Government reshuffle

[Ferretfancy]

Homeopathy is a fraud, it doesn't work.
The body is extraordinarily able to mend itself when given the chance
call it "nature cure" or whatever

The late great John Stevens once said to me that if you wanted to experience the world afresh you should shave your head a buy a new pair of shoes. Change the top and bottom and you will feel different in the middle.

I was amazed to discover some years ago that there are homeopathic vets, my neighbour swore by one who treated her dog! Many animals have great powers of recovery, they are pretty tough, so what was happening was simply recovery that would have happened anyway. Nobody asked the dog's views.

[Richard Barrett]

What we need IS indeed a more "holistic" approach, more time, more communication
but NOT people we should be able to trust giving out snake oil.

But that's exactly what I was saying, which you told me "doesn't add up"...

[P. G. Tipps]

Dr Cameron certainly appeared to prefer the surgical, rather than the holistic, approach when dealing with his troublesome and sometimes very painful cabinet ... ?

[teamsaint]

Some people might
Some people believe all sorts of nonsense
which is fine as far as it goes and it's up to them
but it's very dangerous to tacitly endorse charlatans and to pay for them using money that could be used to improve things

Although of course the actual money wasted in the NHS is on conventional remedies that are inappropriate, don't work, or are otherwise highly profitable for the drugs companies.
There can't be that much wasted on homeopathy, because hardly anything is spent.
Got to wonder why so many people waste their money on this stuff. Its either because there are systemic failures in conventional medicine, or because there is a public out there who are content with the results. Either way, the NHS failures are in conventional,not in homeopathy.

[MrGongGong]

But that's exactly what I was saying, which you told me "doesn't add up"...

What I meant was that we shouldn't allow charlatans with fantasy ideas of how the universe works to do things like cancer diagnosis.

[aeolium]

But is there, btw, any similar research on resources wasted on standard NHS treatments that have worse than 'no beneficial effect' but which actually have a highly deleterious effect, apparently unforeseen by professionals, and where the patient would have been better off with coloured water?

I'm sure there is such research into treatments which have had unforeseen deleterious side effects, such as thalidomide some decades back and the anti-depressant Seroxat more recently. Also quite a number of drugs which have been shown to be beneficial in treating certain ailments may not have any benefit for some groups of people. But that surely is in the nature of medicine and the way it is developed to tackle complex conditions. And the point is that before treatments are to be approved for use in the NHS there is now a rigorous testing process based on evidence and trials, and such treatments are kept under constant review - that is the scientific approach. There is no such approach for homeopathy. Not only is it a system not reliant on proven experimentation and trials or explicable according to scientific principles but there is no regulation whatsoever - anyone can become a homeopath even if they have no qualifications.

Although of course the actual money wasted in the NHS is on conventional remedies that are inappropriate, don't work, or are otherwise highly profitable for the drugs companies.
There can't be that much wasted on homeopathy, because hardly anything is spent.
Got to wonder why so many people waste their money on this stuff. Its either because there are systemic failures in conventional medicine, or because there is a public out there who are content with the results. Either way, the NHS failures are in conventional,not in homeopathy.

Which failures are those?

I am always surprised to see people rubbishing "conventional" medicine which imo has been one of the great successes of the last 100 years. It has tackled many serious and crippling diseases during that time and saved countless millions of lives as well as greatly increased life expectancy. Without "conventional" medicine we would be at the prey of diseases like syphilis, smallpox, tuberculosis, dyphtheria, typhoid, polio etc and would be far less able to tackle the many other common serious conditions such as cancer and heart disease. Yes, there are diseases which by their nature are complex and difficult to treat, and which medicine has not yet been able to conquer, and there are treatments that work for some people yet which are less effective (or ineffective) for others. But that is not a reason to reject the principles that underlie the development and application of new medicines, which are based on solid experimental science and which many skilled and dedicated researchers and specialists take years, sometimes decades, to bring to fruition. Homeopathy cannot compete with that and I think it should not receive public funding to do so - what people choose to spend their own money on is another matter.

[Ferretfancy]

Although of course the actual money wasted in the NHS is on conventional remedies that are inappropriate, don't work, or are otherwise highly profitable for the drugs companies.
There can't be that much wasted on homeopathy, because hardly anything is spent.
Got to wonder why so many people waste their money on this stuff. Its either because there are systemic failures in conventional medicine, or because there is a public out there who are content with the results. Either way, the NHS failures are in conventional,not in homeopathy.

Since when has any public body been expected always to succeed? Perhaps we should all return to the days of bleeding, cupping, powerful purgatives, lack of anaesthetics, TB sanatoriums etc

One of many reasons why AIDS struck such terror was the realisation that here was a new affliction that could not be cured. We had all grown to think that scientific medicine would always find a way. I believe that in time it will, along with other currently untreatable conditions. In the meantime it might not be a bad idea to remember how lucky we are.

[Dave2002]

Nobody asked the dog's views.

:-) haha!

"I felt ill. After a while things were no better, so I went to my GP. I got a prescription for antibiotics. After 3 days I still hadn't improved. I went to see a homeopath and within a couple of days I felt a lot better."

Really good chap, that homeopath.

Actually you can substitute "homeopath" for quite a number of "alternative medical" approaches - some people have been known to try them all - simultaneously - so much for controlled experimentation!

[Dave2002]

Perhaps we should all return to the days of bleeding, cupping, powerful purgatives, lack of anaesthetics, TB sanatoriums etc

You missed out leeches, unless they crept in under etc.

Actually leeches are quite good for some things - http://health.howstuffworks.com/medi...n-medicine.htm

http://www.dermnetnz.org/procedures/leeches.html

[P. G. Tipps]

I agree entirely with aeolium.

