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.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think any contemporary pharmaceuticals are "based on" dilution to the point of nonexistence.
Re:First AGW, Now Homeopathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me to be the exact opposite. The fact that they were funding it up to this point is be a sign of backwardness.
Homeopathy != All Non-Pharmaceutical Medication (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth noting that homeopathy != all natural remedies nor does it mean the only medication that works come from pharmaceutical companies and doctors.
Or maybe it's not worth noting. I had to look what homeopathy actually was though, since a lot of "natural" remedies get lumped into it as well. Even vitamins/minerals or probiotics tend to be looked on as non-traditional medicine and thus highly suspect.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
Homeopathy is not about herbs... you do not seem to know what Homeopathy really is.
This youtube video is a nice introduction what homeopathy is all about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U [youtube.com]
The Prince of Wales (Score:4, Insightful)
From the fine article:
"Either we are governed by evidence and science, or by Prince Charles." --Edzard Ernst
Awesome.
-Peter
but (Score:4, Insightful)
You get that even if they only produce the placebo effect they will do as good as many popular current drugs for patients and without the horrible side effects that come with them.
Eh... no. (Score:4, Insightful)
99% of homeopathy is simply people using random herbs that are ineffective
99.999% of homeopathy is either water or sugar.
Re:Placebo No Treatment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a placebo and homeopathy is the doctor prescribing a placebo KNOWS there is no medicinal value in what they are giving to a patient, whereas the person using homeopathy CLAIMS there will be a medicinal benefit.
In the former, the doctor is merely giving sugar pills (or something similar) in a controlled environment to test whether the person's condition is real or imagined, or is part of a study to see if a new medicine actually works.
In the latter, the person using homeopathy claims that by repeated dilutions of a mixture to the point there is no discernible ingredient other than water, that somehow, through some unknown conveyance, the water "remembers" what it was instilled with and thus, miraculously, can become effective at treating an ill.
So no, homeopathy is not better than nothing. If anything, it is more harmful because a) people with serious medical conditions do not seek out real medicine to alleviate what afflicts them, b) it sucks money from people without offering any evidence that what it claims to do actually takes place, c) it runs counter to every scientific principle of how things really work, thus dumbing down even further the public's understanding of how science is performed.
Granted, a and b aren't really that bad as it tends to cull the herd, but c is what exasperates those who use common sense by having to listen to such drivel.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why I'm in two minds about this. Placebos are effective in a number of cases, and belief in the effectiveness of the placebo has been shown to increase this. If giving people a glass of water and telling them that it's magic pixie juice boosts their immune system and avoids the need to give them antibiotics, why not do that?
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
If nothing else works though, that hope does help them mentally so is that really that bad?
I feel the problem is when this stuff is pushed as _the_ cure instead of using scientifically proven methods. That is when the real damage is done and that is where most of the market for this stuff exists. It's probably impossible to have it both ways. Good to see Britain is smartening up to this.
LoB
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with the fact that homeopathy is "watered down horseshit" by definition - the more watered down, the better. If it were merely diluted from full strength, then you could formulate a theory of action that was consistent with modern knowledge of chemistry. However, when it's diluted so that the odds of finding a single molecule of the "active ingredient" are 10^80-to-1 against, there's no point even investigating further. If homeopathy worked, it would invalidated all modern physics and chemistry. Since you and I are still alive and able to have this conversation over a network of computers, it can't work.
Re:Simon Singh (Score:3, Insightful)
Calling chiropractors frauds is no more a libel than calling mobsters violent hoods.
Re:First AGW, Now Homeopathy (Score:1, Insightful)
That's more to do with undeniably stupid libel laws - when the burden of proof lies with the accused you may as well sue any bugger you like.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:4, Insightful)
Placebos work great till people start getting addicted to them.
Like a religion?
