Forum menu
The NHS and Homeopathy.
Surely if they cut the funding it would become more effective?
Do not
Take anything to eat or drink for 15 minutes before and after taking the tablet
Well you wouldn't want to [s]de[/s]increase the effectiveness of the medicine by diluting it...
This thread needs a video clip from 'That Mitchell and Webb Look'
Ah, this must be the one:
Nah, I think he meant this one:
I suppose, placebos can make people feel better, and logically should cost absolutely nothing at all since it's just tapwater. But if anyone uses it instead of actual medicine, under the NHS, then they should probably be sued til they implode.
If it works why mock it? Even if only a placebo effect. As long as people go to a qualified doctor for diagnosis I see no issue to give them homeopathic remedies.
I do see a problem when someone goes to see a non medical person and taking homeopathic medicine when they really should be taking prescription drugs.
iolo, maybe have a read of these to get an idea of the harm:
http://www.1023.org.uk/why-you-cant-trust-homeopathy.php
http://www.1023.org.uk/whats-the-harm-in-homeopathy.php
As for 'if it works why mock it?', it doesn't work and is clearly ridiculous bollocks - that is why it is mocked.
explain conciousness to me in terms of provable scientific theory please.
I like the way patients will be treated as "unique individuals".
explain conciousness to me in terms of the complete works of Hora. 🙂
iolo - Member
If it works why mock it? Even if only a placebo effect. As long as people go to a qualified doctor for diagnosis I see no issue to give them homeopathic remedies.
Remember to pop back and let us know when it's actually proven to do anything at all.
And everyone thought the end of western civilisation would be due to nuclear war or over population, instead it looks like we're going to regress back to the dark ages and disappear in a puff of denial and fantasy. When will we stop respecting the views of complete crackpots just because they're passionate about their delusions.
There are enough folk on STW who do not believe in real medical treatment, so why not offer it on the NHS?
Why should we not offer it on the NHS?
Finite budget - Would you rather have Dr's, Nurses, proven and effective medicine or a bottle of special water that once saw an orange.
This makes me shudder....I still don't understand why it still operates under an NHS banner. I'll hunt for it, but there's documentation (sure it's NICE) suggesting no homeopathy is offered on the NHS!
I had a patient asking for referral to it once...I declined...
And as to the harm of these sorts of things...
I was having a chat with one of our practice nurses about 'alternative medicine' (not 'non traditional medicine' such as physio and acupuncture, but BS 'medicine' like this) and she asked 'what's the harm'. I showed her the 1023 site and we discussed it a bit..
A week later she popped in to see me to tell me about a patient who'd seen an alternative therapist who suggested "there was no need to continue monitoring his PSA (prostate level) as it won't do anything". He is on treatment for prostate cancer and PSA levels are an important indicator of disease activity. He declined to have it monitored any more.
Bad times.
Sad times.
DrP
Family doctors and homeopathists all rely on one simple fact: that 95% of complaints will eventually resolve themselves.
Your family GP knows that by the time you've got in front of a specialist the problem will have gone away so he will bide his time and issue palliatives. Your homeopathist or any other quack relies on the fact in order to perpetuate the juju.
I have this bizarre conversation with a mate's wife. She's anti religion but pro homeopathy. Ok with nhs spending money on magic book but anti money on a magic book.
Seems another great reason for us to let Scotland go.
it looks like we're going to regress back to the dark ages and disappear in a puff of denial and fantasy. When will we stop respecting the views of complete crackpots just because they're passionate about their delusions.
this^^^
Along with the antivaxxers, they should all be rounded up and put on an island somewhere where they can discover the effects of a measles and polio epidemic.
Strange name dr Malcolm FFHOM?
And if it's so good why do they need disabled parking spaces?
jonah tonto - Memberexplain conciousness to me in terms of provable scientific theory please.
you can't prove a theory, you can only disprove it. That's kinda how science works.
explain conciousness to me in terms of provable scientific theory please.
Explain the relevance of this question please.
Worth understanding that this leaflet comes from a palliative care unit.
