Government reshuffle

[teamsaint]

What evidence have you for that? I know that a few people support it, and probably a greater number support other forms of alternative "medicine", but I think you are trying to sneak an untruth past us here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mf4f

Any stats you care to look up in the internet suggest a fairly substantial level of use and support for homeopathy.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/homeopathic-healing-the-stars-who-swear-1259620

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/did-you-know/

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/complementary-and-alternative-medicine

(according to this last piece, almost 15% of people in the UK trust Homeopathy.)

http://www.h2rc2.com/page1/Homeopathy/HomeopathyIntro_assets/Homstats.pdf

Statistics from outside the CAM field are not that easy to come by,(curiously) but it is quite clearly a substantial number of people, for better or worse, that are interested in homeopathy.

Dave 2002, I am not trying to sneak an untruth past anybody, and have no interest whatsoever in doing that. Do you really think I have an interest in doing that? would you like to reconsider?I am trying to engage in a discussion, off topic, about an area of interest to a lot of people.

For clarity, all I am saying, and have said, is that a substantial number of people are interested in accessing homeopathy. Not a majority, but a big enough number to be significant
even if the sorts of stats that get thrown about are , say, double the real figures, it still numbers in the several millions in the UK.

[MrGongGong]

For clarity, all I am saying, and have said, is that a substantial number of people are interested in accessing homeopathy. Nor a majority, but a big enough number to be significant

I'm sure that you would find a "significant" number of people wanting to access Malt Whisky on the NHS as well
BUT some people really do need protecting from their own stupidity especially as it encourages those with REAL illnesses to believe that magic water will cure them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Z7KeNCi7g

[teamsaint]

I'm sure that you would find a "significant" number of people wanting to access Malt Whisky on the NHS as well
BUT some people really do need protecting from their own stupidity especially as it encourages those with REAL illnesses to believe that magic water will cure them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Z7KeNCi7g

which has got nothing at all to do with my response to Dave's accusation.

perhaps you have the statistics for the numbers of stupid people who need saving from themselves? perhaps not everybody accessing homeopathy is seriously ill?

I am happy to discuss this issue,(as per my last post) but really, shall we have a discussion or let it go?

I know where you stand, I think i have made my thoughts clear.

[MrGongGong]

perhaps not everybody accessing homeopathy is seriously ill?

HA HA HA

Just as well isn't it
because it's not going to make them better at all

There is the fetishisation of choice (see the Archbishop ?)

[teamsaint]

HA HA HA

Just as well isn't it
because it's not going to make them better at all

There is the fetishisation of choice (see the Archbishop ?)

I believe in the NHS. Completely . its where so many of us meet, idealogically and practically.

But I am so glad I had the choice to go private, (not sure if that is the fetishisation of choice) when the NHS failed me when I had a really serious condition.

What you call the fetishisation of choice may indeed be a bad thing . But lack of choice can be disastrous also.

[MrGongGong]

I believe in the NHS. Completely . its where so many of us meet, idealogically and practically.

But I am so glad I had the choice to go private, (not sure if that is the fetishisation of choice) when the NHS failed me when I had a really serious condition.

What you call the fetishisation of choice may indeed be a bad thing . But lack of choice can be disastrous also.

Indeed
The NHS does fail sometimes
But to insist that because some people want to choose pseudo-medicine they should be indulged is dangerous.

[Flosshilde]

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.

And a sizeable minority of doctors smoke - which was used by the tobacco lobby as an argument against controls on tobacco sales ('if doctors smoke, it can't be bad for you').

[french frank]

Just as well isn't it
because it's not going to make them better at all

That may not be true for everyone. The 'placebo effect' is recognised: that placebos 'work' because people believe they'll work. There may be situations where some people don't want the standard health treatment.

[MrGongGong]

That may not be true for everyone. The 'placebo effect' is recognised: that placebos 'work' because people believe they'll work. There may be situations where some people don't want the standard health treatment.

