Not enough controversy

[Barry Shnikov]

Quite right the top docs who have pointed out that the NHS is wasting (probably) £millions funding 'alternative' therapies which are to genuine therapeutic effect as the I Ching is to investment analysis. This at the same time - as we all know - as the NHS is seriously short of funds.

Heard some berk on the radio suggesting that because there are homeopathic hospitals, and there has been homeopathic treatment available since the NHS first came into being, therefore homeopathic treatment is scientifcally valid. Someone e-mailed PM on radio 4 to point out the 'homeopathic remedies' have been used for 'thousands of years'. Of course they haven't. Not for more than 300 years.

Piffle.

Doesn't he realise that homeopathy was invented when people still believed in burning witches and before they discovered that life wasn't spontaneously created in ponds? If there were any scientifically valid homeopathic treatments, (which there aren't) then it would be purely by accident.

We no longer believe that there is a universal solvent or that a touchstone will be discovered that will transform base metals into gold. Why does anyone believe that powdered duck's liver diluted out of existence will cure colds?

[ducasi]

Based on the title of this thread, I wonder if your intention is really to discuss NHS funding, or simply to stir up some heated debate.

Sorry, but neither AMcG, nor DJ are posting these days, and ESG doesn't seem to post as much as he once did either...

I wonder if anyone else will step up to the plate...

[TheTramp]

Originally Posted by ducasi

I wonder if anyone else will step up to the plate...

I have been known to join in the occasional argument

But not this one, as I'm really feeling too lazy to argue something I don't really have any interest in.

Probably won't stop ESG though

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by TheTramp

Probably won't stop ESG though

I don't think Barry's trying to bait *me* - at least if he is, he could have picked something that I'd be more likely to disagree with, except to say:

Originally Posted by Barry S

'alternative' therapies which are to genuine therapeutic effect as the I Ching is to investment analysis.

I think you mean 'less effective than': www.i-ching-u-stock.com has always worked for me.

and

Originally Posted by Barry S

life wasn't spontaneously created in ponds?

um, let me introduce you to a few Salsa teachers!

[LMC]

OK, I'll bite - "I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. " (Mark Twain)

Homeopathy isn't the only alternative therapy out there. As it 'appens, I think it is a load of rubbish.

However, I disagree with withdrawal of NHS funding from the provision of tried and tested herbal/natural medicines (as opposed to homeopathic) and acupuncture. I don't know if these two are included in the proposal and don't care enough to check.

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

Doesn't he realise that homeopathy was invented when people still believed in burning witches and before they discovered that life wasn't spontaneously created in ponds? If there were any scientifically valid homeopathic treatments, (which there aren't) then it would be purely by accident.

Was reading only yesterday about how many medieval remedies like homeopathy "worked" because by being essentially "null treatment", they were significantly more effective than standard medical practice of the time which usually did more harm than good.

[LMC]

Anyone got a placebo?

[TheTramp]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

I don't think Barry's trying to bait *me* - at least if he is, he could have picked something that I'd be more likely to disagree with

I didn't think that he was either....

You will notice my line immediately above the one about you joining in....

Originally Posted by TheTramp

But not this one, as I'm really feeling too lazy to argue something I don't really have any interest in.

I guess I was just under the impression that you liked arguing, even when you don't really have an interest in the subject matter!

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by TheTramp

I guess I was just under the impression that you liked arguing, even when you don't really have an interest in the subject matter!

I do, but if I've been quieter than usual it's because lately there have been lots of threads in which I'm not so interested - even I can resist the temptation sometimes, you know (and somehow it's all much less fun without Andy "meet at my place, bring your pitchfork and a burning brand" McGregor).

[MartinHarper]

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

If there were any scientifically valid homeopathic treatments, (which there aren't) then it would be purely by accident.

I understand that anti-biotics were discovered purely by accident. Anyways, I'm glad the NHS is prescribing cheap harmless placebos, rather than its previous approach of using anti-biotics as placebos. Probably saves a lot of money that way.

