“Homeopathy is ‘witchcraft’ and the National Health Service should not pay for it, the British Medical Association has declared.
Hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine, saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them.
The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of the remedies in the NHS.
Now, the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles.
Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA’s junior doctors committee in England told the conference: ‘Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy which is paid for by the NHS’.”
Read more at The Telegraph (thanks, PaulB)
Here here!
I’ve been hassling my local Co-op chemist for stocking ‘Teetha granules’ (12 x homeopathic 6c chamomila pills for a fiver) for ages but they won’t take them off the shelves. Grr.
Poor desperate mums who’ll try anything to keep their screaming babies quiet getting ripped off..
Interesting what is defined to be a homeopathic treatment these days. For example, many people would say hypnotherapy is alternative when there are reams of scientific evidence which support the benefits both physically and mentally. Witchcraft ey.. isn’t that what they said about women who attempted to make medicine back in the 1600s?
well…interesting stuff. does it matter if it’s efficacious under the scientists if it has some effect on those who favour it? there is much to be said for the placebo effect…rescue remedy helped me with panic attacks, having something that you are in control of must be a good thing…
my mum used to rub my knee when I hurt it, it made me feel better, are they gonna ban knee rubbing too?
Oh yippee! It’s good to see some serious challenge to the mockery that is NHS-funded alternative medecine. This is a nice thing to read on a wednesday morning.
Good. If gullible people wish to spend their own money on being duped that is their prerogative; it’s a free country. But to authorise the expenditure of public money on this charlatanry is ignorant and cannot be defended. When does this decision by the BMA group get to change government policy on clinical provision?
Homeopathy is nonsense. As is acupuncture, aromatherapy, reiki and crystal healing, and none of it should be paid for by the NHS. The NHS should save it\’s money for REAL stuff like the Bronnikov Method…
;o)
@Gaz
Homeopathy is only one aspect of alternative medicine. It has nothing to do with hypnotherapy.
@VonsterVon The difference is that we don’t give mums tax payers money to rub their childs bumps, and if you’re going to suggest placebos, then we might as well use the ‘most effective’ ones, which are injections. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/eric_mead_the_magic_of_the_placebo.html (Warning, not suitable for viewers who are disturbed by needles or blood)
Whilst I doubt they will ban knee-rubbing (see above post), I wouldn’t be best pleased if there was an NHS hospital devoted purely to the healing properties of the knee-rub.
It’s strange that some people don’t see the link between the NHS paying for this rubbish, and not being able to afford sunitinib, bevacizumab etc.
Witchcraft indeed!!
If people were to look at the many adverse drug reactions (ADRs) & there are tons, then look at what motivates the pharmaceutical industry (it’s a business!)… maybe they would ditch pharma drugs as I did 10 yrs ago & I’ve never felt healthier for it!!
Btw, I don’t take homeopathic drugs either, but if I had to choose between pharma & homeopathic drugs it would be no contest
It’s funny how people are so quick to judge the alternative route to medicine – especially when they’ve never tried it themselves.
I don’t for one second believe that anyone who takes homeopathy is ‘gullible’. I think that’s a pretty patronising and uninformed view to mouth off.
The fact that homeopathy is deemed as ‘witchcraft’ because it doesn’t have the sufficient scientific evidence for sceptical doctors just shows how dated these people are.
People always bang on about homeopathy just being a placebo. OK, well how does that work when it’s given to babies, children, animals? What about when you don’t know what you’re taking?
There are so many factors that people just don’t even bother thinking about. I suppose it’s easier to judge and make fun of something you don’t understand
Usually I would be very sceptical about things like this but I have seen homoeopathy work and I also believe things like hypnotherapy and acupuncture can be very successful. However, I agree that as not everyone believes in this treatment and it isn’t successful for everyone that we shouldn’t all be paying for it.
To be honest I’m a bit more pissed off that my taxes have to pay to patch up smokers and sun bed users. A lot more money is being wasted in a lot of other places.
I can agree to that one .. my mother is a witch .. and she also has got these small bottles hidden everywhere and she puts secretly drops in people’s drinks … (uhuh, pretty scary huh?!).
Now .. is it something in the genes .. It probably skipped one generation then.
Most people will try it … if it doesn’t work .. it wont hurt (they think …)
Homeopathy performs no better than placebo in clinical trials. The comment above stating that when we give a placebo we should give the most effective one, is a relevant point as the placebo effect is real and needs to be utilised. So yes, an injection would be a far better application of placebo than homeopathy. The problem then becomes one of morality – is it moral for a doctor to give something to his patients, telling them that it will help them when he knows that it actually contains no active ingredient or mediciine and that any subsequent health improvement will simply be the placebo effect?
If you are going to take a placebo to help your health, you may as well take the one the performs the best, crazy as that statement is!