Conventional medicine must have saved countless lives during the last century and vastly improved the symptoms of others. It is the greatest gift from science to the general welfare of humanity. Homeopathy, however, may well work for some and there is no reason why it shouldn't exist alongside established treatments but, as has been said, it should exist on its own and not be subsidised by the taxpayer due to its unproven benefits for the great majority.

There are, of course, very rare cases which have completely baffled medical scientists most obviously those where advanced disease suddenly disappears from the body after conventional treatments had previously failed. Some patients themselves have put this down firmly to the power of prayer (pace, Mr GongGong!) whilst cynics insist it was just a fluke and very good luck. Either way it was certainly very good luck for the patients!

Medical science, for all its welcome advances, is still very much on a learning curve, and has to be on continuous alert for the return of old diseases like polio which modern society erroneously assumed had been long-conquered, so it's likely to be ever an ongoing struggle, it seems.

[teamsaint]

I'm sure there is such research into treatments which have had unforeseen deleterious side effects, such as thalidomide some decades back and the anti-depressant Seroxat more recently. Also quite a number of drugs which have been shown to be beneficial in treating certain ailments may not have any benefit for some groups of people. But that surely is in the nature of medicine and the way it is developed to tackle complex conditions. And the point is that before treatments are to be approved for use in the NHS there is now a rigorous testing process based on evidence and trials, and such treatments are kept under constant review - that is the scientific approach. There is no such approach for homeopathy. Not only is it a system not reliant on proven experimentation and trials or explicable according to scientific principles but there is no regulation whatsoever - anyone can become a homeopath even if they have no qualifications.



Which failures are those?

I am always surprised to see people rubbishing "conventional" medicine which imo has been one of the great successes of the last 100 years. It has tackled many serious and crippling diseases during that time and saved countless millions of lives as well as greatly increased life expectancy. Without "conventional" medicine we would be at the prey of diseases like syphilis, smallpox, tuberculosis, dyphtheria, typhoid, polio etc and would be far less able to tackle the many other common serious conditions such as cancer and heart disease. Yes, there are diseases which by their nature are complex and difficult to treat, and which medicine has not yet been able to conquer, and there are treatments that work for some people yet which are less effective (or ineffective) for others. But that is not a reason to reject the principles that underlie the development and application of new medicines, which are based on solid experimental science and which many skilled and dedicated researchers and specialists take years, sometimes decades, to bring to fruition. Homeopathy cannot compete with that and I think it should not receive public funding to do so - what people choose to spend their own money on is another matter.

I have never rubbished conventional medicine. But there is much that is inappropriately administered, might be better tackled in other ways, or which is applied to suit the industry rather than the patient. There is also a great deal of conventional medicine that works wonderfully well.
To be receptive to other approaches is healthy in my opinion. At any point in time, the orthodoxy is likely to exclude other things of value.

Edit: my point about "failures", which in a budget of £110bn plus there are bound to be, is that they are in conventional medicine, since that is where almost the entire budget is spent.

[teamsaint]

Since when has any public body been expected always to succeed? Perhaps we should all return to the days of bleeding, cupping, powerful purgatives, lack of anaesthetics, TB sanatoriums etc

One of many reasons why AIDS struck such terror was the realisation that here was a new affliction that could not be cured. We had all grown to think that scientific medicine would always find a way. I believe that in time it will, along with other currently untreatable conditions. In the meantime it might not be a bad idea to remember how lucky we are.

If its OK with you, I'll mix gratitude for the good things in conventional medicine with a bit of scepticism about the way it is applied at times.
I am really not all that grateful for a number of deeply inappropriate , damaging, or potentially damaging interventions that I or people close to me have experienced.

I don't know where you get the " always expected to succeed " thing from . It wasn't in my posts.

Maybe we should stick to a discussion, rather than the kind of patronising stuff in your post.

[MrGongGong]

To be receptive to other approaches is healthy in my opinion.

Indeed it is
BUT not to daft nonsense which is the discredited equivalent of having a lucky rabbits foot instead of seatbelts

The apologists for homeopathy like to go on about how "like cures like" and how "natural substances" are used by herbalists etc
BUT the absence of active ingredients means that this is just hogwash and dangerous hogwash at that.
My mother used to say that eating mouldy cheese was fine (actually it mostly IS) because penicillin was a bacteria (or um) SO is Bacillus Anthracis

[teamsaint]

Indeed it is
BUT not to daft nonsense which is the discredited equivalent of having a lucky rabbits foot instead of seatbelts

But, in fact, many highly trained doctors are prepared to suggest homeopathic remedy, or refer patients to homeopaths.
Pehaps they are all gullible. One of the most respected GPs at my surgery offers advice on homeopathy. Perhaps he is just gullible too.

I'm not saying they are right or wrong. But it is important that we listen to what the professionals say, and there is a sizeable minority that are open to it.

but, importantly....the NHS spend on homeopathy is tiny, and homeopathy really isn't going to take over from the drugs industry, so keeping a modest presence for a therapy that a decent number of doctors are open to seems a reasonable compromise to me.

[MrGongGong]

But, in fact, many highly trained doctors are prepared to suggest homeopathic remedy, or refer patients to homeopaths.

Many ?

How many ?

I know evidence is a bit of a tricky one for the homeopathic fairies and the maths are probably a conspiracy by the evil drug companies but how about knowing as a % roughly how many doctors suggest that their patients should go to see faith healers ?

What's your view on snake handling as a means of treatment ?

The reason why this

but, importantly....the NHS spend on homeopathy is tiny, and homeopathy really isn't going to take over from the drugs industry, so keeping a modest presence for a therapy that a decent number of doctors are open to seems a reasonable compromise to me.

is WRONG
is that it gives credibility to a completely discredited fraud.
Like those folks who still believe in Andrew Wakefield