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

We no longer believe that there is a universal solvent

We don't?

[TheTramp]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

I do, but if I've been quieter than usual it's because lately there have been lots of threads in which I'm not so interested - even I can resist the temptation sometimes, you know (and somehow it's all much less fun without Andy "meet at my place, bring your pitchfork and a burning brand" McGregor).

Ummm. You mean like most of the current ones?


(Or is that just me?)

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

I understand that anti-biotics were discovered purely by accident.

Not entirely by accident. Flemming was looking for something of the sort and had been for years. Leaving the culture plates while he was on holiday was the sort of carelessness he was liable to, it seems, but there was no luck involved in realising the importance of what he saw on them when he returned, investigating and making good on his discovery. Luck, as always, favours the prepared mind.

[Lounge Lizard]

OK I will bite
My life partner is a registered Homeopath so although my knowledge and understanding of the subject is not vast I do know a great many of her clients get real benefit from her treatment.

Whether it is in the mind or in the tablet who knows, but given the choice of taking a chemical contrived by a drug company to boost their profits with the risk of some unpleasant side affect (hope chef is reading this ) or an alternative that results in making me feel better I will go for the second option.

Alternative medicine DOES work, not in all cases, but the same applies to modern medicine.

Should the NHS provide it onprescription - probably not, should the NHS support it, and work alongside it giving patients informed information on the many alternative types of treatment available - yes but not in a beaurocratic way.

The care of our health is not (or should not be) an exclusive club where only the people who follow the current thinking or approach to medicine can join.
It should (and does) encompass traditional and alternative forms of medicine.

Oh and the comment on burning witches & homeopathy being 300 years old

In 450bc Hippocrates was advocating the principles of Homeopathic remedies (treating like with like) and Reflexology goes back even further, both the ancient Chinese & Egyptians are thought to have practiced reflexology and evidence can be seen depicted in ancient cave paintings


(I found the following in one of my partners books)
Homeopathy for use in modern medicine is primarily due to two German Doctors.

Paracelsus (1494-1541) often referred to as the 'father of Chemistry' for he updated alchemy by moving it away from the search for the elixir of life towards treating illness and pharmaceutical studies

and modern homeopathy came about when..........

Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) (the founder of modern Homeopathy
who proved that natural medicines mainly derived from plants & minerals provide a safe effective medication for treating majority of ailments on a like for like basis.

[ducasi]

OK, well if we're going to have a serious discussion about this...

With my rational, scientific head, I just don't see how homeopathy could work better than placebo...

However you get stories like this one, where an NHS Homeopathic Hospital has helped someone get better. Now isn't that what the NHS is all about – helping people get better?

So, whether homeopathy works from a scientific point of view or not, it clearly helps some people, and that's worth spending money on.

[Donna]

Originally Posted by ducasi

However you get stories like this one, where an NHS Homeopathic Hospital has helped someone get better. Now isn't that what the NHS is all about – helping people get better?

So, whether homeopathy works from a scientific point of view or not, it clearly helps some people, and that's worth spending money on.

Well said.

[Tessalicious]

Originally Posted by ducasi

So, whether homeopathy works from a scientific point of view or not, it clearly helps some people, and that's worth spending money on.

I totally agree - and I shouldn't because I'm a trained scientist, and a biomedical one at that. However, no-one would credit me with that training if I hadn't passed my final exams, and homoeopathy helped me to do that by treating the mental and physical stress I was going through at that time. It helps that I have been brought up using homoeopathic remedies to treat minor ailments - I have used them to help everything from colds and hayfever to period pain and travel sickness.

I get a lot of teasing from a certain ass about this subject, because I can't justify it. I don't claim to know how it works, although I suspect, and usually suggest to the biologically (and open-) minded that the effect might lie in stimulation either of the immune system or of the body's inbuilt balancing act, homeostasis. Alternatively, all these cynical geniuses are right, and it is just placebo - is that a bad thing? Never underestimate the placebo effect - as someone I used to know who was involved in the development of new painkilling drugs used to say.

