April’s Fools

On April 1st, bumbling humbugger David Tredinnick rose on his pes planus to ask The Secretary of State for Health:

‘In his travels to the People’s Republic of China, what has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State learned about the integration of western medicine with traditional Chinese medicine?’

Jeremy cHunt’s reply:

‘What I have learned is that the most important thing is to follow the scientific evidence. Where there is good evidence for the impact of Chinese medicine, we should look at that, but where there is not, we should not spend NHS money on it.’

Which I take to mean, then, that NHS money is not to be wasted on it… and Tredinnick should sit back down on his silly twad in order to muffle the CAM-dreck that far too often emanates from it.

At least I like to think that’s what he said. Others – including among his own party’s wind-blowing press – apparently understood differently, as did silly bloody Tredinnick, who, having in the past been frustrated at being ignored by Hunt, spin-interpreted the response he received as CAM-endorsing positivity:

from: Leicester Mercury

from: Leicester Mercury

‘He has clearly looked at it and thinks that where it is safe it should be used in conjunction with Western medicine, which is what they do in China.’ ‘Herbal medicine is not quackery – it has been used for thousands of years in China. In my experience, and I have used it, it can be really effective and reduce the amount of conventional medicine needed.’


Uh?! One wonders what precisely would qualify as quackery in the tautologously confused mind of Tredinnick, which unconcerns itself with the fallacious logic of the non sequitur, appeals to antiquity, and personal testimonials and anecdotes.

Now, far be it from me to cut Hunt any slack. But, as well as possibly misrepresenting him here, I think both The Mail and The Telegraph conveniently do Hunt further disservice by not being up-to-date as to his recently renouncing of NHS funding for homeopathy; and by insinuating that his wife’s nationality somehow has relevance.

According to The Mail:

‘The Health Secretary told MPs that there should be no ideological bar to Chinese remedies in the NHS…’

But, from what I can see here, he didn’t say that. But, if he had, well, as a statement, there’s little wrong with it, is there? There should be no ideological bar  – what there should be is an evidential bar. Which is kind of what he said. Isn’t it? Though perhaps he might need reminding from time to time. As for Tredinnick… confirmation abounds.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s