Apology: "Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts"

[Rupert_Baehr]

My central point is that there's a large group of people who fund the NHS with their taxes who wish the homeopathy option to remain available- many of them have listened to the arguments and the pros and cons- they still wish it to be available.

 

When it comes to money given to 'experts' to decide whether or not homeopathy should/should not be allowed it's fair to say that, in their eyes, that's more of their money being wasted, because they don't need an 'expert' to judge whether or not they should be allowed to receive homeopathy on the NHS- they long ago made up their own mind about that question.

 

Incidently, that's another thing they tend not to like about the conventional health system- it's habit of ignoring the wishes of patients when those wishes do not concur with what the 'experts' think should be done.

 

If you really want a system like that - Go for it!

 

But don't stop half-way. The present system is a compromise. - We would all like to see every ailment afforded every treatment. There simply is not enough money.

 

Your preferred system is easy to implement! (but I, for one, would have moral objections.)

 

You cite the people who agree with you: The people who swear (perhaps) by homeopathy. You appear to suggest that those people are being shirt-changed.

 

Well, if you want everybody to receive value for money, that can be done. Everybody gets exactly what he or she pays for. No more - and no less.

 

Those who want homeopathic treatment buy it (out of their pockets) those who want 'conventional' treatment buy it (out of their pockets) and those who can't afford either do without.

 

Is that what you want? - I'm not a doctor. I'm a taxpayer. I pay doctors - and other medical experts - and I pay them to make decisions. When they make those decisions and present them to me (the taypayer) I feel remarkably inclined to listen to what they have to say ... I did after all, pay them to say it.

 

I have a dog. In fact, I have two dogs. I can bark - but I choose not to.

[anywebsite]

My central point is that there's a large group of people who fund the NHS with their taxes who wish the homeopathy option to remain available- many of them have listened to the arguments and the pros and cons- they still wish it to be available.

 

When it comes to money given to 'experts' to decide whether or not homeopathy should/should not be allowed it's fair to say that, in their eyes, that's more of their money being wasted, because they don't need an 'expert' to judge whether or not they should be allowed to receive homeopathy on the NHS- they long ago made up their own mind about that question.

 

Incidently, that's another thing they tend not to like about the conventional health system- it's habit of ignoring the wishes of patients when those wishes do not concur with what the 'experts' think should be done.

 

You could probably find a lunatic fringe that wants all kinds of quakery available on the NHS. You could probably find quite a large minority of people that want a tarot card reader to book the day of their surgery. It doesn't make it a good idea. The nhs has limited resources & should concentrate those on proven treatments.

 

The majority of us want an effective heath service, therefore these decisions are best made by medical professionals with the knowledge & experience to make good choices.

 

If you want homoeopathy, or reiki, or a faith healer, you should pay for it yourself. It isn't something that should be on the nhs.

[Rupert_Baehr]

My central point is that there's a large group of people who fund the NHS with their taxes who wish the homeopathy option to remain available- many of them have listened to the arguments and the pros and cons- they still wish it to be available..

 

And? - It doesn't work that way, Dave. Minority groups - no matter how vociferous - don't get to run the show. Sorry. It's called 'democracy'.

 

When it comes to money given to 'experts' to decide whether or not homeopathy should/should not be allowed it's fair to say that, in their eyes, that's more of their money being wasted, because they don't need an 'expert' to judge whether or not they should be allowed to receive homeopathy on the NHS- they long ago made up their own mind about that question..

 

Again, that's the way it goes. Nobody is forbidding homeopathy - they're just saying that if you want it, you must pay for it.

 

Incidently, that's another thing they tend not to like about the conventional health system- it's habit of ignoring the wishes of patients when those wishes do not concur with what the 'experts' think should be done.

 

Not (quite) so. The experts are (usually) indeed experts. They know what they're talking about. Do you?

 

Unfortunately, medical treatment is (ordinarily) limited to that which is proven. Fact.

 

I'm not - in any way - involved with deciding who spends what where. I have no axe to grind.

 

I'm a 'logical' sort of bloke and I can't imagine authorising expenditure on 'fairy tale' cures ...just as well I don't have to talk about them ... because that would be hilarious!

 

If you had a stye, what would you do?

If you had a crop of warts, what would you do?

