Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Hope on November 13, 2015, 09:35:10 AM
-
I am aware that we have debated this before but I was struck by the coverage on today's BBC Breakfast following the Government's announcement that they are considering balcklisting homeopathic treatments on the NHS.
Every time it was discussed (and I think there were 3 slots) they had a member of the Good Thinking Society debating with a Dr Peter Fisher who is a Consultant Rheumotologist.
The folk from the GTS insisted that there waqs no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, whereas the consultant stated that there was when it was used in conjunction with conventional treatments. Either you get the same results as usual, but with less drugs being used, or you get quicker recovery.
Who would you tend to trust? The charity (GTS) whose staff may or may not be scientists/medics, or a practising consultant?
-
Personally I have no problem with homeopathy so long as people pay for their own bottles of water. It shouldn't be available on the NHS.
-
I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.
-
Personally I have no problem with homeopathy so long as people pay for their own bottles of water. It shouldn't be available on the NHS.
I have no problem with homeopathy as long as it's not available on the NHS and the person who uses it does not forego recommended mainstream treatments. Mind you, it seems to be an expensive way just to access a placebo effect.
This is worth reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/homeopaths-offer-services-fight-ebola
-
I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.
Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage. OK, he didn't give many references to such evidence (though he did reference a recent study by the University of Glasgow - iirc) - but then neither did the GTS folk in regard to their opinion.
-
I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.
Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage. OK, he didn't give many references to such evidence (though he did reference a recent study by the University of Glasgow - iirc) - but then neither did the GTS folk in regard to their opinion.
Most say there is no evidence it is more than a placebo effect. Until it is certain there is a benefit other than that of a placebo it should not be offered on the NHS as there is so little money available for tried and tested medications.
-
I had no idea that GPs can prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. That is CRAZY! There is no evidence that it has more than a placebo effect; and as the NHS is strapped for cash, if people want it they should pay for it themselves.
Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage. OK, he didn't give many references to such evidence (though he did reference a recent study by the University of Glasgow - iirc) - but then neither did the GTS folk in regard to their opinion.
No, the overwhelming evidence is that homeopathy's claims are not substantiated and that, apart from the placebo effect, it is of little use.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise
And, especially, this article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy
-
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise
So, you're positing evidence that runs counter to the evidence the good consultant posited? Since both seem to be scientifically gathered, who are we to believe?
And, especially, this article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy
Yes, the URL tells you exactly how balanced it is going to be.
-
Personally I have no problem with homeopathy so long as people pay for their own bottles of water. It shouldn't be available on the NHS.
I have no problem with homeopathy as long as it's not available on the NHS and the person who uses it does not forego recommended mainstream treatments. Mind you, it seems to be an expensive way just to access a placebo effect.
This is worth reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/homeopaths-offer-services-fight-ebola
I don't think homeopaths should be allowed to claim that their products are equivalent to drug treatments, or most importantly, vaccination. But if a patient is capable of doing their own research and making their own choices and decides to opt for homeopathy over medicine then I don't think conventional treatment can be forced.
-
I don't think homeopaths should be allowed to claim that their products are equivalent to drug treatments, or most importantly, vaccination. But if a patient is capable of doing their own research and making their own choices and decides to opt for homeopathy over medicine then I don't think conventional treatment can be forced.
I think the important point that Dr Fisher was making is that it works when used in conjunction with conventional treatment. As such, it saves the NHS money.
-
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise
So, you're positing evidence that runs counter to the evidence the good consultant posited? Since both seem to be scientifically gathered, who are we to believe?
And, especially, this article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy
Yes, the URL tells you exactly how balanced it is going to be.
The URL tells you it's predicated on rational, evidence-based thought. No wonder you don't like it.
-
I don't think homeopaths should be allowed to claim that their products are equivalent to drug treatments, or most importantly, vaccination. But if a patient is capable of doing their own research and making their own choices and decides to opt for homeopathy over medicine then I don't think conventional treatment can be forced.
