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

[onewheeldave]

;6417949']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?

 

I'm familiar with the list- i consider it typical sensationalistic, scare-mongering using cherry-picked stories of woe, not a single one of which involves anyone being 'harmed by homeopathic remedies'.

 

It is, I repeat, scientifically impossible to be harmed by consuming a potion containing no active ingredient whatsoever.

 

Case 1 form the list-

 

"Age: 55

Hollymount, County Mayo, Ireland

 

 

Died (asthma attack)

July 9, 2001

A homeopath told her to give up her asthma medication. She later died of an asthma attack."

 

Someone told her to stop and she died of an asthma attack.

 

Even supposing it was stopping the medication that led to the fatal attack (it's not unknown for asthma sufferers to occasionally die of attacks even though they continue to use the medication), what killed her was her own decision to cease the medication.

 

;6417949']

 

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?

 

Not a choice I'll ever have to make, as I have access to both forms.

 

However, i will point out that I personally have never visited a homeopathic doctor, nor do I ever expect to- while I'll defend anyone's right to choose homeopathy, I personally don't place much stock in it (though I do think it's lack of side-effects is a big plus, given the awful side-effects that can manifest in those using conventional medications over long periods of time)

 

Equally, i have, on several occasions, exercised my choice to refuse conventional medical treatment, because, having thought about things I came to my own decision to do so, either because I thought the treatment was unnecessary, or, I found the arrogance of the particular physician to be more than I could tolerate (that one was for a broken finger, where, in my opinion, the doctor was a disgrace, who seemed to think that his long medical training gave him more rights over what treatment should be performed on my finger, than I had)

[Kthebean]

However, i will point out that I personally have never visited a homeopathic doctor, nor do I ever expect to- while I'll defend anyone's right to choose homeopathy, I personally don't place much stock in it (though I do think it's lack of side-effects is a big plus, given the awful side-effects that can manifest in those using conventional medications over long periods of time)

 

Hi Dave

 

I think you have argued your point very eloquently and am interested in what you think, following on from what you say above.

 

If I tomorow developed a new type of alternative medicine called Beanopathy, whereby I had a tonic that I claimed would cure illness. I then market the tonic aggresively, giving it out to people in health food shops, placing ads in newspapers etc.

 

There is no scientific proof that Beanopathy works - in fact, theres evidence that it doesn't work any better than a placebo - but the people like it and start to demand it from their doctors.

 

Do you think the NHS has a duty to those people to pay me whatever I charge for the Beanopathy treatment?

[Guest sibon]

Hi Dave

 

I think you have argued your point very eloquently and am interested in what you think, following on from what you say above.

 

If I tomorow developed a new type of alternative medicine called Beanopathy, whereby I had a tonic that I claimed would cure illness. I then market the tonic aggresively, giving it out to people in health food shops, placing ads in newspapers etc.

 

There is no scientific proof that Beanopathy works - in fact, theres evidence that it doesn't work any better than a placebo - but the people like it and start to demand it from their doctors.

 

Do you think the NHS has a duty to those people to pay me whatever I charge for the Beanopathy treatment?

 

Only if you remove all of the beans first and rely upon the tonic to remember them.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

And as I already said and I think you ignored, you are being disingenous. Firstly it is untrue that individuals have paid for any treatment, and secondly what is your point if not the logical extension that by paying for it (in your opinion) they have become entitled to be prescribed it.

[milquetoast1]

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?

He's seems to be arguing it both ways and neither, all at the same time.

 

[onewheeldave]

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?

 

I believe that homeopathy, which currently is available, on a limited basis, on the NHS, should remain so.

 

I do not believe that any 'treatment' should be available by popular demand alone, nor have I argued for that (ridiculous) viewpoint.

 

I believe that this kind of attribution of an argument to a person who has not made that argument, is what 'rationalists' refer to as a 'straw man'- an argument attributed to someone that is easy to demolish, but, which is not an argument the person ever actually made- rather it is a misinterpretation of what they have actually said.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

I repeat- I believe that homeopathy, which currently is available, on a limited basis, on the NHS, should remain so.

 

Now, some posters are saying the old 'if people want it, they should pay for it, not get it on the NHS etc, etc'.

 

To which I have pointed out that they do pay for it, with their taxes.

 

That it no way can be interpreted as me saying that 'all treatments requested by popular demand should be available on the NHS'.

 

I can see there's scope for misinterpretation of it as such, by those who are primarily interested in 'winning' the argument. But, now I've explained in such detail, so many times- grounds for that misinterpretation are surely now without substance.

 

When I say "they do pay for it, with their taxes"- that is nothing more than an attempt to dissolve the 'objection' that 'those who want it should pay for it, not get it on the NHS' (because that objection seems to contain an implication that they currently do not pay for it, an implication I consider false, as they do pay for it (with their taxes).

 

Maybe it's a failed attempt- that's fair enough; what is not fair is to run off with it and misinterpret it as an argument that 'all treatments requested by popular demand should be available on the NHS'- which is something I've neither said, nor do I believe.

 

I think, given the amount of times this is being brought up, I'll simply copy-and-paste this post in reply, as, I really do not think I can put it any more clearly this this

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

Nevertheless, those who support the (limited) availability of homeopathy on the NHS, will respectfully disagree, as do I.

 

The amount of money we're talking about is, in proportion to the overall budget, miniscule, and will enable very, very little conventional treatments.

 

And, what will be lost, is something which, for those who want such treatment, yet, for whatever reasons, traditionally stay well away from the conventional health system, provided a bridge by which they could maintain a limited contact with it.

