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

[Guest]

No, i'm arguing in support of the patients right to choose homeopathy

 

As for my thoughts on placebos, see the post above.

 

But, whatever I think of placebos, I'm arguing in support of the patients right to choose homeopathy

You're arguing in support of patients' right to choose homoeopathy on the NHS. Homoeopathy isn't defined by a doctor-patient relationship; it's defined by what it prescribes, and those prescriptions are formulated with regard to a certain set of principles: like cures like, and the power of homoeopathic dilutions. If there's no evidence that the prescriptions doled out by homoeopaths have any specific activity beyond placebo, then those principles are a sham and homoeopathy has no place in the NHS. In my opinion, of course; I suppose you could make an argument for the availability of placebo and the role of deception in the doctor-patient relationship.

[onewheeldave]

But the point is that those who receive the homoeopathic prescription have done so after consultation with the practitioner. If your argument is that the magic combination is pills plus consultation, then that test group has received that combination thus enabling homoeopathy to do its job.

 

Yes!!

 

And that's the point.

 

Though I'm arguing, not as you say "that the magic combination is pills plus consultation", but that the essence of homeopathy is the consultation (I cannot speak of the effect of the pills as, I do not currently know).

 

And, you are right that the test group has recieved that consultation, but, and here lies the problem, so has the other group.

 

Both groups receive the same consultation and, with it, any 'healing' effects that occur.

 

Thus, the only difference between the two groups, is that one additionally receives the homeopathic remedy and, the other addiytionally receives a fake.

 

Thus, the only thing the study can conclude is the difference in the physical effect of a homeopathic remedy versus a fake.

 

Now, if the study is supposed, in contrast, to say something about homeopathy's effectiveness, then, by focusing instead only on "the difference in the physical effect of a homeopathic remedy versus a fake", then it is severely methodologically flawed.

 

As, I suspect, are the majority of these studies, given the apparent difficulty of 'rationalists' to understand this vital distinction.

[onewheeldave]

You're arguing in support of patients' right to choose homoeopathy on the NHS. Homoeopathy isn't defined by a doctor-patient relationship; it's defined by what it prescribes, and those prescriptions are formulated with regard to a certain set of principles: like cures like, and the power of homoeopathic dilutions. If there's no evidence that the prescriptions doled out by homoeopaths have any specific activity beyond placebo, then those principles are a sham and homoeopathy has no place in the NHS. In my opinion, of course; I suppose you could make an argument for the availability of placebo and the role of deception in the doctor-patient relationship.

 

No. Homeopathy is not defined by what it prescribes.

 

The "doctor-patient relationship"- the diagnostic procedure etc, are part of the essence of homeopathy.

 

Without that, it is simply not homeopathy.

 

When rationalists say things like "homeopathy is defined by what it prescribes", it's, quite simply, a figment of their imagination.

 

It would be convenient, in terms of their desire to rid the NHS of homeopathy, if it was true, but it isn't.

 

The big problem arises, if they then go on to base clinical testing methodology on the premise that "homeopathy is defined by what it prescribes", because, it isn't, and, any tests based on that incorrect premise are worthless.

[Guest]

...Though I'm arguing, not as you say "that the magic combination is pills plus consultation", but that the essence of homeopathy is the consultation (I cannot speak of the effect of the pills as, I do not currently know)...

Right. So you're essentially eliminating the homoeopathic prescriptions then and suggesting that homoeopathy has its effect in some interaction between practitioner and patient.

[onewheeldave]

I suppose you could make an argument for the availability of placebo and the role of deception in the doctor-patient relationship.

 

No- I wouldn't make an argument for deception in that relationship.

 

You may recall that, on multiple occasions, I've argued that it would be a good idea to insist that homeopathic remedies come with a sticker giving the full facts- a 'warning' sticker pointing out that there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic remedies.

 

I'm very much in favour of full and open disclosure when it comes to health/NHS treatments.

 

Although, in the light of what I'm seeing concerning the clinical tests being quoted and, the, IMO, appalling lack of actual rationality in their design/the seeming lack of understanding of what homeopathy is actually about, I'm now in serious doubt as to whether any valid clinical tests of homepathy have been run

[onewheeldave]

Right. So you're essentially eliminating the homoeopathic prescriptions then and suggesting that homoeopathy has its effect in some interaction between practitioner and patient.

 

My feelings are that the patient/practitioner relationship is essential.

 

It's a distinctive and vital part of homeopathy, and, many other alternative therapies.

 

I strongly suspect that it's relative absense in conventional medicine, is a big problem and, at the roots of some of the failings of the conventional health system.

 

So, yes, for me, it's a big part, probably the major part.

 

I am not eliminating the prescriptions, because, I do not know whether they work or not.

 

If I thought they did not work (in isolation form the 'important part' i.e. the patient/practitioner relationship), then, as previously stated, i would still defend the rights of patients to access homeopathy on the NHS.

 

But, that said, I really want to stress that I am not eliminating the prescriptions, because, on current evidence, I'm not in a position to make that judgement.

 

Maybe they do work, maybe they don't- I can't say: to me it's not that relevant when compared to the (IMO) real and important issue, which is the rights of patients to choose homeopathy and for it to remain, as it currently is, available on the NHS.

[Guest]

...Although, in the light of what I'm seeing concerning the clinical tests being quoted and, the, IMO, appalling lack of actual rationality in their design/the seeming lack of understanding of what homeopathy is actually about, I'm now in serious doubt as to whether any valid clinical tests of homepathy have been run

Now you've eliminated clinical trials of the pills, what evidence are you presenting in support of homoeopathy?

My feelings are that the patient/practitioner relationship is essential.

 

It's a distinctive and vital part of homeopathy...

In what way is the homoeopathic consultation distinctive?

[HeadingNorth]

But, NHS doctors cannot.

 

 

If that is true, then your whole argument in favour of homoeopathy must be dumped, because the doctors cannot spend enough time with the patient to get this "diagnostic relationship" that you keep talking about.

 

On the other hand, if you are arguing in favour of homoeopathic doctors to be allowed to spend lots of time with patients but other doctors not to be, you are not allowing a fair comparison and your argument is worthless.

[onewheeldave]

 

On the other hand, if you are arguing in favour of homoeopathic doctors to be allowed to spend lots of time with patients but other doctors not to be, you are not allowing a fair comparison and your argument is worthless.

 

allowed to spendlots of time??

 

Like I said before, that consultation time is a defining characteristic of homeopathic treatment- right from it's inception, homeopaths recognised that it was essential.

 

They've built up their practices on that premise and avoided any temptation to, instead, cut it back and simply dole out remedies after 5 minute consultations.

 

Conventional practitioners have decided that consultations of that length are either, not cost effective, or, not particularly important in the health process.

 

That is the way things are (on the NHS), and so, any studies done to measure/copmare the 2 systems, needs to reflect, exactly, those differing consultation times.

 

The point of rigid scientific methodology is to eliminate bias that, otherwise, could fudge the results.

 

You seem to be saying that, despite conventional treatment, in reality, involving (relatively) short consultation times, when it comes to studies, the consultation time should be extended- that's totally against the principle of designing an impartial and fair methodology.

[onewheeldave]

 

In what way is the homoeopathic consultation distinctive?

 

1. length of time (longer consultations than conventional medicine)

2. belief that that longer consultation is necessary for effective treatment

3. a focus on respect for the patient, communication, ensuring the patient is at ease and feels listened to

4. getting to know plenty of details of the patients whole lifestyle, much of which, in conventional medicine, would not be considered relevant

 

I'm sure a practicing homeopath could put forward lots of other distinctions