Re:Simon Singh (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with the ideal of disallowing libel, but it is the way in which that ideal is implemented in British law that is what causes most people to "bitch". For example, in the chiropractic case, the courts have essentially asked Simon to defend against the worst possible allegation that one could possibly read in to his case --- he now essentially needs to prove dishonest intent on the part of the chiropractors, which is even more unfair by the fact that *his* intent to make that claim dishonestly was assumed with little opportunity for him to defend it.
Specifically, his statement was "despite a lack of evidence, the BCA happily promote these remedies ..." and the judge decided that the claim of dishonest conduct was implied by the use of the word happy. I don't know how you feel, but I'd say that any fair reading of that statement is not going to assume that that claim was made. The upshot of all of this is that Simon Singh has to prove that chiropractors are intentionally dishonest or pay up around half a million pounds. He can't just argue that reasonable people should have some reason to believe a remedy works before they sell it! He's clearly being sued for making a statement which was an expression of his opinion.
A law is judged by the way it is implemented, and the effect of the British libel laws (in this case and many others) has been to chill criticisms. I disagree with you --- I think the American system, which also allows people to sue for Libel, but asks the plaintiff to prove that the defendant stated something specifically untrue as fact, is far more ideal. There may be a lot more "noise" on the news, but at least no one's being censored.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:2, Insightful)
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
herbs that are useful become (drum roll) Medicine
Re:Simon Singh (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck no. You should have the freedom to call someone a motherfucker without having to interview his or her mom.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you can claim it was a fluke. But you cant convince me that a 4 year old who didn't understand the infection or the treatment was miraculously cured by placebo effect.
I'm unimpressed. If you have a horrible infection, its almost certain that in two weeks either your immune system kicks in and you're cured, or it doesn't kick in and you're dead. Why would this be surprising?
Time does heal a lot of wounds. If drinking weird substances is a way to pass the time, then so be it.
Also correlation does not equal causation. I had an infected paper cut on my thumb for the last couple days. Its healing nicely thank you. I prefer vi over emacs most of the time. Therefore vi is an antibiotic. Huh? No causation means the correlation is meaningless, just a fluke.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:4, Insightful)
The very moment a sufficiently peer reviewed and accredited study shows that the herbs in question have an actual quantifiable benefit, it is no longer "Herbal Medicine" or "Alternative Medicine" it is simply "Medicine" and would therefore be covered under the health coverage in all major modern industrialized nations except the US, which it would depend on what kind of an insurance plan you can afford.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Although you know what they call 'herbal medicine, and other alternative medicine, that works'?
They call it medicine. ;)
All naturopathy either a) doesn't actually treat what it's supposed to treat, or, at least, is unproven to do so, b) treats it with near random amounts and can cause dangerous drug interactions, aka St John's wort.
WRT the first option, well, it really doesn't harm anything if people run around taking ginseng supplements. It's pretty bad when people get conned into herbs instead of actual functioning medications, but I can understand people trying them if they don't have a lot of options left.
(a) is essentially what we developed most medication from, and I assure we've checked exactly what you're using for exactly the thing you want to treat with it, and found it didn't really help. If it did, we already made a medication from it.
And as for actual medically active naturopathy treatments makes sense, where an overdose is not likely and it's fairly safe in general...if you want to make willow bark tree instead of aspirin, I certainly won't stand in your way. Especially with some drug prices nowadays, although the high ones are usually entirely artificial. Just be careful.
Despite my moderate dislike of herbal medication, I will, at least, admit that some of it is medicine. It's not really the safest way in the world to take it, and quite a lot of it has little to no effect, and the side effects are unknown, but there are circumstances where it makes sense, as long as you realize you are actually taking 'a drug' of some sort, and need to watch out.
Homeopathy, OTOH...ugh. Horribly stupid scam.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Treated by homeopathy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with Placebos? (Score:2, Insightful)
Placebos may stop the symptoms, but in most cases they won't fix the cause. Homeopathy isn't a viable replacement and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. I'm all for government healthcare, but only as long as it's actually effective and done with oversight and this is a great example of the way things should be done.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you realize that you were making a pro-homeopathy attack on someone who was trying to make a pro-homeopathic argument?
