Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38919880›Full record

ArticleScience & technology studies (Tampere, Finland)2022

Misdirection and the Regulation of Herbalism in France and England.

Emilie Cloatre, Nayeli Urquiza-Haas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science & technology studies (Tampere, Finland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emilie CloatreUniversity of Kent, United Kingdom.
Nayeli Urquiza-HaasUniversity of Kent, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 200380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we propose to explore how the regulation of herbalism, in France and in England, rests on series of 'misdirections,' with the coexistence of law and herbalism depending on multiple magical illusions. Attempts to regulate herbalists, and the responses they invite, involve multiple sleights of hands both by the law and by herbalists. Herbalists perform misdirections to maintain an illusion of legality, even where they bend legal rules that they deem incompatible with their practice. But far from being the only, or even the most effective, tricksters, herbalists are only one set of performers in a more complex layering of legal illusions. The regulatory and legal infrastructure itself relies on misdirections enacted through everyday legal procedures that trick the general public into believing that the law is 'acting' to protect vulnerable consumers from dangerous healers and their medicines, while the effects of its actions may be to tolerate, or indeed produce, zones of illegal, or 'barely legal,' practices. At the same time, this performance is enabled by playing a disappearing act, in which the knowledge of herbalists, and the demands of their users, are disappeared behind the screen of apparent legal protection. Drawing attention away from competing claims to knowledge, and towards its protective intervention, the legal system thereby embeds misdirections of its own kind.

Indexed as

Herbalismlegalitiesmisdirectionsscience and law

Identifiers

PMID38919880
PMCPMC7616117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.