If only the debate were really over

[Richard Barrett]

I would rather be offered a "harmless" homeopathic remedy

Which is the same thing as "I would rather be offered nothing at all" isn't it? I agree with you about there being a lot of bad prescribing going on, but in what sense is homeopathy any kind of answer to that?

[teamsaint]

Which is the same thing as "I would rather be offered nothing at all" isn't it? I agree with you about there being a lot of bad prescribing going on, but in what sense is homeopathy any kind of answer to that?

well it might be a pragmatic answer (alternative), in certain cases.

In the end though, I just think the focus in the NHS should be on the biggest issues, ( like bad prescribing, for example) and inside the NHS the homeopathy budget isn't an issue IMO.

What happens outside, is a rather different matter .

[umslopogaas]

A few random thoughts.

The homoeopathy component of the NHS budget may be a very small fraction at point zero zero whatever, but it is a very big budget, so even a very small part is a significant amount of money that could be used for other more useful purposes. Why spend even your small change on something completely useless?

Why do some people still believe in it? This is interesting to me, as a scientist. I think it is because they dont like science. There are people out there who dont understand science, have irrational beliefs and are greatly annoyed by the fact that science keeps getting quoted to rubbish their beliefs. To subscribe to homoeopathy is to swing a punch at science. "Stop telling me stuff that is right all the time and it shows me up as an idiot. I believe in memory traces in water and you cant disprove them. OK, you can, but I dont accept your knowledge system." I long for the opportunity to meet one of these people and tell them, "I'm afraid you have Ebola, but since you dont accept my science I'm going to hand you over to a homoeopath. Good luck."

[MrGongGong]

"I'm afraid you have Ebola, but since you dont accept my science I'm going to hand you over to a homoeopath. Good luck."

Ebola is easy
Sell the synthesiser

[Richard Barrett]

"... you can't disprove them. OK, you can, but I don't accept your knowledge system."

The people you're talking about don't only not understand science, they don't even understand what science is.

[teamsaint]

What, like all the scientists/ doctors who are interested in or prescribe or use homeopathy?

Awful lot of assumptions kicking around on this thread now.

[Richard Barrett]

What, like all the scientists/ doctors who are interested in or prescribe or use homeopathy?

Which scientists are interested in homeopathy? All the evidence points to there being no scientific basis for it.

[umslopogaas]

Richard Barrett

Serious point, I will consider.

Mr GG

Also serious point, but you've lost me, how does "Ebola" equate to "synthesiser"? I do try very hard to follow your posts and sometimes succeed (I think we are at one in an enthusiasm for Stockhausen), but this one has lost me completely.

[teamsaint]

Which scientists are interested in homeopathy? All the evidence points to there being no scientific basis for it.

There are plenty of medical doctors interested in it.
Not difficult to find them the internet, or perhaps in your local GP surgery like I did.


This bloke has a pretty decent CV ? ( first page I googled).

https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrPeterFisher.aspx

On the other hand, I dont think I have ever met anybody who was frightened of science.

[MrGongGong]

Mr GG

Also serious point, but you've lost me, how does "Ebola" equate to "synthesiser"? I do try very hard to follow your posts and sometimes succeed (I think we are at one in an enthusiasm for Stockhausen), but this one has lost me completely.

It was a joke reference to this comment (#23)

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

It's as credible as the idea that diluting something makes it stronger.

[Richard Barrett]

There are plenty of medical doctors interested in it.

Well, I wonder what these doctors say when confronted with all the studies showing homeopathy to have no basis.

[MrGongGong]

Well, I wonder what these doctors say when confronted with all the studies showing homeopathy to have no basis.

And as a % of qualified doctors how many is "plenty" ?

[teamsaint]

Well, I wonder what these doctors say when confronted with all the studies showing homeopathy to have no basis.

I guess we should ask The bloke I linked above. I would imagine he has been through this a few times, and kept a top job at UCL Hospitals trust.

( Clinical Director and Director of Research ).

Perhaps we should invite him onto the forum !

[umslopogaas]

Thanks Mr GG.

If I was a doctor and confronted with a study that said homoeopathy is rubbish, I might say yes, I know its rubbish, but some of my patients have no other course open to them (like cancer sufferers who have no hope in conventional medicine) and above all, I am here to help the sick, so if I have nothing to offer, I should not deny the hope in something I know is wrong.

I'm not in that position, but I can worry about it. Belief is a big part of any cure for a disease. Fine if the cure is an antibiotic, because it works whether you believe in it or not , but if it isnt so black and white, belief might be an important part of the cure.

A real dilemma for a doctor. Do I deny a patient relief because I know the cure is nonsense, or give them the relief and compromise my position as a responsible medic by prescribing quack cures?

[MrGongGong]

Thanks Mr GG.

If I was a doctor and confronted with a study that said homoeopathy is rubbish, I might say yes, I know its rubbish, but some of my patients have no other course open to them (like cancer sufferers who have no hope in conventional medicine) and above all, I am here to help the sick, so if I have nothing to offer, I should not deny the hope in something I know is wrong.

I'm not in that position, but I can worry about it. Belief is a big part of any cure for a disease. Fine if the cure is an antibiotic, because it works whether you believe in it or not , but if it isnt so black and white, belief might be an important part of the cure.

A real dilemma for a doctor. Do I deny a patient relief because I know the cure is nonsense, or give them the relief and compromise my position as a responsible medic by prescribing quack cures?

I think it is a dilemma
BUT
If by proscribing something you give it spurious credibility that results in other people who are really very ill indeed (or who decide to take a sugar pill instead of anti malarial drugs?) failing to get the treatment that will work then what ?

"Conventional" medicine is rubbish at some things (back pain, for example) BUT that doesn't make stroking a lucky rabbits foot any more credible.