UK May Blacklist Homeopathy (bbc.co.uk) 287
New submitter Maritz writes: Vindication may be on the horizon for people who defer to reality in matters of health — UK ministers are considering whether homeopathy should be put on a blacklist of treatments GPs in England are banned from prescribing, the BBC has learned. The controversial practice is based on the principle that "like cures like," but critics say patients are being given useless sugar pills. The Faculty of Homeopathy said patients supported the therapy. A consultation is expected to take place in 2016. The total NHS bill for homeopathy, including homeopathic hospitals and GP prescriptions, is thought to be about £4m.
I Can't Figure Out (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't figure out how this brand of witchcraft was ever seen suitable to refer patients to.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I Can't Figure Out (Score:4, Informative)
This is likely why [theguardian.com]
That may explain the UK, although honestly I doubt Charles has that much influence. But it doesn't explain the US or Canada, or anywhere else this utter bullshit gets passed off as "medicine". Some of these crap treatments are even covered under my job's health coverage. It's crazy and a waste of money, or more specifically premiums I pay.
Re:I Can't Figure Out (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no different than prescribing a placebo, which does have a proven effect, although I expect it costs a lot more to see a homeopathy "specialist" than it does for a regular doctor to prescribe some do-nothing pills.
Placebos by definition don't do anything (Score:4, Insightful)
It's no different than prescribing a placebo, which does have a proven effect
Placebos by definition have no effect. The "placebo effect" doesn't mean placebos themselves have an actual chemical effect. Placebos are designed such that they cannot have a chemical effect that is relevant in treating the condition. Placebos are the measuring stick for whether a treatment actually works.
Selling treatments for cash as if they are actual medicine without proof of efficacy is fraud. Anyone selling homeopathy and representing as a cure for a specific condition is committing a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that the more expensive the placebo, the more powerful the placebo effect will be.
Placebos are by definition ineffectual (Score:2)
Wrong Placebo is usually more effective than no treatment.
Placebos have NO effect. They cannot have a relevant effect or they would not be a placebo. A placebo is BY DEFINITION an ineffectual treatment. The placebo effect is real but the placebos themselves have no chemical effect.
Re:Placebos are by definition ineffectual (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct, but so is the person to which you are responding. Due to the placebo effect, a placebo *is* more effective than no treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
According to this medical site, you are wrong:
http://www.medicinenet.com/scr... [medicinenet.com]
Plecebo is 32% effective, so it is measurably effective versus doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your script may be broken, you should make sure that the indexing is correct as this is the second time you have missed some of the posts.
Oh, and whatever happened to this post:
Thanks for more ammo for "Coren22's 'Greatest Hits Fails' vs. me" 1-5 for your next upmodded post so everyone can see it - can't wait, lol!
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Are we lying now APK, as the majority of your copy/pastes have been to non upmodded posts?
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
Placebos have no active ingredient. They can have an effect, it even has a name, it's called the "placebo effect".
Placebo effect != placebo having an effect (Score:2)
Placebos have no active ingredient.
And as a result they have ZERO biological effect on the patient. Without an active ingredient there cannot be any chemical activity from the administration of a treatment.
They can have an effect, it even has a name, it's called the "placebo effect".
Placebos are BY DEFINITION ineffectual. There is a reason that researchers call it the placebo response instead of placebo effect because people like you conflate the fact that the placebo response is real even though the placebo has no chemical effect itself. "Placebo effect" != placebos having an effect. If the placebo itself had an
the (real) effect not dependent on ingredient (Score:3)
> "Placebo effect" != placebos having an effect. If the placebo itself had an effect then it is not a placebo. Any curative effect has nothing to do with the contents of the placebo.
Your second sentence is precisely correct. The effect is not dependent on the ingredients in the placebo. THE effect. In most cases, giving a patient a placebo (which has no useful ingredient) does in fact result in both better outcomes reported than giving them nothing. So there IS an effect, which has nothing to do with
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the fact that it's statistically the same, how does a right placebo perform?
Re:I Can't Figure Out (Score:5, Informative)
Scientific studies have shown that placebos are more effective when they cost the patient more money. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Also if the placebo treatment are more intrusive/painful. For placebo pills: coloured ones, larger ones are more effective. And it helps if the doctor is convinced that the treatment is effective. Each and all scientifically tested.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientific studies have shown that placebos are more effective when they cost the patient more money. Seriously.