A story I found on the net - about chiropractice v standard medicine, but the idea is interchangeable:

"A patient finally went to a chiropractor for her back pain after finding no relief with the orthopedist. After three adjustments and a week of no symptoms, she had a follow-up visit with her M.D.

Upon learning about the success of the D.C., the orthopedist stated, "That was just the placebo effect." The patient responded, "If it works so well, why didn't you use it?"

http://www.chiro.org/research/ABSTRACTS/Placebos.shtml

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by Lounge Lizard

My life partner is a registered Homeopath ... but given the choice of taking a chemical contrived by a drug company to boost their profits with the risk of some unpleasant side affect

Of course someone equally as cynical as you, LL, might say that her choice of pushing sugar pills on her naive patients was simply contrived to boost her own profits with no risk of any effects at all - side or otherwise. But not I.

[Caro]

Originally Posted by ducasi

With my rational, scientific head, I just don't see how homeopathy could work better than placebo...

It doesn't: in most cases, you'd find ONE molecule of active ingredient in every 10,000 homeopathic little pill (don't know how you call them) - the figure depends on the number of dilutions applied of course.
So it's fair enough to say that there is no active ingredient left in most of the homeopathic pills you'll take. (even if there was just ONE molecule per pill that would be very unlikely to have any effect anyway).
Hence (most) homeopathie is nothing else than placebo.

Yes it based on the concept of treating the like by the like, thinking that when a substance is received at small enough doses, the body can prepare itself to cope with it better (like vaccines boost the immune system). But that (Hahnemann) was well before atoms and molecules were understood, Avogadro's number etc.

The fact is: PLACEBO WORKS. That's why all new drugs, to be allowed on the markert, have to be tested against a placebo in a double-blind (some triple including the lab) trial (neither the patient nor the doctor knows who received the placebo).
The fact that somebody who is sick (whatever the sickness)
1. sees a doctor
2. is examined by this all so mighty doctor
3. is diagnosed and received a prescription adapted to his case
4. actually take a pill (surveys have shown that with the same active ingredient at the same dose, double colored capsules are more efficient than single colored capsules that are more efficient that regular pills)
5. follows the prescription for a set duration (i.e. will take a treatment once, twice or three times a day)
all this has an incredible effect on somebody's psychology, it is is proven that in some cases those simple facts themselves are enough to cure a patient - without any drug involved.

Now for homeopathie and usually most other alternative medicines, you'll find that the consultation last much longer than with your tradional GP (on average probably over 3 times longer). During this time, the patient will be able to speak about what is going wrong, and to be treated as a whole rather than as a part (i.e. a stomach or throat). The 'alternative' doctor will usually spend much more time chatting with the patient, and sometimes treat him physically (acunpucture, etc).
All this has an incredible effect on somebody's psychology.

And that doesn't work only for psy-related sicknesses, it is well known that people with a positive attitude and good morale have a better chance to survive cancer.

The mecanisms that make a placebo work are not known, their outcome is only been witnessed.

Now if it's possible to treat patients with a placebo/homeopathie rather than active, nasty drugs with loads of side effects, I say go for it.
But where it becomes unconfortable is when you know that there is a drug that would do the job better than a placebo, and you still keep to the placebo. No big deal for minor illnesses, but quite an other story when time is involved in the development of the illness (like cancer).
What I'm saying, is that there are indications for which homeopathie cannot be ethically recommended.

As for the NHS problem... don't know at all how it is financed in this country. In France, homeopathic drugs are not re-imbursed but they're usually quite cheap.

PS: yes, I have studied all those stuffs

[Baruch]

Do fuzzy bunnies need homeopathic medicine? It must work for them, because fuzzy bunnies are nice.