I think the important point that Dr Fisher was making is that it works when used in conjunction with conventional treatment. As such, it saves the NHS money.
So when homeopathy is tested on it's own, it's useless.
When it's tested in conjunction with actual medicine, people get better.
Is this starting to suggest something to you yet?
-
So when homeopathy is tested on it's own, it's useless.
When it's tested in conjunction with actual medicine, people get better.
Is this starting to suggest something to you yet?
Yes - that it can act in a complementary manner to conventional treatments. Or are you suggesting that when it is used in this way some sort of magic takes place that means that lower levels or quantities of conventional drugs are requiredto reach the ame outcome as when it isn't? Or perhaps you're suggesting that a divine being steps in the speed the patient's recovery up? The medical scientist (for that is what the consultant is, technically) also referenced some German and French studies (my wife has just reminded me) - or are you saying that German and French scientists aren't trustworthy?
-
No, what I'm stating is what a mountain of evidence going back years from all over the world shows - homeopathy is useless apart from the placebo effect.
-
No, what I'm stating is what a mountain of evidence going back years from all over the world shows - homeopathy is useless apart from the placebo effect.
So you are denying equally valid scientific evidence to the contrary? What is the world coming to - science-deniers amongst the science supporters? ;) Actually, what I think the 'mountain of evidence going back years from all over the world' shows is that homeopathy is useless on its own.
-
So you are denying equally valid scientific evidence to the contrary?
What evidence would that be? Where is it?
-
There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.
-
So you are denying equally valid scientific evidence to the contrary?
What evidence would that be? Where is it?
OK, Shakes, remember that this started out as a discussion of a topic on which there were 3 separate slots on the BBC's Breakfast Show. The consultant referred to study recently carried out by the University of Glasgow(iirc); unfortunatley he didn't give the name of the study, otherwise I'd have googled it. He also referred to studies carried out in Germany and France which indicated that it does work - whether those referred to its use alone or in combination I'm not sue. The guys from the GTS simply used a scatter-gun approach by referring to 'hundreds' of studies without referencing any.
The only such studies I've seen look at the use of homeopathic treatments in isolation - not in combination with conventional ones.
The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs. Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?
-
There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.
If prayer only has placebo effect, how come there are people who, having been told that a tumour or some other condition is untreatable/terminal and that treatment will not be given, recover to the extent that there is no sign of it at subsequent tests/reviews? And think carefully before you offer a 'magic' solution such as 'spontaneous healing' for which there is no scientific evidence.
-
There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.
If prayer only has placebo effect, how come there are people who, having been told that a tumour or some other condition is untreatable/terminal and that treatment will not be given, recover to the extent that there is no sign of it at subsequent tests/reviews? And think carefully before you offer a 'magic' solution such as 'spontaneous healing' for which there is no scientific evidence.
Because either the medics got it wrong, which certainly happens from time to time, or the body's own healing mechanisms kick in from time to time and a spontaneous cure is the result. Prayer could act as a placebo, so when people like you claim the deity has cured someone they feel smug. However, just suppose you are right and the deity can cure people if it so wishes, but more often than not it doesn't, what does that say about it?
We have a case in point at present, that poor lady, Becky, AB's friend has had many prayers said on her behalf for her recovery. If the deity could heal her why hasn't it? Her family must be going through hell with her taking one step forward and ten back! >:( That is CRUEL.
-
I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.
-
There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.
Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.
Homeopathy is bottles of material touted as medicinal and is subject to scientific investigation.
Prayer cannot be defined scientifically and as it involves the supernatural is not susceptible to scientific methods.
If you suppose you can investigate prayer then you have a gumball machine theology that very few theists actually subscribe to and is largely a Floony dumbarse physicalist construct.
-
There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.
Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.
Homeopathy is bottles of material touted as medicinal and is subject to scientific investigation.
Prayer cannot be defined scientifically and as it involves the supernatural is not susceptible to scientific methods.