If you think homeopathy can help people. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read Ben Goldsmith’s book Bad Science.
Veganpanda: Yeah, because homeopathy is totally not an industry… I’m sure homeopathic practitioners and manufacturers all do it out of sheer altruism.
Yes, pharmaceutic companies are businesses. Which means they’ll try their hardest to keep the customer happy by making medications that WORK. Homeopathic medicine is fairly cheap to produce — if it actually worked, those businesses would be all over it, running to the patent offices with new preparations.
Nina: Pets and children are fairly good at taking cues from their caretakers. Look up the story of Kluger Hans the wonder horse for reference. If caretakers are convinced the child/pet will feel better, chances are it will adapt its behaviour. Also, the placebo effect does actually work when you don’t know what you’re taking.
Yeah those pesky people in the ‘reality-based’ community are a real pain aren’t they Nina? You whined;
– quick to judge; nah, tried it, researched it, condemned it as woo.
- ‘gullible’ is so harsh and uninformed; nah, the cap fits and I’ve read and talked about this subject. Have you?
- calling it ‘witchcraft’ is dated; okay does ‘voodoo’ work better for you as a label? ‘Woo’? ‘Ignorance’? Stop me when I reach an acceptable label that means ‘rejection of evidencial facts’.
- easier to judge and ridicule when you don’t understand; projection much? I judge after investigation not before; I ridicule when someone appears to be a floppy pomo ‘mind-too-wide-open’ unthinker and I’ll keep doing it until someone produces convincing evidence that changes my mind. Got any of that Nina?
As a Pagan witch, I find that a little insulting. Even I know that a bottle of water with a few drops of lavender oil in it is not real medicine! Get me the number for Ofsted! I’m filing a complaint!
@veganpanda “…look at what motivates the pharmaceutical industry (it’s a business!)…” I always find amusing the suggestion that hawking homeopathic and other “alternative” remedies is thought NOT to be a “business.” (Business bad! Bad business!) “Alternative medicine” IS big business. Really big.
Few comments on this…
1. We’re not talking about ‘banning’ homeopathy, just that as it cannot be proven to work beyond the placebo effect, and it’s theory can scientifically be proven as hokum, then the british taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for it. If people want to pay for it out of their own pocket, let them.
2. Simply because it has no side effects (which is hardly suprising, given what is in homepathic remedies) isn’t a valid argument to the NHS paying over £4M a year for it. Wearing a green hat has no side effects, but many people would complain if I expected them to pay for it with their taxes.
PaulB
Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it’s placebo medication. It is defined as mixtures diluted to the point where no trace of the original active ingredient is likely to be found. The NHS doesn’t pay for placebos, why should they in this case?
Alternative ‘medicine’ is actually bigger (or at least better) than pharmacutical medicine – after all, they don’t have to pay for any development, trials, ect.
PaulB
I’d like someone who believes in Homeopathy to answer the following questions for me:
1. When a remedy is created, and it has to be shook 10 times up, down, backwards and forwards, what happens if you only shake it 9 times in each direction? Is the remedy weaker? Can we make stronger remedies by shaking it 12 times?
2. If I were in zero gravity, does it matter which way I shake the bottle?
3. When I “success” the remedy by striking it onto a leather board (to make the water ‘remember’ the previous contents), how hard do I need to strike it? Does the remedy become more potent if I strike it harder?
4. If I don’t have a leather board, can I use a wooden one, or does this lessen the effect?
If the above sounds ridiculous, please feel free to read up on how homepathy ‘works’.
To my (meagre) knowledge, placebos used to be used quite extensively before they were deemed unethical as they involve lying to a patient. Children were frequently given sugar syrup for very mild ailments- the doc would probably not even tell the parents that it was a placebo. During the 1st world war, salt pills and sugar pills were given as pain relief and there is even a story (anecdotal – i am not sure – maybe ask Ben Goldacre, he knows a lot of things) of a patient receiving a placebo and being told it was an anaesthetic. He passed out and they amputated his leg. Wow. (maybe he passed out from the pain, or loss of blood, but a great story if you leave out the inconvenient bits).
@Alan W – I agree with the essence of your statements in response to Nina’s post, but I think you were disrespectful and insulting towards her, 2 things which are unlikely to persuade her round to your way of thinking, which I presume is what you were trying to do. A presentation of facts to expose someone’s false belief is preferable to an attack on them personally.
I admire Derren Brown’s ability to see that false hope is still hope and his capability to question whether false hope is preferable to no hope. If someone takes homeopathy in the belief that it works and in doing so their life/health is improved then the end result is a positive one. Is a lie better than the truth in such cases?
regardless of what doctors think it is, that’s no reason to disparage witches. i guess doctors are also religious bigots.