Not that suprpising: placebos work on the belief that they work. People generally associate more expenive with better, so it's not surprising they work better when they're believed to work better.
Funny thing is placebos even work when patients know they're placebos. I even know that and I'm pretty sure most cold medication is nothing but placebo. However there's a part of my brain that believes th
Re: (Score:3)
Most cold medication isn't a placebo. There's no way to cure the cold, or even a treatment to fight the virus effectively, but there are plenty that will lessen the symptoms. Ibuprofen for the headache, caffeine for the lethargy, pseudoephedrine* to clear the stuffy nose. They won't do a thing to actually fix the illness - you'll be just as ill, but you'll feel a lot better about it.
*Now largely replaced with the barely-effective phenylephrine, because pseudoephedrine is a precursor in methamphetamine manuf
Re: (Score:3)
The most common placebo is antibiotics prescribed for viral infections.
It's becoming pretty uncommon for a physician to actually do this, no matter how many dorks show up for minor viral illnesses saying "Can we just TRY an antibiotic?" even though everyone knows they don't have a bacterial infection.
Physicians are well aware today of the issues with over-prescribing them and some lose patients over it, but it's pretty uncommon for a family practice doc to do this anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"The most common placebo is antibiotics prescribed for viral infections. Homeopathy is certainly better than that, since at least it is harmless (since there is nothing in it). It seems silly to ban homeopathy while overprescription of antibiotics is still rampant."
IOW you want homeopathic antibiotics.
Not the solution to overprescribed antibiotics (Score:5, Insightful)
The most common placebo is antibiotics prescribed for viral infections. Homeopathy is certainly better than that, since at least it is harmless (since there is nothing in it).
Let's say you are a doctor and you prescribe antibiotics for what you believe is actually a viral disease. In many cases they don't actually know for 100% certain that it is viral and cannot because they did not do any test to confirm that thesis. In some percent of the cases the disease will turn out to be bacterial. In most cases the antibiotics will have little to no short term negative consequences for the patient. It's not a placebo because it isn't actually clear that it won't treat the disease and we know for a fact that it has an actual medicinal effect. We know for a fact that homeopathy does not and indeed cannot have a medicinal effect because there is no chemical reaction.
So let's say you prescribe homeopathy instead of antibiotics and the disease progresses and the patient gets very ill or dies. Now you are guilty of malpractice because you prescribed something you knew to be snake oil. You would have been better off either prescribing the antibiotics or even doing nothing. When you get dragged into court the first thing the lawyer is going to do is ask you why you didn't prescribe an actual medicine.
It seems silly to ban homeopathy while overprescription of antibiotics is still rampant.
Those are separate problems and homeopathy is NOT the solution to over prescription of antibiotics. Let's not conflate two issues and give homeopathy credibility when it deserves none.
Re: (Score:3)
In most cases the antibiotics will have little to no short term negative consequences for the patient.
There was an article on Ars yesterday that a single course of antibiotics can disrupt the flora in the gut for a whole year. (Though, curiously, not in the mouth.)
Separate issues (Score:4, Insightful)
There was an article on Ars yesterday that a single course of antibiotics can disrupt the flora in the gut for a whole year.
That's not a credible argument in favor of homeopathy. Yes it is a problem but homeopathy is in no way, shape or form a solution to that particular problem.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is an argument against the position that we have a tight intellectual grip on the process of what goes on in the human body. It's also an argument against naive interventionism, eg. using antibiotics in less critical cases instead of waiting it out.
Though by that measure, it may become an argument in favor of homeopathy, for noncritical cases: homeopathy has no known (or conceivable, by the standards of the model we are using) side effects, and it appears to work as well as a "good" placebo. (I belie
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between using antibiotics when we have a bacterial infection in general and using antibiotics when we have a bacterial infection that the body likely won't handle well, from best we can tell. For a "minor" infection like with a cold or flu, depending how you define minor, if the person has a relatively good immune system and so on, waiting it out may be a better strategy than using antibiotics. As well as staying home and recovering instead of going to work, drinking lots of fluid and a
Re: (Score:3)
This.
£4m is absolutely *nothing* compared to other wastes. Homeopaths are not covered by National Insurance, you have to go with private medical to get them covered. We're only talking about pills prescribed by registered GPs... and if they are only little sugar pills, they're a cheap placebo!
