Government reshuffle

[Ferretfancy]

Seems like a really bad move then - to replace a very competent and able person by someone with perhaps questionable beliefs - or maybe not beliefs, but simply convenient tolerance for political purposes of those who hold very dubious views. Another case of Cameron showing excellent judgement. :-)

I really hope we can credit Greg Clark with more critical judgement than suggested.

It may be that when the EDM was signed that there had not been a detailed assessment of homeopathy, but there certainly has been in recent years, both based on the claims of the processes (!) involved, and on results with patients.

I'm afraid the horse has already bolted. I was offered acupuncture on the NHS years ago, and went out of curiosity, but after being told a lot of nonsense about ying and yang and balancing the forces, I quickly dropped out. A lady friend of mine had regular aromatherapy on the NHS, so I expect that homeopathy will creep into the system as well.

We live in incredibly gullible times, and interestingly if you ask people what homeopathy really is, they usually get it mixed up with herbalism, saying that it's natural in some way. Let's hope that Prince Charles doesn't immediately start lobbying Greg Clark

[Dave2002]

I'm afraid the horse has already bolted. I was offered acupuncture on the NHS years ago, and went out of curiosity, but after being told a lot of nonsense about ying and yang and balancing the forces, I quickly dropped out. A lady friend of mine had regular aromatherapy on the NHS, so I expect that homeopathy will creep into the system as well.

We live in incredibly gullible times, and interestingly if you ask people what homeopathy really is, they usually get it mixed up with herbalism, saying that it's natural in some way. Let's hope that Prince Charles doesn't immediately start lobbying Greg Clark

I know someone who believes in homeopathy. Apart from that mostly sensible and respectable.

Re acupuncture that is curious, and may actually be effective in some situations. I have no idea how or why, but my wife had a session while in China and she was amazed at the almost immediate beneficial effect on her mobility. I am convinced that acupuncture does do something. She was not a believer, but tried it as she could not walk up and down stairs easily at the time.

I am not totally against all alternative approaches, but homeopathy has to be pretty much at the totally mad end of the scale regarding belief, acceptance and effectiveness. One could perhaps argue that as a placebo for those who believe it might at least give some comfort, but its clinical benefits must be zero or close to that. However, putting a very cynical hat on, and in the context of NICE, if homeopathy costs a lot less than giving expensive drugs, and the patients think they are getting what they want, then perhaps it is cost effective. I wouldn't recommend it for life threatening diseases though, but that may be exactly where it is often used, as some patients have by that stage almost given up hope. If there is no legal come back against the NHS whatever the outcome then it may be cost effective, even if it isn't medically effective.

Aromatherapy may just make people feel better. Whether that is what the NHS should be paying for I can't really say.
By the same token perhaps some of us should be given free tickets to concerts or expensive operas, as sometimes music makes us feel better too. :-)

[teamsaint]

Homeopathy may be " pretty much at the totally mad end of the scale " as you put it.However , an awful lot of people believe in it, use it, and want the right to access it. NHS spend on homeopathy is absolutely miniscule. Plenty of conventional drugs and therapies are ineffective or downright dangerous too: Oral retinoids prescribed for mild acne would be one example.

As regards free tickets, well you have a point. But perhaps a cost benefit analysis might stop short at, say, a modest price box set every few month for a chronic condition, rather than the full ROH treatment plan. !!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Homeothapy isn't mad. It may or may not work, but it is harmless. As I see it, the best way to keep healthy is to eat a balanced and healthy diet and do regular exercise. Homeopathy merely attempts to balance the diet with natural mineral salts.

[amateur51]

Homeothapy isn't mad. It may or may not work, but it is harmless. As I see it, the best way to keep healthy is to eat a balanced and healthy diet and do regular exercise. Homeopathy merely attempts to balance the diet with natural mineral salts.

Nurse! He's out of bed again

See message #31 final para.

[Dave2002]

Homeothapy isn't mad. It may or may not work, but it is harmless. As I see it, the best way to keep healthy is to eat a balanced and healthy diet and do regular exercise. Homeopathy merely attempts to balance the diet with natural mineral salts.

Sorry - here I don't agree. The original ideas on which homeopathy seems to be based are not completely bonkers, but the current developments, where substances such as homeopathic water which has any originally active ingredients - whatever they were, diluted down by so many factors that there cannot even be a single molecule or atom from the original are just nonsensical. It is not harmless if people spend money which they may seriously need taking advice from unqualified quacks.

[Ferretfancy]

Homeothapy isn't mad. It may or may not work, but it is harmless. As I see it, the best way to keep healthy is to eat a balanced and healthy diet and do regular exercise. Homeopathy merely attempts to balance the diet with natural mineral salts.

Sorry, but the principle on which homeopathy is based has nothing to do with balancing the diet, with or without natural salts. Homeopathic products are supposed to be produced by repeated dilution of the material until few if any molecules of the original substance remain in the solution, which is then administered to the gullible customer. Apparently the distilled water, which is what it actually is, is supposed to retain a memory of the original substance, and it's that mysterious influence that is supposed to do the job.
When Hahnemann invented homeopathy in the 18th century, his remedies were probably less harmful than the nostrums in general use at the time, but things have moved on a little since then.

Dave 2002 has just posted a very similar comment, overlapping as I wrote !

