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

[Tony]

Again, someone who says it's a coincidence.

 

How many coincidences does it take to make a cure?

 

I dunno but coincidentally my episode of benign positional vertigo cleared up all by itself just like your wife's but I wasn't taking the magic memory molecules beforehand.

[plekhanov]

But you don't soley fund the NHS, we all do.

 

And, a significant portion of those who do fund it, wish to have homeopathic remedies availabe.

 

Let's guess a figure of say, 1% of the taxed population wish homeopathy to be available on the NHS and, guessing a second figure of say 0.01% of the NHS budget being allocated to homeopathic remedies- I'd argue that that's fair.

 

What seems unfair is a situation where you, get to decide what their money is allowed to be spent on.

By this bizarre logic the government should deliberately waste tax payers money upon every scam that morons fall for.

[nightrider]

But you don't soley fund the NHS, we all do.

 

And, a significant portion of those who do fund it, wish to have homeopathic remedies availabe.

 

Let's guess a figure of say, 1% of the taxed population wish homeopathy to be available on the NHS and, guessing a second figure of say 0.01% of the NHS budget being allocated to homeopathic remedies- I'd argue that that's fair.

 

What seems unfair is a situation where you, get to decide what their money is allowed to be spent on.

 

so you think what medicines the NHS uses should be decided by popular vote rather than by people who actually understand what they are doing?

[nightrider]

"I did answer that point some posts back- it's not possible, according to conventional medical science, for anyone to be harmed by a homeopathic remedy, as, scientifically speaking, there is no active ingredient in it."

 

Tell that to someone who dies of cancer before their time because the NHS can't afford to pay for the drugs, but can afford to waste money on treatment that does not work. Funding homeopathy does have consequences for other people.

[plekhanov]

"I did answer that point some posts back- it's not possible, according to conventional medical science, for anyone to be harmed by a homeopathic remedy, as, scientifically speaking, there is no active ingredient in it."

 

Tell that to someone who dies of cancer before their time because the NHS can't afford to pay for the drugs, but can afford to waste money on treatment that does not work. Funding homeopathy does have consequences for other people.

I also like the way he pretends that the NHS backing nonsense like homoeopathy won't in any way cause more people to view it as a credible treatment and opt for it over treatments which actually work.

[onewheeldave]

No, they don't. It has been pointed out to you many times, but the fact that something exists, and the fact that you pay taxes, does not mean that you automatically have a right to that thing that exists, simply because you also pay taxes.

 

For example, aeroplanes exist, and I pay taxes. Therefore, using your argument, I am entitled to an aeroplane.

 

I never said it did- that is not my argument.

 

People on this thread persist in saying that those who wish homeopathy should be denied it on the NHS and, that they should have to pay for it.

 

I'm simply pointing out that they already do pay for it, via their taxes.

 

That is a different point to the one you seem to think I'm making

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

So which conditions are conventional treatments not superior?

 

Many ear infections (see my previous posts for reasons).

 

Any cancers where, on balance, the distress caused by the conventional treatment, excceds, in the patients eyes, the benefits, im terms of improved life quality/life extension, than those of not having the conventional treatment.

 

(Somewhat hypothetical of course, but, given the nature of the discussion, inevitably so. And, this is the kind of balance the patient with serious cancer has to make decisions on- I think many of us know people who've gone for the 'life at all costs' approach and maybe thought 'if that was me, I wouldn't have endured all those treatments- on balance, if I find myself in that situatuation, my focus would be more on a, perhaps, shorter life, with a lot less painful and distressing visits to hospital units for treatments).

 

Plus of course, all previous established treatments which are now considered either, at best, useless, or, at worse, barbaric: examples being frontal lobotomies, routine use of anti-depressents for school children with 'behavioural problems' the aformentioned drug recently taken off the market as it is now known to increase risks of heart attacks.

 

All with the benefit of hindsight I'm sure you'll be thinking however, the fact remains, that many of those who tend to gravitate to alternative therarpies, always knew, that dicing the frontal lobes of a persons brain is not going to help, or that drugging schoolchildren on a routine basis, is unwise.

 

They couldn't prove it to the standards required by pharacutical companies, but, nevertheless, they made their choices accordingly (and, in hindsight, their instincts were shown to be right)

 

To me, that's what it's all about- the rights of a patient to choose treatments on their own terms, not being forced to endure only the orhtodox, on the agengda of a group of 'rationalists' who feel that their way (of seeing things) is the only way, and, anyone who dissagrees can jolly well pay for their own treatment

[onewheeldave]

The logic being applied here by onewheeldave, that NHS spending should be based on popular demand, irrespective of effectiveness, is simply staggering.

 

We could poll the population on a number of things that we think the NHS should supply:

 

18% might think that the hayfever oral pill should be supplied, 5% might think that breast enhancements should be supplied, 25% might think that lenses should be supplied to correct eyesight, 48% might think eye tests should be free, 37% might think that prostate cancer screening should be supplied, 23% might think free dental checks are supplied, 14% might think unlimited IVF should be supplied etc etc etc

 

You could easily reach 5000% public support for all sorts of things that the NHS doesn't supply, but the taxpayers want. Apportioning NHS spending based on popular demand would be lunacy.

 

????

 

You can't just add all the percentages together- they're for different things.

 

And you'll never get more than 100% support for anything.

 

Plus, of course, as I must have pointed out on 5/6 posts, I've at no point advocated NHS spending being based on popular demand (see many of my previous posts where I've addressed this misunderstanding directly).

[onewheeldave]

Having read Bad Science recently, Ben Goldacre's main criticism of the multi-billion pound alternative medicine industry is simply that they don't bother to do the investigations. Most of them remain "alternative" because those that profit from them are not interested in spending a small amount of their vast profits on actually proving if they work or not.

 

"Big Pharma" might be far from perfect, on occasion it might even lie or bend the rules, but at least the industry does undertake research which is available for scientific scrutiny.

 

Although, given the multi-billion nature of the industry, it's often a case not of 'can't be bothered', but, instead, 'can't afford it'.

 

Plus, some things can't be adequately measured in controlled studies (many of those who use homeopathy, for example, value things like 'quality of life' over measurable physical effects: sciences attempts to quantify or study 'quality of life' are extremely problematic).

 

As you say, "big pharma" is far from perfect, very far indeed (often 'corrupt') and, as you say, if does lie and bend the rules- IMO, that should be seen for the disgrace it is, and dealt with accordingly (e.g. not by fines which are a drip in the ocean to such companies and which deter them not one bit, but by imprissonments and shutting down of companies found guilty of corruption).

 

I'd like to see more effort spent in sorting out the disgrace that the companies underpinning our health system, routinely lie and cheat: and, a bit more acceptance of the rights and choices of those equally offended by that, who 'opt out' of the conventional and investigate the 'alternative'.

 

Corruption, lies and deceipt, clearly undermine and jepordise the scientific objectivity which should underpin studies and medicinal trials- perhaps they explain some of the 'U-turns' of conventional treatments (now withdrawn) I mentioned a few posts back.

[plekhanov]

I never said it did- that is not my argument.

 

People on this thread persist in saying that those who wish homeopathy should be denied it on the NHS and, that they should have to pay for it.

 

I'm simply pointing out that they already do pay for it, via their taxes.

 

That is a different point to the one you seem to think I'm making

They don't pay for homoeopathy & any other quackery they're dumb enough to fall for they pay for access to the National Health Service, contrary to what you seem to imagine there is a difference between the two.