I do have a problem is seeing tax money being spent in the NHS on treatment that has been shown time and time again not to work.

The "money being spent by the NHS" is a red herring. As I've already pointed out, the organisers of the protest don't even mention the NHS in their report of it – so hardly the impetuous behind the event.

But anyway, in pursuit of this red herring…..I think it should be left to a doctor's professional judgement, whether his or her patient might benefit from homoeopathy.

If you don't trust the doctor's professional judgement, then they clearly shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine in the first place……..simple as.

And as for the cost, homoeopathic medicine is undoubtedly cheaper than most conventional medicine. So if it is found to have some effect, even if only by acting as a placebo, then it should be accessible. In fact it probably saves the NHS quite a lot of money (and doctors time) if doctors are allowed to prescribe it. And how much better to give a patient something which is completely harmless, than a doctor prescribing conventional medicine under duress.

Ernie,

Personally I have no problem if others wish to believe in superstition, religion or homoeopathy.

What I do have a problem with is:

a) The fact that supplying this junk via the NHS legitimises it – the placebo effect may well work, but as far as I'm aware, we haven't prescribed placebos to patients for a long time now.

b) My tax money is paying for this rubbish.

c) Clairvoyance may make people feel better – would you prescribe that on the NHS, or would you prefer the rational approach of prescribing CBT?

The PROMOTION of non rational mumbo-jumbo, whether it be religious, spiritual or pseudo scientific, like homoeopathy, discredits us as a species, and kicks dirt in the faces of every scientist that ever lived, especially those persecuted for their belief in a rational approach to the understanding of our universe.

we haven't prescribed placebos to patients for a long time now.

what about antibiotics for viral infections ?

That would be prescribing a useful drug wrongly, not prescribing a placebo.

That would be prescribing a useful drug wrongly, not prescribing a placebo.

wrong on 2 counts:
a) every misprescription of an antibiotic contributes to resistance
b) not useful for the medical condition and therefore a placebo – it doesn't have to be sugar or chalk to be a placebo, it only has to be ineffective.

rusty spanner – very well said.

The longer we keep tolerating unsubstantiated nonsense like this simply means it will take longer until humankind can be free of all religions, superstitions, pseudo-science nonsense that have done nothing but hold our progress back for so long.

ernie_lynch – Even though the placebo effect is of course very well substantiated, the NHS don't use it any more and as someone earlier has quite rightly said, if they were to look into it again, why not use a chalk or vitamin pill that would be a fraction of the price again and at the same time not create a breed of half-wits who think that atomic 'memory' in water can cure them, because the NHS back it.

As for them being harmless, well on there own of course they are, it really is just water, what worries me is that if idiots who believe in this who have an ill child decide that homoeopathy is a better alternative than actual working medicines, that could be harmful.

simonofbarnes – doctors don't prescribe antibiotics to work as a placebo effect, but to counter any harmful bacteria entering the body whilst the immune system is already overloaded with dealing with the virus, it is a preventative measure, although I do believe stopped now for the resistance factor you mentioned.

Simon, as usual you choose to misunderstand.

There is nothing factually incorrect with my statement:

a) every misprescription of an antibiotic contributes to resistance –
Yes, but that's not what we're talking about and has nothing to do with any statement made by myself or any other contributor to this thread.

b) not useful for the medical condition and therefore a placebo – it doesn't have to be sugar or chalk to be a placebo, it only has to be ineffective.
No Simon, I'm afraid you are wrong. Please Google 'placebo definition' or look it up in a dictionary.

Deadlydarcy wrote: "If I dilute a guinness infinitessimally, and believe it will make me drunk, will it? "

Never seen people get pissed on low alcohol beer, when they don't know it's not the real thing? It's quite funny.

Yes, but that's not what we're talking about and has nothing to do with any statement made by myself or any other contributor to this thread.

it's still wrong

Please Google 'placebo definition' or look it up in a dictionary.

top of the list was: "prescription without physical effect" which will do. Whether or not it contains active ingredients is beside the point, and for that matter sugar is effective against malnutrition and chalk against indigestion…

Simon, as usual you choose to misunderstand.

in fact, I was addressing the real matter whereas you are posting a red herring. The placebo effect concerns giving something ineffective which the patient believes to be appropriate and the medical applicability of the content to some unrelated condition irrelevant.