If you suppose you can investigate prayer then you have a gumball machine theology that very few theists actually subscribe to and is largely a Floony dumbarse physicalist construct.
Prayer is not supernatural, it is the human brain engaged in imagination!
-
There doesn't seem to be any valid evidence to suggest that homeopathy is any better than prayer, both can be seen as having the placebo effect.
Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.
Homeopathy is bottles of material touted as medicinal and is subject to scientific investigation.
Prayer cannot be defined scientifically and as it involves the supernatural is not susceptible to scientific methods.
If you suppose you can investigate prayer then you have a gumball machine theology that very few theists actually subscribe to and is largely a Floony dumbarse physicalist construct.
Prayer is not supernatural, it is the human brain engaged in imagination!
That might be true if you are saying that only natural things exist........care to demonstrate that?
-
The results of a recent YouGov poll
Do you think GPs should or should not be able to prescribe homeopathic treatments on the NHS?
Should35%
Should not33%
Don't know32%
-
So what? Do you think the broad mass of the general public are sufficiently informed on the issue - which involves being able to evaluate scientific evidence - to be able to offer a valid opinion?
-
So what? Do you think the broad mass of the general public are sufficiently informed on the issue - which involves being able to evaluate scientific evidence - to be able to offer a valid opinion?
Well, since it appears that scierntists haven't been able to come to a conclusive opinion, then yes, I think the general public are no less able to come to one.
-
I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.
A criticism that equally applies to the charity who, if you look at their website, are clearly biased towards scientific rationality as the only way forward for humanity - like some here - despite their having no evidence to back this belief up.
-
Well, since it appears that scierntists haven't been able to come to a conclusive opinion, then yes, I think the general public are no less able to come to one.
There isn't even a conclusive opinion on evolution, since in any group so large you will always find a few cranks and crackpots who put some lunatic ideology ahead of empirical evidence. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming consensus based on the evidence that evolution is true and real and the same goes for homeopathy - the consensus being that it has no effect according to what is claimed for it by its adherents and nothing beyond the placebo effect.
-
I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.
A criticism that equally applies to the charity who, if you look at their website, are clearly biased towards scientific rationality as the only way forward for humanity - like some here - despite their having no evidence to back this belief up.
You must live in a cave somewhere ... or Wales, which in parts is functionally equivalent. Most normal people who live normal lives in the real world are well aware of what scientific rationality has done for humanity as compared to unscientific irrationality. The evidence is all around us.
I'm going for a CT scan soon. You can't pray that shit into existence.
-
You must live in a cave somewhere ... or Wales, which in parts is functionally equivalent. Most normal people who live normal lives in the real world are well aware of what scientific rationality has done for humanity as compared to unscientific irrationality. The evidence is all around us.
Oddly enough, I doubt that many have suggested that 'what scientific rationality has done for humanity' is anything nless than phenomenal. What they have said though is that it isn't the be-all and end-all, as you like to claim.
I'm going for a CT scan soon. You can't pray that shit into existence.
I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that one can. What one can do, though, is believe that engineers and others used God-given brains to develop such things - things that I have also recently experienced. Can you provide any evidence to show that that belief is an erroneous belief.
I realise that you will likely hide behind your much beloved 'negative proof fallacy' cop-out, because, whenever you are challenged to provide some evidence for your world-view, you usually do. It's up to you to decide whether you are too much of a coward to face the challenge or not.
(edited to add 'proof' into the 'negative ... fallacy' phrase - remembered that I'd missed it out at 2am this morning!!)
-
Oddly enough, I doubt that many have suggested that 'what scientific rationality has done for humanity' is anything nless than phenomenal. What they have said though is that it isn't the be-all and end-all, as you like to claim.
Well, you certainly don't offer any evidence for your assertion, do you?
I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that one can. What one can do, though, is believe that engineers and others used God-given brains to develop such things - things that I have also recently experienced.
