Homeopathy (again)

[Hope]

I am aware that we have debated this before but I was struck by the coverage on today's BBC Breakfast following the Government's announcement that they are considering balcklisting homeopathic treatments on the NHS.

Every time it was discussed (and I think there were 3 slots) they had a member of the Good Thinking Society debating with a Dr Peter Fisher who is a Consultant Rheumotologist.

The folk from the GTS insisted that there waqs no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, whereas the consultant stated that there was when it was used in conjunction with conventional treatments.  Either you get the same results as usual, but with less drugs being used, or you get quicker recovery.

Who would you tend to trust?  The charity (GTS) whose staff may or may not be scientists/medics, or a practising consultant?

[Rhiannon]

Personally I have no problem with homeopathy so long as people pay for their own bottles of water. It shouldn't be available on the NHS.

[floo]

I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.

[Enki]

Personally I have no problem with homeopathy so long as people pay for their own bottles of water. It shouldn't be available on the NHS.

I have no problem with homeopathy as long as it's not available on the NHS and the person who uses it does not forego recommended mainstream treatments.  Mind you, it seems to be an expensive way just to access a placebo effect.

This is worth reading:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/homeopaths-offer-services-fight-ebola

[Hope]

I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.

Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.  OK, he didn't give many references to such evidence (though he did reference a recent study by the University of Glasgow - iirc) - but then neither did the GTS folk in regard to their opinion.

[floo]

I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.

Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.  OK, he didn't give many references to such evidence (though he did reference a recent study by the University of Glasgow - iirc) - but then neither did the GTS folk in regard to their opinion.

Most say there is no  evidence it is more than a placebo effect. Until it is certain there is a benefit other than that of a placebo it should not be offered on the NHS as there is so little money available for tried and tested medications.

[Enki]

I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.

Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.  OK, he didn't give many references to such evidence (though he did reference a recent study by the University of Glasgow - iirc) - but then neither did the GTS folk in regard to their opinion.

No, the overwhelming evidence is that homeopathy's claims are not substantiated and that, apart from the placebo effect, it is of little use.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise

And, especially, this article:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy

[Hope]

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise

So, you're positing evidence that runs counter to the evidence the good consultant posited?  Since both seem to be scientifically gathered, who are we to believe?

And, especially, this article:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy

Yes, the URL tells you exactly how balanced it is going to be.

[Rhiannon]

Personally I have no problem with homeopathy so long as people pay for their own bottles of water. It shouldn't be available on the NHS.

I have no problem with homeopathy as long as it's not available on the NHS and the person who uses it does not forego recommended mainstream treatments.  Mind you, it seems to be an expensive way just to access a placebo effect.

This is worth reading:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/homeopaths-offer-services-fight-ebola

I don't think homeopaths should be allowed to claim that their products are equivalent to drug treatments, or most importantly, vaccination. But if a patient is capable of doing their own research and making their own choices and decides to opt for homeopathy over medicine then I don't think conventional treatment can be forced.

[Hope]

I don't think homeopaths should be allowed to claim that their products are equivalent to drug treatments, or most importantly, vaccination. But if a patient is capable of doing their own research and making their own choices and decides to opt for homeopathy over medicine then I don't think conventional treatment can be forced.

I think the important point that Dr Fisher was making is that it works when used in conjunction with conventional treatment.  As such, it saves the NHS money.

[Shaker]

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise

So, you're positing evidence that runs counter to the evidence the good consultant posited?  Since both seem to be scientifically gathered, who are we to believe?

And, especially, this article:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy

Yes, the URL tells you exactly how balanced it is going to be.

The URL tells you it's predicated on rational, evidence-based thought. No wonder you don't like it.

[Shaker]

I don't think homeopaths should be allowed to claim that their products are equivalent to drug treatments, or most importantly, vaccination. But if a patient is capable of doing their own research and making their own choices and decides to opt for homeopathy over medicine then I don't think conventional treatment can be forced.

I think the important point that Dr Fisher was making is that it works when used in conjunction with conventional treatment.  As such, it saves the NHS money.

So when homeopathy is tested on it's own, it's useless.

When it's tested in conjunction with actual medicine, people get better.

Is this starting to suggest something to you yet?

[Hope]

So when homeopathy is tested on it's own, it's useless.

When it's tested in conjunction with actual medicine, people get better.

Is this starting to suggest something to you yet?

