Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[amateur51]

'Hysterical fear'? I don't think so. Just anger that the NHS is spending money on therapies that evidence shows has no more effect than plain water (which is what it is). Anger, as well, that Prince Charles uses his position to try & exert influence (successfully in some cases) on governments & public institutions.

Nice summary, Flossie

[Pabmusic]

You wouldn't think so, judging by the hysterical fear of homeopathy that has dominated this thread. it has has quite a different effect on me. Yesterday I bought a small bottle of a homeopathic remedy I used years ago. It may have helped me then, and it may help me now. Or it may not. But it's unlikely to do me any harm.

I don't sense any 'fear' of homeopathy. No-one is saying that the remedies are intrinsically harmful*, just that they (on average) contain no active ingredient at all. None. But of course, the magic rite that is weaved over them makes all the difference and no doubt softens the blow when one has to pay for sugar pills and water.

All of that is acceptable (I suppose) for an individual, but not when the NHS pays for it.

* This is not so when a disciple eschews conventional medicine in favour of sugar pills. Kenneth Horne was an early example of someone who abandoned maintenance drugs in favour of snake oil (sorry, alternative medicine) and died because of it.

[MrGongGong]

You wouldn't think so, judging by the hysterical fear of homeopathy that has dominated this thread. it has has quite a different effect on me. Yesterday I bought a small bottle of a homeopathic remedy I used years ago. It may have helped me then, and it may help me now. Or it may not. But it's unlikely to do me any harm.

I have a great idea
Why not send the evidence to James Randi and he will send you $million which you can use to have your definitive and dream recording of the Strauss symphony recorded ! I'll even buy a copy for all my friends

It's not "hysterical fear" to not want people to die because they have stroked a magic rabbits foot given to them by the NHS instead of a heart bypass.

[teamsaint]

Anybody got the link to where you are exempt from part of your tax if you would prefer to be offered homeopathic treatments?
10% of the population seem to have found it, so it's a shame that I can't. I could use a tax break.

Incidentally, I am not strong advocate of Homeopathy, but I do know people who have used it, and are very satisfied with it. They pay tax, and there are plenty of those people around.
They have effectively had to pay twice for their treatment.Perhaps that is fair though, in some odd way.

[teamsaint]

Open-mindedness is one thing: ignoring the evidence is another.

Being open-minded is surely to be open to having your opinion changed by evidence. The efficaciousness of medical treatments is something that can be measured: it is not a matter of opinion.

What about evidence on safety or air travel?
That depends on whether you prefer to accept statistics on deaths per passenger mile, or deaths by journey, as the results are startlingly different,and , depending on your views and travel patterns, are both relevant.
The efficacy of various medical treatments is also wide open to interpretation. You know what they say about statistics....

[Resurrection Man]

I thought the thread was about the prince and the paupers.....

Edit, the NHS already sees fit to offer the homeopathy service. that many of its service users want !

It's all about customer choice, isn't it?

Yes, it most definitely is. And if homeopathic treatment gives the patient some perceived benefit - placebo or not - then they are entitled to it.

Consistently, well-reasoned posts, TS.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I have a great idea
Why not send the evidence to James Randi and he will send you $million which you can use to have your definitive and dream recording of the Strauss symphony recorded ! I'll even buy a copy for all my friends

It's not "hysterical fear" to not want people to die because they have stroked a magic rabbits foot given to them by the NHS instead of a heart bypass.

Now then, MrGG: I know you enjoy needling people from time to time, but it simply doesn't work with me.

[Resurrection Man]

The NHS doesn't have unlimited funds. It needs to make sure that it spends those funds in the best possible way. The best way of doing that is to spend money on treatments that actually work, not just because people 'want it'.

And so at a stroke discounting the views of all those patients who believe that homeopathy helps them get better. Great exhibition of tolerance, flossie.

[amateur51]

And so at a stroke discounting the views of all those patients who believe that homeopathy helps them get better. Great exhibition of tolerance, flossie.

Since when was it agreed that the NHS' budget should be allocated on matters of belief? NICE deals in evidence, as I believe it should, in straitened times particularly.

[Pabmusic]

I suppose the NHS could provide sugar pills and tell people that they're something that will help them. Hardly ethical, but they'd have a similar success rate to homeopathy, and they'd be much cheaper. Trouble is, the moment something goes wrong, it'll be the NHS's fault.

OR (what about this?) we scrap NICE (savings there!) and have a series of phone-in votes on premium lines* to decide what medicines the NHS uses.

* Linked to the National Lottery. The votes could take place on TV each Saturday evening.

[Flosshilde]

And so at a stroke discounting the views of all those patients who believe that homeopathy helps them get better. Great exhibition of tolerance, flossie.

What's 'tolerance' got to do with it? Do you think that the NHS should be dispensing Dragons' bones, or tiger penis? As ams says, it's evidence that should determine what treatments are used, based on exhaustive trials.

[amateur51]

I suppose the NHS could provide sugar pills and tell people that they're something that will help them. Hardly ethical, but they'd have a similar success rate to homeopathy, and they'd be much cheaper. Trouble is, the moment something goes wrong, it'll be the NHS's fault.

Good point, Pabs. And in these litigious times a real possibility. As Robertson Hare used to wail "Oh calamity!"

[scottycelt]

What's 'tolerance' got to do with it? Do you think that the NHS should be dispensing Dragons' bones, or tiger penis? As ams says, it's evidence that should determine what treatments are used, based on exhaustive trials.

Do you think the NHS should use public money to provide artificial insemination for single women and lesbian couples, Flossie ... ?

This is not meant to be flippant but a serious question!

[amateur51]

Do you think the NHS should use public money to provide artificial insemination for single women and lesbian couples, Flossie ... ?

This is not meant to be flippant but a serious question!

I think there's evidence both of the need and the effectiveness of the treatment, scotty, as there is for currently married women. On what grounds might you think otherwise?

[MrGongGong]

Do you think the NHS should use public money to provide artificial insemination for single women and lesbian couples, Flossie ... ?

This is not meant to be flippant but a serious question!

I think the BBC are closing The Archers messageboards

And so at a stroke discounting the views of all those patients who believe that homeopathy helps them get better.

If I ever have to have major surgery again I definitely want the person doing it (as has been my experience to date) to know colossal amounts of complicated stuff that I don't and not to stop half way through to take a vote about which bits to cut out

I also want the drugs I have to take to be tested on animals and the surgeon to practice on a pig (which can be turned into a nice casserole after)

Wot Pab said