This is of course a completely gratuitous, entirely extraneous, wholly unwarranted assumption which violates Occam's Razor. What explains CT scanners, quantum electrodynamics, the eradication of smallpox and probes on Mars most parsimonously - (a) clever boffins + God or (b) just clever boffins? It's (b), since (a) is resolutely unsubstantiated.
Can you provide any evidence to show that that belief is an erroneous belief.
There we go! I knew it wouldn't be long.
I realise that you will likely hide behind your much beloved 'negative fallacy' cop-out, because, whenever you are challenged to provide some evidence for your world-view, you usually do. It's up to you to decide whether you are too much of a coward to face the challenge or not.
You really don't read posts at all, do you? There's nothing beloved about the negative proof fallacy. I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing it, but you don't seem to realise - or perhaps care - that it's a massive failure of logical and rational thought, given the amount of times that you invoke it, and I'm not minded to stop pointing this out. When laziness of mind and sloppiness of thought and sheer bad reasoning crop up, rational folk have a duty to point it out, since other people who may be lurking might erroneously think that it's accurate and go and spread the nonsense elsewhere. You can barely seem to post without it; if you're bored of having this pointed out, that's easily sorted - stop doing it. If you are unfamiliar with precisely why it is such a colossal howler - you really should by now as you've been told often enough, so who knows the reason - here are some links for you to read carefully:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof
https://logfall.wordpress.com/negative-proof-fallacy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
There are similar links for the argumentum ad populum/numerum, which you've also employed a couple of times in the past day alone.
There's no cop-out here, nor hiding behind anything - copping-out and hiding are what people do who make assertions and then, when asked, repeatedly and regularly, to substantiate them, don't. A list of yours is easily compiled - it's quite a size by now. You would no doubt say the same of me, but of course, as we all know, when asked to state specifically and precisely which assertions I've made - just like where I've used the NP fallacy at all, let alone more than you as claimed by you almost three months ago; a claim still unsubstantiated of course - you blob it every single time. To add the final neat, really fitting touch, trying to shift the argument back on to me is a good example of yet another fallacy - the tu quoque (q.v. if necessary).
In fact, since the word hide has cropped up, it reminds me that only a day or two ago Outrider rightly observed that most people at least try to cover up their logical fallacies (if they're aware of committing them in the first place, at any rate), whereas you make absolutely no attempt to do so. The only challenge here is why you either don't know that the negative proof fallacy is a fallacy, or don't care, and still keep trotting it out even now as you just have.
Sheer poverty of argumentation, probably.
-
Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.
The consultant is wrong. It is no more than placebo. He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.
-
So what? Do you think the broad mass of the general public are sufficiently informed on the issue - which involves being able to evaluate scientific evidence - to be able to offer a valid opinion?
Well, since it appears that scierntists haven't been able to come to a conclusive opinion
Yes they have.
It.
Does.
Not.
Work.
-
By the way, a hospital doctor is not a scientist.
-
I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.
A criticism that equally applies to the charity who, if you look at their website, are clearly biased towards scientific rationality as the only way forward for humanity - like some here - despite their having no evidence to back this belief up.
Sure, but I was prompted to post by your comment 'The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs. Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?' Should have quoted that in my post.
-
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise
So, you're positing evidence that runs counter to the evidence the good consultant posited? Since both seem to be scientifically gathered, who are we to believe?
And, especially, this article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy
Yes, the URL tells you exactly how balanced it is going to be.
Really? Then perhaps you can explain why that particular URL details several detailed meta-studies, including the 1997 study which 'determined a small, apparently positive, effect of homeopathy, although nothing conclusive'. Positive trials are also discussed in the same article. I would have thought that anyone wanting to determine whether homeopathy was effective or not would find it useful to look at the evidence, and especially from meta-studies, such as those done(and updated) from the Cochrane Collaboration, and those published in the Lancet(1997 and 2005).
