British MPs: Stop funding homeoquackery
February 23, 2010 - 3:21pm
Homeopathic remedies work no better than placebos, and so should no longer be paid for by the UK National Health Service, a committee of British members of parliament has concluded.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which released its report on homeopathy on Monday, also urges governments in other European countries where homeopathy is popular – notably Germany, France and Austria – to be equally wary of funding homeopathy. "We feel there's a real message, not just in the UK," says committee chairman and Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis.
In preparing its report, the committee, which scrutinises the evidence behind government policies, took evidence from scientists and homeopaths, and reviewed numerous reports and scientific investigations into homeopathy. It found no evidence that such treatments work beyond providing a placebo effect.
Read it here.
I like this:
I guess that means St. Mungos isn't covered by the National Health Service.
Dilute the funding and it'll become even more powerful!
LOL! Here you folks go, a penny at the bottom of the swimming pool. A fortune!!
I'd rather have "quack" cures than quack diseases.
I dislike the thread.
1. It comes across as anti-choice
2. It has tunnel-vision; it belittles a rather benign and - to some - useful treatment while remaining highly uncritical of the rest of the realm of medicine where all the quacking about quackery comes from. If you want to talk about skeletons in the closet...
Homeopathy is still an option for you. But if you live in the UK, you can no longer expect the government to pay for it. I would assume the same is true of crystal healers and magic potions. Surely you would agree that the taxpayer has every right to not want to pay for nonsense that simply cannot be shown to work, yes? Or should I buy a ticket to Benny Hinn's next faith healing tent revival and charge it to the government?
I dislike the thread.
1. It comes across as anti-choice
2. It has tunnel-vision; it belittles a rather benign and - to some - useful treatment while remaining highly uncritical of the rest of the realm of medicine where all the quacking about quackery comes from. If you want to talk about skeletons in the closet...
This isn't about choice; it's about taxpayers funding that choice.
From here:
http://www.usask.ca/nursing/cne/docs/distance/20061102/integrative_medic...
That would be expensive.
If Canada chooses not to fund junkets to Miami for cardiac surgery that is available right here - would that also be "anti-choice", jas?
This isn't about choice; it's about taxpayers funding that choice.
From here:
http://www.usask.ca/nursing/cne/docs/distance/20061102/integrative_medic...
That would be expensive.
If it's about taxpayers funding that choice, then I guess that other choice we know so well is legitimate while the former is not? I don't see anything cheap about allopathic medicine, unless we consider sweeping problems under the rug an efficiency.
If Canada chooses not to fund junkets to Miami for cardiac surgery that is available right here - would that also be "anti-choice", jas?
Is universal healthcare best with allopathic treatment and managerialism? The answer is clearly no. Anti-choice isn't about choice-as-a-client, but choices as citizens. Our choices are constrained by those wealthy enough to disengage with the process, the manipulation of treatment by Big Pharma, and a series of private economic interests that are not willing to commit to Canada beyond how it can make them richer. The fact that I *have* to spend money for treatments that aren't covered makes me less a citizen and more a client - I dislike this. For others they have lost faith in healthcare or are so dependent on it that they make themselves sicker. Clearly there is need for a renewal of universal health-care that addresses wellness and preventative care better.
Very well. But why would this health care include treatments and practices that have been demonstrated to be ineffective?
I'll re-use my example: should public revenues be used to fund religious faith healers? Where is the merit in that?
What problems are being swept under the rug, and why should we pay for healthcare that doesn't work?
That would be expensive.
True, but not relevant. We shouldn't fund fads even if they were dirt cheap. I'm sure you agree with that, but the cost thing invites red herrings and straw persons.
I'd rather have "quack" cures than quack diseases.
I dislike the thread.
1. It comes across as anti-choice
2. It has tunnel-vision; it belittles a rather benign and - to some - useful treatment while remaining highly uncritical of the rest of the realm of medicine where all the quacking about quackery comes from. If you want to talk about skeletons in the closet...
The rest of the realm of medicine is not the topic, homeopathy, or rather not paying for homeopathy with public funds, is the topic. Homeopathy has been overwhelmingly shown to be nothing more than water and ineffective beyond the placebo effect. If you wish o counter with some evidence why this is false, go for it. However, since the most conclusive information we have is that homeopathy doesn't work, how do you defend pissing our tax money away on expensively bottled water and sugar pills?
The rest of the realm of medicine is not the topic, homeopathy, or rather not paying for homeopathy with public funds, is the topic. Homeopathy has been overwhelmingly shown to be nothing more than water and ineffective beyond the placebo effect. If you wish o counter with some evidence why this is false, go for it. However, since the most conclusive information we have is that homeopathy doesn't work, how do you defend pissing our tax money away on expensively bottled water and sugar pills?
