NHS Should Stop Funding Homeopathy, Says Parliamentary Committee 507
An anonymous reader writes "Homeopathic remedies work no better than placebos, and so should no longer be paid for by the UK National Health Service, a committee of British members of parliament has concluded. In preparing its report, the committee, which scrutinizes the evidence behind government policies, took evidence from scientists and homeopaths, and reviewed numerous reports and scientific investigations into homeopathy. It found no evidence that such treatments work beyond providing a placebo effect." Updated 201025 19:40 GMT by timothy: This recommendation has some people up in arms.
Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
I for one thank.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
Unless, of course, you count the vast array of herbs used through the ages that pharmaceuticals are now based on
Two different things. Modern pharmaceuticals use refined extracts or man-made replacements. Homeopathy is water with nothing of value added other than hope.
.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
Herbal medicine (a.k.a. naturopathy ) is BY NO MEANS the same thing as homeopathy. You should really educate yourself before you start correcting people.
-Peter
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:4, Informative)
In homeopathic remedies, the mixture has been diluted so much, there isn't likely to be a single molecule of the active ingredient in most preparations. Well established herbal traditions, from traditional Chinese Medicine to Ayuervedic to American Herbalism, all have herbal preparations with large amounts of the active ingredients. Some preparations from these traditions have been shown to be very effective. Homeopathy has been shown, over and over again, to be nothing but placebo. Just because it's 'herbal' and 'all natural' doesn't mean it 'works.'
Article title not true (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference (Score:5, Informative)
Except that
1. it took some actual evidence-medicine to separate the few that work from the thousands that don't work. There's a name for traditional medicine that actually worked: medicine. The whole alternative gang is the ones that don't.
2. That's irrelevant anyway, because that's not what homeopathy means. Homeopathy can be summarized like this:
A) You notice what herb or substance produces what symptoms. E.g., caffeine produces insomnia.
B) Like cures like. When someone comes to you complaining about insomnia, you give them something that causes insomnia. E.g., caffeine.
No, it's sadly not a joke. The ingredient in most real homeopathic sleeping pills is caffeine.
C) Except you don't really. You dillute it to the point where there's hardly even a mollecule of the original substance left. The dilutions used in homeopathy are all powers of 10. It goes like this:
1X = 1 part active substance in 10 parts water. But this is too concentrated. You don't give them this one.
2X = 1 part 1X solution in 10 parts water, i.e., 1% active substance. Ditto.
3X = 1 part 2X solution in 10 parts water, i.e., 0.1% active substance. Ditto.
4X = 1 part 3X solution in 10 parts water, i.e., 0.01% active substance. Waay to concentrated still, you only use this one to make...
5X = 1 part 4X solution in 10 parts water, i.e., 0.001% active substance. Still too concentrated.
Actual homeopathic remedies start can be anywhere between 10X and 100X. But there's the small problem of Avogadro's number. A 100X solution, you'd have to drink whole swimming pools of it, before an actual mollecule of caffeine actually entered your system to cure your insomnia.
D) But that's supposedly OK, because water somehow has "memory" and cures every symptom like a substance it ever encountered. (So I guess since a lot of water is more or less recycled, and so many people wank in the shower, tap water should be a bulletproof contraceptive.)
The whole thing is stupid on several levels. Not just the "like cures like" or "water memory" stupidity, but starting on the very fact that it focuses on "what causes the same _symptoms_?" instead of the actual pathogen or mechanism involved. If you went to a homeopath with a pain in the throat, he/she wouldn't look at whether you have a pharingitis or a thyroid cancer, but simply at what else causes a pain in the throat. And give you a dilluted version of that. But curing RL illnesses doesn't work that way. Imitating the symptoms doesn't cure a cancer, nor kill MRSA. It's what you get from a brand of "medicine" which appeared before microscopes and is based on little more than ignorance and wild guesses, and inability to distinguish between symptoms and cause of a disease.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Placebo No Treatment? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, how well your new drug works compared to existing therapies is exactly what many healthcare providers and payers want to know, which is why regulators increasingly demand active comparator trials. In some countries reimbursement is explicitly linked to how well you fare against whatever the current standard of care is.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
A good example of homeopathic remedy... is good old fashioned marijuana.