\VonsterVon makes a good point. Just thinking you are doing something (however ineffective) can be very beneficial to your state of mind. So if it something modern medicine cannot fix no harm in trying alternative methods. However why waste money on junk? Dietary changes could be just as good and if carefully chosen even beneficial if not to the original complaint.
Professor Richard Dawkins does a wonderful bit about homeopathy in The Enemies of Reason,
demonstrating rather well the scientifically spurious nature of the claims made by that particular branch alternative medicine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYqQ_n2vOOI
Although it is always right to question orthodoxy in whatever form it takes, it is insulting to the intelligence to indulge in reactionary back-lash for the unadulterated hell of it. I find it deeply ironic that practitioners of homeopathy and the like talk about the need for rationalists to be more “open minded”, for there to be room in their worldview for things they don’t understand. However, it is rare that these people extend the same courtesy to science. A blind denial or mistrust of conventional medicine is short-sighted. It is the province of a particularly pernicious kind of wilful ignorance. That shows a distinct lack of open-mindedness. Or what else do you call turning one’s back on centuries of debate, thought, progress, knowledge?
Conventional medicine is a branch of science, which is, at its best, a rigorous, peer-reviewed, constantly adapting and advancing system of knowledge. Homeopathy cannot boast the same. And yes, pharmaceuticals are big business and business is often corrupt and prone to human error, but that does not devalue the science behind it.
I believe in transparency within the pharmaceutical industry, particularly where animal vivisection is concerned, but I don’t think a wholesale rejection of conventional medicine is helpful or justified, especially by those who do seek to question the orthodoxy or less than scrupulous business practices of the pharmaceutical giants. Woolly thinking embarrasses that particular cause and hinders, rather than helps, the arguments of those seeking rational debate. I would describe myself as a committed vegan, but also as a rational and engaged person, seeking to become better informed about those things I feel compelled to challenge.
Lastly, the idea that all promoters of alternative remedies are somehow morally superior to those involved with conventional medicine is not arrant nonsense. Just look at the wrath of censorship these charming hippies tried to bring down on poor Simon Singh.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped
If homeopathy is so marvellous, it should open itself up to properly regulated trials. It makes some truly starting claims. Perhaps those who say they believe should be pushing harder to bring their evidence to the attention of the world. If I had the courage of my convictions, I know I certainly would.
Comedian and activist Mark Thomas has a good idea about homeopathy, or at least some bright spark on his The Peoples Manifesto tour did. And I quote: “Those who peddle homeopathic remedies should only receive homeopathic medicines when they have major illnesses.”
@Nina what about when you don’t know what you’re taking? = clinical trials. That’s how they work and are tested as being only as effective as a placebo.
@Jess LOL!
haha i remember going to Nottingham Conference where Richard Wiseman was speaking and him pratically reading out the ingredients label on some homeopathic drugs and going ‘THERE’S NOTHING IN THEM OF ANY USE!’
Homeopathy is nonsense – ’nuff said. Calling it witchcraft makes arguments against funding it sound like a witch hunt; it makes quacks seem like heroes from the McCarthy era.
Alright @AllenW, no need to be so aggressive. I’m merely stating my opinion (calmly, I might add) like everyone else on here – you don’t have to talk to me as if I’m stupid just because you don’t agree with me.
I’m simply going on the experience that I have. I’ve been ill, taken something that has been ‘scientifically proven’ to work and hasn’t. I’ve taken homeopathy for the same problem and it’s worked. If my want, need and expectation for both to work was the same, then why didn’t the placebo effect take place with the first medicine i tried? And surely if this is the case, why don’t we all just urge ourselves better?
It really comes down to a case of what you deem as the ‘correct’ method of testing – homeopaths and scientists would disagree, obviously.
In the words of Tim Minchin: By definition, ‘alternative medicine’ has either not been proved to work,
or been proved not to work. You know what they call ‘alternative medicine’ that’s been proved to work?
Medicine.
Having Chronic Fatiigue Syndrome (long term and little if any treatments available), my faith in the advice of the specialist clinic was shaken when they offered me advice about homeopathic “remedies”. Fortunately the rest of their advice was brilliant, and I’m sure the offer was made because otherwise they would feel quite powerless. But that simple kindness very nearly backfired.
Keef; Thanks for the calm and clear acceptance of the veracity of my comments. You are, however, mistaken in presuming I wished Nina to come round to my way of thinking; people who don’t think very rationally won’t be persuaded by reason in my experience. In the same vein, they are not predisposed either to spend time rationally looking through a presentation of facts on a ‘net post but thanks for the suggestion. Irrational people MIGHT just might be tempted to refrain from seeming ignorant in public if ridiculed sufficiently and may even attempt to remedy their ignorance but mainly I posted so that any other casual readers could see that her points were vacuous and uninformed.