Sorry, I forgot to conduct my double-blind study and submit it to you for scrutiny, so you can write off any personal experiences and experiences of family and friends with this 'quackery'.
I won't defend "pissing away tax money" on what you deem ineffective forms of treatment, but can you acknowledge that, given that a staggeringly large number of Canadians do "piss their money away on alternative forms of therapy", there is something seriously wrong with the level of care from what currently is?
I find what most of you against homeopathy espouse actually defends a very problematic institution of medicine and treatment. Look at where we have come to with chronic illnesses, and who benefits off of these conditions. I find the imaginary is quite bleak, given that most comments take a particular version of science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge.
I cannot imagine what the conversation would be like if homeopathy's origins weren't situated within a Western context; would people be so willing to thrash it to bits? Would you go after other societies with the same vigor if their system of government funded - or just protected - "ineffective treatments" ?
Ah, one of babbles perenial topics. Get rid of homeopathy.
There are so many that still use it, why remove it from public support? What would be the result? Would it reduce our dependency on drugs or would it result in a shift towards other drugs? Drugs that probably cost a whole lot more to the public purse. People often feel better listening to music or going for a hike in the woods, ride a horse, play with the dog, going bird watching or star gazing, singing or dancing. Are we at babbles so arrogant that we know what make individuals feel better. We need far more alternatives , not less. Conventional medicine is unsustainable in my opinion and very likely will lead to a dead end. But that is another topic.
The rest of the realm of medicine is not the topic, homeopathy, or rather not paying for homeopathy with public funds, is the topic. Homeopathy has been overwhelmingly shown to be nothing more than water and ineffective beyond the placebo effect. If you wish o counter with some evidence why this is false, go for it. However, since the most conclusive information we have is that homeopathy doesn't work, how do you defend pissing our tax money away on expensively bottled water and sugar pills?
Sorry, I forgot to conduct my double-blind study and submit it to you for scrutiny, so you can write off any personal experiences and experiences of family and friends with this 'quackery'.
I won't defend "pissing away tax money" on what you deem ineffective forms of treatment, but can you acknowledge that, given that a staggeringly large number of Canadians do "piss their money away on alternative forms of therapy", there is something seriously wrong with the level of care from what currently is?
I find what most of you against homeopathy espouse actually defends a very problematic institution of medicine and treatment. Look at where we have come to with chronic illnesses, and who benefits off of these conditions. I find the imaginary is quite bleak, given that most comments take a particular version of science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge.
I cannot imagine what the conversation would be like if homeopathy's origins weren't situated within a Western context; would people be so willing to thrash it to bits? Would you go after other societies with the same vigor if their system of government funded - or just protected - "ineffective treatments" ?
It's got nothing to do with what I deem or don't deem. Anecdotes are a place to start, and that's fine. But from there, somebody does do the double-blind studies and when the claims can't be reproduced or are overwhelmingly false - which, in the case of homeopathy, they have been - then it's time to say that the anecdotes were, well, just anecdotes.
So never mind doing a double-blind study yourself. Just go look up the other studies that have been done. There have been many. None of them have shown any of the effects and the claims of homeopaths that water has "memory" are incredibly improbable. So improbable that, in addition to the overwhelming physical evidence, we probably shouldn't publicly fund it.
Anecdotes are excluded from science. It is no surprise why the experiences of doctors who see tumors disappear without reason, or who pray to God, or engage in spiritual practices, before applying science through surgery are written off as anecdotes, irrelevant or quack practices.
Thank you, Bubbles, for your contribution; I enjoyed it.
The rest of the realm of medicine is not the topic, homeopathy, or rather not paying for homeopathy with public funds, is the topic. Homeopathy has been overwhelmingly shown to be nothing more than water and ineffective beyond the placebo effect. If you wish o counter with some evidence why this is false, go for it. However, since the most conclusive information we have is that homeopathy doesn't work, how do you defend pissing our tax money away on expensively bottled water and sugar pills?
Though I have disagreed with timebandit many times in the past, in this case I agree completely.
Homeopathic remedies are doses of expensive water and I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for it either.
IMO homeopathy is one of the alternative "medicines" that results in naturally derived medicines that work, being tainted with the same brush of quakery.
People often feel better listening to music or going for a hike in the woods, ride a horse, play with the dog, going bird watching or star gazing, singing or dancing.
I would support government funding of all those useful and enriching activities.
But not that homeopathic fraud.
