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

[onewheeldave]

But not actually settled to the satisfaction of anyone except you.

 

Just because you've made several attempts to refute that argument does not mean you've succeeded.

 

Of course.

 

I mentioned it only so those new to the thread who want to bring up that issue, can read my previous posts first- after all, if they raise the exact same question, there's no point me reposting my POV over and over again.

[[Matt]]

You still fail to understand the issue of cost however. Patients are free to go see a homoeopathic practitioner in their own free time and use their own money to do so. For that reason the issue of choice is irrelevant.

 

What you're failing to understand is the fact the NHS spends huge amounts of taxpayers money on a treatment that does not work in anyway past the placebo effect at a time when this country is completely drained of money and facing a massive £200 billion tax defecit. We simply cannot afford to frivolously throw away public money on nonsense when its desperately needed elsewhere.

 

Secondly what about the rights of those in this country who know homoeopathy to be nonsense and who wish to choose the right to not have their hard earned cash taxed away from them only for it to be thrown down the drain by spending it on nonsensical drivel?

[onewheeldave]

;6443831']You still fail to understand the issue of cost however. Patients are free to go see a homoeopathic practitioner in their own free time and use their own money to do so. For that reason the issue of choice is irrelevant.

 

 

I'm not failing to understand- I understand fully (that, if patients are denied homeopathy on the NHS, that they are free to pay for it elsewhere) but I disagree with it.

 

Firstly, anyone on a low income can not afford to pay for homeopathy.

 

Secondly, as an analogy, imagine that the govt, for some reason involving costs, decides to remove, say, cancer treatment from the NHS- claiming that those affected can simply can treatment in their own time and at their own cost, is not going to be seen as a suitable justification.

 

Now, before anyone rushes into 'but conventional cancer treatments are proven to be effective and homeopathy isn't.....etc'- yes, that's true- I'm simply using the example as an analogy to show the weakness of a particualr arguement (that those using homeopathy can continue to do so under their own expense if it's removed from the NHS).

 

 

;6443831']

 

Secondly what about the rights of those in this country who know homoeopathy to be nonsense and who wish to choose the right to not have their hard earned cash taxed away from them only for it to be thrown down the drain by spending it on nonsensical drivel?

 

 

 

 

I guess the rights of those who believe homeopathy to be nonsense, have to be balanced against the rights of those who believe it to be effective who do wish to have their hard earned cash taxes to go towards funding for homeopathy on the NHS.

 

Incidently, on that issue, as previously mentioned, the proportions are massively scewed, in favour of those who are against homeopathy- the amount of taxes contributed by supporters of homeoapthy is proportionally much higher than the amount of funding which actually goes towards homeopahty on the NHS.

 

This is obvious from the tiny amount of cash actually spent on homeopathy (relative to the overall health budget).

[onewheeldave]

Anyone got any links to details of proper scientific clinical trials on homeopathy that have been published on the internet?- I'd like to look at some of the details of these tests.

 

I'm not interested in tests run by supporters of homeopathy which may use dubious scientific methodology- but, the kind of clinical tests that are acceptable to the rationalists who oppose homeopathy.

[Rupert_Baehr]

.

 

Thanks for that.

 

I'm not failing to understand- I understand fully (that, if patients are denied homeopathy on the NHS, that they are free to pay for it elsewhere) but I disagree with it.

 

...anyone on a low income can not afford to pay for homeopathy.

 

 

Surely there's a simple and obvious cure for that?

 

Dilute the bill. Divide it by 1000.

 

That should work.

[flamingjimmy]

I

Now, before anyone rushes into 'but conventional cancer treatments are proven to be effective and homeopathy isn't.....etc'- yes, that's true- I'm simply using the example as an analogy to show the weakness of a particualr arguement (that those using homeopathy can continue to do so under their own expense if it's removed from the NHS).

But you havewn't done that. AS you have acknowledged, youir anology is crap because cancer treatments work and homeopathy doesn't, this fact is a lot more important than you make out and is exactly why people should have to pay for their own homeopathy if they want it.

 

I guess the rights of those who believe homeopathy to be nonsense, have to be balanced against the rights of those who believe it to be effective who do wish to have their hard earned cash taxes to go towards funding for homeopathy on the NHS.

 

Incidently, on that issue, as previously mentioned, the proportions are massively scewed, in favour of those who are against homeopathy- the amount of taxes contributed by supporters of homeoapthy is proportionally much higher than the amount of funding which actually goes towards homeopahty on the NHS.

 

This is obvious from the tiny amount of cash actually spent on homeopathy (relative to the overall health budget).

I do not see this as obvious, I'd really like to see how you worked it out.

[Guest]

Anyone got any links to details of proper scientific clinical trials on homeopathy that have been published on the internet?- I'd like to look at some of the details of these tests.

 

I'm not interested in tests run by supporters of homeopathy which may use dubious scientific methodology- but, the kind of clinical tests that are acceptable to the rationalists who oppose homeopathy.

Have you glanced through this report (pdf)? Page 7 onwards does a good job of presenting the basis upon which homoeopathy should be evaluated from a scientific medical perspective. References, like this one, included, along with that presented by the The British Homoeopathic Association.

 

As with most full text articles, you'll need to pay for access to the Lancet article unless you're accessing it from an institution that provides a subscription.

[[Matt]]

I guess the rights of those who believe homeopathy to be nonsense, have to be balanced against the rights of those who believe it to be effective who do wish to have their hard earned cash taxes to go towards funding for homeopathy on the NHS.

 

Incidently, on that issue, as previously mentioned, the proportions are massively scewed, in favour of those who are against homeopathy- the amount of taxes contributed by supporters of homeoapthy is proportionally much higher than the amount of funding which actually goes towards homeopahty on the NHS.

 

This is obvious from the tiny amount of cash actually spent on homeopathy (relative to the overall health budget).

But beliefs are entirely irrelevant where science based medicine is concerned. Within science evidence is everything and rightfully so. If a good portion of the populace actually believed that sticking a banana completely up their arse was a good treatment for rectal cancer despite that being total nonsense, would you also respect that belief and argue for that treatment to be provided for on the NHS despite this country's massive tax deficits and debts?

 

It is not my belief that homoeopathy is nonsense. The evidence quite clearly says that it IS nonsense...

[onewheeldave]

Have you glanced through this report (pdf)? Page 7 onwards does a good job of presenting the basis upon which homoeopathy should be evaluated from a scientific medical perspective. References, like this one, included, along with that presented by the The British Homoeopathic Association.

 

As with most full text articles, you'll need to pay for access to the Lancet article unless you're accessing it from an institution that provides a subscription.

 

Having looked for studies on this, I'm finding it surprisingly difficult- they do not seem to be out there- any time I get to something that looks relevant, I'm getting, as you point out also, requests for payment.

 

Surely, studies on important stuff like this that is relevant to people's health and, especially relevant when it comes to debating and making decisions on the issues- they should be available for everyone interested to peruse for free?

 

Especially given that, in online debates like this, most of the rationalists arguments make reference to these studies.

 

I have serious doubts about whether these studies supposedly done on homeopathy have actually got a decent methodological basis to be relevant- this is why I want to look at some actual studies.

 

 

 

Thanks for the link to the PDF- I've downloaded it and will have a read of it.

[onewheeldave]

;6445278']

 

It is not my belief that homoeopathy is nonsense. The evidence quite clearly says that it IS nonsense...

 

Could you direct me to the evidence you're refering to? As mentioned above, I'm having problems even finding the evidence to look at in the first place