If local results show 70% reported improvements, 40% moderate to good improvement then placebo or not, surely this is helping seriously ill patients cope with some horrible symptoms. Would you deny long term cancer or progressive MS patients anything that might help them suffer less?
[quote=jonah tonto ]explain conciousness to me in terms of provable scientific theory please.
Prove to me that you can pass the Turing Test please.
[quote=Gilesey ]Would you deny long term cancer or progressive MS patients anything that might help them suffer less?
Depends how much it costs, whether you could spend that money on something more effective and whether you can get similar results from something cheaper (and less quackish).
it looks like we're going to regress back to the dark ages and disappear in a puff of denial and fantasy. When will we stop respecting the views of complete crackpots just because they're passionate about their delusions.
Scientists aren't that bad. I'm all for using whatever we can to help people. Even if it offends your dogma there are people out there that have had positive results that cannot be yet attributed to conventional, accepted techniques.
Should we belittle them because they don't conform or should we attempt to broaden our understanding? Seems pretty simple to me....
I think we need to consider combining therapies as a method of improving effectiveness and reducing costs.
Say Acupuncture and Voodoo.
That way you don't even have to visit the therapist, they can just make a doll of you and stick needles in it.
New scientist had some articles recently about this - What about diazapam for post op patients that only seems to work if the patient knows they are getting it? And placebos that do no better in drugs trials than known active drugs.
Weird
I wouldn't choose it myself though but see no reason to deny to someone that may well benefit however crackpot.
There are enough folk on STW who do not believe in real medical treatment,
Burn them!
I wouldn't choose it myself though but see no reason to deny to someone that may well benefit however crackpot.
I would suggest that we don't spend any money on it and just give them a glass of tap water with a label saying magic special water....
you can't prove a theory, you can only disprove it. That's kinda how science works.
Just as an aside, "prove" has a mostly archaic meaning of "test" in English hence "proving ground" and "exception that proves the rule". So I suppose you can prove a theory but when you do, you don't always prove it...
this^^^Along with the antivaxxers, they should all be rounded up and put on an island somewhere where they can discover the effects of a measles and polio epidemic.
What we should do is put them all in Scotland and then initiate a massive engineering project so that Scotland floats off into the Atlantic, after which we introduce genetically modified midges that carry a weaponised Malaria.
There'd be no one left within a month.
after which we introduce genetically modified midges that carry a weaponised Malaria.
I was reading somewhere that Hitler considered this during WWII. Can't recall if Scotland was the primary target though. But if it was good enough to test the Poll Tax, it's good enough to test with weaponised midges.
For those of you suggesting it's ok to offer quack remedies on the NHS two points to bear in mind, you might be aware of the placebo effect and happy it works, a lot of people won't think of it as a pkacebo and believe it really works (ie the placebo effect) which is fine right up to the point they stop taking active medication axmentionned above. The second point to consider is for the placebo effect to work the patient must believe it will work which means the doctor will need to lie to the patient which isn't very ethical. Any doctor who believes in homeopathy despite the underwhelming lack of efficacy evidence would be suspect to start with.
yossarian, I've no problem with medicine broadening it's understanding as long as it's done in a repeatable and rigorous way, just trying things at random with no understanding of how they work was what the quacks in the 18th century did. As for dogma being offended, it's the established medical professionals way of doing things, if the alternative medicine brigade want to submit to the same controlled trials as main stream pharma then great.
mikewsmith - MemberFinite budget - Would you rather have Dr's, Nurses, proven and effective medicine or a bottle of special water that once saw an orange.
What are the alternatives, and are they more expensive, is the question you need to ask there.
yossarian, I've no problem with medicine broadening it's understanding as long as it's done in a repeatable and rigorous way, just trying things at random with no understanding of how they work was what the quacks in the 18th century did. As for dogma being offended, it's the established medical professionals way of doing things, if the alternative medicine brigade want to submit to the same controlled trials as main stream pharma then great.
Can I say from the outset that I'm not interested in having an argument about this? I am interested in discussing the role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies. I reckon that anyone in either side who thinks that they are conclusively 'right' is excluded 🙂
I should also say that I've never had any complimentary therapy that has skewed my judgement one way or the other. I've pretty much never been to see a doctor as it goes.