Exactly.
People often feel better listening to music or going for a hike in the woods, ride a horse, play with the dog, going bird watching or star gazing, singing or dancing.
I would support government funding of all those useful and enriching activities.
But not that homeopathic fraud.
Care to show me the double blind studies that support the health benefit of music, hiking in the woods, horse riding, bird watching and star gazing.
Care to show me the double blind studies that support the health benefit of music, hiking in the woods, horse riding, bird watching and star gazing.
No I don't.
Care to show me anyone that claims music, hiking, horse riding, bird watching, and star gazing can cure disease? No one does - there's no money in it. Unfortunately, I can link you to lots of quacks that make that claim for homeopathy.
So, government funding for the arts, for appreciation of nature, for physical recreation - yes, by all means. For tricking people about their health? Not on my watch.
Meh, these were all the same folks screaming H1N1 and defend their criticisms of alternative therapies on the backs of the same "western medicine model" that treats disease not symptoms or lifestyle. All to the benefit of those that use us. I'm no homeopathic but the derision it's given here by the usual suspects is downright laughable. Them scientists got everything all figured out already, eh? The know all we need to know about neurology and biology and their synthesis? No need for critical thinking?
This evidence based stuff may not have found anything more than placebo effect with homeopathy but I seem to recall a fair number of much worse products released upon us by the same method with disastrous results.
Care to show me the double blind studies that support the health benefit of music, hiking in the woods, horse riding, bird watching and star gazing.
Actually, there has been at least one study that found exercise was as effective as SSRIs on mild to moderate depression.
I'd love to see doctors give prescriptions for gym memberships.
I also think that the notion that doctors medicate but do not advocate for better lifestyle is a load of crap. The issue is not with the recommendations that we eat better and exercise, it's that many people are not willing to make the change, and the doc can't make them. I've never been to a doctor who didn't ask questions about my diet and exercise as part of my patient history.
I've also witnessed my close friend who has arthritis, food allergies and a serious weight problem receive extensive counselling for nutrition, exercise and weight loss without prescription drugs - from her FP. Goodness. I'm sure he'll be tossed out of conventional medicine any moment, though. For sure.
But all this is digression. The thread is about homeopathy, not the shortcomings of mainstream or science-based medicine, it's not about H1N1, or any other red herrings that posters friendly to the idea of homeopathy drag in. Seriously, if you want to debate homeopathy, show us some evidence that we're wrong and you're right. Not anecdotes or persecution fantasies - actual evidence.
It's water, people. Just water.
It gets, and deserves, the same derision as Magic Healing Crystals, a Scientology "Audit" and healing by the laying on of hands. I'm genuinely baffled that you think it deserves some sort of respect that it's not getting. How much respect am I supposed to give to something THAT JUST DOESN'T DO ANYTHING?
Meh, these were all the same folks screaming H1N1 and defend their criticisms of alternative therapies on the backs of the same "western medicine model" that treats disease not symptoms or lifestyle.
Vaccination is about prevention. I have little time for those who minimized the scale of the pandemic, whether in advance or in hindsight.
The derision is important, once the logical argument doesn't appear to have any effect after almost 200 years of homeopathic ineffectiveness.
Science is about method, not final conclusions. That's what distinguishes science from the nonsense tales of "my uncle was dying until he sucked on the peach pit in the healing tent".
"Do no harm" is an important principle - but it sure doesn't measure up as a total replacement for science-based prevention and healing.
...That's what distinguishes science from the nonsense tales of "my uncle was dying until he sucked on the peach pit in the healing tent"...
This is enough indication for me that discussing this further is not worth the time and energy. Good thing you used a relatively culturally neutral example (peaches coming from and prominent in other so-called places of "civilization") even if in poor taste.
...That's what distinguishes science from the nonsense tales of "my uncle was dying until he sucked on the peach pit in the healing tent"...
This is enough indication for me that discussing this further is not worth the time and energy. Good thing you used a relatively culturally neutral example (peaches coming from and prominent in other so-called places of "civilization") even if in poor taste.
What are you implying - that there's something racist about saying that homeopathy is nonsense? Or is it colonialist? I know - it's fear. It's fear of watery substances in little bottles. Or hatred. No, let's go back to racism. That's a really good argument
I think I'll argue that members of the British royal family are known users of homeopathetic remedies and therefore anyone sympathetic to this kind of thing is a racist imperialist. There's nothing like a good debate!