Re:I Can't Figure Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, can we compromise? The homeopaths get their £4m, only we'll first dilute it down 60X before giving it to them. That'll only increase it's buying power, right? ;)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a brilliant solution! Why do I not have mod points now!
Re: (Score:3)
OK you win :-) I was comparing to the waste in antibiotics...
To complete your analogy, what we need is to have those 4m in 1 pound coins, spread them over 240 million wallets, and ask them to pick just one.
Re: (Score:3)
This is under 10 pence per capita a year.
This part of "the system" ain't broke, it is a waste of energy trying to fix it.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how much value they get for that 10 pence. I'd imagine, getting all those people to STFU is worth the cost.
Legitimisation of homoeopathy does harm (Score:3, Insightful)
9/10 homoeopaths will prescribe homoeopathic malaria "cures" to travellers, instead of, rather than as well as, the real treatments. The same problems can be seen for cancer and HIV, albeit at lower levels.... every time we legitimise them we increase their power to kill though their delusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Put a penny (or Pence?) in a bucket, pour water in until the bucket is full, dip a cup in the bucket and hand it to them. Then retrieve your coin and leave, by virtue of the dilution of thousands of times to one, that cup of water should be worth 100 pounds (or dollars), and pay the bill nicely.
Re: (Score:3)
I had some lady telling me how water has a memory and that I needed some homeopathic crap. I asked about the water memory. She told me some silly shit. I pointed out that she was drinking Moses' piss. She let me finish my beer in peace. This was some time ago. I wonder if she's still bugging people in airport restaurants and trying to share the benefits of homeopathy with them.
Re: (Score:3)
I know a pharmaceutical rep. Man, the stories he tells about getting doctors to prescribe crap based on at least as much bullshit as homeopathy.
Push, push, push a high profit drug. Don't actually practice medicine just push the drugs that make money.
Re:I Can't Figure Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time he does it, show him a picture of Steve Jobs at the end.
Alternative medicine is BS (Score:2)
Neither can I. I have one particularly annoying friend who is always trying to suggest bullshit "remedies" that have no basis in science or fact.
You know what they call alternative medicine that is proven to work? Medicine!
Re: (Score:2)
The point of a placebo is that it has no benefit. That's why it's at the heart of the double-blind methodology.
There is no benefit to homeopathy. It's pure bullshit, fraud and frankly I'd chuck anyone promoting it as a therapy in prison and fine them millions.
Two Likes Don't Make a Right (Score:5, Funny)
There's no need for believers in homeopathy to worry about this. They can just grind the remaining prescriptions for homeopathic remedies into dust, and present a grain of that dust to the pharmacist, who then gives them a glass of water. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
As non-sanctioned remedies that exist outside of the conventional MD mindset and Big Pharma, "believers" don't have to worry. They can just continue to medicate themselves if they want.
I'm kind of surprised that the UK is finally getting around to this. It's been this way in the US for quite some time.
Although some non-pharma remedies are useful in some limited (generally non-life threatening) situations.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still dangerous. Forgetting to take a dose can be fatal.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Perfect Martini:
Store your Gin and Martini Glasses in the Freezer.
Pull a Glass out, and show it a bottle of Vermouth.
Pour ice cold Gin into the Glass, which now remembers the Vermouth, and add an olive.
For a Perfect Gibson, use a Cocktail Onion in place of the Olive.
OK, now for the Viking Blast:
Store your Aquavit and Shot Glasses in the Freezer.
Put some Grieg on the Stereo. (Peer Gynt is good. For something more Modern, consider Katzenjammer.)
Take both Aquavit and Glasses out to the Hot Tub, on a tray
Re: (Score:3)
They can just grind the remaining prescriptions for homeopathic remedies into dust, and present a grain of that dust to the pharmacist, who then gives them a glass of water.
But that would put them at risk of an overdose, as more diluted substances have higher potency [wikipedia.org] !
Homeopathy on BBC news this morning (Score:4, Informative)
My best pal and matey Mike Marshall, from the Good Thinking Society, was on BBC Breakfast news this morning along with homeopath-in-chief Peter Fisher.
The clip is not available at the BBC but it is on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Whew, for a minute I thought you meant ... (Score:2)
... all homeopathy-related URLs would be added to a national "ISP blacklist" so they wouldn't be reachable by people in the UK without using a VPN or some such.
