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

[[Matt]]

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

I'm a supporter of the 'right to choose' medical practices that will actually work....

[Cyclone]

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'.

 

I'd like to a choose a holiday in the sun next time I've got a cold. Will you support that?

[plekhanov]

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.

Yeah because the kinds of people who fall for anti-scientific rubbish like homoeopathy are just so good at reading and comprehending leaflets which talk about scientific studies

 

A leaflet is woefully inadequate to the task of countering the respectability given to nonsense like homoeopathy by it being available upon the NHS.

 

Not only would following your arguments deprive people of the funding for scientific treatments but it would lead people away from scientific treatments that they might otherwise have opted for.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

It seems like an entirely reasonable assumption that the NHS would purely offer 'valuable' treatments, where valuable means efficacious.

[milquetoast1]

????

 

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.

Yes, I'm pleased you recognised it, that's why I posted it that way to illustrate the ridiculousness of your arguments that because a demand exists the NHS should satisfy it free of charge.

 

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).

Well most of us have formed this opinion of your demands because you keep posting stuff like this:

 

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.

Fair? Fiscal lunacy if you ask me.

[nightrider]

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.

</QUOTE>

 

Exactly - so it is therefore a problem if we fund homeopathy.

 

<QUOTE>

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?

 

If the money was not spent on homeopathy it would be spent on something else in the NHS - that something else would almost certainly be more useful ( that might or might not ne cancer drugs). Thats why the doctors voted to ban homeopathy from the NHS the other day.

[onewheeldave]

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?

 

Given I've now stated in in different ways at least ten times, I'm tempted to leave it and suggest, if you're really interested, re-read my posts

 

One last go though-

 

I'm not saying "that people should have the choice to be proscribed homeopathy because their taxes will foot the bill".

 

What I am saying, in response to anyone who maintains that 'those who want homeopathy should not be able to access it on the NHS- they should have to pay for it'

 

...is, that they already do pay for it (via taxes).

 

It's a simple response to a specific claim, and, I'm a bit bemused as to why people seem to just ignore what I'm actually saying, and, substituting it with what they seem to want me to be saying.

[onewheeldave]

;6417836']But what of those who understand homeopathy to be bunkum who STILL have to pay for this nonsense via taxation??

 

Similar to those who consider large tracts of conventional health approaches to be bunkum, yet still have to fund it through taxes.

 

As many, many, many people have pointed out on this thread we don't really get to decide where our taxes go.

 

It's not a problem of homeopathy, it's a problem with the tax system, if you don't like it, you'll have to take it up with them.

 

Bear in mind, as well, and, this is established medical science, a huge portion of current health expentiture goes to treating diseases that are self-caused e.g. much (not necessarily all, of course) of current obesity problems, drug caused illnesses (alcohol, nicotine), disfunctional diets etc, etc.

 

i.e. diseases which are entirely avoidable and unnecessary.

 

Reflect on the fact that many of those who support/use alternative therapies, tend to put a lot of thought and discipline into their diets and lifestyles- they still have to fund the treatments of people who are ill cos they basically eat too much or use too many drugs.

[plekhanov]

Similar to those who consider large tracts of conventional health approaches to be bunkum, yet still have to fund it through taxes.

Those of us who consider the likes of homoeopathy to be 'bunkum' and scientific medicine to actually work have abundant evidence to back us up, like say for example the eradication of small pox, you've got what exactly?

 

As many, many, many people have pointed out on this thread we don't really get to decide where our taxes go.

 

It's not a problem of homeopathy, it's a problem with the tax system, if you don't like it, you'll have to take it up with them.

 

Bear in mind, as well, and, this is established medical science, a huge portion of current health expentiture goes to treating diseases that are self-caused e.g. much (not necessarily all, of course) of current obesity problems, drug caused illnesses (alcohol, nicotine), disfunctional diets etc, etc.

 

i.e. diseases which are entirely avoidable and unnecessary.

 

Reflect on the fact that many of those who support/use alternative therapies, tend to put a lot of thought and discipline into their diets and lifestyles- they still have to fund the treatments of people who are ill cos they basically eat too much or use too many drugs.

I was at Glastonbury just the other day and those in the 'healing field' throwing money away on woo seemed to be just as under the influence of drugs as those everywhere else.

[flamingjimmy]

I've been following this with interest but I seem to've missed part of it. Apparently mr onewheeldave you have explained many times that you are not just saying that treatments should be available by popular demand.

 

I can't find any of these times you've explained that anywhere, it seems to me that that is exactly what you arguing, could you help me out and tell me where you've explained that one away?