Remind me to keep quiet about any causes you are defending.
GP said, basically: The gubmint is holding homeopathy down! They won't let us use the stuff that would show homeopathy to work!
You said: OMFG YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HOMEOPATHY IS!!!!
He didn't say 'Gubmint makes us overdilute useful parts', as you seem to conclude. He didn't use the phrase "watered down" to refer to homeopathic concentrations (which are nonsense, IMO), he said that HOMEOPATHY ITSELF was "watered down" in that the most useful ingredients were overregulated.
Congratulations. I've not seen anyone shoot their argument in the foot as hard as you have in quite some time. Perhaps you should check your homeopathic anti-anxiety treatment, it might just be water.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:2, Insightful)
After this situation, I've been more receptive to alternative medicine. I've seen other situations with people dealing with debilitating pain and infection who have seen major improvement through the alternatives. I was a skeptic. I am now dumbfounded. The bottom line is I've witnessed people's condition and quality of life improve more often than not as a direct result of the alternative medicine.
You might get flamed for this, but actually your change in attitude after seeing alternative medicine apparently work is quite rational. You've seen evidence supporting an idea so you've become more accepting of it.
What I think people would find less rational is the fact that you then ignore the mountain of evidence against it, where conditions are properly controlled to cut out the possibility that any observed effect is a fluke. How do you account for that evidence?
I honestly pray that you never find yourself in a situation in which you've exhausted the 'accepted' methods of treatment. But if you do, swallow your pride and try the alternatives. My bet is that you'll look back at the time you spent in pain only to regret that your pride slowed your path to recovery.
But this is where your attitude is wrong, I think. It shouldn't be a question of pride, should it? It should be a question of going with whatever the evidence shows to be likely to have an effect. I think the child's mother took an unwarranted risk in this case, although of course I don't know all the details.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Yep, it's been total BS for millennia. At least the herbalists are *occasionally* onto something (drugs like digitalis, etc). If homeopathy made any sense, the water sloshing around on the planet should cure everything, since it's got everything (diluted billions of trillions of times) in it.
Unless, of course, you're attempting to *defend* herbalism from being associated with craptastical pseudoscience.
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is. A lot of people will turn to flim-flam medicine in place of real, evidenced based medicine and get sicker as a result. You also have a huge industry based on sham medicine costing people billions in wasted money every year. Finally, the deeply flawed arguments used by pushers of these drugs leave a segment of the population distrusting "big pharma" as if the medical industry was out to get them...In other words, the long term effect is a loss of critical thinking skills and people who are poorer and sicker because some fools benefited from the placebo effect.
The flaw in the argument (as much as I can gather from your comment) appears to be an assumption that only those who have no other options left will turn to faith-based medicine. Most people who believe in this crap turn to it FIRST, not last...
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah man chinese traditional medicine is awseome.... you only have to go back to the 60s and average life expectancy in china is a whopping 36!.... that traditional medicine must really rock...
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+life+expectancy#met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN:GBR:USA [google.com]
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not familiar with requip, and Google doesn't turn up anything negative on the first couple of pages. As to the sales reps, I'll admit they're aggressive, but I've never met a sales rep that wasn't.
All of that being said, though...every time I go to the doctor's office, I'm made to feel better. When my mother had breast cancer, her treatments cured her. When my stepfather needed a kidney, dialysis helped in the interim. What I do see is a wealth of cures and/or alleviators of symptoms hitting the market due to a steady state of research. Some have negative side effects, sure, that's why a lot of research is now focusing on tailoring drugs/treatments to the individual.
I just don't see it...
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so you start with pure water, add some substance, dilute it until it isn't there, but the water retains the pattern of the substance that isn't there anymore.
One question:
Where'd you get the "pure" water?
Re:Heomeopathy = Placebo (Score:4, Insightful)