</panic mode>
Eh. (Score:2)
If they want to do it in private practice; their efficacy claims had better be prepared to meet truth-in-advertising standards; but if they can find true believers, have at it.
If it is going on the tab of the real healthcare system; evidence or GT
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no truth in their advertising.
The BBC aupports homeopathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Note how sympathetic the BBC is to homeopathy, giving a soft ride to someone who makes money from punting it.
Apparently that's "balance".
Next week the BBC will run an article on the different viewpoints on the square root of 16, giving equal time to those who say it is 8.
Re: (Score:3)
Note how sympathetic the BBC is to homeopathy, giving a soft ride to someone who makes money from punting it.
What "soft ride"? What "sympathy"? They quoted someone in an article on the website - it's not a grilling from an interviewer and isn't meant to be. How was it any different to the "treatment" that they gave to the anti-homeopathy side (which was also just quotes)?
Wait until they get the opposing parties on Newsnight, then you might see what kind of a "ride" each gets.
Apparently that's "balance".
Yes, yes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
See also: How climate conspiracy theorists get quoted in news articles.
Re: (Score:2)
Next week the BBC will run an article on the different viewpoints on the square root of 16, giving equal time to those who say it is 8.
That's fine if those people are aware of modular arithmetic.
If you're doing modular arithmetic mod 24, the square root of 16 is 8. Try it for yourself:
8*8 % 24 == 16
IOW if you square 8, you get 16, i.e. the square root of 16 is 8. The square root of 16 is also 4 and 20.
Taa daa!
Snake oil (Score:5, Insightful)
The Faculty of Homeopathy said patients supported the therapy.
Who cares what the patients "support"? Patients for the most part demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to medical treatments. We have highly trained medical professionals and we rely on treatments that can objectively be shown to work better than placebo for a reason.
Demonstrate to me that homeopathy is more effective than a placebo and I'm fine with it. Until that happens it is nothing but snake oil and anyone who supports it is harming people with fake treatments.
Re: (Score:2)
That stood out to me as well. If patients en masse decided "leeches help sure cancer" then should those be covered? Or should what is covered be based on medicines/treatments that are actually scientifically proven to actually TREAT what they are supposed to be used for?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what the patients "support"? Patients for the most part demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to medical treatments. We have highly trained medical professionals and we rely on treatments that can objectively be shown to work better than placebo for a reason.
Which raises the question.......what moron doctors are out there prescribing this stuff??
Profiteering from stupid people (Score:2)
Which raises the question.......what moron doctors are out there prescribing this stuff??
Who says they are morons? Water is really cheap and it can be sold for a ridiculous markup. This is nothing more than profiteering off the gullible in 99.99% of cases. There are a few doctors who actually buy into this nonsense but most of them are just trying to get rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still easy to find snake oil for sale.
http://www.baroness.co/dr-dere... [baroness.co]
Re:Snake oil (Score:4, Informative)
They don't push for "things better than a placebo". They push for things better than "best possible current treatment".
Read an actual trial report sometime.
Treatments have to be better than placebo (Score:2)
They don't push for "things better than a placebo". They push for things better than "best possible current treatment".
If it's not better than placebo then it is NOT a treatment. If it is worse than placebo then it is actually harmful. If it is equal in efficacy to placebo then it IS a placebo.
Freedom be damned? (Score:3)
This is not a flamebait question: Isn't this the natural course of socialized medicine? Seriously, when I control your health care, how can you be free to choose the treatment you see best, especially if that "best treatment" is a placebo in the form of meditation and sugar pills? How can anyone expect any other outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
A regulated medical profession in a free market imposes these same kinds of rules already.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can choose whatever treatment you want.
They're not banning homeopathic products. They're saying that physicians employed by the NHS can't prescribe them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a flamebait question: Isn't this the natural course of socialized medicine? Seriously, when I control your health care, how can you be free to choose the treatment you see best, especially if that "best treatment" is a placebo in the form of meditation and sugar pills? How can anyone expect any other outcome?
Are you for no regulation at all then? Any quack with any random snakeoil cure should be allowed to prey on the desperate? Nothing to do whether it's socalised or private, it's about whether you're going to enforce medical standards.
