Homeopathy is Witchcraft, Says Dolphin

[Mojo]

That's Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA junior doctors committee:

Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors

Hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine, saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them.

The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of the remedies in the NHS.

Now, the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles.

Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: "Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy which is paid for by the NHS".

The motion was supported by the BMA chairman, and will become BMA policy if agreed by their full conference next month.

Further down the story, the chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association complains that this ignores "the views of the public", and says that the call to end placements in homoeopathic hospitals "ignore the lessons alternative medicine could provide, in terms of how to diagnose patients." This appears to contradict claims that homoeopaths don't diagnose diseases, and "treat the patient, not the disease".

 

[Sledge]

I love the idea that the views of the public have any relevance, as if we can just overturn physical laws if enough people don't like them.

 

[Zep]

If we can find enough people to agree and state publicly that homeopaths are deluded fools at best and criminals at worst, do you think it will make all the homeopaths see the light?

 

[talkie toaster]

I love the idea that the views of the public have any relevance, as if we can just overturn physical laws if enough people don't like them.

I tried really hard not believing in the theory of gravity on my way down from a ladder fall, turns out no matter how hard you try you just can't overcome universal laws, bugger

Never underestimate the public's belief in all things woo!!

But of course, they do know it's water don't they, surely?

 

[TFian]

Hmm, witches eh? Didn't we used to burn those? Maybe it's time for a return of that policy...

 

[Mirrorglass]

If we can find enough people to agree and state publicly that homeopaths are deluded fools at best and criminals at worst, do you think it will make all the homeopaths see the light?

Given that we're all mindless puppets for Big Pharma, I doubt it matters how many of us stand up; it's still just one evil, shadowy hand pulling the strings.

 

[a3sigma]

I love the idea that the views of the public U.S.Congress have any relevance, as if we can just overturn physical laws if enough people don't like them.

Physical laws and other forms of rational thought.

 

[Molinaro]

I love the idea that the views of the public have any relevance, as if we can just overturn physical laws if enough people don't like them.

How many people would it take to overturn the "money don't grow on trees" law?

 

[MortFurd]

I tried really hard not believing in the theory of gravity on my way down from a ladder fall, turns out no matter how hard you try you just can't overcome universal laws, bugger

Never underestimate the public's belief in all things woo!!

But of course, they do know it's water don't they, surely?

But it ain't, 'least ways not here in Germany. Here you get lactose pills that were sprayed with the water and dried. So, not only does the water have to "remember" what it was in contact with, the lactose has to "remember" what the water told it about what it had been in contact with.

Cure by hearsay?

 

[uk_dave]

The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of the remedies in the NHS.

Some journos find it almost impossible to report on anything without letting slip some of their bias.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How many people would it take to overturn the "money don't grow on trees" law?

As Douglas Adams pointed out, all it takes is a majority vote to adopt the leaf as the unit of currency.

Dave

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

They turned me into a newt!

 

[Mojo]

NHS scraps doctors’ training at Scots homeopathic hospital

Training for junior doctors at NHS Scotland’s only homeopathic hospital has been axed – just days after homeopathy was condemned as “witchcraft” by young medics.

Scottish junior doctors sparked controversy at a major conference by demanding the NHS stop funding homeopathic treatment and that spells in the Glasgow centre be removed from their training programme.

Less than a week later, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board announced that the training programme at the hospital would be scrapped this summer.

 

[Rolfe]

You beat me to it, Mojo! (As ever!) That little gem met me as I sat at breakfast this morning reading the paper, and quite brightened up an already absolutely idyllic morning.

However, I was only half way through the article when I felt a letter to the editor coming on.

Conventional medicine is combined with alternative therapies, such as acupuncture, with the aim of looking after the whole person – rather than confining treatment to symptoms.

That's editorial, not a direct quote from one of the proponents intervewed. OK, it obviously is homoeopathy propaganda being regurgitated, but that's not how it appeared in the article.

I am absolutely completely and utterly sick and tired of this canard that real medicine only treats symptoms. And the related one that homoeopathy treats the "whole person". Sara Eames, in the "for" article below, also trotted out the 70% improvement bit from the Bristol study.