Well maybe you have a different Google to me 😀

First definition:
Web definitions for placebo
an innocuous or inert medication; given as a pacifier or to the control group in experiments on the efficacy of a drug
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Second definition:
placebo – definition of placebo by the Free Online Dictionary …
n. pl. pla·ce·bos or pla·ce·boes. 1. a. A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to reinforce a patient's expectation to get well. …
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/placebo

Third definition:
Placebo definition – Medical Dictionary definitions of popular …
Definition of Placebo. Placebo: A "sugar pill" or any dummy medication or treatment. For example, in a controlled clinical trial, one group may be given a …
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4917

Fourth definition:
placebo: Definition from Answers.com
placebo n. , pl. , -bos , or -boes . A substance containing no medication … A traditional placebo's lack of side effects, however, often identifies it, …
http://www.answers.com/topic/placebo – Cached – Similar –

it's still wrong

Well, maybe you have a different definition of that too.

in fact, I was addressing the real matter whereas you are posting a red herring.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

Anyway, I've broken my own 'First rule of Singletrack' again, by attempting to have a logical discussion with you.
It's pointless isn't it? I've been reading this forum for about three years and posting for one. I've never seen you once accept the possibility that you could be wrong.

Good night.

Well maybe you have a different Google to me

First definition:
Web definitions for placebo
an innocuous or inert medication; given as a pacifier or to the control group in experiments on the efficacy of a drug
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I use Bing now 🙂
But quote as you like, the point about a placebo is not whether it's ingredients are medically active but that they are not effective against the condition prescribed for. It just so happens that most medicines are more expensive than harmless foodstuffs and so not used.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

by "red herring" I mean that whatever happens to be in the placebo doesn't actually matter so long as it doesn't directly address the thing it's prescribed for. A red herring is in irrelevent item introduced into the discourse or a false clue in an investigation.

by attempting to have a logical discussion with you.

most people don't have the courage of their convictions and give up before I've hardly started 🙁

. I've never seen you once accept the possibility that you could be wrong.

obviously not sufficiently attentively as I have made many such admissions :o) Surely there's no point arguing if you're not willing to engage the contrary case and accept it if it proves to carry the argument ?

PS I was apparently wrong about antibiotics being ineffective against viral infection as apparently they can be accompanied by collateral bacteria attack too. I didn't know that.

Well if nothing else, this thread has produced a classic barnesism:

"Please Google 'placebo definition' or look it up in a dictionary."
top of the list was:

"Well maybe you have a different Google to me"
I use Bing now

🙄

Not wanting to risk the 'Wrath of Lynch' ™ here, but….

The point about a placebo is…..that they are not effective against the condition prescribed for.

I thought the point was that the patient believes that they are effective against a condition, and were pretty much removed from medical practice on ethical grounds. ie misleading the patient, as if they believed the truth, the placebo would never work.
The NHS spending money on homeopathy legitimizes it, and by it's own standards therefore, is unethical. All in my own opinion obviously.

I thought the point was that the patient believes that they are effective against a condition

well stated 🙂 We had become sidetracked.

Not wanting to risk the 'Wrath of Lynch' ™ here, but….

all mouth and no trousers 🙂

The PROMOTION of non rational mumbo-jumbo, whether it be religious, spiritual or pseudo scientific, like homoeopathy, discredits us as a species, and kicks dirt in the faces of every scientist that ever lived, especially those persecuted for their belief in a rational approach to the understanding of our universe.

Discredits us as a species ? Kicks dirt in the faces of every scientist that ever lived ? Especially those persecuted for their belief ? 😯

Gosh, we are quite the drama queen – aren't we ? 😕

Will you be demonstrating outside Boots this weekend against these homoeopathic pill-popping low-lifes ?

Of course if you calmed down, got a grip, and tried to think rationally, you realise what a load of nonsense your hysterical outburst was. A lot of these 'scientist who have ever lived' have been "mumbo-jumbo" religious types.

And today many still are – do you think there are no Christian scientists in the world ? Do you think all Muslim doctors should be struck off for believing in "non rational mumbo-jumbo" which "discredits us as a species, and kicks dirt in the faces of every scientist that ever lived" ? And how do you think Iran managed to launch a satellite into space last last year, did they only employ atheistic scientists – no devout Muslims eh ? I could go on…..

.

aracer – "not sure why I deserved that vitriol"

Vitriol ? What…… because I called a 'judgmental wally' ? ! ! !