You can go to a homeopathic fraudster directly if you like, but don't expect to be referred there by a medical professional.
No! (Score:2)
This law is a terrible idea. And, why it is a terrible idea has nothing to do with your opinion on Homoeopathy.
This is a case of politicians making medical decisions. Medical decisions should be made by doctors not politicians. It should be doctors and medical boards who decide whether or not a particular prescription is effective.
Banning a drug because public opinion does not like it is bad health policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Doctors are pushing for this, and physicians and medical societies are a key part of the NHS decision-making process. This isn't just a bunch of politicians telling doctors what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
NHS is a political organization not a medical organization.
Don’t be an asshole about people who need al (Score:5, Interesting)
Homeopathic medicines are chemicals (helpful or poisonous) that have been diluted so much that there’s basically none of the original substance left. So basically you’re getting a placebo. And wasting your money.
Part of the reason why some people think it works is that there are companies that marked real medicines as “homeopathic.”
Why? Because many people (my family included, but I’m not an idiot about medicine) have been failed by the medical establishment who dismiss real illnesses as psychosomatic or just push patients out the door when they don’t have a clue what the cause is (rather than referring them to a proper specialist, because they’re too clueless to know what kind of specialist to refer to). In the US, a lot of this is caused by so-called “family doctors” or “primary care physicians” who in many places are really just PAs and NPs, rather than real MDs who might have a bit more of a clue about how to diagnose illness.
A lot of auto-immune illnesses are like this. Many medical professionals are trained that if a patient comes in with a “constellation of symptoms” and (in particular) “has their symptoms written down,” that means it’s all in their heads. Hashimoto’s disease, for instance, comes with a “constellation of symptoms”, and patients suffer from brain fog, which means they feel inclined to write down things they think are important to talk about. You see the problem here. My wife had to diagnose her own Hashi’s (which was subsequently verified by an antibody test, when we finally found an internal medicine doctor who would listen).
So, when people are failed by the “medical establishment,” they turn to alternatives. Dieticians, nutritionists, naturopaths, and a number of other auxiliary medical communities are almost universally more willing to listen. But they also have weird beliefs about alternative medicine. A lot of the alternative medicine is actual real medicine in alternative form. For instance, you can get dessicated porcine thyroid gland in pill form, which is just as effective as Levothyroxine (or more so), in equivalent doses. Some “herbal medicines” also have beneficial effects. And then there are “alternative treatments” that amount to figuring out that someone has a nutrient deficiency and adding a proper supplement, and nutrtion is something that MDs are universally clueless about. (For instance, if you have an MTHRF defect, you have to switch from folic acid to methylfolate.)
But a lot of alternative medicine is total quackery, so it all gets a bad rap.
If homeopathic medicine becomes deprecated through law, then those companies making real medicines under the “homeopathic” moniker will simply remove that from the labeling and keep going. The stuff that is homeopathic will still have to be labeled this way, and people who want to waste their money will have to pay out of pocket.
Speaking of paying out of pocket, I live in the southern tier of upstate New York, which is kindof a backward place. Low populations and limited resources run headlong into weird state laws, and people here have trouble getting some kinds of medical treatment. We had to go to PA to get some kinds of tests done because they’re illegal in NY. Lourdes in Binghamton, NY and Guthrie in Sayre, PA are actually really good facilities, but you have to travel. Ithaca has some good resources, and of course Syracuse has SUNY Upstate Medical. But for the weird diseases, the appropriate doctors are few and far between.
There’s one in Sayre and one in Ithaca that specialize in hard to diagnose cases. What’s interesting about them is that they’ve so overwhelmed with patients that their waiting lists make you wait months to see them. They’ve also both stopped taking insurance. Dealing with insurance takes too much time away from seeing patients, so they
Re: (Score:2)
"then those companies making real medicines under the “homeopathic” moniker"
One of those things is not like the other.
"But a lot of alternative medicine is total quackery, so it all gets a bad rap."
Because if it actually worked it would be called "medicine" and could lose the "alternative" moniker.
MAKE MONEY FAST! (Score:5, Funny)
homeopathic funding (Score:3)
I think the NHS should give homeopathy all of its funding.
Of course, we should apply a homeopathic approach to this funding.
UKP96bn diluted to 1% would be the approach, but the gold standard for homeopathy is 30C, so we need to repeat that dilution another 29 times.