@Jared. I actually meant what about when you don’t know the reason you are taking it for. I.e – it being able to help with something that you aren’t actually aware is ‘wrong’ with you.
Homeopathy is so specific to the person that the same remedy for the same problem might not necessarily work with two different people. That’s why it’s incredibly difficult to match up to the expectations of scientific trials.
I do not reject conventional medicine at all. I view, as do many people, homeopathy as complimentary medicine. My mum has taken homeopathy for 30 years – should she have been denied chemotherapy when she got cancer just because of this?
I know GP’s who practice homeopathy, surgeons who recommend acupuncture. Why do people have to view it as ‘the Realists vs. the Hippies’?
Is there an argument to be made for a new understanding of the therapeutic process? One that allows for the kind of therapeutic experience that homeopaths are so good at providing without the spurious science? I envision a long therapeutic consultation with an understanding of the therapeutic benefits of the set and setting of the experience. I think there is a word – dramaturgy – (maybe I made it up) – the use of settings and language that are conducive to a ‘ magical’ experience, as in Shamanism.
On the door there would be a statement that ‘we make no claim that any of these products or processes are scientifically proven.’
You would enter a lovely, darkened room and spend an hour talking freely with a pleasant chap(ess) after which you have some woo woo treatment.
They could use blood capsules (like a shaman, he he) or crystals or just talking or sugar syrups or homeopathic remedies or Bach flower stuff or reflexology or whatever, with an acknowledgement that it is probably just a placebo but it is worth a try anyway. It would properly regulated, with an insistence that anything worse than a pimple be referred to a medical doctor. It would be private, but not too expensive. Cognitive Behavioural approaches would still be free on the NHS, as would positive visualisation courses, which are proven to improve mood and help those who are suffering to suffer less.
Woo woo makes some people feel better. Charlatans are getting rich from lies. Let us ditch the lies and embrace whatever positive benefits there may be.
Just an idea.
Ignore the word dramaturgy – i didn’t make it up but that is most definitely not what it means.
Dear Nina,
I’m not aggressive just right; you are not merely stating your opinion, you are ignorant of the facts. That’s dangerous; you may be tempted to follow homeopathic procedures for malaria prevention and end up like others gullible enough to do it and contract malaria. If it were just your health at risk I’d wish you good luck but you may have kids some day and encourage them to skip down the primrose path of ignorance rather than understand things; you may vote for people equally as deluded as yourself and give them power. Your ignorance is dangerous to others.
As for ‘disrespect’; I have no respect for someone on this issue who has had the immense advantages of western democratic educational opportunities and three hundred and fifty years of Enlightenment achievements yet still uses the phrase ‘doesn’t have the sufficient scientific evidence for sceptical doctors’ as you did in your first post. It reveals you have no idea at all about scientific and medical methods of investigation.
It does not come down to testing methods, it comes down to verifiable facts; homeopathy has never been shown to work under any reasonable testing conditions. It’s bunkum and I refuse to treat with respect a view of slack-jawed inanity that has been proven wrong.
About time too.
How does Homeopathy work? Its all explained in this link.
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/
If your not convinced after this, then there is nothing I can do for you.
Nina said – “Homeopathy is so specific to the person that the same remedy for the same problem might not necessarily work with two different people. That’s why it’s incredibly difficult to match up to the expectations of scientific trials. ”
Ha ha, you really have no clue what you’re talking about, do you?
And yet paracetemol, aspirin and actual clinical trial medicines just work – without all the faux-excuses about difficulty “matching up to the expectations of scientific trials” or such woo-woo nonsense.
Kinda makes ya think, doesn’t it Nina (or maybe not, in your case).
@AllanW. I completely object to being labeled irrational/vacuous/uniformed/ignorant just because I believe in homeopathy. I think that’s pretty patronising given you have no idea who i am or what i do. I have no problem sharing my views and listening to other people, so don’t make personal attacks on me please.
As I’ve said, I do not reject conventional medicine and my belief is purely to do with experience. But again, you cannot use the same methods of testing homeopathy as you would do conventional medicine. Each remedy is too specific to be given out for general ailments and has to be prescribed to each persons individual need. This is where the problem lies in terms of what scientists and homeopaths deem as valid evidence.
@Nina – you said “I have no problem sharing my views and listening to other people, so don’t make personal attacks on me please.”
A false accusation that the other person is making personal attacks, when that false accusation is done by attempting to conflate disrespect of your position with disrespect of your person are themselves personal attacks.
Here’s the proof that homeopaths (not you, Nina, but the people who have sold the idea TO you) are charlitains: When they complain that standard medial methods to test their remedies are not valid methods, they don’t provide some other type of scientific method of testing to use instead. This proves that they’re not actually testing their claims to see if they’re right. They’re just making claims on faith and not bothering to check them.
