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?

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?

Yes. I've lived it. It is an issue, particularly here because of cultural leaning in medecine in general. However it is an even more pressing issue in areas of medicine where the patient is in someway impaired. Such as gereatics and mental health. I am sure there are other areas where there is a heightened degree of "paternalism" decreasing access to informed consent, but those two specialities are where my personal experience has been focused.

I don't agree with you that it can't be changed for the better. That the fight is lost. That we are helpless and powerless and unable to effect change for the better as non medical people. Becuase the stark undeniable realities in terms of informed consent (and evidence based treamtent) between my late mother in law's care in the 40s compared to the end of her life.

Even in the last couple of decades there has been a huge change towards the way at least we as the people resonsible for the care have been afforded informed consent by proxy. Docs are more willing to discuss the limitations of treatments, willing to not blow a gasket if you come in with studies (of da EBIL internet and ask questions or even question their med choices.

I don't want to go backwards. Colluding with a paternalistic 'tude towards informed concent will take us back.

I am very invested emotionally in not going back. I am very emotionally invested in moveing forward and not stopping til the end of the rad is reached. However long that may take. She died on the last day of 2012. Freed of the distractions of care, and knocked for six by a grief I didn't expect, (becuase I didn't know that the forced intimacy of care cpuld over ride a lack of an easy relationship and cause .... something that isn't affection or love, but replicates in some way the emotional bond of those) I have had the luxary of time recently to examine what happened to her in more depth, trying to understand to what degree how she was treated medically and socially actively contributed to her sysmptoms and the development of her character and behavoirs.

It could have been different. She could have stood a chance. As a human being she deserved better. And it breaks my heart that it wasn't another way.

So yes, over my cold dead body any element that encourages a paternalistic attidue in medicine rather than trying to cut it out.

There is nothing else I can do for her now, but I can be a teeny tiny miniscule "insignificant on my own, but not so utterly irrelavant as part of the mass" part in combatting the elements of her care that helped destroy her.

And a paternalistic mindset amoung medical professionals was a very very big part of the problem.

It still is a problem, not as bad, but not good enpugh. And it could be better if we keep on chipping away at the attidues that underpin and support its continuded presence.

Oh, and I don't just want Big Alt Med forced to provide unbaised, uncherry picked, good quality studies to support their products. I want Big Pharma pinned against a wall (and beaten with large sticks if needs be) until they do the same.

Unsurpising since I spent so long drowning in piles of meds and having to double check that the newest one wasn't percribed as a "head pat, can't help, please leave my surgery now, here this perscrition will lube the exit" mode, becuase of interaction issues and lack of efficacy.

Plus here, particulary at the beginning, kick backs from pharma companies to docs were a real problem. I preffered her and my life not to decend into a living hell due to florid psycosis or mania becuase some mother fucker in a white coat wanted to raise extra funds via pharmascuitial kick backs for his posho holdiay home in a more expensive bit of Liguria.

Spero- that's not really something I have come across in the homeopathy world tbh. For instance I am thinking of trying a new homeopathy treatment for my child. It's a bit bonkers (and I suspect my homeopath will think it's a bit bonkers as it really isn't classical homeopathy) but the person who does it treats pretty much most kids for free. So I figure it won't do any harm, won't cost anything so I might give it a go. But that free treatment has been a common feature of homeopathy. Likewise I know a healer who offers weekly sessions with cancer patients (and other people with serious illnesses) and she will not accept money for her healing. She believes that it isn't something that you should be paid for. A lot of the people active in these areas are nice people who are not out to make money from others whether you believe their therapies work or not.

I have tried a few different alternative therapies and the only one I felt was costing too much was chiropractic (which I used on myself). It DID mend my bad back (after a surgeon told me at the age of 26 I should stop carrying shopping bags or going horse riding and that was it), but it cost an arm and a leg and there was a lot of pressure for spend spend spend and buy more sessions. And I went to a few different chiropractors (moved areas) and they were all like that.

But for other things I've tried no not really. They've often undercharged for ds1 or not charged at all.

Thanks crumbled. I think I am more in the conventional medicine camp, but do sometimes think about the blanket use of treatments that mean that a very high proportion of people in rich countries are being 'treated' for something in perpetuity. My thoughts on it are not v developed.

Spero: I wish you all the very best with your treatment.

Saintly: I was brought up on "don't bother the doctor" (although nowadays it's more like "can the doctor please stop bothering me?")!

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

In some cases it does, doesn't it? Absolutely, There's been some question about whether early detection means removal and treatment for tumours which wouldn't have been any bother anyway - which then add add to a putative "treatment success rate". In addition, there's normal life span and normal life - I heard an investigation the other day (I think R4) on living with the after effects of chemo and how much more help was needed, so I don't know if "normal life" is quite applicable. But surely the answer to your question is, yes, some patients survive beyond five years. Of course!

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

That's really your call. Lots of antibiotics are overprescribed. Do you disagree? I'd avoid them unless I absolutely couldn't. Honest doctors will say - you can have these but they will only cut the infection by a day or so.

Crumbled, do you think that big pharma are quacks who just want to make money from drugs that don't do much good?

binky - but do sometimes think about the blanket use of treatments that mean that a very high proportion of people in rich countries are being 'treated' for something in perpetuity a lot of GP's are very pissed off about things like statins - where they have effectively been told they can no longer use their clinical judgment in individual cases and instead have to demonstrate what a good doctor they are by prescribing in a way the government has decided they should (people with no medical treatment at all).

