If only the debate were really over

[ahinton]

It's not the money
Its the spurious credibility that's the problem
People die of serious diseases because of this nonsense (Steve Jobs? )

Steve Jobs is perhaps a remarkable case but not for the reasons that I think you haver in mind here. Cancers these days are often said to be divided into lifestyle induced ones and bad luck ones (although that's a gross over-simplification, of course). Jobs contracted one of the latter, pancreatic cancer, which usually sees its victims off in a few weeks or months, yet he lived with it for many years before it finally got the better of him; the suggestion that such survival was in any way down to homœpathy is, however, as utterly risible as would be the implication that it rather than the cancer itself killed him.

[ahinton]

Thought it wouldn't take long for a topic on everyday liberal/secular naivety and irrationality to swiftly and conveniently deflect to the old religious bogeyman.

What is the point of your post here? - i.e. what do you think is wrong / inappropriate about this? A belief system is a belief system, surely? - and that's what's under discussion here!

[P. G. Tipps]

- I guess all priests, mullahs rabbis etc, like the pharmicists in OP, need to make a living by exploiting creduility

try "http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining" which touches on some relevant points and reaches IMO a quite pessimistic conclusion re rationality in homo sapiens

Well, I wouldn't necessarily argue with that last point!

But leaving aside the unconnected soft-target for non-believers which was suddenly and predictably raised here, I think we should stick to the topic which is alternative medicine. We could all cite countless examples of secular politicians, and others with powerful positions in society, spouting the most arrant nonsense. People should be free to believe exactly what they wish, even if that clearly infuriates Mr GongGong.

Sadly, it is also true to state that conventional methods of treatment sometimes kill patients, All medicines can have side-effects, some serious. Sick people quite naturally wish to get better and will try anything in the hope of finding a cure, especially if more scientific treatments fail. Nothing shocking or even 'irrational' in that, particularly if they have heard the 'quack methods' are alleged to have worked for others?

Many doctors will admit in private that it is impossible to tell what treatment is likely to work for individual patients and the process is often one of 'trial and error', as I'm sure some here will know from personal and often bitter experience.

In short, if Naive Gullibility (often based on desperate hope) works for some who are others to deride it? It is most assuredly a better bet than its polar opposite, Constant Cynicism, which is most unlikely to work for anyone!

[P. G. Tipps]

What is the point of your post here? - i.e. what do you think is wrong / inappropriate about this? A belief system is a belief system, surely? - and that's what's under discussion here!

Oops, sorry, ahinton ... and here's silly old off-topic me gullibly believing that this thread would be all about Homoeopathy!

[Pabmusic]

... People should be free to believe exactly what they wish, even if that clearly infuriates Mr GongGong. ..

Agreed, you can't prevent people believing what they want - no-one seems to be arguing that you can. Whether a rational person should believe something is a different question.

...Sadly, it is also true to state that conventional methods of treatment sometimes kill patients, All medicines can have side-effects, some serious. Sick people quite naturally wish to get better and will try anything in the hope of finding a cure, especially if more scientific treatments fail. Nothing shocking or even 'irrational' in that, particularly if they have heard the 'quack methods' are alleged to have worked for others?...

Again, nothing wrong with these statements, which neatly sum up why people will try alternatives. But again, whether their actions are sensible, or little more than the desperate delusions of despair, is a different question.

...Many doctors will admit in private that it is impossible to tell what treatment is likely to work for individual patients and the process is often one of 'trial and error', as I'm sure some here will know from personal and often bitter experience...

True again. But in assessing possibilities by trial and error we tend (rightly) to pay less attention to those things for which there is no real evidence. As a reductio ad absurdam, we don't accept "Well, Mr Pabs, these tablets don't seem to be working for you. Why not try neat diesel oil instead? - it will have an effect, and it might be good". All possibilities are not equally valid and we rely on evidence, where it exists.

...In short, if Naive Gullibility (often based on desperate hope) works for some who are others to deride it? It is most assuredly a better bet than its polar opposite, Constant Cynicism, which is most unlikely to work for anyone!

If you mean that the (well-documented) placebo effect can produce real improvement in many cases, then that's true. But there can be real improvement if a patient takes any pill at all, or if they simply feel good that a doctor talked with them. People might feel some improvement after taking homeopathic pills, simply because they believe in it (actual evidence suggests that this is the only effect anyway since there's often not one molecule of the active ingredient in the pills). Of course, doctors can't do this - it is unethical to give a patient sugar pills but say they contain something else. So homeopathy wins, hands down, and can take the credit for any placebo effect. Well - if that's useful, all well and good, but lets be honest about it and admit that we're conning the naive and gullible, but always in their best interests.

[MrGongGong]

People should be free to believe exactly what they wish,

I guess you mean regardless of the damage and harm it might do to them and to others?

But some people live for longer because of alternative medicine. Sir Francis Chichester should have died, and was close to death, when following a regime of conventional medicine. By adopting Nature Cure, he recovered from cancer and went on to do several great sea voyages. On the other hand, when athlete Lilian Board tried to do the same thing, she deteriorated rapidly and died very soon afterwards. There's no simplistic answer.