Oh, how it amuses me, when those who are so quick to ridicule and be judgemental of others, turn out to be sensitive little souls who cannot tolerate their opinions/beliefs and themselves, being the subject of ridicule and judgmental comments 😀

"Don't risk the 'Wrath of Lynch ™'……..he just might call you a wally" …… LOL !

If anyone needs a quick summary of the story so far cos they have better stuff to do, some geezer is like, really intolerant, so this other guy comes on cos he's really intolerant of this other guys intolerance and they bang heads endlessly and rather self importantly for what seems like forever. it's gripping stuff but ultimately reading this thread has resulted in 10 minutes of my life that i'm unlikely ever to recover. bit like most of stw really.

ernie_lynch – it's not a case of not being able to tolerate ridicule about science, but more frustration that people want to criticize FACTS and attempt to discredit scientists who have devoted careers devoted to finding the TRUTH. Religious people and believers in pseudo-science are not tolerant about people criticizing there beliefs due to the fact that they believe in something without evidence or reason and therefore it is embarrassing All the talk of having 'respect' for other peoples beliefs is just a cop out to avoid them having to explain why they believe in things without a shred of evidence.

but more frustration that people want to criticize FACTS and attempt to discredit scientists who have devoted careers devoted to finding the TRUTH

Although I have the greatest of respect for science, I think it's unwise to insist on facts and truth (whether capitalised or not). I think it's more important to keep science self-consistent and keep checking its conclusions are consistent with measurement and result in practical predictions. Science models reality rather than defining it.

people want to criticize FACTS and attempt to discredit scientists who have devoted careers devoted to finding the TRUTH.

For goodness sake, get a grip – will you ? 😕

The Boots shoppers who want to be able to buy their homoeopathic pills, aren't interested in discrediting scientists who have devoted their careers to finding the TRUTH …….they just want to buy their pills 😯

"Religious people and believers in pseudo-science are not tolerant about people criticizing there beliefs……"

So where's the proof of that then ?………I can't see many expressing their intolerance towards criticism of their beliefs on this thread.

Or do you think there's no one on STW who has religious beliefs or uses alternative medicine ?

As I said in my first post…….some people need to get on with their lives and not worry what other people do, or believe in 💡

O.K. – go on, then…

I can't be bothered to read all of this but the idea that people are defending homeopathists fills me with revulsion. Almost as much as the fact that the NHS gives them money. That I paid tax toward.

So where's the proof of that then ?………I can't see many expressing their intolerance towards criticism of their beliefs on this thread.

Homeopathisticopaths have been quite vocal and indeed quite litigious toward people who have quite reasonably and correctly pointed out that they are shysters and quacks who knowingly rip people off and deliberately sow misunderstanding of medicine and science for their own financial gain.

go on, then…

I am mate. I'm not the one who's going on protests purely to denounce what other people believe in. Nor am I the one who's using hysterical language such as in suggesting that people who don't agree with me, accuse them of 'discrediting our species'. You must really be consumed with anger and intolerance to come out with bollox like that 😐

ernie – homeopathy isn't a "belief", it's a con. Simple.

At least the big western drug companies over charge ill people for shit that works – homeopathologicalmentalists steal money from ill people for shit that is worse than placebo. F****** W***** is what they are.

In no way am I defending homeowhatsit, but WATER is weird and wonderful stuff that behaves like no other liquid. Still some way to understanding it.

See New Scientist website

I think you'll find they don't work in the preview but are OK when posted…

And yes, water is a highly paradoxical substance – were it not for hydrogen bonding it would be a gas at room temperature!

"Religious people and believers in pseudo-science are not tolerant about people criticizing there beliefs due to the fact that they believe in something without evidence or reason and therefore it is embarrassing"

Absolute self-opinionated claptrap IMO. But your entitled to "believe" claptrap if it helps get you through the days. 🙂

due to the fact that they believe in something without evidence or reason and therefore it is embarrassing

surely if there were evidence it wouldn't be a belief ? I mean, if you decide not to believe in gravity do you float ? Christians bang on about faith, which wouldn't be necessary if god(s) went around smiting and appearing in burning bushes etc…

ernie ………. it's a con.

But you don't believe it. So what's the problem ❓

Awww, it's nice to have a hobby though…Those 10/23 protesters, they've been out for the day, met new friends, got their faces in papers, swallowed a whole bunch of pills… s'nice

🙂

Would it be mean to suggest that it might a smidge ironic if they all got really poorly?