The comment above about 18 century 'quacks' interests me. Where did previous medicinal knowledge and experience come from? It wasn't plucked from the air that's for sure. There is a heritage of nature remedies and therapies, hedge lore to some I suppose, that pre dates what we consider to be rational. I wonder if it's rationale, which must exist on some level, is not yet clear to us because our limited, proven understanding of the universe doesn't allow for it. For me that's not a valid reason to dismiss it, quite the opposite. Maybe there are cheap/free, easily distributable and teachable solutions right around the corner. Not looking for them because they don't fit with a traditional view would've exactly the sort of obstacle that mankind would throw at itself.
yossarian - MemberThe comment above about 18 century 'quacks' interests me. Where did previous medicinal knowledge and experience come from? It wasn't plucked from the air that's for sure. There is a heritage of nature remedies and therapies, hedge lore to some I suppose, that pre dates what we consider to be rational.
Dara's got this one:
Ooo Dara, one of the best quotes I ever heard came from him, 'everyone's entitled to their opinion, doesn't mean it's worth anything though'.
The midges in Scotland are already weaponised
FFS
explain conciousness to me in terms of provable scientific theory please.
I like this question
Obviously if we cannot do this then homoeopathy is true ....sort of explains the reasoning of the supporters I guess
The dara clip [ seen before] is funny and informative on the issue
I suppose i used to think no harm but as Dr p notes sometimes we need to protect the gullible [ or hopelessly optimistic] from themselves.
I am interested in discussing the role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies.
That's a fairly simple discussion.
The role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies is to "get scientifically proven"
Then people with sense might be interested.
The second point to consider is for the placebo effect to work the patient must believe it will work which means the doctor will need to lie to the patient which isn't very ethical
Not necessarily. The placebo effect is fascinating.
The role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies is to "get scientifically proven"
Then people with sense might be interested.
Completely and entirely wrong. The role of science is to understand that which it currently does not. In short I contend that our understanding is the limiting factor, not occurrences. You may consider it simple but perhaps that's your perspective.
Where did previous medicinal knowledge and experience come from? It wasn't plucked from the air that's for sure.
For [i]sure[/i]? That's pretty much exactly how it worked historically.
For sure? That's pretty much exactly how it worked historically.
I suggest the majority of remedies from the old days were founded entirely on experience of what actually worked - with results based on what worked from an anecdotal and observational viewpoint rather than a medically 'proven' one. It was certainly dressed up in the palatable bollocks of the day, but then it is now as well. It's just the language and starting point has changed.
^^^
The mortality rates were previously phenomenal!
Ego, in some historical cases treatments worked , but it's not until the advent of evidenced based medicine that real advances and improvements in outcomes have been made.
DrP
you must know something about it I reckon MrP...
The link I put above to the BBC series Pain, Poison & Puss is a great watch.
MrP... 😯
😉
I suggest the majority of remedies from the old days were founded entirely on experience of what actually worked - with results based on what worked from an anecdotal and observational viewpoint rather than a medically 'proven' one.
Yes that's why sacrificing animals and people to the gods became so popular in some cultures.
Lets face it, all that needs to happen is a number of positive double-blind trials for homeopathy to be ruled effective and therefore move from 'alternative medicine' to 'medicine'.
Ah, but the have been a number of double-blind trials. And they all show that homeopathy is a [i]load of old donkey droppings.[/i]
Do people *really* believe that something diluted by 10^60 (more than 10^-26 chance of there being a single molecule of any active ingredient) and then 'succussed' (struck against an elastic substance ten times) every so often actually does anything? My mate who's into this rubbish just believed it because it was 'woo'-ish. He didn't even know what 'succussion' was but liked the woo. Every time he said the word 'homeopathy' I expected Clannad to start breathing musically in the distance (and I *like* Clannad!).
It beggars belief. Then you've got idiots who [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/28/homeopathy-baby-death-couple-jailed ]cause death[/url] by their idiocy. Or people who [url= http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html ]end up dead[/url] due to their desire for woo-ness.