Nina said: “But again, you cannot use the same methods of testing homeopathy as you would do conventional medicine. Each remedy is too specific to be given out for general ailments and has to be prescribed to each persons individual need. This is where the problem lies in terms of what scientists and homeopaths deem as valid evidence.”
Why not? What makes homopathy so “special” that it cannot be tested by science?
Nina, your embarrassing yourself in front of the adults with this line of “reasoning” – perhaps you (and your mum) have invested so much time (and money) in homeopathy over they years that you feel you must defend it all costs – even that of your health.
All indepedent tests done on homepathy have shown the same results: no active ingredient, so no better than placebo.
@Nina – So, homeopathy can’t be tested? I feel you are in a kind of circular thinking-”I believe it works because I believe it works”. Such thinking is very difficult to argue against because it is irrational. I would suggest that you instead begin to question and ask for proof and instead change your thinking to “I believe it works because I have seen convincing proof that it works”. If we believe things purely based on our own experience or desires then we can believe in absolutely anything that our mind can conjure up or trick us into believing.
Would you buy a toaster if trials showed that it doesn’t toast bread any better than leaving it out in the sun? Or a clock that the manufacturer was unable to guarantee kept time? Of course you wouldn’t. So why the difference with homeopathy?
@Tyler Durden. Please don’t patronise me. I could be older than you for all you know so don’t make assumptions about whether I’m as ‘adult’ as you claim to be.
@Steven Mading. I never made any false accusations. I was simply going on what AllanW had said and implied I was.
@AllanW. “I’m not aggressive, just right”. OK, good luck with that.
What makes homeopathy so “special”? Well, like i’ve said in previous posts – homeopathy is extremely dependent on the person. Two people with the same problem could need two very different remedies. And that’s what it boils down to. It’s not that homeopaths are trying to worm their way out of being proven wrong or making excuses, it’s that the kind of scientific tests being forced on them to prove that they are right need to be done in a different…
..way to make them applicable to homeopathy. That youtube clip of the Richard Dawkins program that someone posted before is actually quite interesting. There you have it – a trained doctor now practicing homeopathy…not for any other reason that because he sees results. He says they\’ve done double blind tests but are they looked at or shown in the program?
If the patients were being given placebos then how do they cure physical problems? Rashes? Back pain etc? If this were the case and we could cure physical problems with the power of our minds then what would be the point in medicine at all?
Again, I have never said that I am against conventional medicine. There is no problem in taking one when the other fails.
@Keef. I never said it couldn’t be tested. If you have a look at that Richard Dawkins clip I mentioned then the doctor says many tests have been carried out. I’m talking about testing that applies specifically to that practice.
Also. Have any of you actually tried homeopathy? Are you just going by what you see on paper and completely writing it off as hippy ‘woo’?
If opinion is so split on whether it works or not then why not try it for yourself and see if it works for you? It can’t hurt. It is ‘just water’ after all.
veganpanda says: “look at what motivates the pharmaceutical industry (it’s a businss!!) – ditch pharma drugs as I did 10 yrs ago & I’ve never felt healthier for it!!”
And in those 10 years, have you had a local or general anesthetic?
What about vaccines? Would you leave children unvaccinated? Did you get your jabs as a kid?
What would you do if you needed a tetanus shot?
Are you on, or ever used, the birth-control pill?
Are you against a viable cure/treatment for HIV/AIDS?
And, what about prevention of malaria? or if you or a family member were traveling to sub-Saharan Africa? what preventative measures would you take?
You do realise homeopathy is also “A Business”, yes? they don’t give the stuff away for free over the counter (even though it’s only water.)
@Nina – Firstly, http://tinyurl.com/ydjatuo – Any result of homeopathic treatment can’t really be due to the ‘active’ ingredient.
Secondly, even if it were the case that water somehow has memory, how would it know what to remember? The ‘active’ ingredient or the things it has come into contact with in the sea, earth or sewage systems?
GP’s ‘practising’ homeopathy stops them prescribing antibiotics when they aren’t needed (thought to be factor in the emergence of MRSA) and make the patient feel better (Placebo Effect), however, the taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for this – it’s not medicine!
As for acupunture – scientific trials have shown some success with regards to pain relief – but none of the other claims of acupunture have come anywhere close to scientific validation.
@nina “But again, you cannot use the same methods of testing homeopathy as you would do conventional medicine. Each remedy is too specific to be given out for general ailments and has to be prescribed to each persons individual need.”
