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

[EbonyBranch]

Ahem, allow me...

 

Homeopathic funding formula

 

NHS Homeopathy bill £12,000,000

 

In homeopathy, the more you dilute something, the more powerful it is!

The standard dilution is 30C, which is one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000*

So let's make the homeopathy budget far more powerful by diluting it by 30

That makes the new budget a tiny tiny tiny fraction of one penny.

Just think how powerful such a diluted budget

must be!

 

 

 

* Yes that does mean that there is less than a single molecule of "active ingredient" in a

homeopathic "remedy", which is of course impossible, and which is why the "remedies" are nothing but very expensive water.

I saw a variation of this argument on Facebook and have been meaning to get back and post it here. The logic is unassailable.

[Tony]

Don't you believe in the magic memory molecule?

[Guest sibon]

Don't you believe in the magic memory molecule?

 

Molecules, Tony. Do you know nothing about homeopathy.

 

In this case, the difference between the singular and the plural is critical. How on earth do you expect one water molecule to "remember" the presence of another molecule. It only works in groups.

[Cyclone]

No, it's not a natural consequence.

 

In no logical way does it follow from-

 

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

 

that therefore-

 

"all therapies that people demand should be available on the NHS"

 

If you think it does follow, then can you explain why please?

 

Because the reason you give for why it should stay available is that a small group of people want to use it.

By extension that means that anything groups of people want should be made available. At least it does if you aren't going to offer any other reason (such as being effective) for homeopathy to be stay available.

[PC Brigade]

Dave - I'd like to ask you a different question - you said that homeopathy should be provided on the NHS as an experiment.

 

This sounds like a rehashing of the old 'more research is needed' argument.

 

The fact is that the research has already been done, and its already been proven that homeopathy is NOT effective. Calling for more research would mean ignoring the existing evidence, and is a tactic often employed by homeopaths because they can keep asking for more evidence for ever. There is no need.

The BMA agrees, even the parliamentary select committee agrees - there is NOT a need for an ongoing experiment because we already know - it doesn't work.

[milquetoast1]

10 pages already, and nobody's linked to the Mitchell & Webb sketch? Let me rectify that:

 

 

[Suffragette1]

10 pages already, and nobody's linked to the Mitchell & Webb sketch? Let me rectify that:

 

 

 

Ha, ha - great sketch!

[onewheeldave]

Because the reason you give for why it should stay available is that a small group of people want to use it.

By extension that means that anything groups of people want should be made available. At least it does if you aren't going to offer any other reason (such as being effective) for homeopathy to be stay available.

 

No, that's not my reason.

 

 

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 have offered 2 other reasons- see my previous (recent) posts.

[onewheeldave]

Dave - I'd like to ask you a different question - you said that homeopathy should be provided on the NHS as an experiment.

 

This sounds like a rehashing of the old 'more research is needed' argument.

 

The fact is that the research has already been done, and its already been proven that homeopathy is NOT effective. Calling for more research would mean ignoring the existing evidence, and is a tactic often employed by homeopaths because they can keep asking for more evidence for ever. There is no need.

The BMA agrees, even the parliamentary select committee agrees - there is NOT a need for an ongoing experiment because we already know - it doesn't work.

 

No, I think you're maybe assuming that when I say 'experiment' I'm referring to 'clinical trails'?

 

To me the potential value of homeopathy lies not in any physical effects that will be measured in clinical trials (such as those effects from pharmacutical drugs).

 

What this 'experiment' may be able to give conclusions on, are things like

 

1. why do some patients feel homeopathy is of value

2. the effects of a patient-practitioner relationship that is based on ensuring the patient feels respected, listened to, not talked-down-to and, given a consultation time that far exceeds the current (common with GPs) of 5 minutes

3. whether there is my previously mentioned possible effect, that the availability of homeopathy on the NHS, may lead to a continued interaction with the NHS, amongst those who, otherwise, may feel alienated from and, refuse to interact with, conventional medical provision.

 

Plus, of course, it will lead to useful observations of how the public (who, ultimately, do fund the NHS) react to/tolerate a treatment available on the NHS, that has no clinical trial evidence that it is effective in the sense that it produces measurable physical effects.

 

That's what I meant by 'experiment'

[onewheeldave]

Plus, it may lead to some much needed questioning of the current status-quo, whereby the value of a medical treatment is assessed purely in terms of some physical effects produced in clinical trails financed, designed and run by, companies who, often, are provenly unethical and driven by profit.

 

When we're talking about the health of human beings, physical effects of chemicals are not the only, or even the most important, factor.

 

How the patient feels is of great importance- and, even if to some conventional practitioners, that is considered insignificant, the fact remains that it is hugely important to the patient.

 

I'd like to see a clinical trial that fairly compared two groups of randomly selected individuals/familes, one which used only conventional medicine, the other using both conventional medicine, plus a significant usage of homeopathy.

 

Measure the health of both groups after a decade or so, also measure things like their contentment/happiness (if possible- those things are not easy to measure in any scientific sense).