What are you implying - that there's something racist about saying that homeopathy is nonsense? Or is it colonialist? I know - it's fear. It's fear of watery substances in little bottles. Or hatred. No, let's go back to racism. That's a really good argument
I think I'll argue that members of the British royal family are known users of homeopathetic remedies and therefore anyone sympathetic to this kind of thing is a racist imperialist. There's nothing like a good debate!
Next time please think before you lunge.
If you read my responses I have been referring to science - not homeopathy - in my responses. This particular response by Unionist was a shot at a number of alternative therapies for being non-scientific, not just homeopathy.
I was going to replace the word "suck" for "pass", "the peach pit" with "egg". There, now we have an example of a colonized group's practices as "nonsense" tales.
This is far from a "good debate".
...That's what distinguishes science from the nonsense tales of "my uncle was dying until he sucked on the peach pit in the healing tent"...
This is enough indication for me that discussing this further is not worth the time and energy. Good thing you used a relatively culturally neutral example (peaches coming from and prominent in other so-called places of "civilization") even if in poor taste.
What? "Poor taste"? I love peaches! And by the way, my uncle recovered fully and has been doing fine ever since... thanks for asking!
Absolutely wrong, j.m., not even close. My post was aimed at gossipy ANECDOTAL evidence, which universally is substituted for the scientific method when justifying homeopathy and like fraudulent approaches. Sorry you didn't understand my point, hope you do now.
Oh, and by the way, if you think what I call science is some colonial or race-based prejudice, you're entitled to your anti-scientific opinion - I hope I'm reading you wrong here, because from what I've read of your posts, you appear to accept the existence of an objective real world out there.
Absolutely wrong, j.m., not even close. My post was aimed at gossipy ANECDOTAL evidence, which universally is substituted for the scientific method when justifying homeopathy and like fraudulent approaches. Sorry you didn't understand my point, hope you do now.
Oh, and by the way, if you think what I call science is some colonial or race-based prejudice, you're entitled to your anti-scientific opinion - I hope I'm reading you wrong here, because from what I've read of your posts, you appear to accept the existence of an objective real world out there.
Right, I got it, like passing the egg over one's body to deal with fright, a popular Andean custom, is a practice based on "gossipy ANECDOTAL evidence", kind of like sucking on a peach pit.
I accept that there is a real world right here and it is measured and understood through our ham-fisted attempts. I can't fully embrace and live with any mode of existence whose by-product is the undermining of people's personal experiences with the world. Further, I am appalled by its claim that a certain type of ceremonial/ritual practice produces objective knowledge of the real world.
The problem that prevents a usefull discussion on this issue is in my opinion that we seem to have very different views on what constitutes 'desease, ill health'. That became clear to me when Unionist did not know about music theraphy, therapeutic horseback riding, therapeutic birdwatching. In my book all these things and more should be in a doctors tool bag to help people overcome their body or mental imballance.
To say that it is just water, a horse or bird is missing the point of its potential therapeutic value. Only someone with a somewhat narrow view on what constitudes desease could say that in my opinion.
What about faith healing, Bubbles? Some people swear by it. Is that enough reason that you should pay for it?
Okay. So if I put tap water in a cute bottle and tell you that it has special healing properties, and then you take it for whatever ails you and you feel better, am I a fraud or a medical practitioner?
This is far from a "good debate".
I was being sarcastic. I suppose I should have said so.
I can't fully embrace and live with any mode of existence whose by-product is the undermining of people's personal experiences with the world.
Well, I can't live without the possibility of critique and change. Only a very few in this world are comfortable enough to espouse the kind of theory you appear to hold.
I'm generally a fan of more ancient and primitive modes of health care, more individualistic in method and not cursed by that horendous disease called universality. Modern health care is basically fixing the cogs in the machine it reflects a society of work 24-7, its basically prepping for flatlines every night.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5417341_naturopath-vs-homeopath.html
"Homeopathy and naturopathy are commonly confused, but they are in fact completely different practices.
The two alternative medicine systems are similar in that they are generally considered to be holistic; they focus on the treatment of the whole patient rather than a specific disease or ailment.
While most practices in naturopathy are supported by clinical studies, homeopathy is an unscientific practice that lacks merit within the scientific community..."
Pharma free since 2004!!!!
Emergency Handbook: What to Do When a Friend Loves Woo
Emergency Handbook: What to Do When a Friend Loves Woo
What's really annoying about this contribution is the underlying suggestion that people who practice alternative medicine actually "believe 100%" that they are going to be "cured" by doing certain things.
Ironically, we could go to a number of MDs for our ailments and get hooked on a bunch of pharma for life, with the promise that it will fix us.. and we'll be poorer and more fucked up than now.