I was epileptic was I was young. I was put on several different medicines/dosages (Phenytoin, Epilim, Carbomezapine) until the right drug/dosage was found for me that controlled my fits. The view that homeopathy is too specific to be tested in the same way as traditional medicine is simply hogwash. That is why there are so many different drugs for every problem. The drugs are first tested and proved to work and then the doctor tries to match the right one and the right right dosage to suit the individual patient.
Nina says: “If opinion is so split on whether it works or not then why not try it for yourself and see if it works for you? It can’t hurt. It is ‘just water’ after all.”
Nina, opinion is not split regarding homeopathy – it does not work any better than placebo in *any* clinical trial undertaken or investigated. By using the word “split” you\’re inferring a 50/50 opinion on the effects of homeopathy, when in actuality homeopathy is closer to zero for effectiveness.
As for your ignorant claim that “it can’t hurt”, this shows you not only to be clouded by woo-woo but also dangerous in your thinking – if somebody here actually had a real illness, telling them to “try homeopathy” would have no effect and in reality you’d be making the person worse.
Well done Nina, you must be so proud!
@Nina – I agree with what the guys are saying but they do seem bitchy. Just thought you were getting a bit of a hard time. Perhaps consider animal tested medicine next though.
@Nina I think what you say makes perfect sense – using both homoeopathy and conventional medicines hand in hand with successful results.
I have limited experience with homoeopathy but am close to someone who has trained for many years. Homoeopaths aren’t stupid and ignorant, they are intelligent and well trained.
I’m just interested to know – and sorry if you’re repeating yourself here – Nina, do you think that taxpayers should fund homoeopathy?
Kirsty says: “Nina I think what you say makes perfect sense – using both homoeopathy and conventional medicines hand in hand with successful results.”
But there are no “successful results” with regard to homeopathy, it’s just water, and so, fails *every* test and clinical trial ever directed towards it. Conventional medicines are exactly that, conventional, because they’ve been through peer-review, clinical trials, random double-blind testing… all of which homeopathy fails to adhere to (and is somehow proud to assert. Why?)
Kirsty, if you has a headache, would you drink water/take a sugar pill (placebo) OR take two aspirin/paracetemol which contains an active ingredient? (what about for your children?)
As for Nina making “perfect sense”, are you sure you’re not on drugs??
@Tyler I don’t need you to present me with an argument. I myself have used arnica successfully as pain relief but I also use ibuprofen and paracetamol. I use any form of medication as rarely as I can as I don’t like taking it when I don’t really need it – I don’t care what you think about it – I was asking Nina whether she thinks the NHS and taxpayers should fund it, which personally I don’t.
If people choose to use homoeopathy and it works for them then fair dos, but a lot of people don’t believe in it or use it and don’t find it successful so I don’t think the NHS should be paying for it.
I’m a perfectly logical and intelligent human being and no I’m not on drugs. If what Nina says makes sense to me, it does, regardless of what you think.
Steven Mading says:
‘…here’s the proof that homeopaths (not you, Nina, but the people who have sold the idea TO you) are charlitains: When they complain that standard medial methods to test their remedies are not valid methods, they don’t provide some other type of scientific method of testing to use instead. This proves that they’re not actually testing their claims to see if they’re right. They’re just making claims on faith and not bothering to check them…’
Actually, it’s worse than that. Instead of presenting a viable testable hypothesis (that old chestnut, again!) when confronted by research that appears to invalidate their (Society of Homoeopaths et al.) previous hypothesis, they sue! That’s not science, that’s just ego, unenlightened self interest, and plain financial greed.
Sure,if it works for you, and makes you feel better, do it. But stop trying to pretend this is anything other than magic, and the reality it affects is anything other than a subjective one.
A good summary of just how ingrained the culture of nastiness and deceit is in homoeopathy:
http://draust.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/black-is-white-day-is-night-less-is-more-nothing-is-everything-yes-homoeopathy-again/
An example of how the Homoeopathy Society tried to leap on the Singe bashing bandwagon with a letter writing campaign. There’s a variety of differing levels of bile depending on how rabid a homoeopath you might be, and the suggestion that one ‘…adjusts it to to suit your own style of writing…’, no prizes for guessing why:
http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/full-story-free-speech/4533927252
Not that it was very successful:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped
“Don’t like the physical laws of this universe? Insist on being judged by the laws of a parallel one you thought up specially!
Choose Homeopathy now!”
I used homeopathy as a child when I had no idea what it was. I could pick up on my mum’s expectation that it would work. It really did work on three occasions. Twice with glue ear and reccurent throat infections and once with RVS – repetitive viral symdrome. Every time antibiotics were used, the problems came back. The problems stopped within two weeks of homeopathic treatment and never came back. I went through childhood believing in the efficacy of the treatment. Now i am a rational adult with a background in Nursing. Evidence based practice is very important to me. I am passionate about it. I have tried to understand why the treatment was so effective and come to the conclusion that the consultation process combined with that slight whiff of magic when you take the pill…
@Nina & @Kirsty, with regards to your own personal experience, what evidence do you have to back up your claims that homeopathic remedies cured your ailments?