Now if you had bothered to examine the latest(2015) Australian Report from their National Health and Medical Research Council, (which was mentioned in the second URL), you would have found the following:
It thoroughly reviwed 225 research papers on homeopathy
It analysed 57 systematic reviews(a high-quality type of study that assesses all existing, quality research on a particular topic and synthesises it to make a number of strong, overall findings).
An independent company also reviewed the studies and appraised the evidence to prevent bias.
It concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.
Now let's turn to your Dr. Peter Fisher. Incidentally you referred to him as a Consultant Rheumotologist. Perhaps you should also have mentioned that he is editor of the journal 'Homeopathy' and is a prominent figure in the homeopathic community. After all, if you are going to refer pointedly to one of my URLs as telling 'you exactly how balanced it is going to be', perhaps then you should also mention the evidence that Dr. Fisher, a great supporter of homeopathy, refers to in the same vein, shouldn't you?
He referred to a study done by the University of Glasgow, you say. Have you got any info on this?... because all I've come up with is this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27460/
which incidentally has a certain Dr David Reilly as one of the case study and testing organisers. Dr Reilly is certainly connected to the University of Glasgow but, as far as I can tell, he is also the head of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital.
As far as I am concerned, the sooner homeopathy is blacklisted from the NHS, the better. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, is of the view that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos.
-
By way of some light relief, and on-topic to boot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
-
He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.
As it's obvious he just pulled it out his arse are you sure you still want to see..?
-
He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.
As it's obvious he just pulled it out his arse are you sure you still want to see..?
Actually, I believe it's homeopathic evidence: the fewer positive trials and studies there are, the more believable the effect.
-
Actually, I believe it's homeopathic evidence: the fewer positive trials and studies there are, the more believable the effect.
Oh, very good :D
-
Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.
The consultant is wrong. It is no more than placebo. He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.
Expert in maths, theology, most branches of science; sports pundit, economist and political analyst: all that, and now we can add medical expert to the list. Few people are so arrogant and so superior in their attitude. You are actually a joke!
-
Because either the medics got it wrong, which certainly happens from time to time, ...
Of course, this is quite possible - after all, it seems to happen on a fairly regular basis. The problem is that with many of these cases of 'medics getting it wrong', it requires more than one medic to do so all at the same time. I'm not sure what the statistical probabiity of that is under the NHS (or private medical care), but if this is happening isn't it something that we need to worry about?
... or the body's own healing mechanisms kick in from time to time and a spontaneous cure is the result.
A process that has no scientific evidence to support it, of course, and is therefore your reverting to a form of magic, Floo.
-
Sure, but I was prompted to post by your comment 'The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs. Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?' Should have quoted that in my post.
The problem is that he only referred to those findings. He didn't say that they were (or weren't) anecdotal, nor did he say that they did or didn't come out of a longitudinal study that his department had carried out (which they could have done). If I remember correctly, he is based at Bristol Uni. I'll do a bit of delving.
-
Really? Then perhaps you can explain why that particular URL details several detailed meta-studies, including the 1997 study which 'determined a small, apparently positive, effect of homeopathy, although nothing conclusive'. Positive trials are also discussed in the same article. I would have thought that anyone wanting to determine whether homeopathy was effective or not would find it useful to look at the evidence, and especially from meta-studies, such as those done(and updated) from the Cochrane Collaboration, and those published in the Lancet(1997 and 2005).
Sorry, enki, but an organisation/author can reference any number of posiive and negative reports and studies, yet still be biased one way or the other. Having read a number of rationalwiki articles over the years, I tend to take any conclusion that is come to there with a pinch of salt since it's raison d'etre is always to come down on the so-called 'rational' side of any argument
Now if you had bothered to examine the latest(2015) Australian Report from their National Health and Medical Research Council, (which was mentioned in the second URL), you would have found the following:
I didn't bother with that URL once I'd actually opened it since it had already been summarised by 2 of the GTS speakers on yesterday's programme referred to in the OP. Interestingly enough, in almost identical words to those you have used,
Now let's turn to your Dr. Peter Fisher. Incidentally you referred to him as a Consultant Rheumotologist. Perhaps you should also have mentioned that he is editor of the journal 'Homeopathy' and is a prominent figure in the homeopathic community. After all, if you are going to refer pointedly to one of my URLs as telling 'you exactly how balanced it is going to be', perhaps then you should also mention the evidence that Dr. Fisher, a great supporter of homeopathy, refers to in the same vein, shouldn't you?