No, that's not an example at all. Herbal medicine actually has ingredients, some of which will have real effects.
Homeopathy is based on the idea that if you dilute a substance by millions or billions of times, it retains a memory of what used to be in it (no one has really suggested a mechanism for that), and that somehow cures things.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
Dara O'Briain said it best.
We tested all those vast arrays of herbs and treatments and the ones that worked we called "medicine". The ones that didn't we called "placebos".
Even better, Ben Goldacre in Bad Science talks about the dilution factor of homeopathic remedies, which are diluted so much that a sphere of water with a diameter equal to the distance between the Earth and the Sun would contain about 11 molecules of the original material, with the rest being water. Any benefit conferred by these diluted solutions, which are literally just water, are purely down to the placebo effect.
I can't remember the exact passage, and my copy of the book is on my bookshelf downstairs, but I'm sure it's online somewhere. Ah here we go, google to the rescue - from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2 [guardian.co.uk]
Many people confuse homeopathy with herbalism and do not realise just how far homeopathic remedies are diluted. The typical dilution is called "30C": this means that the original substance has been diluted by 1 drop in 100, 30 times. On the Society of Homeopaths site, in their "What is homeopathy?" section, they say that "30C contains less than 1 part per million of the original substance."
This is an understatement: a 30C homeopathic preparation is a dilution of 1 in 10030, or rather 1 in 1060, which means a 1 followed by 60 zeroes, or - let's be absolutely clear - a dilution of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.
To phrase that in the Society of Homeopaths' terms, we should say: "30C contains less than one part per million million million million million million million million million million of the original substance."
At a homeopathic dilution of 100C, which they sell routinely, and which homeopaths claim is even more powerful than 30C, the treating substance is diluted by more than the total number of atoms in the universe. Homeopathy was invented before we knew what atoms were, or how many there are, or how big they are. It has not changed its belief system in light of this information.
Homeopathic remedies are *literally* water - they have *no* medical benefit whatsoever apart from as placebos. (and placebos can be pretty powerful - but there is no magic - you could replace all those remedies with tap water and say it was a treatment and the effect would be the same).
Re:Simon Singh (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what he's being sued for.
He's being sued for suggesting that the chiropractors were willfully giving people treatments they knew to be be useless. Personally, I don't see think that's what he meant in his article and that's his argument, too, but the one thing he's *not* being sued for is saying chiropractic remedies are little more than horseshit - there's be no lawsuit if that was all he'd said.
There always seems to be a remarkable amount of bitching about the British libel system, but really all it boils down to is that if you publicly smear someone, you'd better be able to damn well prove it. Where exactly is the problem in that? From what I've seen of American media and politics, it'd be a hell of a lot better if there were some requirement for people to be able to back up their accusations...
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
You still have no idea what homeopathy is.
Smoking pot, while it may be effective and enjoyable, is NOT homeopathic. South American and African cultures have not been practicing homeopathy for ages, since it was invented in 1796 by a German quack.
By definition, homeopathic remedies give you more of what is alleged to be the cause of the disease. (Thus the "homeo" and "pathic" parts of the name.) So if you suffered from lead poisoning, you might get a solution of lead. Except that instead of any detectable amount of lead, it's been diluted down 10:1 so many times that there's probably not a single atom of lead in the entire dose.
Re:Eh... no. (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm, I believe they go to 10 nines and beyond. Hence they ARE placebos.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
One more time: homeopathy is not herbalism! NO traditional herbal medicines from ANY culture in the world use homeopathic principles.
And, FYI, I DO put that in my pipe and smoke it, because there are ACTUAL MEASURABLE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS in it.
I can only conclude you have no idea what the principles of homeopathy actually are. It is basically thus: you take something that CAUSES a symptom (not cures it!) and you dilute it down until it is pure water, and that pure water will then do the exact opposite of what the ingredient did.
Homeopathic pot, for instance, would be touted as a cure for laziness and lack of motivation.