 

Now, I do appreciate that, to you, the wishes of that group of people are irrelevant, that you probably consider them to be fools who should not have their 'irrationalities' pandered to.

 

Bear in mind though, referring back to that list of people who are allegedly 'victims' of homeopathy, who died as a result of refusing conventional treatment- they are exactly the kind of people who, if homeopathy is banned from the NHS, will likely then seperate fully from the health care system and seek out homeopathic practitioners who operate entirely outside of any NHS supervision.

 

I'm assuming that the current homeopathic practitioners used by the NHS, are subject to at least some vetting, and, no doubt keen to enhance further links with conventional medicine, will be bending over backwards to encourage their patients to also continue to maintain links with conventional practitioners and, continue with any necessary conventional medications?

 

Once homeopathy is removed (despite the wishes of many patients) from the NHS, then you can expect far more 'victims' of homeopathic practitioners who are unregulated, possibly 'underground', possibly conmen, possibly mentally ill, who have a hatred of conventional medicine and who will routinely recommend that their patients cease all conventional treatments as a matter of course.

 

That's the cost of removing homeopathy from the NHS- balance that against the small amount that will be made available for conventional treatments, then add on the extra costs of treating the 'victims' of these underground 'therapists', not forgetting to figure in the good will lost from those who, despite being as intelligent and rational as you and me, nevertheless considered the availability of homeopathy on the NHS to be a rare, and much needed, olive branch from conventional medicine, in terms of respecting the views and choices of those who see some things in a different way to the majority.

 

To me, that's looking like a bad deal from pretty much everyones perspective.

 

The only people I see feeling any benefit, are a small bunch of highly-vocal alleged 'rationalists' whose main quest in life seems to be getting everyone to view life in the exact same way they do; who, despite claiming rationality to be the highest good and worshipping it like some fundamentalist logic-obsessed sect, will, with neither regard or regret, happily trample over something which is far, far more important- the absolute right of people to choose how to live their lives, to choose their own beliefs and priorities and, ultimately, to choose how they live and, how they die.

[flamingjimmy]

I believe that homeopathy, which currently is available, on a limited basis, on the NHS, should remain so.

 

I do not believe that any 'treatment' should be available by popular demand alone, nor have I argued for that (ridiculous) viewpoint.

 

I believe that this kind of attribution of an argument to a person who has not made that argument, is what 'rationalists' refer to as a 'straw man'- an argument attributed to someone that is easy to demolish, but, which is not an argument the person ever actually made- rather it is a misinterpretation of what they have actually said.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I am well aware of what a strawman is, in fact the whole point of my post was to try and establish what your argument actually is because I couldn't see what you were arguing for. I was not attempting to make a strawman, I was explicitly trying to avoid making one, which was why I was asking for clarification.

 

Now, some posters are saying the old 'if people want it, they should pay for it, not get it on the NHS etc, etc'.

 

To which I have pointed out that they do pay for it, with their taxes.

 

That it no way can be interpreted as me saying that 'all treatments requested by popular demand should be available on the NHS'.

You have just strawmanned all of us right back , I don't think anyone has said you have said that.

 

What people have said is that that is a natural consequence of your line of reasoning because thus far the only reasoning you have offered as to why homeopathy should be paid for by the NHS is that there is popular demand for it.

 

I can see there's scope for misinterpretation of it as such, by those who are primarily interested in 'winning' the argument. But, now I've explained in such detail, so many times- grounds for that misinterpretation are surely now without substance.

 

I think, given the amount of times this is being brought up, I'll simply copy-and-paste this post in reply, as, I really do not think I can put it any more clearly this this

You still have not clarified it for me

 

Unless you can offer a reason for the NHS to pay for homeopathy other than popular demand then 'all treatments requested by popular demand should be available on the NHS' is a natural consequence following the same logic.

 

Note: I am not saying that you have said that, just that by applying your logic to things other than homeopathy that is what you would end up with. Ie. not a strawman.

[onewheeldave]

Hi Dave

 

I think you have argued your point very eloquently and am interested in what you think, following on from what you say above.

 

If I tomorow developed a new type of alternative medicine called Beanopathy, whereby I had a tonic that I claimed would cure illness. I then market the tonic aggresively, giving it out to people in health food shops, placing ads in newspapers etc.

 

There is no scientific proof that Beanopathy works - in fact, theres evidence that it doesn't work any better than a placebo - but the people like it and start to demand it from their doctors.

 

Do you think the NHS has a duty to those people to pay me whatever I charge for the Beanopathy treatment?

 

No.

 

To put it simply

 

Thanks for the eloquence comment, i'm glad somoeone on this thread appreciates that I making an effort to explain myself as well as I can.

 

But really, I am going to stick to the actual points I'm making- I'm not going to get sidetracked into other stuff like defending the viewpoint that any therapies in demand should be available on the NHS (a viewpoint I do not hold, yet one which several posters on this thread, for whatever reasons, seem to desperately wish I did hold).

 

Neither am I going to waste my time trying to argue that there is any scientific basis for homeopathy etc.

 

I'm here simply to defend the right of patients to choose homeopathy if they wish it and, along the way, expose any irrational arguments put forward by the 'rationalists' as they try to remove that right to choose.

[Cyclone]

So you don't think that the NHS should provide homeopathy then? Despite your comments on who pays for it.

 

Sorry, read the rest of your post. You defend their right to choose homeopathy, but not beaneopathy. Even though you won't try to argue that homeopathy is in any way effective or a sensible use of limited funds?

 

It all seems a bit contradictory to me.