What about faith healing, Bubbles? Some people swear by it. Is that enough reason that you should pay for it?
You have never been to a doctor, that after hearing your laments, tells you to take rest and drink plenty of fluids. Is that not a form of faith healing, and we pay our doctors for that advise. As we should. I am not sure what you were trying to get at.
Okay. So if I put tap water in a cute bottle and tell you that it has special healing properties, and then you take it for whatever ails you and you feel better, am I a fraud or a medical practitioner?
The cute bottle is probably a waste of resources since most of us have access to tapwater rigth in our homes. And to claim that it is a cure-all I would receive with some scepticism. But water is probably more benificial then most perscription drugs towards making and keeping you healthy.
What about faith healing, Bubbles? Some people swear by it. Is that enough reason that you should pay for it?
You have never been to a doctor, that after hearing your laments, tells you to take rest and drink plenty of fluids. Is that not a form of faith healing, and we pay our doctors for that advise. As we should. I am not sure what you were trying to get at.
That is not "faith healing".
This is "faith healing": Billy Burke Global Outreach (a faith healer extraordinaire). He (along with his tag-team partner, Jebuz) heals people from blindness, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and all other afflictions traditional medicine is unable to successfully treat.
Here's a comical article about Brother Billy Burke
"On a sweltering August night, 600 people packed First Presbyterian Church, Downtown, seeking miracles. Beneath the darkened Tiffany windows, several of them lay crumpled on the floor, where they fell after evangelist Billy Burke laid hands on them.
Jackie Lacey, a middle-age Brookline woman, said she was healed of arthritis at July's meeting. Now she was seeking help for back pain. Before Mr. Burke could touch her, she shouted in tongues and passed out.
When she arose, he asked how her back felt. "No pain," she said. She began dancing and shaking her ample hips. Then she sprinted around the church."
If these "Faith Healers" were truly working for God they would do it without requiring millions of dollars in profits. And the money that the faithful donate without request would go to doing benevolent work other than promotion of the frauds and paying for air-conditioned dog houses for the poodles of people like Tammy Fey Baker - who by the way has made a come back!
Using homeopathy and other alternative therapies doesn't have to be expensive at all. There are a number of low cost strategies to get access to these remedies: finding non-prescribable substances that can be sold in multiple locations and not exclusively through one 'healer', taking control of one's healthcare by assisting themselves in the healing process, using autonomous methods of healing (meditation, diet, etc.) and finding 'legit' doctors who are willing to look into alternative therapies and work with non-synthetic prescriptions (e.g., compounding).
If these "Faith Healers" were truly working for God they would do it without requiring millions of dollars in profits. And the money that the faithful donate without request would go to doing benevolent work other than promotion of the frauds and paying for air-conditioned dog houses for the poodles of people like Tammy Fey Baker - who by the way has made a come back!
Must be quite a comeback, seeing as she's dead.
Like the Mary Ellen Carter, she'll rise again!
To go along with this digression, Benny Hinn's wife filed for divorce:
http://cbs2.com/local/benny.hinn.televangelist.2.1503860.html
And his statement on the divorce; apparently he didn't see it coming:
http://www.bennyhinn.org/emailletters/pbhletter.cfm?referrer=na_eb022510
Like the Mary Ellen Carter, she'll rise again!
If these "Faith Healers" were truly working for God they would do it without requiring millions of dollars in profits. And the money that the faithful donate without request would go to doing benevolent work other than promotion of the frauds and paying for air-conditioned dog houses for the poodles of people like Tammy Fey Baker - who by the way has made a come back!
Must be quite a comeback, seeing as she's dead.
Okay whatever. I can honestly say at the cost of making me sound coldhearted I don't couldn't care less, which is why I wasn't aware that she died.
Just curious, did she die from one of the things her husband claimed to heal people of?
Cancer.
You have never been to a doctor, that after hearing your laments, tells you to take rest and drink plenty of fluids. Is that not a form of faith healing, and we pay our doctors for that advise. As we should.
Uh, no, it's not faith healing.
Oh, I think you know.
So, faith healers, of the "let me lay my hands on you and you shall walk again!" variety: should we publicly fund them? Yes or no?
You have never been to a doctor, that after hearing your laments, tells you to take rest and drink plenty of fluids. Is that not a form of faith healing, and we pay our doctors for that advise. As we should.
Uh, no, it's not faith healing.
Oh, I think you know.
So, faith healers, of the "let me lay my hands on you and you shall walk again!" variety: should we publicly fund them? Yes or no?
