[Closed] Homeopathy could be Blacklisted

It'll work better with less funding 🙂

Good

About time too. Amazing it was ever made available on NHS

[img] http://thecarnivoreproject.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345295c269e201a5116584a7970c-800wi [/img]

[quote="maccruiskeen"]It'll work better with less fundingAnd with no funding it can probably cure the dead.

It'll work better with less funding

And with no funding it can probably cure the dead.

Ahhhh that could be a problem then -up til now the NHS has been funding homeopathy as a way of trying to neutralise homeopathy's effects and quash the zombie-lazarus megalomanical ambitions of homeopathic practitioners.

Now, in the name of austerity the government cuts the funds and 'inadvertently' open the gates of hell. It all starts to make sense - the Tory's problem has always been that its core voters are ageing. Maybe by using government cuts to reanimate corpses they they're hoping to awaken a hordes of ancient super conservative voters to guarantee future electoral success.

[img] [/img]

Interesting.

I always thought that the justification for homeopathy on the NHS was that it's an ethical placebo that ultimately saves them money as it's a relatively cheap way to get rid of malingerers.

Can't believe it wasn't already blacklisted!

Whoever authorised it's use in the first place should be behind bars for defrauding the tax payer of millions.

It'll work better with less funding

Genius.

as Graham says, homeopathy saves the NHS a fortune.

If we close down the homeopathic 'hospital', the patients and their symptoms won't go away, they'll just ask for more expensive treatments.

however, keeping it open extends homeopathy some degree of credibility. and that annoys me.

Interesting.
I always thought that the justification for homeopathy on the NHS was that it's an ethical placebo that ultimately saves them money as it's a relatively cheap way to get rid of malingerers.

My thoughts too.

It'll work better with [s]less[/s]diluted funding and some sugar

But it's the 'ethos' that surrounds homeopathy.

To tell someone with non-life threatening symptoms that "i'm giving you a sugar pill that i suspect will make you feel better", and they feel better, then that 'feels' OK.
But for that 'idea' to extend to the treatment of life-threatening conditions, or thinking homeopathy acts as a vaccination or travel medicine..that's when the danger begins.

Ban it.

DrP

"I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter"

😀

GrahamS - Member

I always thought that the justification for homeopathy on the NHS was that it's an ethical placebo that ultimately saves them money as it's a relatively cheap way to get rid of malingerers.

Yeah, this. I really don't like the idea but apparently the NHS spends £4-6m million on homeopathy a year, a little drop in a big bucket, which obviously makes it more powerful 😉 And apparently that "treats" 30000 patients per year in the hospitals alone, plus man y more through GPs which cost-per-patient is pretty tiny. And mostly for things that often don't respond well to actual medicine- cancer medication side effects are a commonly cited one, chronic fatigue syndrome, things like this. The fact that it's total horseshit isn't necessarily very important, if it makes people feel better.

OTOH it gives it a level of legitimacy/respectability. The really essential thing is that it not be an alternative to real treatment.

I always say this; I'm a chronic pain sufferer (it's not that bad; chronic but not generally severe) but I'm aware that it's partly habituated/psychosomatic. (there's been times when painkillers I forgot to take have still made me feel better!) Probably a homeopathic "treatment" for that is no less effective than painkillers, but without the side effects, risk of addiction, etc. But then the ethics are incredibly messy- people need to believe in it for it to work. (but being told by a doctor "this doesn't work" doesn't necessarily mean you believe it)

Wouldn't it be okay if they just work on the chemical memory of funding?

WHat NW says and Dr P
]
Its hard the benign stuff is just glorified placebo for the gulible

The problem is we do legitimise it and then folk will try it when they are really ill

Not sure where i sit on this probably fund it whilst explicitly stating the NHS thinks it does not work and we do it only to save money and treat the gullible. IMHO this wont stop them turning up as they are gullible and wont believer the hype form the pharmaceutical industry that controls all research 😉

To play devils advocate.... The Integrative Care services the NHS run exist for patients with chronic conditions. They're not going to [i]get better[/i] so whether Homeopathy or any other pish is clinically effective is kind of irrelevant. But where people aren't going to get better you need to take the best steps you can to help them [i]feel[/i] better.