[Richard Barrett]

When Hahnemann invented homeopathy in the 18th century

... chemistry was basically in its infancy and biochemistry hadn't even been thought of, and in the meantime developments in science have shown his ideas to have no basis in reality. I don't really understand how anyone can take them seriously. And yet... the thing with homeopathic practitioners (or at least the few I've come across) is that they expend much more time and effort than "ordinary" doctors to get to know the characteristics of the whole patient rather than just seeing the symptoms presented on one occasion or another, and this must enable them to join up the dots and in many circumstances offer more useful advice than "take this medicine and come back and see me if it doesn't get better". I would imagine this extends to things like cancer diagnosis, for example. So while the "medication" on offer from homeopaths may consist of nothing, the diagnostic techniques are IMO some way in advance of what you get in a few hasty minutes at the GP.

Regarding the reshuffle, replacing a bunch of mostly loathsome Tory ministers with another bunch of Tory ministers who aren't yet well-known enough for their loathsomeness to be apparent is surely the kind of electioneering-at-its-most-cynical that you'd expect from Cameron and his chums. Is there much more to be said?

[french frank]

Is there much more to be said?

There could be more nuanced views, as with those you expressed on homeopathy: a reading of the runes, judging by the known statements of the new arrivals. Will Owen Paterson's successor also be a climate-change denier, for example.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

There could be more nuanced views, as with those you expressed on homeopathy: a reading of the runes, judging by the known statements of the new arrivals. Will Owen Paterson's successor also be a climate-change denier, for example.

well check Murdoch's latest on climate change scepticism .... strange how there was too little evidence in a recent high profile trial ..... [excellent essay in LRB if you subscribe]

business as usual but more so i would think ...

[french frank]

business as usual but more so i would think ...

The departure of Grieve (especially) and Clarke signalling the victory of the 'headbangers', according to Master Clegg...

[MrGongGong]

.And yet... the thing with homeopathic practitioners (or at least the few I've come across) is that they expend much more time and effort than "ordinary" doctors to get to know the characteristics of the whole patient rather than just seeing the symptoms presented on one occasion or another, and this must enable them to join up the dots and in many circumstances offer more useful advice than "take this medicine and come back and see me if it doesn't get better". I would imagine this extends to things like cancer diagnosis, for example. So while the "medication" on offer from homeopaths may consist of nothing, the diagnostic techniques are IMO some way in advance of what you get in a few hasty minutes at the GP.

hummmmm
That really doesn't add up does it ?
Yes, you spend your money and you get lots of attention and are listened to which makes you feel better
BUT if you had Cancer your chances of surviving after taking sugar pills would be significantly greater than if you actually had a treatment that worked.

Having had a very serious medical emergency I would say that had I gone to the nice caring homeopath (who doesn't have to know anything at all about biology to call themselves one) I would probably be dead. The (very articulate, and empathetic who gave me lots of time and exerted considerable effort) surgeon I saw would be my choice any day.

"joining the dots" is useful but only if the person with the drawing implement knows something about what the image they are making is.

Having someone in charge of the NHS who believes in this nonsense is utterly ridiculous and potentially dangerous.

I know, let's get our electricity from perpetual motion free energy machines (plenty of those on Youtube)

[teamsaint]

Ah, but Gongers, you believe strongly in conventional medicine, and the clever people who practice it.
But a substantial number of them are prepared to offer Homeopathic advice, remedies etc.

So that leaves us where?

ALL of this is based on belief, and beliefs are changeable and to be treated with great caution.

An approach to medicine that doesn't throw all its eggs into a basket marked "conventional and approved by the drugs industry" would be very wise, in my opinion.

Especially when you have dangerous people prescribing,for instance, oral retinoids for mild acne to teenagers with little experience of medical issues.

[MrGongGong]

Ah, but Gongers, you believe strongly in conventional medicine, and the clever people who practice it.
But a substantial number of them are prepared to offer Homeopathic advice, remedies etc.

So that leaves us where?

ALL of this is based on belief, and beliefs are changeable and to be treated with great caution.

An approach to medicine that doesn't throw all its eggs into a basket marked "conventional and approved by the drugs industry" would be very wise, in my opinion.

Especially when you have dangerous people prescribing,for instance, oral retinoids for mild acne to teenagers with little experience of medical issues.

It's not ALL based on "belief" as you put it.


There's the small matter of EVIDENCE , you know evidence based things
to use bad examples of so called "conventional medicine" as justification for the lucky rabbits foot approach is disingenuous
There is much wrong with the drugs industry (largely as a result of the way in which capitalism works) but the false dichotomy is not helpful at all.

There are good doctors and bad ones
we should try and make sure that there are more good ones NOT decide to trust the sky fairy instead

Giving charlatans credibility doesn't hep people who are genuinely ill

BUT back in the reshuffle
It seems that we have this

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/15/uk-environment-ministers-opposed-green-energy

[french frank]

There are good doctors and bad ones
we should try and make sure that there are more good ones NOT decide to trust the sky fairy instead

When Richard wrote 'while the "medication" on offer from homeopaths may consist of nothing, the diagnostic techniques are IMO some way in advance of what you get in a few hasty minutes at the GP.' He was advocating, I think, what is generally thought of as being a more 'holistic' approach. Your experience may have given you trust in the NHS, and I support the NHS wholeheartedly. But a holistic approach might have been more valuable to 'a friend of mine' than being prescribed a very expensive, effective drug which carried a risk of very serious side effects.

The issues aren't as simple as you make out.