Ofcourse we should fund them. I have no experience with the "let me lay my hands on you and you shall walk again" variety, but if the results are satisfactory to the patient, the healer should be payed. After all, the patient contributed to the public purse just like everyone else.
In my view there are many kind of illnesses. I suspect that many are caused by our own fears or stresses. And if someone can help you resolve those fears that can greatly improve the outlook.
Adout twenty years ago my knees started to get very painfull when walking. To the point that it started to impair my mobillity. At the time I had a very good doctor, so I went to see him, he asked a lot of questions and made me do some knee bends and listened to the knee joints. After about thirty minutes of this he said 'Well your knees are fine. You have a bit of artrose, but nothing that should interfere with normal functioning of the knees.' Then he explained that my brain was probably amplfying the bit of discomfort from the slighly worn knees and that in turn made the muscles around the knee joints tense up and cause them to hurt as well. So I decided to have faith in his judgement, ignore the pain and the thought that I was damaging my knees, and tried to relax a bit more. It worked almost instantly, two or three days later the pain was gone and has not been back since. It worked for me. Should the doctor not be payed for that? Even though it would be next to impossible to do a double blind test on that type of cure.
Ofcourse we should fund [faith healers]. I have no experience with the "let me lay my hands on you and you shall walk again" variety, but if the results are satisfactory to the patient, the healer should be payed.
I'll bet you a thousand grand that if you pour a pot of cold, wet spaghetti on the heads of enough stressed out people, you'll find those who respond positively to such "treatment".
Does that mean spaghetti-pot-pourers should be paid with tax dollars, too?
Ofcourse we should fund [faith healers]. I have no experience with the "let me lay my hands on you and you shall walk again" variety, but if the results are satisfactory to the patient, the healer should be payed.
I'll bet you a thousand grand that if you pour a pot of cold, wet spaghetti on the heads of enough stressed out people, you'll find those who respond positively to such "treatment".
Does that mean spaghetti-pot-pourers should be paid with tax dollars, too?
I am sure we could recommend a number of MDs for the job from our own experiences.
Sven,
I can even go better on your suggestion. Why not have the state fund a holiday trip every second year for everyone. I would not be surprised if the government would save billions in the long run.
Great posts Bubbles and j.m. Getting to the crux of it. You don't need a pill for everything. I can't believe how many pills I see popped daily. Seriously.
Everytime I "quack out" I think about this thread.
*drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop drop*
*drop drop drop drop*
[broken record] I haven't seen any studies that show that homeopathy doesn't work. Obviously in many cases it does, or people wouldn't be using it. We spend far, far more on synthetic drugs and technological treatments of dubious benefit.
The anti-homeopathy, anti-naturopathy crusade is driven by protected interests. [/broken record]
But by all means, stop funding it. Stop funding everything. The only solution to this problem of protected-interest medicine versus alternatives is free market health care. Let consumers' money decide what works and what doesn't.
Because they haven't been able to understand the mind jas. The single most ignored factor in medicine.
They pretend they can do science without that understanding...where's that broken record...
oh, faith healers already get preferential treatment.
[broken record] I haven't seen any studies that show that homeopathy doesn't work. Obviously in many cases it does, or people wouldn't be using it. We spend far, far more on synthetic drugs and technological treatments of dubious benefit.
The anti-homeopathy, anti-naturopathy crusade is driven by protected interests. [/broken record]
If you haven't seen one, it's because you're not looking. Here you go:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67177-2/abstract
Here is the report House of Commons report that outlines the committee's recommendation. Their examination of evidence begins on about page 22. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdfYes, it suggests that the evidence is weak and that this supports the notion that the effects are largely placebo.
Here's an article with different findings published in the same journal:
Is Homoeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Potency, with Pollen in Hayfever as ModelYes, it suggests that the evidence is weak and that this supports the notion that the effects are largely placebo.
Here's an article with different findings published in the same journal:
Is Homoeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Potency, with Pollen in Hayfever as ModelUnfortunately it seems you have to buy the article to access it. I'm curious if you have any idea what control group was given in comparison to the test group.
If you have a look at the second link, you will find that the committee concluded that the studies that were positive to homeopathy were usually small numbers of participants, not well-controlled and did not always control or correct for the placebo effect. I believe they cite a large meta-analysis of studies and a critical review of studies.
Start on page 22.
Interesting.
Unfortunately it seems you have to buy the article to access it. I'm curious if you have any idea what control group was given in comparison to the test group.
Yes, unfortunately that was the same with the article that TB cited.
If you have a look at the second link, you will find that the committee concluded that the studies that were positive to homeopathy were usually small numbers of participants, not well-controlled and did not always control or correct for the placebo effect. I believe they cite a large meta-analysis of studies and a critical review of studies.