I'm feeling generous so lets round that UKP10E-50 up not down. Where would the British homeopathists like me to send their penny?
Boole (Score:3)
Can't help thinking about the information about George Boole that I was reading recently.
Despite being the father of swathes of logic, he died in the most illogical way possible.
He walked through the rain for miles, and lectured while still dripping wet for hours. He got ill. He laid up in bed. And his wife thought that the best cure for him was the same thing that made him ill. So she kept throwing buckets of water over him. Which made him worse. So she kept throwing more water over him. Until he died.
I just couldn't help laughing and wondering if he consented to such "treatment".
Re:What is most dangerous? (Score:4, Insightful)
All real drugs have side effects. Therefore the metric used is based on risk vs. reward.
If your reward is zero, then any risk at all - even just the risk of not having your money to spend on proper medicine - is sufficient to tip the balance hard over to the "don't use this" side.
Re: (Score:2)
If the reward is the same as just giving the user a does-nothing sugar pill, then it can be said to be the same as zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the reward isn't zero, at the very least it activates the placebo effect (for people who believe in it) depending on the specific condition placebo effect can yield improvements of 45%
Indeed. Homeopathy will work via the placebo effect and it will be stronger for people who believe in homeopathy. The placebo effect doesn't work equally for all symptoms, but a lot of the low-grade annoying health issues that people have do respond to it. Although homeopathy itself is bullshit, the placebo effect is not. If people with non-critical problems are benefiting from it then there isn't anything wrong with it. The problems come when it's used for things it should not be and its practitioners get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are hypoglycemic, it's just the thing really. The fact that it isn't a pharmacuetical doesn't mean it isn't useless.
Unfortunately, sometimes "life happens" and interferes with your desire to tightly regiment it. Things don't always go to plan. People in a forum hip deep with IT professionals should be well aware of that.
On the other hand, you need something to put in your gut first if you are going to take certain drugs. So a nice shelf stable snack in the first aid kit is actually medically quite ap
Re: (Score:3)
No. A chiropractor would have at least made an adjustment.
Although regardless of their "branch" of medicine, neither a proper physical therapist nor a chiropractor would do a "one and done". Both would expect treatment to require time and be up front about it.
Toilet water (Score:4, Interesting)
It is often claimed that mains tap water in many cities [all over the world] has already passed through 4 or 5 other people's kidneys first.
If true then this shows the tremendous value of underrated techniques in waste treatment and purification but it also poses a big challenge for homeopaths:
Surely by now there'd be no illness at all as everyone has had the benefit of sharing "water memory" of all the major diseases. If not why not?
As a corollary, how can you ensure that the 'patient' responds to the right water memory and not to fond recollections of someone else's urethra?
Re: (Score:2)
meh, while marijuana should be legalized for recreational use, I don't think you'd have much trouble documenting legitimate medical uses of it. It's not homeopathy in the sense of diluted sugar water drops, but probably needs better regulation on claims being made.
I mean it's quite clear that marijuana has analgesic effects, and I wouldn't have issue with people selling it as as an over-the-counter painkiller in that case. For me, its a hell of a lot more effective than a bunch of ibuprofen or most
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, political != scientific.
I'm not arguing 'safe', because the jury is still out on that, but you'd have to be an idiot to see it doesn't have an impact on the perception of pain. Just try the shit.
Re: (Score:2)
At least, let's have a citation from an impartial source with some expertise in evaluating drug hazards and efficacy. Not the law enforcement agency with a vested interest in maintaining their business model. Pot, probably less harmful than booze. As far as efficacy goes, the jury is still out on that. So take it for jollies, but don't come crying about "Muh medication."
And shut down the DEA while you're at it. Move their classification responsibilities over to the FDA and law enforcement to the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Please excuse my ignorance, but how is homeopathy different, say, than the flu vaccine?
Flu vaccine has proven effect (against the specific flu strains it targets, obviously).
Re:But Vaccines.... (Score:4, Informative)
Vaccines contain biologically active substances in specific, measurable quantities that cause a measurable biologic effect.
Homeopathic preparations contain no biologically active substances in any measurable quantities and cause no measurable biologic effect.
