If only the debate were really over

[MrGongGong]

no, but he IS an Oxbridge educated scientist/doctor, employed by UCL Hospitals trust. this was the point being questioned up thread.

You really can't have it both ways
Either (as you keep insisting) the amount of money is so insignificant that it doesn't matter whether it works or not
OR
you think that having someone who appears to be intelligent gives legitimacy to the whole nonsense

It seems that you are now saying the latter.

[teamsaint]

You really can't have it both ways
Either (as you keep insisting) the amount of money is so insignificant that it doesn't matter whether it works or not
OR
you think that having someone who appears to be intelligent gives legitimacy to the whole nonsense

It seems that you are now saying the latter.

No I 'm not trying to have it both ways. That is your interpretation.


Actually, the very straightforward point about Fisher and others is that he is a scientist and doctor, and up thread there was a lot of questioning about what scientists think of this stuff, omitting to mention that some well qualified scientists do believe or work with it.
Whether I think this gives homeopathy legitimacy is neither here nor there.

I am ok with the £4m being spent on it, especially given the obvious high level of care shown in the Dawkins/ Fisher film.

[MrGongGong]

How about we (that's WE) give £4m to encourage the development of exorcism to cast out the evil spirits that are causing disease?

(up pops PG Tipps to tell us that it's a long and noble tradition and we shouldn't make a mockery of it)

[Richard Barrett]

IMO given that the vast majority of studies show that homeopathy (like, say, astrology) has no basis in science, anyone who believes in it and calls themselves a scientist is under some kind of delusion (like, say, people who believe in astrology), or is hanging on to their career and position in the face of pretty much universal discredit, because the alternative would be to start again in another discipline. A discussion has ensued about one (count him: one) so-called homeopathic scientist who has no doubt passed some difficult exams in his student days, and has invested so much time and effort in this pseudo-science that he'll cling to it in the face of overwhelming evidence that it has no basis in reality. How science works: a hypothesis is proposed - in this case the hypothesis that there is some benefit in homeopathic pills - and experiments on as large a scale as possible are carried out in order to attempt to disprove this hypothesis. This has been carried out and the results are clear.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . belief is where people go when reason becomes too uncomfortable. . . .

Hmmm - I believe that "reason" is no more than a shuffling of the deck-chairs (cum definitions), and everything is ultimately a matter of belief. We poor creatures can know NOTHING for certain.

Any one who is "sure" of anything (even of himself) has no imagination.

[umslopogaas]

Perhaps there is a spectrum of certainty, from effectively completely certain to so highly improbable as to be dismissed as time-wasting? I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the sun will set tonight and that I shall one day die: if those are not absolute certainties, you would need to postulate a highly interventionist deity to prevent them from happening. On the other hand, the likelihood that a glass of water retains a "memory trace" of beneficial substance after all actual substance has been diluted out, and that that glass of water therefore has medicinal properties ... well, you are welcome to believe it, but I wouldnt even dignify it as moonshine. And if the NHS "only" spends four million pounds on homoeopathy, that is a lot of money in my book: instead of wasting four million quid on nonsense, they could at least give it to Oxfam or the like, who would do some good with it.

[Richard Barrett]

Any one who is "sure" of anything (even of himself) has no imagination.

Or herself, I assume you mean. But science is not concerned with certainty, it's concerned with explanations. Events at the level of molecules, atoms and the particles which make them up are explained to an extremely high degree of precision by quantum physics. I need hardly list all the technological innovations which the understanding arising from this theory has made possible. Supporters of homeopathy are basically asking that we throw away those explanations, which I stress again describe the reality that we experience to a degree of exactitude unparallelled in any scientific theory until now, and substitute for them an unexplained phenomenon which contradicts them and whose very existence is not supported by any experimental evidence. This is not about being "sure" but about deciding what is worth using our imaginations (and government funding) for.

[Pabmusic]

Hmmm - I believe that "reason" is no more than a shuffling of the deck-chairs (cum definitions), and everything is ultimately a matter of belief. We poor creatures can know NOTHING for certain.

Any one who is "sure" of anything (even of himself) has no imagination.

Who is saying that science is 'sure' of anything? It isn't. It comes to tentative conclusions based on the best available evidence and revises those conclusions as and when more evidence becomes available. There are scientific ideas that are so well tested that certainty can be inferred in our everyday lives (for instance, if you drop a pencil here on earth, it will fall; or that germs cause diseases; or that organisms evolve by natural selection) and there are other areas where 'certainty' is - at present - somewhat less, well, certain (the existence of dark matter, for instance).