Start on page 22.
I did read that, TB. I didn't comment on it because it comes to the same conclusions as the first article you cited and it's a committee reporting from studies, not a study itself.
What I find interesting, and a little scary, is that you are told you should not dispose of man-made pharmaceuticals youself. You must bring them back to your pharmacist. This indicates to me that these are poisonous, and that you must not put them back in the ground.
For herbal medicines, it is completely safe to dispose of them back into the ground.
How interesting. Pharmaceuticals can be toxic, while herbal medicines are harmless. Well, I'm sold.
It's certainly safe to dispose of homeopathic treatments however you wish. Feed them to babies. Water your plants with them. Clean your contact lenses with them. Dribble them on an open cut.
Not because "they're not poisonous" but because "they're JUST WATER".
It's certainly safe to dispose of homeopathic treatments however you wish. Feed them to babies. Water your plants with them. Clean your contact lenses with them. Dribble them on an open cut.
Not because "they're not poisonous" but because "they're JUST WATER".
First time that I heard a tincture was "just water".
I have access to a medical database, and downloaded and read this article. I went through it pretty quickly, and noticed a few things.
The investigators measured effectiveness using a VAS, or visual analogue scale, where patients state the severity of their symptoms, like blocked or runny nose, itchy eyes, and so forth, on a scale from 0 to 4. Needless to say, VAS scales are pretty subjective; when I was studying rheumatoid arthritis, the placebo effects were huge because clinical trials of arthritis drugs partly use VAS scales to measure effectiveness.
Anyway, back to this trial: the authors state, "Only the homeopathically treated group showed a clear reduction in symptoms." But their own data doesn't show that at all. I wish I could paste images - it shows a graph plotting the change in VAS between the homeopathically treated group and the placebo group, and they look almost the same. The authors state that the mean change in symptoms of the homeopathically treated group was statistically greater than the placebo group, but the overlap is huge!!
Quote from a skeptic site:
No one has claimed that a tincture is just water.
A tincture diluted far past the point that there was nothing left in it but water would be "just water."
Homeopathy is not a tincture and is just water for the simple reason that it has been diluted far, far, far, far past the point that there is anything it but water. Homeopaths don't even dispute this.
Technically speaking, a tincture is an alcoholic extract, not water.
Actually, allergies are kind of the one area where I can see homeopathy working.
Anyway, here's another article:
Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?
No one has claimed that a tincture is just water.
A tincture diluted far past the point that there was nothing left in it but water would be "just water."
Homeopathy is not a tincture and is just water for the simple reason that it has been diluted far, far, far, far past the point that there is anything it but water. Homeopaths don't even dispute this.
No homeopath would qualify that a homeopathic tincture is just water.
No homeopath would qualify that a homeopathic tincture is just water.
Their claim is that though there may be one or no molecules of the substance left - the essence or spirit of the substance remains.
As you know I am very much for natural medicines but I believe this is one that often gets confused with others. I suggest researching deeper.
No homeopath would qualify that a homeopathic tincture is just water.
Yes, that's true. They would insist that it's pure water with a magical, indetectable "memory" of some other substance.
So in other words, pure water + MAGIC.
Snert,
The Pieta, by Michelangelo, is just a piece of stone. Right?
It makes you feel no different then any other piece of stone. If you do not believe that, try a double blind test.
Snert,
The Pieta, by Michelangelo, is just a piece of stone. Right?
It has an observably different shape from all the rest, and specifically, a shape that reminds us of our own form, and we like that.
What does that have to do with Magic Water?
Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?
Okay - downloaded the article, and 2 rebuttals, letters to the editor published in a subsequent issue of the Lancet. These letters were written by physicians, one in England and one in France - I'll just excerpt some parts, as the English doctor in particular gets into the nitty gritty of how the statistical analysis was cooked.
In brief: they used a visual analogue scale (VAS), where the patients rate their symptoms. The authors did not examine how many patients improved. They only quantified the total amount of improvement relative to baseline. Here's the problem: the baseline measurements, which are those measurements made before the experiment starts, were highly variable. For instance, they had a scale measuring from 0 to 100 ("fine" to "terrible"), and one patient measures 5, and another measures 40, if both of them double their symptom severity, the 1st patient contributes 10 while the second contributes 80.
The more appropriate way to count it is, how many people got better with homeopathy compared with placebo? The English doctor worked it out, performing his own statistical analysis, and found that there was no significant improvement made with the homeopathy.