 

I suppose you could come to me and let me charm them ... but that's unscientific, isn't it?

[Evei]

If you had a stye, what would you do?

If you had a crop of warts, what would you do?

 

I suppose you could come to me and let me charm them ... but that's unscientific, isn't it?

 

I'd do nothing, both will go away on there own without treatment! I suppose some people have homeopathy and they then go away so that is proof to them. Money should not be spend either conventional or alternative medicine for problem that will heal on their own or cause no significant problem.

 

I used to have warts on my knee, I hated them but they went after 2 years as though they had never been there! no scars from having them removed or homeopathey remedies taken

[Cyclone]

Nah, there's still no proof that placebo effects cures that I've seen. Something else is going on, maybe a lifestyle change, maybe increased awareness, perhaps therapy or psychology. The only thing I'm aware of is that it wouldn't have been the placebo and that the effects could be reproduced without it.

 

You asked for some reliable sources. If you want to dismiss them out of hand then we'll have to disagree. There appears to be a large body of evidence that can measure real physiological changes caused by the placebo affect and very little counter argument though.

[Cyclone]

Alternative medicine pretty much literally means 'medicine that doesn't work'.

 

Just ask yourself: Why is it called alternative medicine?

 

The answer, I think you'll find, is because it fails all clinical trials and cannot be shown to work.

 

The process is like this:

 

1. Company comes up with new drug

 

2. They have it tested to see if it works.

 

If it passes the tests and can be shown to work better than a placebo, it becomes a 'medicine'

That's certainly the modern process.

Sometimes though, alternative medicine is alternative because no large pharm company has investigated the affects or isolated the compounds that work in a particular remedy.

Many herbal remedies are based on real affects, willow tree bark for example, did it lead to the discovery of aspirin or does it contain a very similar chemical, one or the other.

 

If it fails the tests and cannot be shown to work any better than a placebo then the company just puts it in the 'alternative medicine' isle and sells it anyway. It's madness.

 

They don't develop very much at all that has no affect, and if it did have no affect then it wouldn't get approval from the regulatory powers. Most of the pharm failures cause side affects and are never approved for human trials, never mind human sales.

[PC Brigade]

Homeopathy is one of those curious things that doesn't actually work but it does. theres no hard scientific evidence for it but theres plenty of hearsay and anecdotal evidence that it does.

 

 

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

 

It doesn't work.

[Dozy]

My central point is that there's a large group of people who fund the NHS with their taxes who wish the homeopathy option to remain available- many of them have listened to the arguments and the pros and cons- they still wish it to be available.

 

When it comes to money given to 'experts' to decide whether or not homeopathy should/should not be allowed it's fair to say that, in their eyes, that's more of their money being wasted, because they don't need an 'expert' to judge whether or not they should be allowed to receive homeopathy on the NHS- they long ago made up their own mind about that question.

 

Incidently, that's another thing they tend not to like about the conventional health system- it's habit of ignoring the wishes of patients when those wishes do not concur with what the 'experts' think should be done.

My bold

 

Is there? Do you have any proof of the existence of this "large group"??

 

But even if they do exist, I'm sure there will be equally large groups of people who would like to have crystals, or aromatherapy, or other forms of alternative medicine available via the NHS. If one form of alternative medicine should be paid for by the NHS, then logic says all of them should be - thus ensuring even more patient choice.

 

Unfortunately for enthusiasts of alternative approaches, as others have pointed out, NHS funding is finite - so it's not going to happen.

 

I've never understood why the NHS funded homeopathy in the first place, and they should certainly stop doing so now that budgets are becoming even more restricted.

[F. Sidebottom]

She drank some water and it made her better?

 

No actually, she'd been drinking water all along and that didn't make her any better.

 

Any more silly questions?

[PC Brigade]

 

There is a debate on the value of homeopathy, whether the 'rationalists' (I used inverted commas when referring to this vocal group of people, as I actually question whether they are as rational as they think they are) like to think so or not.

 

Many of us do not judge the value of a thing soley in terms of what modern pharrmacutical funded science has to say about it.

 

 

Most people with an interest in this subject would agree that too much power lies in with the big pharmaceutical companies. And its true that conventional treatments are not perfect either.

 

However, that in no way excuses the wasting of public money on something which defies all natural laws.