to think homeopaths really just make money out of the gullible?

[WidowWadman]

A remedy made from diluted bits of the Berlin Wall - seriously, that's surely just a test to find out how far they can push it, isn't?

Saintly jimjams - you say you used diet and homeopathy, and homeopathy worked. How were you able to identify and measure the impact of the diet separately from the homeopathic remedy?

Am I getting posters mixed up again saying two contradictory things?

Hang on, crumbldwalnuts- are you saying that you think chemotherapy doesn't work?. Or am I misunderstanding you?

My assistant isn't allowed to see a picture of his baby (he is working abroad) for 3 months because his mother says taking a photo of a baby less than 3 months will make them die before they are 21. Nobody in his remote indian village takes pictures of their babies and I expect that is why they believe most of them survive. Doesn't make it real any more than saying you are convinced homoeopathy cured you.

Curlew: I'm saying some people might make a different calculation of the balance between benefit and harm, and a different choice depending on the prognosis, quality of life and other factors.

I know someone who has just died. The chemo was working on the cancer but she died because of the chemo.

Sorry, does that seem rather blunt and tactless? Your own situation seems so different and so much more positive I have assumed it's many miles from the "case" I mentioned, but I'm so sorry if that was a hurtful and tactless thing to say. I've been thinking about such choices recently because of this person's death.

What have you done to fight that so far?

18 years of pushing for it in my MIL's care.

18 years of challenging doctors in a culture where you don't challenge doctors.

18 years of collaborating and comparing notes with other people in the same boat.

18 years of sharing info with other of docs to avoid and docs with a better attitude.

18 years of being a tiny tiny tiny part of the greater "patient side" pressure that has played a role in improving the degree to which docs let go of a cultural leaning towards a God Complex and move instead towards treating the patient more like a client and less like a fucking guinie pig.

and in those 18 years, between the external pressure created by patients and the internal pressures of docs and nurses and other health care professionals on those rather more wedded to the concpet of "I know best, "head pat", take your medicine", guess what ? Things improved. The God Complex has reduced and the patient has better access in terms of informed consent.

The end of the road has not been reached. But given the huge stides forward, why give up this point and instead collude to bring a paternalistic mind set back into fadhion ?

Anybody who is invested in informed consent for the sake of improved prospects and treatment, not to mention the human dignity, of patients, wouldn't chose a step back towards the mind set of the bad old days over plodding forward.

people who think informed consent issues in the medical,profession make a useful tool in debate to push towards greater acceptance of their preffered snake oil on the other hand.....not quite so invested in a continued push forward.

There are issues in obtaining informed consent

Quite

There is no possibility of pushing towards improved access to informed consent, it is static, cannot be changed or shifted degrees in either direction, so colluding with a paternalistic mindset is "harm free" and necessary.

Bullshit

"Curlew: I'm saying some people might make a different calculation of the balance between benefit and harm, and a different choice depending on the prognosis, quality of life and other factors.

I know someone who has just died. The chemo was working on the cancer but she died because of the chemo."

But people are making that decision every day. I know 3 people in the past year who have decided that they would stop/ not start chemotherapy because of "prognosis, quality of life and other factors"

Are you saying that chemotherapy does not work?

Thanks CarpeVinum: that sounds like quite a struggle. So can I get this straight: you would support my views on conventional clinical care and pharmaceutical prescription? The problems with informed consent at the moment, the inadequate safety studies, the problems with peer review, the prescriber's conflict of interest and so on? Wold yo umind just clarifying for me?

Curley: what do you mean by "work"? Do you mean "work" as it reduce the cancer, or work as in save the life? In the case I mentioned the chemo "worked" to reduce the cancer but did not "work" to save the life. Can you clarify what you mean?

I meant to say curlew, not curley - I'm not trying to be overfamiliar.

Are you saying that chemotherapy does not, in any case, get rid of cancer and allow a parson to have a "normal" life span?

Oh, and in the of my daughter that I detailed earlier, do you think I should not have allowed her to be given antibiotics?

Ok crumbled, I'll ask if you don't want to engage with Ellie but are happy to answer questions: do you use conventional medicine?

I am still confused as to whether you think we should collectively be using modern medicine. The arguments on net benefit are a valid way of thinking about the issues you have raised. Whether you think modern medicine has delivered this will dictate whst side of the fence you fall on, but that's a diffirent question than whether it's a valid way to analyse the issue. And you seemed to indicate before that you actually do think it delivers net benefit.

You can believe (as I do) that there has been net benefit but still think there are serious issues that need to be addressed to improve things. I'm not disputing that - it's just that I don't think that's a reason to not talk about homeopathy (ie fraud). For what it's worth I would also be interested to learn more and discuss issues about reporting on clinical trials etc.

I must admit that alongside other posters, I understand what you have been saying, but think your logic falls down for reasins have posted before.

There is no possibility of pushing towards improved access to informed consent, it is static, cannot be changed or shifted degrees in either direction, so colluding with a paternalistic mindset is "harm free" and necessary. Bullshit.

I didn't really say that Carpe Venum, but never mind.

I said the battle for informed consent has been lost, for the reasons oft-repeated above: undeclared financial interest, hidden and manipulated safety studies and statistics, failure to disclose side-effects and so on. In individual cases like yours, patients and relatives can make inroads. But in the world of "public health"and at population level, not much will change. It's worth fighting and campaigning about, because wrong is wrong, and I suppose change is always possible when it comes to an issue like the law surrounding declaration of interest. But how do you campaign against a problem which many deny exists, or many deny is a problem - such as the manipulation of safety studies and statistics? The resources and influence available to the entities which stand to lose financially are, I would say, more or less unassailable.

Because spero the homeopathy was used on something quite separate from the diet.

