. What you are advocating here is an abolishment of false advertising for medical products and therapies. A more general one would be able to address these areas as well as a great many others all at once, and it wouldn't require a specific definition of "quack cures". Simply a basic mandate against promoting, marketting, selling, etc, things as something they aren't, or capable of doing things they are not proven to be able to do.

If more generalistic legislation is passed, this would be a lex specialis,

But what is the point of the specialized law, if the general law is capable of handling the matter adequately?

if you insist on throwing Latin around.

I don't insist, it was simply the most appropriate term.;)

What you are suggesting, that placebos are regularly used by the general public, is a shocking breach of ethics. If your nation allows this to happen, then I can only pity the people of your nation.

In the false land of RL, many doctors in the false country of United States of America do prescribe placebos. Since we like this false and mythical land, we decide to take up that role.

I'm not saying it be used all the time, but if, for example, someone has a cold, giving a person some actual medicene might cause side-effects that is worse than the cold. Hence the placebo works quite well. Even when we give actual medication, the patient starts feeling better far before the medicene begins to activate.

But, I guess you understand what I believe, and I guess I will oppose this resolution. I'll just start up a scientific experiment to prove that placebos do have an effect, and therefore be able to use them effectively.

For the rest of the propasal though, we are fine with it. We just don't want to limit our doctors' ability to treat people, even via the use of placebos.

...But that would ban the use of placebos!

Placebos are substances that purpot to have some desriable medical effect which it has not scientifcally proven to possess. But they work. Giving people sugar pills, and telling them that it will cure them makes the body thinks it is being cured and therefore, volia, the body cures itself!

If something has a medicinal effect it is not a placebo, by definition. The 'placebo effect' is people thinking that they are getting better (because they think on medication), not people actually getting better because of the healing power of their positive attitude or such BS. The patient will report feeling better but he has just the same chance to actually be cured as a nonmedicated patient. As such the proper place of the placebo is in medical studies which this proposal does not limit. Anyone selling a placebo as a real cure should be locked up.

Or in the Dominion of New Manth, taken out back along with the members of the Opposition Party. But we understand that not all nations are as enlightened as we are.

Moving on, New Manth would probably vote against this proposal because we already summarily execute quack doctors and see no need for a resolution. Heck, the more quack doctors there are in other countries, the less well-prepared they will be for our chemical and nuclear bombar... err... chemical and nuclear-powered... err.. peaceful trade vessels.

Right. Going to gather endorsements now to be able to submit this. :)