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

[Tony]

It's neither. She got better because of something else, not homoeopathy and certainly not the laying on of healing hands.

 

There appears to be some disagreement at the moment actually. So maybe neither of us can claim to be correct.

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

 

There are many links here to studies which show real physiological changes, but this one is interesting.

^ Flaten MA, Simonsen T, Olsen H (1999). "Drug-related information generates placebo and nocebo responses that modify the drug response". Psychosom Med. 61 (2): 250–5. PMID 10204979. http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/250.

An inert drug which has a real physiological affect which differs depending on whether the patient is told it's a muscle relaxant or the opposite.

 

This recent study

^ Simpson SH, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, Padwal RS, Tsuyuki RT, Varney J, Johnson JA (2006). "A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality". BMJ 333 (7557): 15. doi:10.1136/bmj.38875.675486.55. PMID 16790458. PMC 1488752. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/333/7557/15.

Apparently shows that adherence to a placebo regime and the belief that it extends your lifespan, will actually extend your lifespan...

Nah, there's still no proof that placebo effects cures that I've seen. Something else is going on, maybe a lifestyle change, maybe increased awareness, perhaps therapy or psychology. The only thing I'm aware of is that it wouldn't have been the placebo and that the effects could be reproduced without it.

 

One trip to a Homeopath and she was back to normal in a week.

 

I can't say I understand it, but as my wife is self employed, and was losing a lot of money not being able to work, she certainly wasn't putting it on, and she certainly couldn't have faked being 'cured'.

That's a coincidence, not a cure.

[Kthebean]

Reiki is not homeopathy, although it is quackery.

 

The power of placebo possibly, maybe just coincidence. Who can say.

 

That was my point Cyclone.

 

Quite often the cycle of treatment goes diagnosis -> conventional medicine -> homeopathy/alternative therapy -> recovery.

 

Very easy for the alternative therapist to claim that they have cured when actually the conventional medicine has now had chance to work.

 

'We had tried everything' is something you hear a lot - it may actually be the 'everything' that has cured.

 

I have no doubt in the case of my friend it was actually the bone marrow transplant that saved his life, he is also certain of that. It is only the Reiki lady who thinks this is now proof that she can heal the dying.

[onewheeldave]

If they want to pay for it, fine. That is, pay 100% of the cost themselves.

 

 

As previously mentioned, they do pay for it, with their taxes.

[beckelina]

That was my point Cyclone.

 

Quite often the cycle of treatment goes diagnosis -> conventional medicine -> homeopathy/alternative therapy -> recovery.

 

Very easy for the alternative therapist to claim that they have cured when actually the conventional medicine has now had chance to work.

 

'We had tried everything' is something you hear a lot - it may actually be the 'everything' that has cured.

 

I have no doubt in the case of my friend it was actually the bone marrow transplant that saved his life, he is also certain of that. It is only the Reiki lady who thinks this is now proof that she can heal the dying.

 

Ben Goldacre calls this 'regression to the mean' - basically a lot of conditions and illnesses have a natural cycle too - the symptoms appear, they get worse, they get really bad, then they start to improve (or you die).

By the time some people have got bad/desperate/acute enough to try homeopathy, they may be in the 'improving' stage of the cycle of the illness.

And wrongly attribute it to a sugar pill made with water that has been banged on a horsehair pad seven times...

I'll add my voice to those recommending Ben Goldacre and particularly his book 'Bad Science' for an interesting read on homeopathy (and a lot more besides...)

[beckelina]

As previously mentioned, they do pay for it, with their taxes.

 

However I definitely do not wish for my taxes to go towards homeopathy when there are much more urgent needs within the NHS. How do we solve that quandary?

[onewheeldave]

However I definitely do not wish for my taxes to go towards homeopathy when there are much more urgent needs within the NHS. How do we solve that quandary?

 

 

There is no quandry- as the amount of money gained from the taxes of those who are happy to support the homeopathy option far exceeds, proportionatly, the amount actually allocated to homeopathy in the NHS, you're getting a good deal.

[onewheeldave]

I have no particular interest in homeopathy but a great deal of interest in patient choice. I would like to see doctors put as much energy into challenging the myth of efficacy that the large pharmaceutical companies have been peddling for decades. I am posting a link to an article that I just found by googling 'depression drugs don't work' - I know I have better links but they are on my other computer. I'm sure many people are aware already of the large bodies of evidence that question the drugs used in mental health and the billion dollar drug industry. This does not detract at all from the marvelous advances in medicine for physical ailments, but highlights that medicine, like every other sphere of life, has a political dimension and that money/power is a theme that emerges everywhere.

Here's the link (like I said, its not the best but thought it would be useful to add another perspective)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3434486.ece

 

To me, as well, when I see these calls for the removal of homeopathic options from the NHS, despite the demand for it and the (proportionaly) small amount of funds devoted to it, the 'patient choice' issue is foremost.

 

In my opinion, patient choice is paramount and, if that choice is for treatments that others consider to to irrational, then so be it.

 

In reality, of course, homeopathic remedies and other alternative therapies, are chosen and used by people who consider themselves perfectly rational.

 

People who have looked deeply at our current conventional health system and decided, that despite it's apparent basis on rationality and scientific evidence, that, in their opinions, it is lacking.

 

One aspect of this is the fact that scientific studies of the required rigour are profoundly expensive- the inevitable consequence of this is that the vast majority of funding will only go towards studies that are likely to produce a profitable outcome for the pharmacutical companies.

 

That, I would argue, is not rational.

 

The other well known issue is that, for whatever reasons (usually claimed to be lack of funds), engagment with the conventional health system is akin to a 'production line' process e.g. G.P. appointments being limited to 5 mins, appointments being difficult to make in the first place, patients facing unpleasant and invasive procedures with little genuine communication or understanding by the staff performing them etc.