Yes Binky. For me the problem is, people keep saying - oh we can criticise both. But that's not really true, in the way people attack homeopathy, especially on this thread. They ridicule and deride to such an extent - and compare it to "tried and tested", scientifically proven" treatments - in a way that minimises problems with "tried and tested", "peer review" and so on. That over-exaggerated and quite deliberate comparison inflates the value of conventional pharmaceutical care, and bolsters the deception that it's largely innocuous.

Oh to be clear, they CAN use their clinical judgment and not prescribe but they will be penalised for it in some way (financially or on a tickbox list)

Claig: I don't like the word quacks.

Yes I think pharmaceutical companies want to make money (disagree?) and I think they manufacture drugs which often don't do much good (disagree?) and often do harm (disagree?)

Sorry x-post - I think I found your argument confusing because on the one hand you seemed to agree that modern medicine has been overall a good thing, but other posts imply that you actually don't think it should be used. But your subsequent examples of what you would/would not use give a clearer picture - and your attitude to treatment is less extreme than your posts suggested to me initially.

I also don't agree that because there are problems with modern medicine we should not care/talk about homeopathy. I think I agree re the need to better understand and harness mechanisms behind placebo, but I don't think that necessarily means offering homeopathy, because ultimately it is fraudulent. I worry about what endorsement by NHS does for the wider industry and a framework of rational thought.

One of my GP's was a member of No Free Lunch. Unfortunately that as an organisation appears to have pretty much disappeared, but I always liked his thinking. We could have proper discussions about drugs prior to prescription (or more often than not, no prescription).

"a relativist comparison is irrelevant" - no, it is highly relevant, in fact essential.

Homeopathy can do very little harm, because it can do very little good. Conventional medicine can do harm, but it can also do huge amounts of good - it can and does, on a daily basis, save lives and improve life quality. Side effects and the potential for harm have to be weighed up against the potential benefits.

Spero's chemo is one example; all the people who have been living with HIV for decades are another. Treatment to control HIV can have some unpleasant side effects, but relative to the alternative (death from Aids-related infections) they are tolerable.

When it comes to less life-threatening conditions, then yes, sometimes the risks and side-effects of medication sometimes outweigh the benefits, but by no means always.

Crumbled, why do you think that they manufacture drugs that often do harm and often do no good? What is in it for them?

Claig - money!

Thank you Carpe, I didn't see your post before. What a terrible time you've been through. I have a great respect for that fight you've had with "white coats" and yes, I agree that the internet is obliging the profession to listen and accept that while doctors know more in general, actually a patient may know more about their own specific condition than the GP.

Your point of view is very interesting, extremely interesting, that you'd see a general acceptance of homeopathy as a return to medical paternalism.

I would put two arguments against that. The first is that users of homeopathy are often engaged in a willing suspension of disbelief. There's no shortage of information about what homeopathy really is. And there's no shortage of anecdotes about converted sceptics who know it's a placebo, and are still surprised the placebo works on them anyway. I don't think this is a paternalistic approach.

The second argument would be that the power of pharmaceutical agenda is so great now that any treatment or approach which helps to stay that hand is valuable.

Sorry flippant. Generation of profit could, for example, be a reason for trying to get people to use a very slightly different, patented, drug in common use once a previous drug has gone out of its patent time span.

As I say though, don't really know where I stand on big pharma issues. I know lots of arguments on both sides, but have seen little evidence and think these are complex issues.

Claig: money. There's little money in a cure. One dose and it's gone. There's money in ongoing treatment, management and control: drugs to of manage the side-effects of other drugs: fresh (invested) disorders to prescribe for. Drugs to prevent. Screening programmes to detect problems to use drugs manage and control, and so on.

There is a broader issue here for me - I'm not sure if I'll be able to explain it properly, but I'll try.

People talk about homeopathy "doing no harm". In terms of the remedies this is obviously true- water and tiny quantities of sugar aren't going to hurt you. But.....but......but.

It is obvious to anyone with any understanding of science at all that homeopathy is bunk. So anyone who believes in it is denying reason, scientific method and rational thought. And people denying these things is bad for society as a whole. We need to apply critical thinking to everything we are told- if we don't we are vulnerable to any crackpot with a persuasive line of patter. People who accept conventional medicine unquestioningly are guilty of this too. We need to question and challenge- and we need to teach our children to question and challenge. And in this context giving them sugar pills is just as bad as giving them antibiotics for viruses. The only effect either could possibly have is placebo. I understand, of course, that unnecessary antibiotics has a massive impact on the environment and on their effectiveness when they are needed and so on, and homeopathy has no such effects. But they are equally bad in terms of the effect on society, and our ability to think clearly about things.

Exexpat: pls see my other posts, Iv'e answer your points.

No.

Because over the past 200 years, medical science has advanced and they have discovered a thing or two.

To make money, it would be better to make drugs that do not cause harm.

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

Me too. But without it, instead of dying last week, he'd have died a year ago.

Eh? I've answered your points. Excuse me.

Bragmatic: I wasn't making a case against chemo. It's a more difficult, nuanced and balanced conversation.

Claig: not really - I just explained why.

Curlew: I understand what you're saying. I completely disagree. I think that's a very paternalistic approach in itself. If people want to believe in it, use it, why not? It's pretty obvious to most people without any understanding of science - if we're honest - that homeopathy has no chemical active ingredient. You don't have to be that clever, or some kind of Rational Thinker or published sceptic to see that. Don't flatter yourselves. But there are benefits, and if people want to avail themselves of them, that's fine by me. And I can't see why people get so over-exercised about it - I really can't - when there is so much else that's so much worse.