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

[Cyclone]

 

No wonder then, that many of them will end up going to alternative therapists who are happy to listen to themtake their money, and, discuss the options.

 

I've corrected that bit for you.

[[Matt]]

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

But what of those who understand homeopathy to be bunkum who STILL have to pay for this nonsense via taxation??

[Cyclone]

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

 

And as a counter to that it has already been pointed out that taxes are not hypothecated.

I think you're being disingenuous though, you keep saying that people should have the choice to be proscribed homeopathy because their taxes will foot the bill, but then say that this isn't the argument you're making. What is your argument then?

[Tony]

onewheeldave, are you (or is yours) an alternative therapist?

 

No compulsion to answer, I just thought it might underline your position as one close to the topic.

[Cyclone]

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

 

The right to decline the offered treatment should always be available.

The right to waste tax payers money on quackery is not the corollary of that.

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

No- that's a good point- no pretence on my part, it simply didn't occur to me- thanks for pointing it out.

 

Having been made aware of it, I agree that it is unfortunate that people gullible enough to see a treatment being valuable, purely because it is available on the NHS, is unfortunate.

 

However, for a quick and easy solution to this, why not issue a 'treatment leaflet' which states, clearly and fairly, that though the treatment is available on the NHS, there is, as yet, no published scientific study showing that it is more effective than receiving no treatment?

 

That way, the gullible who assume everything on the NHS is good just cos it's on the NHS, have a clear cautionary note, yet those who've done their research/thinking and, for whatever reasons, still want homeopathy, can still do so.

 

 

 

I don't need the figures - the one making the claim has to support it.

 

Sorry, maybe I've misunderstood: I thought you were maybe claiming that money allocated on providing homeopathy was greater than than provided by the taxes of those who support homeopathy being available on the NHS.

 

I guess you're not, otherwise of course, you'd be obliged to provide evidence of that.

 

I suppose what you're saying is that I've got no evidence of the contrary view- in which, of course, you're right, I do have no evidence in the form of stats/figures, then again, that's exactly what I said in the post in question.

 

In reality of course, it is an empirical fact that, of those two alternatives, one is correct and the other false- regardless of whether anyone had the actual stats, it is still a fact.

 

In the current absense of (and indeed, as I previously mentioned, the liklihood of that absense persisting in the near future) I offered up some reasons why I currently favour the viewpoint that money received via taxes (from homeopathy supporters) very likely exceeds that spent on homeopathy (in the NHS).

 

I thought those reasons to be fairly plausible, certainly, in the absence of hard stats, there's little else to go on- could you perhaps bring yourself to examine them and, perhaps offer some comment or even some reasons of your own why the opposite may be true?

 

I do appreciate that you 'rationalists' do (when it suits you) tend to fixate on hards stats/figures, as the only valid way to make a decision, but, in the absence of such stats (plus the fact that, even when present, they can be prone to misrepresentation), many of us revert to good old 'reasoning'.

 

Of course, if you don't want to, that's fine.

 

As long, of course, that you're not going to believe that the contrary case is true (that money spent on homeopathy on the NHS exceeds that gained from taxes by homepathy supporters), or, that my view is incorrect, cos, then, you'd have to provide some stats to back up your assertions.

 

But, as long as you're not saying wither of those things, I guess we can just leave it (though i will continue to believe what I believe, cos, IMO, good reasoning does count for a lot )

[onewheeldave]

"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.

 

Like I said, I dealt with that point exactly some posts back- please have a read of it.

 

Those people are harmed not by a homeopathic remedy (that is scientifically impossible- would be nice if a couple of the 'rationalists' had the grace to back me up on that one), but by money not being allocated to the drug which may (again, it's 'may', there's no guarantees with cancer cures of any kind) have improved their condition.

 

I also see no evidence whatseover that, the miniscule amount of money currently being spent to finance the small provision of homeopathy on the NHS, would (or even could, given the amount of money in question) be given over the to (very expensive) cancer drugs you are talking about.

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

[onewheeldave]

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?

 

No- see multiple previous posts in which I've explained why I believe nothing of the sort.

[onewheeldave]

onewheeldave, are you (or is yours) an alternative therapist?

 

No compulsion to answer, I just thought it might underline your position as one close to the topic.

 

No, I'm not an alternative therapist and I don't have any close friends/relatives who are.

 

I'm a supporter of the 'right to choose'.

[[Matt]]

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

This is not about the freedom to choose but instead about doing the right thing. Conventional medicine works. Homeopathy doesn't. Why offer up a treatment to a patient that simply will not work? Do you even realise how harmful bull**** can be??? Have a good long look at this list and tell me there's no harm to be done?

 

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

 

What I would love to know is given the choice between taking only homeopathic remedies for a possibly terminal disease or using only conventional medical practices to treat yourself what would you choose?