 

Many patients have felt so traumatised by their experiences (or the experiences of relatives/friends) that they simply refuse to engage with much of conventional medicine.

 

Often the use of homeopathic/alternative remedies comes after that choice has been made- it's not about weighing up homeopathy against conventional treatment, rather, they make a decision to not go through another experience of conventional treatment, then look into the other options.

 

Additonally, despite it's scientific basis, conventioal remedies are far from foolproof. For example- the recent 'in the news' drug used by thousands of people which is now being withdrawn as newer studies have found it greatly increases risk of heart attacks.

 

Last year it was found that a drug given routinely to school children to modify their behaviour, was in newer studies to have no long-term benefits whatsoever.

 

Meanwhile, many of those who are drawn to homeopathic/alternative remedies, always had the instinctive feeling, for which they felt no need to verify scientifically, that giving psycho-active drugs routinely to schoolchildren, was not right.

 

Looking at the historical 'U-turns' of the medical profession over the last few decades, for example with regard to diet (previously meat and milk are essential to good health, now it's all about minimising meat/milk and eating 'five-a-day') is all some people need to have profound doubts about the 'rationality' of the conventional health system.

 

There was a time when lobotomys ('dicing' the front portion of the brain, using a metal spike inserted through the eye socket) were routinely performed on thousands of American pateients with 'mental disorders'.

 

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

 

Examples are rife.

 

There is a debate on the value of homeopathy, whether the 'rationalists' (I used inverted commas when referring to this vocal group of people, as I actually question whether they are as rational as they think they are) like to think so or not.

 

Many of us do not judge the value of a thing soley in terms of what modern pharrmacutical funded science has to say about it.

 

There are other aspects when it comes to the value of homeopathy and other alternatives, such as the value of a patient having the choice to make their own judgments, using their own beliefs, the value of a treatments with no possible side-effects and the value of a health professional who can give the patient the time, understanding and respect they deserve.

 

Some people value being treated as a human being, rather than a piece of meat.

 

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying conventional doctors/nurses treat people like meat (though of course, to medical science, the human being is ultimately just that), but, that's what it feels like to many of those who have 'opted-out' of conventional health in favour of things like homeopathy- it's more a case of those doctors having to operate in a system which is both under-funded and not being particularly focused on the feelings of a patient in the way that homeopathy is)

[Rupert_Baehr]

At the end of the day, we have to accept a number of (perhaps unpleasant) realities:

 

1. Medical care is a 'scarce' (as in finite) resource.

 

2. The NHS can't provide every treatment to every patient.

 

3. 'Value for money' and 'medical triage' are important. If I was a medical practitioner who could guarantee to cure every patient I treated - but I specialised in an ailment which affected one in every 100 million people, would I be employable? How much money (scarce resources) should you spend hiring me?

 

I've no doubt that there are many people who 'believe' in homeopathic treatment. I've no doubt that there are many people who believe that they have been cured by such treatment. They may even be right, but the people who assess and evaluate medical treatments (who may also be wrong) use their skills to do their job to the best of their ability.

 

Should the government dismiss those people and hire somebody else? - Given that healthcare is a finite resource and given that the people who make the assessments of what the NHS can afford and what it cannot afford are highly qualified, what do you want to do?

 

You've spent money asking experts to tell you how you should allocate scarce resources. Do you want to ignore their report?

 

Do you have a guard dog? If so, who barks in your garden?

[onewheeldave]

At the end of the day, we have to accept a number of (perhaps unpleasant) realities:

 

1. Medical care is a 'scarce' (as in finite) resource.

 

2. The NHS can't provide every treatment to every patient.

 

3. 'Value for money' and 'medical triage' are important. If I was a medical practitioner who could guarantee to cure every patient I treated - but I specialised in an ailment which affected one in every 100 million people, would I be employable? How much money (scarce resources) should you spend hiring me?

 

I've no doubt that there are many people who 'believe' in homeopathic treatment. I've no doubt that there are many people who believe that they have been cured by such treatment. They may even be right, but the people who assess and evaluate medical treatments (who may also be wrong) use their skills to do their job to the best of their ability.

 

Should the government dismiss those people and hire somebody else? - Given that healthcare is a finite resource and given that the people who make the assessments of what the NHS can afford and what it cannot afford are highly qualified, what do you want to do?

 

You've spent money asking experts to tell you how you should allocate scarce resources. Do you want to ignore their report?

 

Do you have a guard dog? If so, who barks in your garden?

 

My central point is that there's a large group of people who fund the NHS with their taxes who wish the homeopathy option to remain available- many of them have listened to the arguments and the pros and cons- they still wish it to be available.

 

When it comes to money given to 'experts' to decide whether or not homeopathy should/should not be allowed it's fair to say that, in their eyes, that's more of their money being wasted, because they don't need an 'expert' to judge whether or not they should be allowed to receive homeopathy on the NHS- they long ago made up their own mind about that question.

 

Incidently, that's another thing they tend not to like about the conventional health system- it's habit of ignoring the wishes of patients when those wishes do not concur with what the 'experts' think should be done.

[flamingjimmy]

Alternative medicine pretty much literally means 'medicine that doesn't work'.

 

Just ask yourself: Why is it called alternative medicine?

 

The answer, I think you'll find, is because it fails all clinical trials and cannot be shown to work.

 

The process is like this:

 

1. Company comes up with new drug

 

2. They have it tested to see if it works.

 

If it passes the tests and can be shown to work better than a placebo, it becomes a 'medicine'

 

If it fails the tests and cannot be shown to work any better than a placebo then the company just puts it in the 'alternative medicine' isle and sells it anyway. It's madness.