OK, that is my fault - I went by the info. the BBC gave us during his input.
As far as I am concerned, the sooner homeopathy is blacklisted from the NHS, the better. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, is of the view that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos.
OK, let's say the annual NHS homeopathy bill is £4million (I seem to remember that figure being bandied about) and the saving to the NHS is - say - £5 million; is it good economic practice to ditch that kind of savings benefit?
-
Give it up Shaker, it's a Hope less case of a belief in something that doesn't actual have any effect on what it claims to heal.
Also, is it just a coincidence that Hopeless keeps citing Peter, the Fisher of men as his go-to guy?
-
Sure, but I was prompted to post by your comment 'The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs. Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?' Should have quoted that in my post.
The problem is that he only referred to those findings. He didn't say that they were (or weren't) anecdotal, nor did he say that they did or didn't come out of a longitudinal study that his department had carried out (which they could have done). If I remember correctly, he is based at Bristol Uni. I'll do a bit of delving.
Looking him up he is Clinical Director and Director of Research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and has done research and produced papers, being a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and of the Faculty of Homeopathy. It was strange that this wasn't made clear on the program and he seemed to be being presented as a rheumatologist who had tried homeopathy and thought it worked.
-
Hope,
From your Mess.44:
OK, let's say the annual NHS homeopathy bill is £4million (I seem to remember that figure being bandied about) and the saving to the NHS is - say - £5 million; is it good economic practice to ditch that kind of savings benefit?
Actually on that particular point, Hope, I would want to know what evidence there is that homeopathy via the NHS saves money. However I'm assuming that you also realise that placebos are administered within the NHS regularly without any recourse to homeopathy at all. One survey in 2013, for instance, suggested that 97% of GPs have prescribed placebos to at least one of their patients.
What I am challenging is why homeopathy should benefit(financially and in reputation) from its NHS association when the overwhelming evidence is that it is only a placebo effect, and, if this is so, then much cheaper placebo benefits are accessible, and, indeed, regularly used.
-
Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.
The consultant is wrong. It is no more than placebo. He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.
Expert in maths, theology, most branches of science; sports pundit, economist and political analyst: all that, and now we can add medical expert to the list. Few people are so arrogant and so superior in their attitude. You are actually a joke!
So here it is. Apparently it is wrong for anybody except an medical expert to ask for evidence.
Why don't you concentrate on fixing your own shortcomings instead of sneering at other people.
-
... or the body's own healing mechanisms kick in from time to time and a spontaneous cure is the result.
A process that has no scientific evidence to support it, of course, and is therefore your reverting to a form of magic, Floo.
You are trying to claim that there is no scientific evidence that the human body has self healing mechanisms? Is that meant to be a joke or is it just profoundly stupid?
Have you ever had a cold and not treated it? Does it go away by itself in the end? Have you ever cut yourself and not treated it? Does the injury scab over and fi itself in the end?
-
Sorry, enki, but an organisation/author can reference any number of posiive and negative reports and studies, yet still be biased one way or the other. Having read a number of rationalwiki articles over the years, I tend to take any conclusion that is come to there with a pinch of salt
This is a classic ad hominem. In fact, I think it's ad hominem by proxy. Because you have problems with Rational Wiki, therefore all their arguments can be dismissed and all of their citations. This is muddled thinking on your part of the highest order.
since it's raison d'etre is always to come down on the so-called 'rational' side of any argument
Oh dear, fancy wanting to come down on the rational (aka most likely to be correct) side of the argument. How awful of them.
Whatever you think of Rational Wiki, the citations in this case are solid and show that homeopathy is a crock.