Placebos do work indeed
but that's NOT what the homeopathic fraudsters say they are doing

Fine for folks with more money than sense who aren't really ill at all
BUT if you were really ill it's very dangerous indeed

[aeolium]

Placebos do work indeed
but that's NOT what the homeopathic fraudsters say they are doing

Fine for folks with more money than sense who aren't really ill at all
BUT if you were really ill it's very dangerous indeed

See for instance the story of Oscillococcinum, a supposed homeopathic remedy against flu (inter alia) widely taken in France and which had annual sales of around $20 million in USA in the late 1990s.

[MrGongGong]

See for instance the story of Oscillococcinum, a supposed homeopathic remedy against flu (inter alia) widely taken in France and which had annual sales of around $20 million in USA in the late 1990s.

Lets have someone who believes in this in charge of the NHS ?

(Which IS the point)

[french frank]

BUT if you were really ill it's very dangerous indeed

Tell me about it! I know nothing about homoeopathy and have no reason to defend it - though I object to some clear-cut distinction being made between quack remedies and scientifically-based remedies, as if one were more/less 'dangerous' than the other. I have been caught twice in 12 years by standard prescribed drugs, the first of which caused a condition which then required treatment by a second drug (with known possibly life-threatening side effects). In both cases the side effects were regarded as too infrequent to matter, apparently.

Fortunately (for me) I didn't die from the second, dramatic attack, but have been left physically disabled where before I was extremely fit. I would probably have preferred Oscillococcinum, which millions of people seem to be taking without side effects.

[MrGongGong]

Fortunately (for me) I didn't die from the second, dramatic attack, but have been left physically disabled where before I was extremely fit. I would probably have preferred Oscillococcinum, which millions of people seem to be taking without side effects.

That's probably because there isn't any "Oscillococcinum" in it !
How how about that bottle of 50 year old homeopathic Talisker ?
I'll give you a knock down price for you , say £75 ?

I always thought there were laws about buying and selling things and misrepresenting their contents ?

[aeolium]

Tell me about it! I know nothing about homoeopathy and have no reason to defend it - though I object to some clear-cut distinction being made between quack remedies and scientifically-based remedies, as if one were more/less 'dangerous' than the other.

Why? Quack remedies are just that - quack, and in the case of homeopathic ones they are just water because of the extent of the dilution. They certainly aren't dangerous and have no side effects but they have nothing in them which might treat serious illnesses effectively. Scientifically-based remedies by contrast have undergone significant testing and trials to determine a) that they really are effective in treating particular ailments and b) that their side-effects are understood and documented and deemed not to outweigh the benefits of taking the medication. Because these remedies really do have something effective in them, they can have side-effects which are damaging to some people, as seems to have happened to you. But they only get approved for use, and remain so, because the weight of evidence is in favour of them: that they help more people than not. Would you really put penicillin, anti-malarial drugs, antiretroviral drugs to tackle HIV, anti-cancer drugs etc on the same plateau as homeopathic ones?

[amateur51]

Why? Quack remedies are just that - quack, and in the case of homeopathic ones they are just water because of the extent of the dilution. They certainly aren't dangerous and have no side effects but they have nothing in them which might treat serious illnesses effectively. Scientifically-based remedies by contrast have undergone significant testing and trials to determine a) that they really are effective in treating particular ailments and b) that their side-effects are understood and documented and deemed not to outweigh the benefits of taking the medication. Because these remedies really do have something effective in them, they can have side-effects which are damaging to some people, as seems to have happened to you. But they only get approved for use, and remain so, because the weight of evidence is in favour of them: that they help more people than not. Would you really put penicillin, anti-malarial drugs, antiretroviral drugs to tackle HIV, anti-cancer drugs etc on the same plateau as homeopathic ones?

Good points aeolium.

NICE periodically reviews its advice on prescribing of drugs for particular treatment outcomes. It used to recommend the use of beta-blockers in the treatment of hypertension but it was subsequently discovered that some patients developed diabetes type II as a result of this treatment. NICE withdrew its advice in favour of a treatment that does not cause diabetes, because diabetes is just as serious, if not more serious as hypertension.