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?

Oh and just to be clear medicine can take a holistic approach. I'm not arguing for alternative therapies over conventional medicine with that statement. Ds1's neurologist & current paediatrician both take what i would call a holistic approach with him. Other doctors haven't. I prefer those that do! :)

But I have got time to post the oft-repeated joke: what do you call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Answer: medicine.

And what would many people here have called it before it was proved to work? Answer: woo, utter nonsense, bunkum and a lot of other much ruder things.

Yes saintly: I think osteo and chiro should be on the NHS too but I think your point of view here I think being funded by the NHS is doing homeopathy is quite disconcerting. I don't really understand that.

doing homeopathy damage of course

Cherie Booth is a brilliant barrister, and I would not dream of arguing with her about anything to do with the application of the European Declaration of Human Rights, or in fact anything else in the legal sphere.

However, I am not aware that she is qualified in statistics or pharmacology. I would tend to think that the time she must have dedicated to law, raising a family, and putting up with Tony, and trying to keep the daily Mail's paparazzi at arms length would have excluded the possibility of her becoming a reputable authority on things outside her actual career, and her specialism.

But hey, that's logic for you. I'm off to select a random graduate and take advice from them on subjects they're unqualified in.

Alt Med companies make outrageous amounts of money, because their production cost is tiny and they do little if any research and no testing that takes years as is essential to development of real medicine.

One of Boiron's star products is Oscillococcinum. One single duck's liver & heart is used to make the entire supply of this bogus "remedy" for global distribution each year, iirc, which makes the company close to $20mn just from the US. It is one of the highest selling items in French pharmacies.

There is no evidence that it works in any way. Oscilloccoccinum is a fictitious bacterium that has never been observed in modern times. In any case, there is not a single molecule of duck parts in any of those sugar pills.

There are many idiots in the world. That is all the explanation I have for this phenomenon.

"However, I am not aware that she is qualified in statistics or pharmacology."

Look, Cherie is obviously not right on everything. For a start she supports New Labour, and I admit that that throws up a big question mark about her reasoning, but you don't need to have a degree in statistics to be able to make good decisions where health is concerned.

After all there is that famous saying "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" which is a corruption of the earlier, more widely known statement "there are lies, damned lies and New Labour!"

Oscillococcinum does sound to me like o silly old cock and bullum.

An actual degree may not be necessary, but some grasp of the difference between correlation and cause is extremely helpful. I am quite certain dear Lauren Booth and/or her ghostwriter do not have the latter!

Look in the mirror. Inside your head is a model of the most sophisticated computers ever know. English-speakers call it a brain. The human brain can handle language, mathematics and all kinds of sophisticated activities. However, it has one flaw. It is over sensitive to patterns, because over-sensitivity is more evolutionarily advantageous than under-sensitivity. False-positives are better for us than fals-negatives.

The tribe that notices a link between small children eating berries and having the squits is more successful than the one that doesn't, even if it wasn't actually the berries causing the problem, but something that was always eaten with the berries.

you don't need to have a degree in statistics to be able to make good decisions where health is concerned

After all there is that famous saying "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"

There is a contrdiction there.

You say a lay person doesn't need a substantial understanding of the dicipline, and then point to exactly why a lack of substantial understanding of statistics has long left lay people at the mercy of unscrupulous marketers and persuaders...and their statistic based lies.

Crumbled - just because it's then assessed purely as a drug alternative. So eg 'which cures this sore throat faster - antib's or homeopathy?' (Quite possibly neither of course!!) Now whilst I have had some major successes/happy coincidences - depending in your perspective- of that type (most recently with some revolting verrucas which had defied all modern medicine AND the mumsnet banana skin for 20 years but started to heal themselves within 2 weeks of a remedy ) I don't really believe that's where homeopathy's strength lies. I believe there's a value in the consultation & the support from that asides from the remedy. And probably that's not really what the NHS is about these days. I think in singling out homeopathy from other alternatives (which the NHS funding does) you have to try and justify the spending in conventional terms & I don't think that works. Either the NHS should decide it funds alternatives and should value what they do in terms of health or it shouldn't. Homeopathy shouldn't be a special case.

It's the same as surfing. My son surfs - it has been hugely beneficial to his health & condition & will quite possibly reduce his future NHS bill considerably. There are some schemes where the NHS funds surfing for people with his condition. I don't really agree with that because you start having to find evidence for what is a therapeutic activity rather than a therapy. Social care funds some of his surfing - that is entirely appropriate in his case - but the NHS? No.

But I have got time to post the oft-repeated joke: what do you call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Answer: medicine

Not a joke. It's actually true.

And what would many people here have called it before it was proved to work? Answer: woo, utter nonsense, bunkum and a lot of other much ruder things

No - we'd have called it a hypothesis. Woo is stuff that a) has been tested many times and shown not to work and b) flies in the face of, and is contradicted by, all known science. Not only, for example, does homeopathy manifestly not work but we would not expect it to work given what we already know about chemistry and physics.

Clearly, crumbled is the usual clueless internet warrior who has no earthly idea how science actually works, and doesn't care to find out - but other posts on this thread suggests she's not altogether alone in this woolly type of thinking.

Science education is for shit in this country. How depressing.

You say a lay person doesn't need a substantial understanding of the dicipline, and then point to exactly why a lack of substantial understanding of statistics has long left lay people at the mercy of unscrupulous marketers and persuaders...and their statistic based lies.

This.

