• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Australia Declares Homeopathy "Useless"

Soapy Sam said:
Very little is completely useless.
If nowt else, it's a lesson .
But I suspect many GPs, finding themselves dealing with (often elderly) patients, suffering from essentially untreatable , age related conditions, often complicated by simple loneliness and depression, are apt to prescribe homoeopathic and other "complementary" treatments to basically get these folk out of the treatment room with a prescription that keeps them happy, that being the best the doctor can actually do .
Click to expand...


Research carried out by West Kent PCT (as part of the process that led to them decommissioning homoeopathy) found that referrals for homoeopathy were almost always the result of a request by the patient rather than a clinical decision by the GP.
 
Mojo said:
See the comments: http://theconversation.com/no-evidence-homeopathy-is-effective-nhmrc-review-25368
Click to expand...

All studies are flawed, statistics are useless and the truth is relative, I can't fathom why the guy bothers to do studies in the first place if it doesn't matter.

ETA:

Isaac quote from above link

"I don't believe that randomisation or blinding are essential, or that placebo is essential - there are a range of research methods that can demonstrate safety and effectiveness and one should consider all reasonable evidence before drawing a conclusions."
 
Last edited:
G6000 said:
Here is a link to a page containing the 300 page government report: http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/public_consultations/homeopathy_health
Click to expand...


There's a 1996 review (Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review on the effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of the homoeopathic medicine trials. In: Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group, Report of the Commision of the European Communities, Directorate-General XII - Science, Research and Development E - RTD Actions: Life Sciences and Technologies - Medical Research, Brussels, Belgium. 1996) that is often cited as a positive systematic review, but I've never managed to track down the full text. I notice that the "Review of Submitted Literature - Effectiveness of Homeopathy for Clinical Conditions" document linked from this page on the NHMRC site lists it as an excluded study, commenting, "Unable to assign a level of evidence - narrative review".
 
Soapy Sam said:
Very little is completely useless.
If nowt else, it's a lesson .
But I suspect many GPs, finding themselves dealing with (often elderly) patients, suffering from essentially untreatable , age related conditions, often complicated by simple loneliness and depression, are apt to prescribe homoeopathic and other "complementary" treatments to basically get these folk out of the treatment room with a prescription that keeps them happy, that being the best the doctor can actually do .
Click to expand...


Actually, no, very few of them do. There are a few who embrace the woo, but apart from these kooks you'll never be offered homoeopathy by a British GP. (Germany is a different matter.) As Mojo says, most of it is patient-driven. I have a GP friend who is virulently opposed to homoeopathy, and she says she occasionally refers to a homoeopath simply because the patient is demanding it and it gets them out of her hair.

Rolfe.
 
To be effective and get to people who need to read/hear this, don't forget to
A) print it out in very tiny letters and
B) whisper it in your 2cm. voice.........
 
Another policy change I recently found about is that with Private Health Cover the "extras" cover, along with dental and optical, included homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropracty and other crap. You can now exclude these and get cheaper cover. The woo merchants must be really pissed off about this.
 
Mojo said:
There's a 1996 review (Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review on the effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of the homoeopathic medicine trials... but I've never managed to track down the full text.
Click to expand...
The nearest I've ever got to it is:

Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M. and Boissel, J.P., (2000) Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG (Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group). European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Vol. 56 no. 1 pp. 27-33

The Cucherat paper seems to have arisen out of the Boissel review. Further information and links here:

http://www.rationalvetmed.org/papers_c.html#Cucherat2000

Yuri
 
Yuri Nalyssus said:
The nearest I've ever got to it is:

Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M. and Boissel, J.P., (2000) Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG (Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group). European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Vol. 56 no. 1 pp. 27-33

The Cucherat paper seems to have arisen out of the Boissel review. Further information and links here:

http://www.rationalvetmed.org/papers_c.html#Cucherat2000

Yuri
Click to expand...


There's comment from Boissel here:
I spoke to Jean-Pierre Boissel, an author on two of the four papers cited (Boissel et al and Cucherat et al), who was surprised at the way his work had been interpreted. "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'," he said, pointing out that what he and his colleagues actually found was evidence of considerable bias in results, with higher quality trials producing results less favourable to homeopathy.

[...]