I'm not good at short and pithy, so any suggestins on how to tackle this one will be very welcome. I've been reading this damn newspaper since I was at school, and they nearly always print the letters I send, so I feel like giving it a shot.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

That's editorial, not a direct quote from one of the proponents intervewed. OK, it obviously is homoeopathy propaganda being regurgitated, but that's not how it appeared in the article.

I am absolutely completely and utterly sick and tired of this canard that real medicine only treats symptoms. And the related one that homoeopathy treats the "whole person".

They got this in several times, quoting a "former MP and friend of the hospital" saying "I would be deeply disappointed if junior doctors did not get training in the holistic approach at some point," Sumner saying "they enhance their consultation skills to enable better diagnosis, learn how to manage chronic health problems in a patient-centred way, and look at a patient as a person rather than as a presenting complaint", then Eames with the stuff about "training doctors in consultation skills", patients who "have not been helped by conventional medicine" and of course the Bristol customer satisfaction survey etc.

But hang on - what's this stuff about "better diagnosis"? We're talking about a system that "treats the patient, not the disease". They don't do diagnosis.

For "short and pithy", I would point out that considering the whole patient is something that should be done by any competent doctor, and training in it shouldn't also require training in a treatment that doesn't work.

 

[Mojo]

All the stuff about "the whole person" is a bit like the shopkeeper praising the Norwegian Blue's beautiful plumage. As Mr. Praline pointed out, "the plumage don't enter into it: it's stone dead."

 

[Rolfe]

How about this draft? All suggestions welcome.

I welcome the news that training of junior doctors at the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital is to be discontinued. However, I must deplore your article’s determined perpetuation of the myth that homoeopathy "treats the whole person" while real medicine merely "treats the symptoms".

Classical homoeopathy is concerned with nothing but symptoms. Hahnemann himself rejected any attempt (indeed the very possibility of) diagnosis, and built his entire system on noting and aggregating symptoms. In contrast, modern medicine strives first and foremost for an accurate diagnosis, in order to direct treatment to the underlying cause of the the patient’s illness.

Lacking both diagnostic insight and effective therapeutics (their magically "potentised" remedies are indistinguishable from any other sort of sugar pills except by reading the label), homoeopaths have over the years developed the bedside manner into a fine art. However, homoeopathy has no monopoly on "consultation skills", "managing chronic problems in a patient-centred way", or "looking at the patient as a person rather than as a presenting complaint". In the 21st century there is absolutely no need for junior doctors to spend time in a facility which promotes the concept of sugar pills as medicine in order to acquire good "people skills" and the ability to manage chronic health problems.

Sara Eames refers to the 2003 Bristol patient satisfaction survey as showing "an improvement in overall wellbeing in more than 70% of such patients". This survey merely asked patients whether they felt better or worse (on a 7-point scale) than when they first attended the homoeopathic hospital. The questionnaire was administered face-to-face by the patients’ own homoeopathic physician, at a time of the physician’s choosing. Frankly, it’s surprising that only 70% of homoeopathic patients could be induced to say they felt at least "slightly better" under these conditions. Perhaps there are limits to the placebo effect after all?

Rolfe.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I like your rebuttall

 

[Mojo]

How about this draft? All suggestions welcome.

I would cut the first sentence of the third paragraph, so it starts "Homoeopathy has no monopoly..."

Maybe also change "Hahnemann himself rejected any attempt (indeed the very possibility of) diagnosis" in the second paragraph to "Hahnemann, who is still regarded as the ultimate authority by most homeopaths, rejected any attempt at diagnosis" - the average newspaper reader might not know the degree to which he's regarded as an authority, and wonder why the views of someone born in the mid 18th century should be relevant to current practice.

I think the Spence survey was published in 2005 (in the wake of Shang). Is it worth pointing out that it had no control group? Without making that point, "70% reported improvement" can still look as if it worked in 70% of the cases.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, I quite liked that sentence in that it's pointing out that the bedside manner is all they have, so no wonder they're bloody good at it. Why did you think it would be better dropped?

I'll make your suggested change in paragraph 2.

I'm not sure how to work in the control group idea into the last paragraph. It's really an impossible study to control anyway. Isn't the implication that it shouldn't be hard to get more than 70% of patients to agree they feel at least slightly better under these conditions even if you've given them no beneficial treatment enough to get the point across?

Rolfe.