Hm ellie -unfortunately that's not what happens in the real world. We were certainly openly ridiculed by ds1's first paediatrician for using diet with his condition. It certainly wasn't presented as a hypothesis. Yet ten years later it was suggested in all seriousness by his neurologist an paediatrician, along with a quick explanation of why it might work with some people. That explanation of why it might works was freely available at the time we started using the diet, that's why we used it. But we were still ridiculed (luckily I'm made of rhino hide and sticking to my technique of being happy to give anything a go if there are unlikely to be side effects, was able to try and observe and go with the results we saw in ds1's individual case).

I have always been of the view that we are allowed todo whatever we want to our own bodies. Adults can engage in homeopathy as much as they like.

But what they are not entitled to do is demand respect for their quackery or demand state intervention to promote and pay for it.

I'm not sure that many do demand state intervention to promote or pay for it. I've never met anyone who does anyway.

As I am doing no-one any harm I think it would be odd to defend the right for other people to throw abuse my way because I choose to see a homeopath (paid for out of my own pocket) rather than see a GP for say antidepressants, or chose to try homeopathy when bazooka, freezing, duct tape and banana skins had failed to shift a cluster of verrucas in 20 years (I mean banana skins? That's no less bonkers than homeopathy surely?). I'm not asking for respect, I don't think it's anyone else's business, but I do believe I'm entitled not to be abused.

Posting the warning letter to Nelson's again in the hopes that someone will read/ comment. here

Then great, we are not disagreeing saintly.

But I have equally a right to express my opinions. You have a right to disregard them. I am not going to sugar coat my revulsion against homeopaths who exploit others gullibility.

I'm not sure that many do demand state intervention to promote or pay for it. I've never met anyone who does anyway

They exist. There has been a fair bit of protest that the NHS has been dismantling rather than expanding the homeopathy presence within the system.

Used to be a few homeopathy clinics/hospitals within the system, not sure if the Tumbridge Wells college I went to (not as a trainee) was part of that or not.

The presence in the NHS has been reduced over the years and not too long ago there was something in the British parliment about getting rid of it altogether. The pro keeping it lobby didn't sit there in silence going "do as you wish, see if we care!". Keeping it as part of the NHS is a way of legitimising the practice of homeopathy, which has value to those that practice/produce it for a living. As is clear from the frequencey the NHS presence used to be referenced in homeopathic sales and promotional literature aimed at OTC and private patients.

You can see their point, people might be a bit but if you can tell them it is available on the NHS then that sort of aids somebody new to the idea and skeptical "at first glance" to drop the skeptisim and assume that it therefore must have a stamp of approval from the medical community.

curlew

keep glass out of the drug product

How very caring, and cuddly and "our lovely consumers well before profit margin!"

Not.

The investigator also observed for Batch #36659 that one out of every six bottles did not receive the dose of active homeopathic drug solution due to the wobbling and vibration of the bottle assembly during filling of the active ingredient. The active ingredient was instead seen dripping down the outside of the vial assembly. Your firm lacked controls to ensure that the active ingredient is delivered to every bottle.

Ok, it doesn't make any diff to the final product really, but if you believe in vibrations and water memory, surely you want your vibrations and water memory actually inside the product you buy ?

Or does the bottle "hear" the "vibrations/water memory" scream as they drip off in the wrong place and then it "imprints" that "energy" into the product anyway ?

Which is just as plausable as the orginal concept I suppose.

And I can disgaree spero - and state that I haven't yet met a homeopath who has exploited others gullibility (not least because I have received a lot of free treatment from homeopaths!) Those are strong words and I'm not sure of the evidence for them. Depends how you measure what they do I guess, How would you measure the 'feelgood' factor - the main reason I visit my homeopath these days - she helps me stay sane whilst caring for a severely disabled child, as does weekly horse riding and as did the carer's group my old GP used to run. She's cheaper than counselling although last time I went I had a 2 hour brain dump for £40 - bargain. And the NHS isn't funding antid's for me, I'm not in crisis and needing expensive additional social care support- what's not to like?

Carpe - I have come across two models of NHS funding. One is the homeopath attached to a GP clinic providing a service once or twice a week -along with other alternative practitioners that the GP provides access to. Funded I presume by the GP clinic? I think this is great, not sure the NHS has the money to fund it now, but I think it's a good thing if it does (but it does't distinguish between homeopaths and counsellors, or osteopaths or whatever - they might all be represented).

The other is homeopathic hospitals staffed by trained doctors. Not so sure about that really, it makes homeopathy an anomaly amongst alternative therapies & I think it must be hard to practice medicine and homeopathy. It's also a very expensive way of providing homeopathy! I suppose those do have 'approval' from the medical community as they are actual doctors. Their style of homeopathy is often a little different than that practiced by alternative practitioners though - not so much in the way of talking & more prescribing from what I understand. I would have no objection to seeing them go personally, although likewise I would have no objection to GP's or other doctors trained in homeopathy prescribing remedies (although I would hope they were provided at cost price - which is a lot cheaper than a prescription charge!). I don't see why they need special hospitals etc.

What would happen if a doctor prescribed a homeopathic remedy because it was cheaper- but the patient demands "proper" medicine?

Well those are always issues for doctors/patients aren't they.

P: I need an antibiotic
D: It's viral an antibiotic won't work
P: Don't give me any of that viral stuff I need an antibiotic

etc

Discussions about appropriate treatment must be part and parcel of everyday life for a GP and presumably they negotiate with the patient and come to some agreement.

But why should I negotiate with my doctor not to be given sugar and water? That's the point. I wouldn't expect to negotiate for him to send me for an MRI scan rather than him consult the entrails of a cockerel........