Boissel pointed out an even more surprising error: that the two papers he was involved in were actually describing the same analysis. In other words, Mathie managed to take one study that the author emphatically maintains didn't support homeopathy, and present it as two studies that did. I asked Boissel whether he felt comfortable that his work was being presented to the public as evidence in favour of homeopathy. His response was simple: "Definitively no!"
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
Actually, no, very few of them do. There are a few who embrace the woo, but apart from these kooks you'll never be offered homoeopathy by a British GP. (Germany is a different matter.) As Mojo says, most of it is patient-driven. I have a GP friend who is virulently opposed to homoeopathy, and she says she occasionally refers to a homoeopath simply because the patient is demanding it and it gets them out of her hair. Rolfe.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant. The patient has nothing (treatable) organically wrong, but will not leave without a prescription. A GP friend told me about 20% of their caseload is elderly people who make as many as three appointments every week, just so they have someone to talk to. They are not, strictly hypochondriac, just lonely and depressed. Chatting to others in the waiting room and talking to the doctor is a major element of their life.
Apparently it's well known to receptionists, who make sure such people are seen by a different doctor each time, as this seems to discourage them.
Difficult and I suppose dangerous decisions to make.
Hopefully, as the NHS regions abandon homoeopathy due either to respect for evidence or dearth of finance, the option will fade.
No idea how they will shift the stubborn ones then. Free ticket to a hairdresser?
 
Soapy Sam said:
That's exactly what I meant. The patient has nothing (treatable) organically wrong, but will not leave without a prescription. A GP friend told me about 20% of their caseload is elderly people who make as many as three appointments every week, just so they have someone to talk to. They are not, strictly hypochondriac, just lonely and depressed. Chatting to others in the waiting room and talking to the doctor is a major element of their life.
Apparently it's well known to receptionists, who make sure such people are seen by a different doctor each time, as this seems to discourage them.
Difficult and I suppose dangerous decisions to make.
Hopefully, as the NHS regions abandon homoeopathy due either to respect for evidence or dearth of finance, the option will fade.
No idea how they will shift the stubborn ones then. Free ticket to a hairdresser?
Click to expand...

Maybe such people should be referred to someone who can take better care of their needs and is far less costly. Maybe to each other?
 
Soapy Sam said:
That's exactly what I meant. The patient has nothing (treatable) organically wrong, but will not leave without a prescription. A GP friend told me about 20% of their caseload is elderly people who make as many as three appointments every week, just so they have someone to talk to. They are not, strictly hypochondriac, just lonely and depressed. Chatting to others in the waiting room and talking to the doctor is a major element of their life.
Apparently it's well known to receptionists, who make sure such people are seen by a different doctor each time, as this seems to discourage them.
Difficult and I suppose dangerous decisions to make.
Hopefully, as the NHS regions abandon homoeopathy due either to respect for evidence or dearth of finance, the option will fade.
No idea how they will shift the stubborn ones then. Free ticket to a hairdresser?
Click to expand...


No, we're talking about two different things. My friend would never refer such a patient to a homoeopath. Never, ever. Seriously. The only times she has referred is when the patient has specifically insisted on being referred to a homoeopath. That is, when the patient is already sold on the idea and introduces it on their own initiative.

These people don't necessarily have nothing wrong, but they have a problem that isn't going to resolve as they want it with normal treatment methods.

Rolfe.
 
rjh01 said:
Pharmacists warned off homeopathy



It is another small step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

A chemist tried to tell me about how homeopathy works. I think he gained the impression I was not impressed at all. They worry that they are losing profits to 'alternative' medical outlets, but don't seem to worry that they are selling non cures to people who have medical needs.
 
Soapy Sam said:
A GP friend told me about 20% of their caseload is elderly people who make as many as three appointments every week, just so they have someone to talk to. They are not, strictly hypochondriac, just lonely and depressed. Chatting to others in the waiting room and talking to the doctor is a major element of their life.
Apparently it's well known to receptionists, who make sure such people are seen by a different doctor each time, as this seems to discourage them.
Click to expand...


That's interesting! I wonder if there are things you could do beyond that to discourage this sort of behaviour.

I must admit that if doctors visits were free, I may be more inclined to take sick days, since a doctors note is essentially free. Over here I have to weigh the cost of the visit against the value of the day off. Very often, it's not worth it to me to go to the doctor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom