Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[MrGongGong]

I am not well versed in homeopathy. I have an open mind about it.
In general, we have to trust the medical profession for guidance. according to this, 400 plus GPs practice homeopathy.. Not saying they are right, but it is significant.

http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/getting_treatment/homeopathy_in_the_nhs/

To dismiss everything except current western medical orthodoxy, much of which is informed by the agendas of the big drugs companies, is also very dangerous, IMO. (not suggesting you are doing that, BTW).

I'm not dismissing everything
though the idea that somehow there is a "western orthodoxy" which is in opposition to "other ways" is a bit of a myth
people have died as a result of this nonsense (the well documented Malaria scam being a case in point )

http://www.badscience.net/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

[LeMartinPecheur]

do you think that is likely to happen?

Should the NHS not be in the business of giving its patients the best and widest choice of treatments available?

The word 'treatments' rather begs the question doesn't it?? Treatments might be thought to produce beneficial results beyond those attributable to the placebo effect. On this basis osteopathy doesn't qualify.

If the NHS doesn't subscribe to this sort of definition perhaps we'll all be able to get our CDs from them? "They always make me feel much better and my many painful symptoms affect my quality of life much less while I'm undergoing the treatment doctor, honest"

[Nick Armstrong]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ent-homeopathy

Thanks for flagging this which is relevant to a professional matter I'm involved with - hadn't heard about this

[MrGongGong]

Talisker on the NHS ?

humm I might be swaying a little

[Nick Armstrong]

Talisker on the NHS ?

humm I might be swaying a little

I suspect that would depend upon the prescribed dose...

[MrGongGong]

Thanks for flagging this which is relevant to a professional matter I'm involved with - hadn't heard about this

If you manage to get the homeopathic nutters sent down and remove Charlies influence
then I promise never to make jokes about legal fees again

(though I might just suggest a few cheeses ......... the Old Cheshire Cheese in Fleet street needs to go on your list methinks )

[teamsaint]

The word 'treatments' rather begs the question doesn't it?? Treatments might be thought to produce beneficial results beyond those attributable to the placebo effect. On this basis osteopathy doesn't qualify.

If the NHS doesn't subscribe to this sort of definition perhaps we'll all be able to get our CDs from them? "They always make me feel much better and my many painful symptoms affect my quality of life much less while I'm undergoing the treatment doctor, honest"

MRGG ,I didn't suggest you were dismissing everything.

Its not the worst idea I have heard, LMP !!
My only real concern is that we don't have our minds closed and are given good options , by a service that we pay for.
if people have suffered because of poor alternative treaments, then that needs dealing with. Unfortunately, the much bigger problems, the ones I have witnessed, are to do with the ways in which conventional treatments are applied.

[Ferretfancy]

It's OK to have an open mind, as long as your brain doesn't fall out of the bottom. Homeopathy is a survival from the 18th century, when people still believed in such remedies as taking pints of blood from already weakened patients, and worse.There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to support homeopathy, or Bach flower remedies, reflexology, or any other form of quack medicine, and it should not be available on the NHS, full stop.

[Nick Armstrong]

(though I might just suggest a few cheeses ......... the Old Cheshire Cheese in Fleet street needs to go on your list methinks )

It receives the occasional visit

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

that accpted medical practice may or may not have scintific validity is neither here nor there when it comes to homeopathy which must stand or fail by direct evidence of its efficacy ......and it fails by evidence

beliefs are two a penny, good evidence is hard to come by and should be respected ... if some medicines are also witch doctor stuff [eg antidepressants] then they should be dispatched by evidence as well ... not used in some argument for pseudo fairness ... a disgraceful abandonment of rational argument ...

[teamsaint]

A very large number of people use Homeopathic treatments.Looking at the figures, maybe 10% of the population regularly use them
That is a lot of taxpayers to deny the kinds of treatment that they want.

[LHC]

A very large number of people use Homeopathic treatments.Looking at the figures, maybe 10% of the population regularly use them
That is a lot of taxpayers to deny the kinds of treatment that they want.

Conventional medicines have to pass rigorous clinical trials before they can be used by the NHS.

Before homeopathy or any other 'alternative' medicines are made available on the NHS they too should be required to meet the same rigorous standards. The fact is that homeopathic remedies would fail any such tests. They should not be subsidised by the tax payer because they have no clinical benefit whatsoever.

[Simon B]

They should not be subsidised by the tax payer because they have no clinical benefit whatsoever.

Is the latter part of this strictly true? Should it not rather be along the lines of "they have no benefit over placebo"? In the scheme of things, placebo can have significant clinical benefit. AIUI, clinicians are not, ordinarily, permitted to prescribe sugar pills. My unsubstantiated hypothesis for what lies behind the enthusiasm of significant numbers of GPS and other "conventional" clinicians for homeopathic "medicines" is precisely that it gives them a legitimate route to prescribing placebo. Sugar pills would be a lot cheaper of course, but doing so lacks the arcane mythological aspect necessary for the patient's self-delusion.

NB 1, I'm not suggesting that it would ever be appropriate for the NHS to prescribe homeopathy in the case of serious illnesses where there is a conventional treatment for which there is a properly evidenced clinical benefit, on balance.

NB 2, in my view there's about as much reason to believe homeopathy does or can possibly work (other than via psychological and physiological interaction) as there is to believe that politicians of all varieties might cease spouting a load of self-serving sloblock as of tomorrow.

[Pabmusic]

I was going to contribute to this, because homeopathy is one of the longest-surviving scams. But Mr GG has done it so eloquently (aided by several others, including Mitchell & Webb) that I've nothing to add.

So I'll go now.

[MrGongGong]

Why is it illegal to sell "beefburgers" that are really horse
and not for a well known chain chemist hailing from Nottingham to sell little plastic containers that contain none of the substance on the label ?

I'm not a lawyer but that seems like fraud to me
and whatever happened to the Trades Description act ?