In terms of placebo, different placebos are more and less effective than each other - big pills have a greater placebo effect than small pills, injections have a greater placebo effect still. Double blinds are more effective than if the doctor knows they are administering a placebo. The placebo effect is the patient's confidence that tangible steps are being made that help them to endure whatever it is the need to endure

Pain is a very subjective thing to experience - the pain I endure to get a bike up hill, knowing that I can freewheel down the other side is different to the pain my cousin endures to get [i]everywhere[/i] in his wheelchair. But he can change that experience of pain if he directs it towards winning medals on the track.Its only a change of mindset, nothing has been repaired but its now something he's in control.

The value the complimentary care sector has added is that it works for the people it works for, and if those people feel better for it then thats no fraud. They'll never [i]get[/i] better.

There are lots of services within the medical field that are about feeling better rather than just being functionally better. Maxilofacial reconstruction for instance.

I once heard a radio interview with some Chinese doctors in which they were asked why there were still Chinese medicine hospitals in Beijing and they said that's where they sent the hypochondriacs who had nothing wrong with them. It saved the doctors dealing with them and kept the patients happy - homeopathy is our version of Chinese medicine for the worried well.

A doctor sees a patient who has nothing wrong with them but the patient insists on 'treatment.' Does it have to be NHS-funded? Is there a practical difference between "here's a homeopathic treatment" and "I suggest you go and buy a homeopathic treatment"?

A doctor sees a patient who has nothing wrong with them but the patient insists on 'treatment.'

The patients referred to homeopathic treatment on the NHS don't have 'nothing wrong' with them - they have something wrong with them thats not going to go away in hurry and need to find the best ways they can to endure that.

The problem with homeopathy is that it's so transparently snakeoily, relying on a branch of physics which has yet to be discovered, that it really sticks in the craw to endorse it even as a placebo. The homeopathy industry relies on the fact that the NHS is prepared to spend money on it as evidence of efficacy. It's the most powerful evidence they have to present to a credulous public. We should neither be spending millions of public money, nor encouraging patients (often of limited means) to spend their own.

What we need is every surgery to have a 'placebo room', where an out of work actor in a white coat says some encouraging platitudes, gives out a packet of sugar pills (cost = 1p) and sends them on their way.

There should be no room for NHS funding of treatments which are pure placebo - and effectively a lie in which the patient and therapist collude. Also tons of evidence of the harm when people don't seek help appropiately because of homeopathy.

If people want to spend their own money on this - fine - sheep were made to be shorn. 😉

I don't understand why placebo medication is unethical, unless it's homeopathic when it suddenly becomes ethical.
I'm sure I could provide placebo medication to the NHS or anyone else much cheaper, just give me a room and a tap.

martinhutch - Member

The problem with homeopathy is that it's so transparently snakeoily, relying on a branch of physics which has yet to be discovered, that it really sticks in the craw to endorse it even as a placebo.

That's a fair point actually... I suppose all the benefits of homeopathic "treatment" could also be realised with different non-homeopathic nonmedicine. Sugar pills or ineffectual herbs or whatever. So there you're trading off a bit of helpful credulousness/backstory, vs the benefits of not being seen to endorse woo-merchants.

I don't understand why placebo medication is unethical, unless it's homeopathic when it suddenly becomes ethical.

It's entirely ethical, if it does some good.

See also 'pain reliving gel'. There's no evidence to suggest that Ibuprofen can be absorbed through the skin, all you're doing is giving the area an expensive massage.

But the man on the nurofen gel advert looks convincing and it cost you £8, so it must be good.

Aside from the whole nonsense vs. efficiency of Homeopathy woo (which has been more than adequately explained above), surely they are looking for cost savings in the wrong places?

If you want to save significant amounts of money, just piss off your workforce to the point that noone wants to become a doctor any more and your existing workforce piss off to the colonies.

Wage bill slashed, job done!

(sorry for the thread derailment 🙁 )

sweepy - Member

I don't understand why placebo medication is unethical, unless it's homeopathic when it suddenly becomes ethical.

TBH I think it's exactly the opposite here; people object specifically to homeopathy, who'd be comfortable with giving alternative placebos.

It's entirely ethical, if it does some good.

I might be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but my understanding is that placebo treatments cant be given as they are unethical, yet we fund homeopathy which has not been proven to have any effect beyond placebo.
It sounds like placebos are only ethical as long as you lie about them.

[quote="maccruiskeen"]
Ahhhh that could be a problem then -up til now the NHS has been funding homeopathy as a way of trying to neutralise homeopathy's effects and quash the zombie-lazarus megalomanical ambitions of homeopathic practitioners.