-
Sorry, enki, but an organisation/author can reference any number of posiive and negative reports and studies, yet still be biased one way or the other. Having read a number of rationalwiki articles over the years, I tend to take any conclusion that is come to there with a pinch of salt
This is a classic ad hominem. In fact, I think it's ad hominem by proxy. Because you have problems with Rational Wiki,
Yes Jeremy.....but Rational Wiki?....really.
Rationalwiki is to philosophy what The Sun is to a serious study of current affairs.
-
Like Theology is the study of stuff that never happened, ergo, stuff that doesn't mean a goddamn thing!!
-
Sorry, enki, but an organisation/author can reference any number of posiive and negative reports and studies, yet still be biased one way or the other. Having read a number of rationalwiki articles over the years, I tend to take any conclusion that is come to there with a pinch of salt
This is a classic ad hominem. In fact, I think it's ad hominem by proxy. Because you have problems with Rational Wiki,
Yes Jeremy.....but Rational Wiki?....really.
Rationalwiki is to philosophy what The Sun is to a serious study of current affairs.
whatever you think of Rational Wiki, it's right about homeopathy.
-
Hi everyone,
Ok....I am a homeopathy user and have been one for more than 30 years. I find it very useful and in fact, sometimes almost miraculous as compared to many other systems.
Of course, I also use Allopathy (modern medicine) and Ayurveda for ailments where I believe those will be more useful. I have no particular allegiance to any one system of medicine. Whatever works for me in the case of any particular ailment I will use without reservation. I have never tried Acupuncture but I have found Pranic Healing useful for some problems. Very often I combine systems if necessary. Some of them are complementary...though Allopathy and Ayurveda should not normally be combined.
About 'placebo'...! No one knows what placebo means or how it works. Placebo is not just mental deception or bluff....its much more than that and far more complex than we imagine. So...I think we should avoid dubbing something as 'just placebo'....as though it is of no significance.
About the NHS......haven't they been threatening to ban Homeopathy for many years now?! I thought it was banned years ago! Anyway many people in the UK use homeopathy (the royal family being most significant)....and it should be available for their use.
Clinical trials are not everything. If they were we wouldn't be having so many drugs withdrawn and so many side effects. Its about how individual patients react to treatments.
I believe that medicine is more than just anatomy and physiology. 'Body is a machine' concept is nonsense. Its all about the mind (the biofield) and how it meshes in with the body. Since we seem to know very little about the mind and its nature and almost nothing about the biofield.....(its existence being denied even today by science)....we aren't likely to make many informed guesses about what good health really means and therefore about how homeopathy works.
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
-
About 'placebo'...! No one knows what placebo means or how it works. Placebo is not just mental deception or bluff....its much more than that and far more complex than we imagine. So...I think we should avoid dubbing something as 'just placebo'....as though it is of no significance.
Well, Sriram, please don't count me amongst those who would use the phrase'just placebo..... as though it is of no significance'. I did say, in post 3, "it seems to be an expensive way just to access a placebo effect." which is an entirely different point, and, in no way reflects what I consider to be an important effect, and one which merits much further detailed investigation.
-
Has anyone considered that a consultation with a doctor qualified in conventional and homeopathic medicine is completely different to a normal NHS type (free) consultation with a GP?
These later are usually for around 10 minutes and usually restricted to discussing one health issue only.
An homeopathic consultation (usually relatively expensive) is usually at least 30 minutes and and considers all medical symptoms and the general health and well-being of the patient. Apart from the placebo effect of the homeopathic remedy - wouldn't this difference be likely to affect diagnosis and affect recovery rates?
-
Oh no................ category fucker alert..............category fucker alert.
>:( >:(
Where is BA when you need him to put right all of the foul mouthed, language light, low-life posters on this board? :-\
I would have expected a severe tongue lashing at least.
Oh wait a minute,you are not an athiest/Shaker/Outrider/jeremeyp are you? ::)
Sorry! :-[