Which has nothing at all to do with homeopathy?

You getting an entry in early?

[ahinton]

Oops, sorry, ahinton ... and here's silly old off-topic me gullibly believing that this thread would be all about Homoeopathy!

I cannot comment on your silliness, gullibility or otherwise but the thread is about homoœopathy; it is hardly "off-topic" to raise the issue of belief systems when homœopathy so obviously fits into the belief system of those who advocate and trust in it, especially given that it is also something for the benefits of which there is no scientific proof.

[MrGongGong]

the benefits of which there is no scientific proof.

Which is what the article is about in the first place.
It is interesting who wrote it
but "believers" will twist away and make spurious connections

(actually before the invention of the VCS3 there were very few cases of Ebola so its obvious that this disease was caused by the introduction of electronic sounds to popular music)

[teamsaint]

Actually what interests me is how much discussion there is about an absolutely tiny NHS spend on Homeopathy, (.004% of NHS budget), compared to the amount of discussion on other areas of NHS mispending.

I'm much more concerned about routine mis -prescribing of things like oral retinoids for very minor skin conditions, which is costly and dangerous, rather than allowing a tiny number of people to have the choice to access a treatment which is in fact only available on the say so of fully qualified Doctors and healthcare professionals.

but thats just an opinion, I guess, and doesnt fit a certain narrative.

But maybe the OP title is right. perhaps if the anti homeopathy lobby let the issue go, the debate would be over, the spend still miniscule, and discussion could move on to much more important NHS spending and care issues.

[P. G. Tipps]

I cannot comment on your silliness, gllibility or otherwise but the thread is about homoœopathy; it is hardly "off-topic" to raise the issue of belief systems when homœopathy so obviously fits into the belief system of those who advocate and trust in it, especially given that it is also something for the benefits of which there is no scientific proof.

There is no 'scientific proof' of lots of things which, in the context of the Universe, are probably infinite. Lack of scientific proof does not necessarily mean something is false, though in the absence of such proof at least a degree of scepticism is wise.

There have been countless examples in history of patients with terminal illnesses making remarkable recoveries, baffling medical scientists in the process. If the patients themselves put these recoveries down to the power of prayer or homoeopathic treatments, whether others believe it or not is completely irrelevant. 'It' has worked for them (or so they believe) and that is all the proof they will need!

So it might seem rather arrogant and indeed silly for others to insist they are wrong when they have just jumped out of their sick-beds ... ?

[MrGongGong]

If the patients themselves put these recoveries down to the power of prayer or homoeopathic treatments, whether others believe it or not is completely irrelevant. :

Good job you aren't a surgeon

[Richard Tarleton]

There is no 'scientific proof' of lots of things which, in the context of the Universe, are probably infinite. Lack of scientific proof does not necessarily mean something is false, though in the absence of such proof at least a degree of scepticism is wise.

There have been countless examples in history of patients with terminal illnesses making remarkable recoveries, baffling medical scientists in the process. If the patients themselves put these recoveries down to the power of prayer or homoeopathic treatments, whether others believe it or not is completely irrelevant. 'It' has worked for them (or so they believe) and that is all the proof they will need!

So it might seem rather arrogant and indeed silly for others to insist they are wrong when they have just jumped out of their sick-beds ... ?

As a taxpayer I'm in favour of evidence-based medicine as opposed to superstition on the NHS. Fine if people want to pay for it privately.

About 5 years ago I spent a day in Lourdes with two companions after a few days walking in the Pyrenees - we were due to catch the TGV to Paris early the next morning. Fascinating from an anthropological perspective

[MrGongGong]

Actually what interests me is how much discussion there is about an absolutely tiny NHS spend on Homeopathy, (.004% of NHS budget), compared to the amount of discussion on other areas of NHS mispending.

I'm much more concerned about routine mis -prescribing of things like oral retinoids for very minor skin conditions, which is costly and dangerous, rather than allowing a tiny number of people to have the choice to access a treatment which is in fact only available on the say so of fully qualified Doctors and healthcare professionals.

but thats just an opinion, I guess, and doesnt fit a certain narrative.

But maybe the OP title is right. perhaps if the anti homeopathy lobby let the issue go, the debate would be over, the spend still miniscule, and discussion could move on to much more important NHS spending and care issues.

This IS very important (and maybe an example of this ? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery)

What is important though is that people aren't fooled into thinking that something that does' t work is effective because one CAN get it on the NHS.
So it's not the money that's the most important thing but the issue of legitimacy.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Which has nothing at all to do with homeopathy?

Actually, the two are closely related.

[MrGongGong]

Actually, the two are closely related.

I thought 'Naturopaths' used things that actually existed ? not ones that had a 'memory' of existence?

Homeopaths like to try and confuse people with spurious connections when all they are selling is faith healing (without the fine wines you get in Lourdes)