Now, in the name of austerity the government cuts the funds and 'inadvertently' open the gates of hell. It all starts to make sense - the Tory's problem has always been that its core voters are ageing. Maybe by using government cuts to reanimate corpses they they're hoping to awaken a hordes of ancient super conservative voters to guarantee future electoral success.Thats the storyline to Shaun of the dead PtII, it's got to be.

.[b]..Why Do Placebos Work In Some Kids With Migraine...[/b]
Over the years, we've come to learn that many people get better when they are given a placebo, a pill that only contains sugar or some other inactive ingredient. Like studies of medicines in general, most placebo studies have been conducted in adults. Now, researchers have tried to summarize what's known about responses to placebos in children and adolescents who have migraine. To do this, they analyzed 13 studies in children with migraine that compared their responses to an active drug and a placebo.
Overall, the researchers found that two hours after getting an active drug or placebo, 46% of children who got placebos reported pain relief and
21% reported that their pain disappeared. Interestingly, children in North America were more likely to have a better response to placebo compared to children in Europe, The authors call for more research into why placebos seem to offer some benefit to children with migraine, (Eernandes R et al: Journal of Pediatrics, April, 2008, pp. 527-533)
COMMENT: There's been a lot of debate about placebos, but recent studies support that there is indeed an effect of placebos in certain conditions— and particularly those that might respond to the power of suggestion. Though no one fully under- stands how suggestion works, brain imaging and other studies hint that our brains can respond to the expectation that something will eliminate a symptom such as pain. In fact, a very recent study measured pain responses to two "drugs"—subjects were told that one cost $2,50 per pill and the other cost 10 cents per pill. Study subjects reported more pain relief with the more expensive drug, even though it turned out that both drugs were identical placebo pills. The explanation for this benefit is that people attach expectations to certain treat- ments, and if they expect a more expensive pill to work better than a cheaper one, it may actually do
that—at least when it comes to symptoms like pain,
(Waber R et al: Journal of the American Medical Association, March 5, 2008, pp. 1016-1017).

Placebos do seem to work though. Yet nobody really understands why.

We are now in 2015, not 1955. It is now considered unethical for Drs to lie to patients by ommission or commission. We really try not to use medication or treatments which have not been shown to work. So to fund or use an entire discipline which is fake is not on.

Placebos working in genuine medical conditions (usually in 20 - 30% of people) as well as having side-effects (the same rate of side-effects in placebo treatment as in Statin treatment in big trials) isn't news. But the idea that Drs can paternalistically decide [i]which [/i]patients they are going to lie to went with Dr Finlay's casebook...

The level of evidence of effectiveness required for things bought over the counter, be they medications, supplements from Holland & Barrett, or wrinkle banishing creams from cosmetics companies is laughably low. But I am not asked to prescribe those.

The patients referred to homeopathic treatment on the NHS don't have 'nothing wrong' with them - they have something wrong with them thats not going to go away in hurry and need to find the best ways they can to endure that.

in which case, selling fake cures seems remarkably insidious and cruel, no? You're selling false hope; surely they'd be better off with a pain management clinic, support groups, physio and so on and so forth.

Hell, isn't this why we still have religion? I'd rather someone was lied to about what's going to happen to them after they'd died than lied to about what's going to happen whilst they're still alive.

Placebos do indeed 'work'. Even in rats, apparently. I too think it's absolutely ridiculous for the NHS to spend money on homeopathy, regardless of whether those making the decisions actually believe in the nonsense or instead believe that it's just a handy way to give placebos without actually lying.

If we say that it's OK to prescribe things that are not proven more effective than placebo, then that opens up crazy corollaries. Imagine if a big pharma company was found to have been successfully selling (and profiting from) a 'drug' that actually did nothing more than placebo. Imagine the (appropriate) outcry and claims of evil. Them saying "yes, OK, we kind of cheated, but look - people felt better!" would not help or make it OK.

It would be ideal to have some way to let people feel the potential benefits offered by their own responses to placebo, but it is hard to do that ethically. The only thing I can think of is to say to patients "We can offer you a placebo. It has no active ingredient, but it has been proven to make people feel better, so it might help you." then, presumably, for a proportion (call them gullible or just human) of the population they would actually feel better. A proportion would, of course, understand enough of the situation (and believe the science) that this would not help them. But for them, homeopathy would not have worked either - the only thing that would is outright lying to them, which is not a viable option.

A doctor sees a patient who has nothing wrong with them but the patient insists on 'treatment.