And the methodology was flawed:
What the French doctor said:
<snip>
Improvement with placebo in the pilot study is barely different from the improvement observed with homeopathy in the so-called principle trial. One can ask why placebo responds in such a non-reproducible way. In figure 7, the authors pool 3 different trials done for different situations (two hay fever, one asthma). Placebo responses do not leave the baseline, a surprising finding if one considers the well-known placebo sensitivity of many patients with allergic conditions. Marcel Proust, who suffered severe asthma attack merely on looking at artificial flowers, was a good example of this sensitivity.
Homeopathy is big business. In all cases where a lot of money is involved, we have to examine the evidence carefully.
Gee, for a publication that claims to be "one of the world's leading medical journals" they sure seem to publish a lot of bullshit articles--according to Sineed, anyway. I think perhaps Sineed should be writing to the Lancet editor and letting him know about the rank BS he's publishing.
It's so good the English doctor was able to work it all out, performing his own analysis. We automatically should trust his conclusions, communicated via Sineed.
Sorry, Sineed. I think I'd need to see the Lancet issue some kind of correction or qualification on those articles.
Unfortunately, there's all sorts of bad science published in good scientific journals.
I offered an adequate rebuttal of the article - don't have time to get into more detail.
Well, your rebuttal was based on the opinions of two physicians who sent in letters to the editor. Might we at least have their names?
Ah, another thread where reality becomes a matter of opinion. How refreshing.
Hey, Hershey's Kisses!
Yes, but very, very diluted. Really, only the memory of kisses...
Ah, another thread where reality becomes a matter of opinion. How refreshing.
Ah, another thread where reality becomes a matter of opinion. How refreshing.
What is that supposed to mean?
It's one of those things that either you get it right off the bat, or you'll never get it. Sorry.
It's one of those things that either you get it right off the bat, or you'll never get it. Sorry.
Maybe it's the disparaging tone...
Strange how attempted uppercuts come flying after every jab but they seem to keep missing.
No knockout power for sure.
No time, no answers.
It's one of those things that either you get it right off the bat, or you'll never get it. Sorry.
You got faith in Jebus?
As a side observer, the anti-homeo's have done nothing but convince me to look deeper into this magic water they seem to resort to with side smears rather than links.
Never think you know everything.
Let us know the results of your inquiries, RP. Meanwhile, I'll be setting up a lab to study the curvature of the earth. There are people who think they know all the answers to that too, believe it or not.
LSD is an illegal substance. People use LSD. People often have positive psychological experiences with it in the right setting. Would its inclusion in a holistic approach to, say a case of depression, be deemed improper?
I only wonder, because it is one of those weird pharmaceutical grey areas I have noticed with some holisticy types of folk I've had the pleasure of speaking with. Some of them are enamored with its effects and write off the potential for long term, detrimental side effects as hogwash. Some of them see it as an evil pharmaceutical because it is synthesized.
I'm just kind of interested in some of the opinions here on this specific substance and its use in holistic medicine, etc.
LSD is an illegal substance. People use LSD. People often have positive psychological experiences with it in the right setting.
Does watching a beer case breathe for five hours count?
Would the dilution factor of LSD qualifiy it as a useless homeopathic remedy?
Papal Bull... do the folk you have talked to have the same objections to psilocybin?
Papal Bull... do the folk you have talked to have the same objections to psilocybin?
You know, I never thought of asking them about that, but I can't quite imagine that they would object to psilocybin or salvinorin or mescaline, etc., etc. as unnatural.
This thread'll be closed for length pretty soon.
Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' accounts of arguing with creationists. When they demand evidence, he supplies it, and they deny that any such evidence exists.
I suggest that maybe for a subsequent thread, we could discuss the misuse of, "natural," a term that is vastly misunderstood and exploited for marketing purposes.
Natural? Isn't that the antonym of fictional... [ex. "unobtainium" isn't natural, but uranium is]
This thread'll be closed for length pretty soon.
Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' accounts of arguing with creationists. When they demand evidence, he supplies it, and they deny that any such evidence exists.
I suggest that maybe for a subsequent thread, we could discuss the misuse of, "natural," a term that is vastly misunderstood and exploited for marketing purposes.
I never suggested that evidence doesn't exist. Nor did I insinuate the misuse of natural.
Dirty comparison, Sineed.
In most contexts, natural means organically derived, i.e., naturally occurring, as opposed to manufactured. I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that the term "natural" is nevertheless exploited for marketing purposes.
Which of course leads me to wonder, if you have put your uranium (as opposed to unobtanium) through enough dilutions, isn't that essentially puttting it through a manufacturing process, leading us to the conclusion that it is not natural?