But none of this means that acceptance of science is 'a matter of belief' in the way that - say - the existence of Nessie is; or that belief in Nessie should be put on the same level as atomic theory. That's an absurd example, I know, but it illustrates the point.

Homeopathy has been around for almost 200 years, so its body of supporting evidence should by now be huge. Yet it isn't, and we're still dealing with the same sort of arguments that were raised when the first clinical trial was carried out in Bavaria in 1835.

[french frank]

On homoeopathy: why waste breath on saying it has no scientific basis, that homoeopathic remedies have no scientific basis? Isn't that accepted by everyone here?

On the 'harmful' argument (relying on it can delay necessary conventional treatment and people may die as a result): yes, theoretically; but two cases:

a close relative who died a month ago, had been diagnosed three times with cancer, had gone through the full treatment each time, chemo (lost her hair), surgery twice ... and she knew she was 'treatable but not curable'. If she had declined the third lot of treatment and said she'd take one of the miracle cures instead and could she have the necessary palliatives prescribed, she would have saved herself the trauma of the final treatment

a friend who was discovered to be so badly affected by cancer elected to stay at home, with no treatment, just the pain-killers. It was her choice. Dying when a person is very seriously ill is usual.

So providing a doctor is satisfied, in any particular case, that the patient understands the 'risks' in refusing conventional treatment and being willing to give the witch doctor's medicine a try, why not?

Well, the cost to the NHS, of course. That £4m ... To put the sum in context: £2m of unused drugs were handed in to pharmacies one year in Cumbria alone (pdf) to be thrown away. That was likely to be a fraction of the unused drugs that weren't handed in - in Cumbria.

The total NHS drug bill is something like £13bn pa. And that £4m is never going to be dedicated en bloc to an alternative NHS service or project: it will get absorbed into the total NHS cost of £109.721bn (2013/14) like a grain of sand.

Isn't the main problem, not a scientific one, not a public cost one, not its potential for causing harm, but that the mere idea of homoeopathy is offensive to some people?

Would they not also approve of the rallying call for the 1831 Bristol Riots: "Pull down the churches and mend the roads with them!"?

[MrGongGong]

On the 'harmful' argument (relying on it can delay necessary conventional treatment and people may die as a result): yes, theoretically

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

[french frank]

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

That's the quick answer. It doesn't cover the point I made - that if doctors give advice on the risks, people should be allowed to ignore it - regardless of the harm it may cause them. Like dying.

[vinteuil]

Isn't the main problem, not a scientific one, not a public cost one, not its potential for causing harm, but that the mere idea of homoeopathy is offensive to some people?

... the problem is a scientific one, and the problem is also the potential for causing harm.

And - for some of us - Wrong Thinking in the face of the evidence is indeed offensive.

[MrGongGong]

That's the quick answer. It doesn't cover the point I made - that if doctors give advice on the risks, people should be allowed to ignore it - regardless of the harm it may cause them. Like dying.

People ARE allowed to ignore medical advice.
But doctors should't be dealing in snake oil.

There really shouldn't be a problem
The research has been done and there is a result
some might want to ignore it to try and preserve their own position

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Eine Alpensinfonie had a doctor's appointment in his student days to discuss his allergies. However, the doctor in question had a reputation for running late in his surgeries. My appointment was at 2.15 p.m. At 3.30 p.m., I had a rehearsal with the student orchestra, mainly to practise "Peter and the Wolf". As 1st oboist, it was rather important that he should be there. However, Dr. A___ was running very late on this occasion, and 3.30 p.m. passed by before EA's name was called at 3.45. He rushed along the corridor to the appointment room, only to be greeted by Dr. A___, who said, "My, you're a nervous young chap". He insisted on prescribing Valium, because he assumed EA was some kind of nervous wreck, whereas he merely wanted to avoid letting the orchestra down. It was slightly awkward, trying to convince the local chemist that EA only wanted the other item on the prescription. His real surprise was the attitude of my fellow students, who said he should have followed the doctor's instructions, even if he didn't agree with him, because, as a doctor, he knew best.

Somehow, I think he'd have been better going to one of those "dreadful" homeopaths on that occasion, rather than that "highly qualified scientist".

[teamsaint]

Whatever the rights and wrongs, there really isn't just one doctor who believes in or uses homeopathy, they are not difficult to find.
To suggest that Dr Fisher is a one off , individual case ,is misleading.