Funnily enough this person does have something wrong with them. It's illness anxiety disorder!

See also 'pain reliving gel'. There's no evidence to suggest that Ibuprofen can be absorbed through the skin, all you're doing is giving the area an expensive massage.

I've found some benefit from them. While I'm quite prepared to believe it's the placebo effect, rubbing, getting better anyway etc I've also seen comments that ibuprofen gels have some effect.

Lead researcher Dr Andrew Moore, of the Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics at the University of Oxford, said

"What we know does work is topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory gels like ibuprofen. There is pretty good evidence that they work well and are pretty safe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8138567.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8138567.stm <

So what we need is a well funded and discrete placebotherapy department in the NHS prescribing sugar pills under various fancy names. Sounds like a surefire moneyspinner.

what are they going to do with the stocks of homepathic "medicine" surely pouring it away will only make it stronger?

If we say that it's OK to prescribe things that are not proven more effective than placebo, then that opens up crazy corollaries. Imagine if a big pharma company was found to have been successfully selling (and profiting from) a 'drug' that actually did nothing more than placebo. Imagine the (appropriate) outcry and claims of evil. Them saying "yes, OK, we kind of cheated, but look - people felt better!" would not help or make it OK.

You should read 'Anatomy of an Epidemic' by Robert Whitaker - he points out that a lot of psychiatric drugs do nothing more than a placebo. When you read about that some of the pharma corporations get up to it's quite scary really.

Back to the topic in hand though, what one must remember is that there's a awful lot of people who do not actually have anything wrong with them, they just present symptoms to which the doctor can find no cause i.e. its all in their head!

It seems to me that if someone is exhibiting psychosomatic symptoms then a homeopathic cure might be right up their street. Not to mention all the nutters that present at the surgery every other month with a new problem.

Also, I'd have though that all the people currently getting treated with homeopathic medicine will have to be given the real McCoy if it's banned. That's only going to cost more and give big pharma even more of a monopoly that it already has.

So what we need is a well funded and discrete placebotherapy department in the NHS prescribing sugar pills under various fancy names. Sounds like a surefire moneyspinner.

Same as Trident, it's only ever a deterrent so just make everyone think you've bought a load of subs and missiles, and you get to pocket a few hundred billion for coke and hookers.

Funny thing is, you can tell someone they are been givien a placebo, labelled placebo, and it can still work. Wonderful thing the human mind.

See also 'pain reliving gel'. There's no evidence to suggest that Ibuprofen can be absorbed through the skin, all you're doing is giving the area an expensive massage.

Sorry TINAS but that is nonsense, [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8595072 ]the dose-adjusted bioavailablity of ibuprofen is 22% compared with tablets[/url]. The gels include special skin permeability agents to help absorption into tissue and are tested in placebo-controlled trials before licensing.

As for the placebo response, about half of all psychiatric trials will have a placebo response that is sufficient to obscure any signal for an efficacious treatment. That doesn't mean that the drug doesn't work, it means the trial is not capable of showing it works. The action of entering a trial changes the patient disposition.

Now back to water... Oh yes, homeopathic overdosing.

[img] [/img]

So what we need is a well funded and discrete placebotherapy department in the NHS prescribing sugar pills under various fancy names.

Maybe there is, but for it to work we'd need to be unaware that there is. Even the doctors would need to be kept in the dark for it to work really well.

and you get to pocket a few hundred billion for coke and hookers.

Well, you'll think its coke but how will you really know- you and the dealer could both be part of a randomised double blind narcotics trial - in that trial it may turn out that someone can be just as much tiresome, self congratulatory arsehole when the snort the placebo. 🙂

[quote=TiRed ]

See also 'pain reliving gel'. There's no evidence to suggest that Ibuprofen can be absorbed through the skin, all you're doing is giving the area an expensive massage.

Thank you for that - I've always believed it had a benefit, and TINAS nearly spoiled it 😉

As for homoeopathy, as a scientist I have similar views to most on this thread about the promotion of it. However there's a but, a big but...

[quote=Cougar ]in which case, selling fake cures seems remarkably insidious and cruel, no? You're selling false hope; surely they'd be better off with a pain management clinic, support groups, physio and so on and so forth.

The thing is, being given a placebo and being lied to isn't a fake cure - it's clinically proven to be effective for certain things. More effective than all your pain management clinics, support groups etc. Effective for things which are quite real conditions, not just all in the mind.