And I didn't say homeopathy worked. I said that the problem we were treating disappeared - it couldn't have been placebo although it may well have been coincidence but given that it did no harm I used it again. And I will until it stops having an affect. I take this approach with everything I tried cranial osteopathy - that didn't do anything so I stopped. In the case of diet we used it for years with very good result and it was very clear when we had an infringement. Then after about 6 years we began to notice there was no difference during infringements, so we stopped using it with no problem. I suspect this is because at the same time as using the diet we were treating ds1's gut damage and in that time it healed, so the diet was no longer needed.

I try something and observe, if it works I'll try it again, if it stops working we stop. I have no vested interest. I'm actually far more interested in side effects. The drugs that I don't want ds1 on have some common side effects - the most common one has potentially life changing consequences for someone like ds1 so if we can avoid their use I will.

Having used homeopathy for years now we have had many incidences of it apparently working which could have been placebo or could have been happy coincidence or maybe who knows the woo works. I don't care why we have the results we've seen. I've also had lots of lovely counselling during consultations with a brilliant person who has come to know our family very well. I can talk to her about anything. I've never had to take anti-depressants, and tbh I'd far rather harness talking and placebo to deal with my situation than pharmaceutical drugs and all their side effects.

Before I began chemo I was told of all the side effects. I was also told it was the oncologists very strong recommendation I have the treatment due to the size and aggressive nature of my tumour. My chemo was delayed twice as my blood counts fell to dangerously low levels. I could have caught an infection and died. So yes, chemo could have killed me.

But without it, there was a serious risk I would be dead in five years.

I made a decision based on honest talks with oncologist and other people who had cancer.

There are no clinical trials that I could find that indicate homeopathy has any impact in the treatment or cure of cancer. So as a rational person I reject it unless and until I am presented with evidence other than someone else really believes it worked for them.

Out of interest, how do you know there was no link between a change in diet and the effect you saw? There may be a link you're not aware of between diet and outcome (I say this in theory, not knowing any details).

If it's not too personal a question, what was the yes/no outcome you observed followed homeopathic treatment?

I agree that talking therapy can be an important part of prevention/cure for some mental health issues and, personally, would also try this route first before going back on anti depressants.

Binkybix: I would use paracetamol to kill a pain, but not reduce fever. I would go the doctor with a trauma injury. I would use antibiotics (though I haven't for I don't know how long, and I last went to the doctor three years ago for a smear.) I would avoid screening, except cervical cancer screening, and I'll pay for my daughter to have private smear tests before the age of 25. I would avoid overall health checks looking for problems like cholesterol etc. I want to get some moles surgically removed. Something like chemo: every decision would be different: the decision I would make for me might be different to the decision I'd make for my child. I've vaccinated selectively. I'm not afraid of childhood diseases like measles. I used drugs for "rhinitis" once - what a load of rubbish. Does that give you some idea?

Collective use of modern medicine - I think it's safe to say I believe we should definitely row back. Every medication is different of course.

TBH I don't think many homeopaths would try to persuade someone to use homeopathy rather than chemo. Although certainly they might respect someone's decision to do so (and again it depends doesn't it - for some cancers with very low survival rates but very gruelling treatments a lot of doctors would see 'no treatment' as a valid option). Most of the cancer treatment I know from homeopaths is about treating the symptoms of side effects - and if in that position if it worked it wouldn't bother me whether it was placebo or not.

I have a friend who is terminally ill. She tried some alternative therapies alongside her chemo etc. She said they didn't affect her cancer but made her more relaxed and she didn't have an issue with them.

I have been to talks and read articles by homeopaths working with serious diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Everything I have read or listened to regarding these serious conditions - with well developed medical protocols - has been about supporting people alongside medical treatment rather than instead of.

Saintly - fair enough, it is great you have made a positive impact for your child.

The problem is however is when people are making money out of this - they are not adopting your attitude but rather saying, buy this it definitely works! When they have nothing of any value to substantiate that statement.

Binkybix: you seem to completely agree with me but say my logic falls down. Where does it fall down exactly?

My overall point on this particular thread would be that using a lot of campaigning energy and venom on homeopathy is wasted, when the harm it does is so minor compared to the harm done by conventional medication.

That's a flat-rate comparison, and it's the only one that matters - a relativist comparison is irrelevant. Why is a massive amount of harm (pharmaceutical care) less important than a small amount of harm? (homeopathy, particularly in an NHS setting). Which do you think should be challenged more? The massive harm, or the small harm?

Oh crumbledwalnuts - you appear to have the same approach as me. Last time I went to the doctors (for a carer's check, after a smear) the doctor said 'who are you, I never see you' Actually I did have a cholesterol check as part of the carer's check which was slightly high, but I have a sensible doctor who noted it was HDL's that were high and said to ignore it (I would have anyway).

If the cancer comes back I will not have any further chemo because it won't then be worth it on cost/benefit analysis. I doubt I will try alternative therapy because it would annoy me.

A friend wanted to give me reiki for free which was nice of her. I certainly found being able to lie down and have a doze for an hour very lovely but have noticed no other impact from this treatment.

I agree the mind is very powerful and can certainly impact on how you feel and even impact on recovery from certain illnesses. That merits further investigation. But making money out of bottles of water that have been energetically tapped? Turns my stomach.

CrumbledWalnuts you seem to believe that homeopathy works purely on a placebo basis. In that case, many other forms of placebo would work just as well.

"No, I've never looked at any studies and if I saw one indicating that homeopathy had real pharmaceutical power I wouldn't believe it. I think it helps people by placebo, by keeping them away from over-prescribed, useless and potentially harmful pharmaceutical products"

How do you judge that it works - by anecdote or the effect it has had when you tried it?

Do you not believe it works by Hahnemann's principle of treating "like with like" and do you not believe that "water has memory"?