Re:But Vaccines.... (Score:5, Informative)
To expand a little bit, a vaccine contains a substance, often a specific protein, a viral capsid, or k illed/attenuated bacteria, which the human body recognizes as a pathogen. The immune system then mounts a response by creating antibodies and memory immune cells, which primes the system to appropriately and effectively mount a rapid immune response to eliminate the pathogen when it comes for real.
We can observe and measure the effects of a vaccine in the body. We can, and do, test for antibody production. I had some titers last year to verify that I had antibodies for measles, mumps, varicella, tetanus, etc. I didn't have any antibodies to mumps, so I had to get another MMR vaccine, and afterwards I had the antibodies. I was not immune to mumps, then I got a vaccine and now I am.
By contrast, homeopathic preparations contain literally no substances other than the dilutant (typically sugar, water, or alcohol). Homeopathic preparers take nonstandardized substances, such as a plant extract containing unknown and undstandardized quantities of who knows what, and serially dilutes them in water etc. After 10-100 dilutions, the final preparation typically contains none of the original substance at all.
Homeopathic preparations have no known or even theoretical mechanism of possible action. Indeed, the entire idea of homeopathy is directly contradictory to everything we know about biology, pharmacology, and physics.
Note that this is in contrast to herbal or natural remedies, which, while unstandardized and often not thoroughly tested, are biologically plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
One has a mechanism that is proven via science to work and the other is unproven hand-waving (and that's being generous - it's probably actually been proven to not work at all).
The flu vaccine takes bits of killed flu virus and puts them in your body. Your immune system sees these bits as invaders and mounts a defense. This way, when the real flu invades, your body knows how to fight it off. The rewards are protection against the flu. The risk is low because these bits of dead flu virus can't multiply a
Re: (Score:2)
There are active ingredients in the flu vaccine (which make your body build up antibodies for the real flu virus). In a homeopathic remedy there is just sugar and water - the "like" that started out in the potion is no longer there, as the successive dilations have very likely removed every single atom of it from the resulting water.
If homeopaths could demonstrate their remedies work better than placebos, they would be used. As they can't (after decades of trying), people are quite obviously fed up with t
Re: (Score:2)
You're really hung up on descriptions. It doesn't matter that some ignorant fools describe vaccines as treating "like" with "like". What matters is that they work. Please read on how vaccines were invented, and what problems they were initially used to solve. The major difference between vaccines and homeopathy is that homeopaths had a crazy idea that was never shown to work. The vaccines, on the other hand, were a solution to real-life problems and were invented as a real fix for a real problem. TL;DR: The
Re: (Score:3)
The flu vaccine introduces a weakened/dead version of influenza, so you body will manufacture antibodies in reaction to it.
Homeopathy is handing you a sugar pill. Let's take Oscilloccinum as an example. You start with a 1 liter bottle, you add 35 grams of duck liver, 15 grams of duck heart and you top with water. After 40 days, it is a goo. You take 1 percent of that goo, set it in another 1 liter vessel and fill up with pure water. That cycle is called a Korsakov dilution. Oscilloccinum is indicated as a
Re: (Score:2)
I read a quote once where a purveyor of homeopathic treatments said that science simply hasn't "caught up" enough to detect their treatments. Let's assume this is true for a second and that homeopathy actually works. How would we keep sellers of homeopathic remedies honest? How do we know that their "cure for disease A" isn't just tap water instead of the actual cure they claim it is? I
Re: (Score:2)
Doctors are still allowed to prescribe placebos. The placebos just have to be actual cheap placebos, not massively-marked-up sugar pills from water wizards with all sorts of promises that simply aren't true.
Re: (Score:2)
> Placebos work, so why shouldn't GPs be allowed to prescribe them?
They do all the time. And if the abstract is accurate, I suspect it costs a lot more than 4 million a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not for free and not on the state.
This is about the UK where we provide, like most civilised countries, free healthcare to all.
You won't get homeopathy for free, is what this says. If you want to piss your own money away on it, you're welcome - same as cosmetic surgery, unproven drugs, experimental treatments, Chinese medicine, etc.
But I as a taxpayer am not going to pay for your stupid, proven-no-better-than-placebo "treatments" in preference to buying someone else effective drugs or surgery that they nee
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the NHS.
Then we told them where to go and where to stick their stupid ideas about making us pay for basic healthcare.
I grew old and got a rare disease and got free treatment no matter my age, income or medical history for as long as it was necessary.
We called it civilisation.