What's more, whilst the placebo effect is effective even if you know you're getting a placebo, it's also been clinically proven to be a lot more effective if you really believe in it, which is where the woo comes in. Of course in double blind trials homoeopathy has been proven to be no more effective than placebo (I would be very concerned if there were different results), that's placebo where people think they are getting homoeopathy.

So yes I am very uncomfortable with the promotion of the homoeopathy lie (apart from anything else it legitimises delusionists / con artists like [url= http://www.envisionhealth.co.uk/?page_id=2 ]Dr Helen Beaumont[/url] who ought to be struck off), but the trouble is, stopping homoeopathic treatment is likely to result in those people who do benefit from placebo being worse off as there isn't a suitable alternative with a similarly strong belief system.

What really winds me up though is the need for the BBC to have a "balanced article" with equal space given to those who represent 0.1% of the scientific community as those who represent 99.9%.

Same as Trident, it's only ever a deterrent so just make everyone think you've bought a load of subs and missiles, and you get to pocket a few hundred billion for coke and hookers.

I am fully on this page - although i'd rather they spent it on nurses and schools

Maybe just 5% of a trident program? Or some fireworks that spell out "oh - ****sticks"

In fact can you apply homeopathty to nuclear deterrents?

There have already been placebo based trials. Ben goldacres book bad science has a chapter on placebo (and nice I!) which is a great introduction.

They are shown in trials to work when:

Neither the Dr or patient knows.

When the Dr does know but the patient doesn't.

And when the Dr explains to the patient

Varying levels of efficacy which I can't recall but the idea that a medic can tell some one that the tablet is inert and it will still 'work' is incredible really. Also consider the colours/sizes of tablets. There's studies on that too.

all of the above arguments have their place but lets face it.....

the homeopathic treatments do not work, they cost money

[quote=edhornby ]the homeopathic treatments do not work

Actually yes they do.

A relative of mine just posted this on FB. Apparently only 13% of NHS treatments are of proven benefit.

[url= https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NHS-Homeopathy-in-the-spotlight-Nov2015.pdf ]Load of made up pish.[/url]

A relative of mine just posted this on FB. Apparently only 13% of NHS treatments are of proven benefit.

Load of made up pish.

In what way [i]exactly[/i] is that a load of made up pish?

I've got to the end of the first page and so far all I've encountered is referenced facts.

Are you a sheep with ideas above its station or are you being deliberately idiotic?

Your quite right. It isn't made up it's just misrepresentative and poorly argued.

See what happens if you try to debate wth them

Its a set of highly one sides misrepresented starts selected only to demonstrate that that normal medicine is shit and homeopathy is awesome

Its not actual a summary of the true actual picture its a polemic

Its a referenced example of confirmation bias and nothing more

Not one mention of all the countless studies and the view of the cochrane collaboration on the effectiveness of homeopathy

ie only partial facts presented.
Its like reading global warming stuff , sounds scientific, looks researched but its cheery picking from all the medical research available to present a slewed picture of its efficacy - ie its made up pish

[professional hat on]
Psychiatry drug trials are particularly hard to measure.

There are pages and pages of arguments out there just discussing the repiability or validity of the measures and rating scales used to quantify symptoms of mental ill health, so that is rather muddy waters before you even start looking for yr trial cohort or doing your baseline measurments!

Then there is the subjectivity of the patient's own experience and that of the person assessing them if symptoms are examined by interview or observation. Consider the people who agree to double blind trials and also the people who get enthusiastic about researching or carrying them out.

Then there are so many biological or social variables in mental wellbeing which have nothing to do with drugs or indeed placebo drugs.

Then there are trials that just get "buried" or more publicly rubbished because the outcome was not what the 'sponsor' wanted. (I forget if its naomi klein's book or ben goldacre but there are a couple recent of examples of this)

So from a cost and public helath point of view, much of mental health work is done on the basis of 'more likely' and 'less likely' that actually the cost to society by days off sick or off school, hours spent in specialist inpatient or outpatient care and the relatively low impact of side effects makes it worth a try in many cases. And in many cases you have very little to lose as a patient by trying pills either as a main treatment or an adjunct to talking therapies.

That said, most of my patients [childrens mental health] are not on meds at all and will never be because there is not enough (shaky or otherwise) evidence to suggest they will help at all.

[professional hat off again]

"observational studies" 😆

YOu mean they have proved that people who take homeopathic remedies claim they work now that is surprising.