Hint: Correlation does not imply causation.
are very effective at making you believe that any improvement (natural or brought on by medicine) is related to the homeopathic treatment.
I REALLY WANTED TO BELIEVE. For ages i could not bring myself to go against my mum’s beliefs. Powerful stuff, faith.
Faith without reason is blind.
Faith = “i don’t want to hear evidence, shut up, shut up, I already know what i think, I am right, i am right, you are wrong, go away, wrong person”
Reason = “I know what i think is right, i have seen some evidence, but prove me wrong in using acceptable evidence and I will embrace a new viewpoint happily, or adapt my views to meet the stringent criteria needed for proof”.
Love = “don’t disagree too much with mum, she is wonderful, she is also pretty darn intelligent and uses conv. medicine as well”.
For clarification – when i say “it really did work, on three occasions” I mean that is how I felt at the time. I now know different.
If placebos work to a certain extent and homoeopathy works like a placebo – then, to that certain extent, it works doesn’t it? We are so busy shovelling down prescribed meds from the drug-peddling giants that we aren’t trusting our body’s ability to heal itself. We can’t always believe wholly in ourselves – we can’t believe that we can be that powerful – so if we have to believe that some watery, sugary tic tac is doing the job, then so be it. Belief is a wonderful healer. Maybe homoeopathy is simply £3.99 worth of belief? If you take it off the NHS, then the belief is just gonna cost more and there will be much more of a chance that patients will pay the more unscrupulous in the trade for that same belief. Really, we should do far more research on how our minds can help repair our bodies.
CTND And we should be far more concerned about the intentions and goings-on within the pharmaceutical business. The homoeopathy business is a small potato and an easy target. Shut the f up about it and – if you have the bollocks – get the big gun out and start after the real bastards. Whole nother ball game, isn’t it? Ready to take on those mofos? Thought not.
How many ‘mores’ can I fit into a few paragraphs?
JayKay (singer or author?);
“to that certain extent, it works doesn’t it?”. You don’t understand what ‘placebo’ is I’m afraid. Think of it as ‘Hey I’ve convinced myself I feel better as a result of drinking water!’ There is no active ingredient; it’s just water. But one of the dangers is that there actually IS something wrong and all you’ve done by being fooled by the homeopathic procedure is to ignore it; that could be a bad mistake down the road. Bottom-line; for all the conditions that would have gone away in time anyway because of the body’s ability to heal, you didn’t need the highly priced water and for the conditions you actually need to visit a doctor to diagnose and attempt treatment, you have delayed. Perhaps fatally.
However homeopaths do not restrict themselves to those conditions which the body will heal itself over. By supporting the practice of gulling credulous people into these little things, you are creating a monster that purports to prevent malaria, cure cancer, colic and the host of other conditions that have been claimed to respond to homeopathic ‘cures’. They don’t; it’s a lie. It’s a lie that has been demonstrated over and over again in clinical trials. And it’s a dangerous lie that earns a lot of people a lot of money (so please don’t single-out pharmaceutical businesses for your conspiracy-theory needs).
Many people are ignorant about this issue and there is no shame in ignorance; I’m ignorant about many, many things. But ignorance is correctable through learning the facts rather than relying on, in effect, marketing literature for homeopathic companies. You have to develop critical thinking skills and apply scepticism and discrimination. Yes, Nina! Scepticism, criticism and discrimination are not bad words they just mean not believing everything you are shown or told until there is evidence for its veracity. At the risk of inflating someones’ ego I’d point you to Derren’s book about exactly these human traits and characteristics. Withholding credulity can be a valuable skill that pays back the effort many times over in avoiding mistakes.
Nina; “I completely object to being labelled irrational/vacuous/uniformed/ignorant just because I believe in homeopathy.”
But the adjectives apply I’m afraid. You have demonstrated how accurate they are with your views on this thread. But don’t be disheartened; no one here assumes that this is a complete description of you. Just on this issue. And you can correct your ignorance by some learning so chin-up! But I would honestly suggest that you will get this type of response to further illustrations of ignorant behaviour in the future so should try to either avoid those issues in which you just ‘have an opinion’ and concentrate upon those in which you ‘have an informed opinion’.
After all, the only thing you have been subjected to are a few pixels arranging themselves into certain shapes on an open forum, you haven’t been physically attacked or even threatened so try to understand that perspective, hmm?
I believe in conventional medicine – but the majority of people on this thread will class me as a gullible fool, as I have used 2 homeopathic remedies on my children – Arnica, and the Teetha powder.