Re:Simon Singh (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, there's also a petition going for libel reform. Check it out at http://www.libelreform.org/ [libelreform.org]
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit! You have no idea what homeopathy is. Homeopathic preparations are NOT diluted due to legal issues, dilution is the whole. god. damn. point. it is what supposedly makes an ingredient alleviate the symptoms it causes if not diluted. There is no change or advancement in this fundamental, central, FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of homeopathy over the 'ages.' You are spouting absolute, uninformed CRAP, trying to put homeopathy in the same boat as herbalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy [wikipedia.org]
Educate yourself before you make a fool of yours... oops, too late.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
Yes MODERN,LEGAL, homeopathy is watered down horseshit.
Nope, it's been that way since 1796. Homeopathy was founded by Samuel Hahnemann as a way to mitigate the toxic effects of chemicals being given to patients by diluting them down in water. Also, you keep falsely equivocating herbalism with homeopathy. The two are not synonymous.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
Again, more uninformed bullshit. You have been corrected six ways from Sunday by dozens of informed posters, yet you still persist in spreading misinformation. We've even said things like, 'homeopathy is not naturopathy.' and 'homeopathy is not herbalism,' and 'homeopathy is founded on the principle that diluting something makes it have the opposite effect.' yet you STILL insist on conflating homeopathy with actual, useful medicine like herbalism. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Re:Article title not true (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, there is no such thing as the UK NHS, in Scotland the NHS is separate and responds to different priorities
Re:First AGW, Now Homeopathy (Score:3, Informative)
That's because Britain's libel laws are generally weighted in favor of the plaintiff. [nytimes.com] In Britain, the plaintiff need not demonstrate that the statements are false; the statements are presumed false and the defendant must prove them true. The plaintiff need not demonstrate direct harm either. The U.S. (and much of the rest of the Western world) has much more stringent rules; in the U.S., the plaintiff must prove the statements false and demonstrate harm. If they are a "public figure", they also need to prove it was not only false, but that it was malicious and exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. The "public figure" category that has been expanded over time by court decisions; originally it referred to politicians, but now it refers to celebrities, athletes, and basically anyone else with a sufficiently visible public profile.
Basically, the problem isn't that Britain is pro-pseudoscience, it's that it's anti-free-speech and pro-tort.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Eh... no. (Score:4, Informative)
99% of homeopathy is simply people using random herbs that are ineffective
99.999% of homeopathy is either water or sugar.
I suspect you have been as stingy with your trailing decimal points as most homeopathy is with actual non-inert ingredients.
According to the report: "Homeopathic medicines are diluted so much that it is extremely unlikely that any active component can possibly be left in the solution. The committee failed to identify any plausible explanation for how such remedies might work."
The dilution factors are utterly astounding in many cases. The most common Dilution advocated for most purposes would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient
The Homeopathy Wiki article [wikipedia.org] is even more dismissive than TFA, which by itself is rather astounding.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure I was clear if you second statement still rings true to you :)
Naturopathy EXCLUDES herbal medicine, although some practitioners of naturopathy also prescribe herbal treatment in conjunction with naturopathy.
But it's tough because there are no, or very hazy, legal definitions. Some people who claim to be naturopathy practitioners use herbal remedies, but if they do, they're not really naturopaths, according to purists.
Of course, language is mutable, and definitions change, but most well-renowned naturopathy centers do not recommend herbal medicine... if a disease is beyond their ability to treat it, they recommend going the traditional route of seeing a modern MD for "real" treatment. A great example are diabetics... naturopathic centers can be very successful at getting blood sugar under control through programs of nutrition and exercise. But for patients who require traditional medical intervention (insulin, metformin, etc) a good naturopathic center will send the patient to a regular MD (or have one on staff) to prescribe treatment over and above naturopathic treatment.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike "dietary supplements", which are virtually unregulated(the FDA basically has to have a bunch of reports of them killing people before they can do anything), homeopathic medicines are under the FDA's purview. However, they are subject to very much lighter scrutiny than standard drugs(none of that "safety and efficacy testing" or "clinical trials" stuff). It's a very convenient category to fall under if you don't want to have to put "This product not intended to treat, diagnose, or cure any disease" on your packaging, like the "dietary supplement" guys do; but don't want to bother with any clinical trials or other expensive effort.