Yes - that it can act in a complementary manner to conventional treatments.  Or are you suggesting that when it is used in this way some sort of magic takes place that means that lower levels or quantities of conventional drugs are requiredto reach the ame outcome as when it isn't?  Or perhaps you're suggesting that a divine being steps in the speed the patient's recovery up?  The medical scientist (for that is what the consultant is, technically) also referenced some German and French studies (my wife has just reminded me) - or are you saying that German and French scientists aren't trustworthy?

[Shaker]

No, what I'm stating is what a mountain of evidence going back years from all over the world shows - homeopathy is useless apart from the placebo effect.

[Hope]

No, what I'm stating is what a mountain of evidence going back years from all over the world shows - homeopathy is useless apart from the placebo effect.

So you are denying equally valid scientific evidence to the contrary?  What is the world coming to - science-deniers amongst the science supporters?     Actually, what I think the 'mountain of evidence going back years from all over the world' shows is that homeopathy is useless on its own.

[Shaker]

So you are denying equally valid scientific evidence to the contrary?

What evidence would that be? Where is it?

[floo]

There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.

[Hope]

So you are denying equally valid scientific evidence to the contrary?

What evidence would that be? Where is it?

OK, Shakes, remember that this started out as a discussion of a topic on which there were 3 separate slots on the BBC's Breakfast Show.  The consultant referred to study recently carried out by the University of Glasgow(iirc); unfortunatley he didn't give the name of the study, otherwise I'd have googled it.  He also referred to studies carried out in Germany and France which indicated that it does work - whether those referred to its use alone or in combination I'm not sue.  The guys from the GTS simply used a scatter-gun approach by referring to 'hundreds' of studies without referencing any. 

The only such studies I've seen look at the use of homeopathic treatments in isolation - not in combination with conventional ones.

The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs.  Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?

[Hope]

There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.

If prayer only has placebo effect, how come there are people who, having been told that a tumour or some other condition is untreatable/terminal and that treatment will not be given, recover to the extent that there is no sign of it at subsequent tests/reviews?  And think carefully before you offer a 'magic' solution such as 'spontaneous healing' for which there is no scientific evidence.

[floo]

There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.

If prayer only has placebo effect, how come there are people who, having been told that a tumour or some other condition is untreatable/terminal and that treatment will not be given, recover to the extent that there is no sign of it at subsequent tests/reviews?  And think carefully before you offer a 'magic' solution such as 'spontaneous healing' for which there is no scientific evidence.

Because either the medics got it wrong, which certainly happens from time to time, or the body's own healing mechanisms kick in from time to time and a spontaneous cure is the result. Prayer could act as a placebo, so when people like you claim the deity has cured someone they feel smug. However, just suppose you are right and the deity can cure people if it so wishes, but more often than not it doesn't, what does that say about it?

We have a case in point at present, that poor lady, Becky, AB's friend has had many prayers said on her behalf for her recovery. If the deity could heal her why hasn't it? Her family must be going through hell with her taking one step forward and ten back! That is CRUEL.

[Maeght]

I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.

Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.

Homeopathy is bottles of material touted as medicinal and is subject to scientific investigation.

Prayer cannot be defined scientifically and as it involves the supernatural is not susceptible to scientific methods.

If you suppose you can investigate prayer then you have a gumball machine theology that very few theists actually subscribe to and is largely a Floony dumbarse physicalist construct.

[floo]

There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.

Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.

Homeopathy is bottles of material touted as medicinal and is subject to scientific investigation.

Prayer cannot be defined scientifically and as it involves the supernatural is not susceptible to scientific methods.

If you suppose you can investigate prayer then you have a gumball machine theology that very few theists actually subscribe to and is largely a Floony dumbarse physicalist construct.

Prayer is not supernatural, it is the human brain engaged in imagination!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.

Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.

Homeopathy is bottles of material touted as medicinal and is subject to scientific investigation.

Prayer cannot be defined scientifically and as it involves the supernatural is not susceptible to scientific methods.

If you suppose you can investigate prayer then you have a gumball machine theology that very few theists actually subscribe to and is largely a Floony dumbarse physicalist construct.

Prayer is not supernatural, it is the human brain engaged in imagination!

That might be true if you are saying that only natural things exist........care to demonstrate that?

[Hope]

The results of a recent YouGov poll

Do you think GPs should or should not be able to prescribe homeopathic treatments on the NHS?

Should35%

Should not33%

Don't know32%