Would it be mean to suggest that it might a smidge ironic if they all got really poorly?

it might be something else they ate or mass hysteria… much like homeopathy itself perhaps 🙂

Would it be mean to suggest that it might a smidge ironic if they all got really poorly?

If they did, would you think it was due to the memory of something that's no longer there in what they ingested?

Morning Ernesto, thanks for the reply!

Couple of points:

As stated in my first post, personally I have no problem if others wish to believe in superstition, religion or homoeopathy.

I am fully aware that many scientists choose to believe in religion.

No problem with any of that. We all hold many irrational and contradictory beliefs; part of the human condition.
Faith and rationality will always coexist:
The continued faith in the non rational can never be supressed, even under dictatorships which threatened to punish such beliefs by death.

However, what I do object to, most forcefully, is the PROMOTION of such beliefs in a western medical and scientific context.
I put the word promotion in capitals in my original post, but perhaps failed to explain myself sufficiently:
If I were to go into hospital, I would have no problem being treated by a doctor of any religion or non. What I would object to is being given treatment which was faith based, had been subjected to many rigourous and thorough scientific tests and subsequently found to have no measurable, repeatable effects.

The fact that homeopathy is available on the NHS not only offers it some legitimacy in the eyes of the public, but elevates it to the same percieved level as a treatment which has undercone rigorous scientific scrutiny – this is what I, and many others, object to.
It's why Gillian McKeith is no longer allowed to call hersef a Doctor, and why Ben Goldacres' 'Bad Science' website and columns have such resonance.

However, in our western, post enlightenment democracy, surely it is acceptable and necessary for any such belief, such as homoepathy, to be subject to questioning analysis and scrutiny before it is allowed to enter the medical or scientific orthodoxy?

If we allow these non provable faith based beliefs to enter the realms of medicine and science, we will have taken a massive backward step:
The murder of mentally or physically disabled children considered to be possessed by demons is still practiced in some parts of the world, and even in this country I know one person suffering from photosensitive epillepsy who has received death threats for attempting to publicise and promote greater understanding of their condition.

For the same reasons as outlined above, I do not believe in the PROMOTION of creationism in school science lessons.

[/quote]Oh, how it amuses me, when those who are so quick to ridicule and be judgemental of others, turn out to be sensitive little souls who cannot tolerate their opinions/beliefs and themselves, being the subject of ridicule and judgmental comments

You can laugh at my beliefs all you like Ernie, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I don't even mind the being called a hysterical drama queen, or being described as being consumed by anger and intolerance by the way, but will check with my partner later to get a second opinion. 😉

However, there may be some on here who just want to engage in a debate or discussion (as opposed to argument, a word favoured by Simon in his posts)
and find your online persona somewhat abrasive – I know I did when I first came on here, but realise it's all part of your, for want of a better word, charm. 😀

You however, do seem to getting a bit upset by this discussion. Maybe a homeopathic remedy is in order – if so, may I recommend gelsemium?

The fact that homeopathy is available on the NHS not only offers it some legitimacy in the eyes of the public, but elevates it to the same percieved level as a treatment which has undercone rigorous scientific scrutiny

Well it doesn't seem to have effected you – you dismiss it. So again I ask, what's your problem ?
.

The murder of mentally or physically disabled children……..

I see you are keeping the heinous crime of popping down to Holland and Barrett to buy a bottle of aromatherapy oil and some homeopathic pills, in perspective.

And I'm glad that you don't feel it's necessary to check with your partner about being a drama queen, btw – it's a well established fact, is it ?

rusty, I agree with pretty much all of your lengthy post above.

however –

The PROMOTION of non rational mumbo-jumbo, whether it be religious, spiritual or pseudo scientific, like homoeopathy, discredits us as a species, and kicks dirt in the faces of every scientist that ever lived, especially those persecuted for their belief in a rational approach to the understanding of our universe.

still reads like the rantings of a hysterical tart.

However, there may be some on here who just want to engage in a debate or discussion (as opposed to argument, a word favoured by Simon in his posts)

debate, discussion, argument – all more or less synonymous 🙂

However, I'll take you to task on "just want to engage" – there's no "just" about it – what better use for the intellect?

Well it doesn't seem to have effected you – you dismiss it. So again I ask, what's your problem ?

so you're suggesting that if something does not affect you directly it can be of no concern to you and the misfortune or deception of third parties is none of your business ?

debate, discussion, argument – all more or less synonymous

I would dispute that.

debate, discussion, argument – all more or less synonymous

Simon, you could always look up the definitions online………. 🙂