In order to qualify as a homeopathic drug, your substance simply has to be prepared from something in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States by homeopathic techniques. Since a "1D" dilution is simply 10% concentration plus shaking, and a "1C" is simply 1% plus shaking, you can legally sell all kinds of stuff, at pharmacologically active concentrations, as "Homeopathic".
Since homeopaths generally believe that more dilution = greater potency, the stuff they produce tends to be quite safe(for everything except your wallet) typically containing nothing but dilutant(water, sugar, occasionally ethanol). This is a very lucky thing in certain instances [minimum.com](no, I'm not kidding about the plutonium, and neither are they).
Occasionally, though, among those using the "homeopathic" label as a cover for selling pharmacologically active preparations of various stuff, there are issues. "Zicam" [scienceblogs.com] 10% zinc gluconate was perhaps the most dramatic recent example.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Informative)
'It may have started out as some kind of herb or metal or whatever, but it's diluted past avogadro's number, making it just water.'
This is usually true, though in some cases preparations have been classified as 'homeopathic' while still containing significant concentrations of active (and potentially harmful) ingredients. Homeopathy seems to allow a very wide range of dilutions, from 1:10 all the way up to the well-known astronomical levels that make it (perhaps fortunately) extremely unlikely there's anything left of the original substance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions [wikipedia.org]
Zicam, which apparently qualifies as 'homeopathic', and has been blamed for damaging the sense of smell in some users, reportedly contains 33mM zinc gluconate, a pharmacologically active concentration:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=530 [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
It's been alleged that the company marketing this stuff simply used the lax rules governing homeopathic preparations in the US as a way of circumventing regulatory approval, which sounds like a rather worrying loophole.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
As long as the sources are cited in the article, why wouldn't you consider it a viable source to cite on an Internet Forum?
If a Wikipedia article is filled with [citation needed], then yes it is a bad source...but as long as sources are cited, what's the difference if you find the info through Wikipedia or not?
30 C dilutions (Score:3, Informative)
I was under the impression the most common dilution "30C", was something like 1/3000... But no, on further reading I discover it's 99.999999999999999999999999999999% water, as you say. i.e. even in a mass spectrometer we're not going to see any molecules of the original solution.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/KDND#Death_of_a_contestant_in_KDND_radio_contest [wikipedia.or]
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:1, Informative)
You laugh, but water poisoning is a very real, and very fatal condition... if you drink 20 gallons a day for about a year.
No, it's even worse. The acute LD50 dose for water is about 18 liters. Your electrolytes get severely messed up when you drink that much water.
Re:30 C dilutions (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah. If I understand correctly, by the time it reaches 10^23 there's virtually no chance that one single molecule of the original substance remains. So 10^30 is even overkill by a few orders of magnitude.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have any idea how lucky you are? [whatstheharm.net]
If people want to play games with their own lives, that's their call. However, exposing children to these kinds of risks isn't just irresponsible, it's criminal. If your stepson had died as a result, you and your wife would both be in jail.
Actually, re-reading what you wrote, I see that you were responsible enough to actually take the kid in for surgery after giving him the "medicine". That's great. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where other couples have rejected medicine entirely, choosing to subject their children solely to homeopathic and "natural" solutions. For instance:
Last year in Melbourne, Australia, Isabella Denley, an epileptic toddler, died after her parents ditched the anti-convulsant medication she had been prescribed by her neurologist. The drugs had terrible side effects, including sleep loss and hyperactivity, so they turned to alternative therapies, visiting a vibrational kinesiologist, a cranial osteopath and a psychic who told them Isabella was suffering from a past-life trauma.
An inquest heard that when she died, the toddler was exclusively on homeopathic medication. Her parents believed they were doing their utmost. But clearly the potential pitfalls of Cams go beyond ruthless charlatans. Indeed, the real peril may be our faith that alternative therapies will inevitably reach - and cure - the parts that allopathic medicines will not.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
They can patent the method for isolating or synthesizing those ingredients, however, which is what they usually do. Big pharma companies spend a lot of money researching naturally growing herbs, and have made bank on said research.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Eh... no. (Score:4, Informative)
A "100C" dilution is divided by more than the number of atoms in the universe. Quite literally.
1x10^60 the dilution factor for a "30C" remedy. That's ten to the sixty.