Though I tend to think it is Darwinism in action. It's a shame as people have [b]died[/b] due to this complete and utter crap from a discredited German chappy in 1796.
*aaaaaand relax!*****
Promoted to consultant!
yossarian, you're confusing science and the NHS, of course science should look at alternative treatments, that's not the same as giving them any credance until it is warranted, even more importantly the NHS should not be using treatments based on anecdotal evidence, unproven and unlikely claims and the give it a go approach. When there are peer reviewed, double blind trials showing homeopathy works (even if we still don't fully understand it) it can take it's place in the toolbox of treatments. Until then it should be treated with healthy scepticism. Steange how uncooperative homeopathic practitioners seem to be though.
[quote=stumpyjon ]The second point to consider is for the placebo effect to work the patient must believe it will work which means the doctor will need to lie to the patient which isn't very ethical. Any doctor who believes in homeopathy despite the underwhelming lack of efficacy evidence would be suspect to start with.
It's worse than that. For it to work properly, the doctor also has to believe, as it's been proven that patients can pick up vibes from the doctor (that or he has to be a very good liar). Hence why trials are double blind - for those who've seen the term but don't understand it, it means that neither the patient nor the person prescribing knows whether they're getting the real medicine.
...and yes I do note the NS article about placebos working even when people know they are placebos.
I suggest the majority of remedies from the old days were founded entirely on experience of what actually worked
Things like Homeopathy gained ground not because they worked, but because at the time the experimental alternatives killed as many people as they saved. For all its failings, it's quite difficult to die a from Homeopathic remedy(*), compared to say trepanning, non-sterile surgery, or blood transfusions before medicine was aware of blood types.
(* - short of drowning, anyway)
See, where it gets so messy with placebos... I suffer from chronic pain, which sounds bad but it's very mild so it's not really that big a deal... It just means it's long-term and probably permanent, but doable. But it comes and goes.
Now I'm 100% sure that it's at least partly psychosomatic, or habituated or whatever... Little accidental experiments like having a bad pain day and it getting better after I think i've taken painkillers when actually I left them on the worktop, stuff like that, over the course of years- you get the hints. Hey, my leg feels better when the sun's shining! You get quite comfortable with the possibility that your nervous system is basically a dick.
And if a homeopathic remedy helped with that, in the same way that pills I forgot to take help, well, it (should) cost basically nothing and it's probably less damaging than long term painkillers.
Now if I had something easily treatable, and I passed up on that treatment for a bottle of nothing, that's bad juju. But if you gave me a homeopathic medication, maybe that could help- probably not if I knew it was just tapwater but if it was dressed as medicine.
But then, you get into the messy ethics of prescribing something you know is nothing, and in fact deceiving the patient. What's more important, honesty or help?
Humans are pretty complicated machines so you don't have to buy into the woo to think that under certain circumstances it could do some good, or, help the person to do some good for themselves. But equally you don't have to believe it's completely pointless to be against promoting it as proper medicine. Ethics and safety make it not at all simple IMO.
Perhaps you lot ought to stop bickering for a bit and watch [i]Horizon - The power of the placebo[/i] this week, and see what some real experts say.
Then you can go back to your bickering again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wcchn
Tim Minchin is all over this:
Completely and entirely wrong. The role of science is to understand that which it currently does not. In short I contend that our understanding is the limiting factor, not occurrences. You may consider it simple but perhaps that's your perspective.
I thought you wanted to discuss "the role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies"
Now you've changed that and you want to discuss the role of [b]science[/b]
Do you need any help moving those goalposts ?
They look heavy.
But then, you get into the messy ethics of prescribing something you know is nothing, and in fact deceiving the patient. What's more important, honesty or help?
A good and insightful post, but there is a risk in trying to help people like that. The placebo effect isn't very reliable, so if tell people that a pill will help and it doesn't, it could reduce trust in medicine. Which could result in an anti-placebo effect even for real drugs!
short of drowning
A much under rated medical intervention, has a one of the lowest rates of post procedural complaints from the patients.