Now, sometimes I’m happy to pay for a placebo, if that’s all I’m paying for. When your child screams with teething pain in the middle of the night, and they’ve had their dose of painkiller – having those powders is a godsend. Please note – I used the powders alongside conventional medication. They did stop the kids crying, and they calmed down enough to go to sleep. As the powders were usually given over an hour after the calpol, I can’t fully believe that the painkiller was only just beginning to work at that point. However it worked, placebo or real – it saved my sanity!
However, a colleague of mine once tried to convince me to rely on homeopathy rather than give my son a vaccination – and the pressure she put on me was quite upsetting as I steadfastly refused to believe her.
Arnica for bruises when the kids get a bump – the little pill thingys – maybe it only works because the kids have to stop crying to take it. Maybe it works because even under the age of 2 they read my expectation that the egg-sized lump on their forehead will go down and they somehow make it so. I can’t explain it. But, I have seen a reduction in the size of bruises on many occasions – a physiological response. If that is all placebo based – I don’t really care as it’s working for us.
But – if it’s more major than that – I would always look to conventional medicine first
and by that I mean that I’m aware that just because it’s ‘conventional’ medicine, it not infallible and doesn’t have all the answers either. I have been left wanting by hospitals and doctors on a few previous occasions.
This will not stop me looking to them again in the future,
Doctors are not always right, correct diagnosis are not always made and I do think it’s good to be able to question the medical profession too – and not to have a completely blind faith in the conventional methods either
Anyway that’s my tuppence worth – back to work!
Kirsty says: ” I myself have used arnica successfully as pain relief … I’m a perfectly logical and intelligent human being.”
Arnica does not perform any better than placebo in any of the limited trials run. Read some of the research. Perhaps you are logical and intelligent, but certainly not on such matters as pharmacology and biology based on your posts here.
Essentially what you’re saying here is “It worked for me, therefore it works!” – thereby using anecdotal evidence, *not* peer-reviewed, empirical, convergent, independently tested evidence to decide what works – does that sound “logical and intelligent” to you?
Gully you sound sensible to me. There is a place for little white lies in life as long as they are kept in perspective IMO. But sane, educated adults deluding themselves? No; that’s dangerous. The example you illustrated of vaccine-deniers is terribly damaging. The incidence of diseases that killed large numbers up to the turn of the nineteenth century was reduced to virtually zero by the Sixties after a programme of vaccination produced virtually complete coverage and immunity. The devastating ignorance of vaccination-denial has produced a situation now in parts on London where infection occurences and deaths are on the rise again. The danger this ignorance causes is NOT just to the individuals themselves but has now gone below a critical threshold whereby herd-immunity is compromised.
I used to use Arnica. I always wondered why nothing ever happened, and tried to convince myself that something was happening.
Then I tried a product called heparinoid cream (Bruiseze is an example) which is medically proven to reduce bruising by breaking down the clots.
It worked. It has been tested extensively (I believe) and passed.
Try it.
(If you have two bruises, try arnica on one and Bruiseze on another).
However, it is right to be sceptical about many things, including the motives of the pharmaceutical industry.
That means examining the evidence.
Adverse reactions are unavoidable, but just cause a leaflet says ‘kidney failure’ does not mean that many will get that condition. Herbal remedies can cause equally horrible effects.
Oh, I have a healthy dose of skeptism about me! As far as vaccinations – I haven’t been convinced by any argument against MMR, and have therefore ensured that both my kids have had theirs. I’m not saying that other peoples contradicting arguments are wrong – but for me, personally, the evidence just doesn’t weigh up.
On the other hand, I’m yet to be convinced of the cervical jab and am thankful that my kids are little enough that there will be years of evidence before I need to make that decision on their behalf.
Conventional drugs don’t work evenly either – I know as I had a very, very bad reaction to a prescribed migraine tablet a couple of months ago that meant I ‘lost’ 2 days. I’m in the 1-in-1000 adverse reactions -from just one tablet. Not doing that one again!
Parliamentary report on measles;
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-2581.pdf
@Gaz: You clearly have no idea what homeopathy is. Absurdly-dilute preparations are made according to Samuel Hahnemann’s brainless prescriptions — it’s not a catchall term for “untested medical modality,” okay? Hypnotherapy DOESN’T have “reams of scientific evidence” supporting it — far from it. Hypnosis is a state of overall relaxation but of heightened suggestibility, it doesn’t reveal your deep subconscious desires, it doesn’t cure you from smoking, or fix your marriage, or cure your cancer. And you say witchcraft was “women who practiced medicine in the 1600s”? Did you really misinterpret their use of “witchcraft” here that blatantly? Let me spell it out: witchcraft = magic, homeopathy = magic. In other words, it’s not science, it’s wishful thinking and charlatanism. Get it?