Homeopathy is Witchcraft, Says Dolphin

[fls]

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?

Well, do you have any evidence that they are good at bedside manner? Your point about "only 70%" improvement is actually important, because patient satisfaction surveys (I'll dig you up a comparable reference if you don't have one) for conventional medicine, done under less coercive conditions, generally show satisfaction in the high 90's. Why are we giving them the benefit of having good bedside manner when it appears to be undeserved?

ETA: I forgot to say that it's a very nicely written response, other than giving them too much credit.

Linda

 

[fls]

Here you go (page 5):

http://www.gp-patient.co.uk/results/National Summary Report.pdf

The GP Patient Survey 2009/2010 for the UK states an overall satisfaction of 90%, with 55% very satisfied and 4% dissatisfied.

Forty-nine percent had a long-term health problem (perhaps a comparable population to those who would visit a homeopath). Of those, 88% think discussions with a doctor or nurse has helped improve how they manage their health problem (i.e. compared to the 70%) and 41% say it definitely helped.

Linda

 

[Blue Mountain]

Your third paragraph has the sentence "their magically "potentised" remedies are indistinguishable from any other sort of sugar pills except by reading the label". Would it be possible to note that it's impossible to tell homeopathic remedies from each other without reading the label?

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for the great feedback, guys.

I'm not intending to give them great praise for their bedside manner, but to try to indicate the reason they still seem so popular and why so many people still seem to swear by them. It's tactics. They can't/don't diagnose, and they have no effective therapeutics, so what's left? It's the inbuilt rebuttal to "but lots of people think it helped them!"

I think what I'm saying is, "never mind if they have good people skills, you don't need homoeopathy to get that over to junior doctors". I feel that's an easier sell than saying their people skills aren't so hot either, neener neener.

Thanks for that link, Fiona. My first thought was that the questionnnaire (I've filled it in myself, twice!) doesn't actually ask if you feel a bit better. But as you point out, there are roughly applicable questions. Indeed, that needs to be worked in even if it makes it a bit longer.

Oh, and BM, if you can't tell any of them from ordinary sugar, it probably follows that you can't tell them apart either. Let's not get too technical here, it's only a daily newspaper.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's the next version.

I've kept the disputed sentence, because I like it (it's making a point I want to make). I've slightly fudged the GP satisfaction report, but I think it's legitimate. Let the homoeopaths splutter that that's not exactly what it says, for a change.

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, who is still regarded as the ultimate authority by most homoeopaths, rejected any attempt at 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 their 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. In contrast, the 2009-10 GP patient satisfaction survey for the UK, administered by post, reported an overall satisfaction rate of 90% (with 55% "very satisfied"), and 88% of those with a long-term heath problem believed they had been helped. Perhaps there are limits to the placebo effect after all?

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

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 don't particularly have anything against it, but I'm not sure how long a letter the newspaper will accept without editing it. I just didn't think it particularly needed saying. If you want to make the point, leave it in (and I'm sure you have a far better idea of what is likely to get published than I do).

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?

[homoeopath]But 70% of them got better![/homoeopath].

What you've done with Linda's suggestion here looks good.

 

[Rolfe]

They sometimes publish quite long letters. 350 words is probably OK, and it might be interesting to see if they cut anything.

I still think the point that they don't diagnose and they have no effective treatment so all they have is their (paternalistic) honeyed tongues is worth a sentence.

Rolfe.

 

[fls]

Here's the next version.

I've kept the disputed sentence, because I like it (it's making a point I want to make). I've slightly fudged the GP satisfaction report, but I think it's legitimate. Let the homoeopaths splutter that that's not exactly what it says, for a change.

Rolfe.

I think you did a good job of incorporating my suggestion - the wording remains legitimate.

It's a better response than Simon's. I like the emphasis on the holes in the attempts to justify it as a way to learn how to become a "good doctor".

Linda

 

[Rolfe]

How about the last sentence saying something about the homoeopaths silver tongues not being as good as all that after all?

Rolfe.

 

[fls]

How about the last sentence saying something about the homoeoapths silver tongues not being as good as all that after all?

Rolfe.

I think it strays too far into insult, while the rest of the letter is nicely skewering (although you will have a better idea of what sort of tone is expected/acceptable in letters-to-the-editor for this newspaper). I'm not sure that "placebo effect" is the right phrase either. Maybe something else from the article, like "lateral thinking".

Linda

 

[Blue Mountain]

Oh, and BM, if you can't tell any of them from ordinary sugar, it probably follows that you can't tell them apart either. Let's not get too technical here, it's only a daily newspaper.

You're right; we have to remember who the audience is

Great letter! Better than what I could have done.

 

[Rolfe]

I think it strays too far into insult, while the rest of the letter is nicely skewering (although you will have a better idea of what sort of tone is expected/acceptable in letters-to-the-editor for this newspaper). I'm not sure that "placebo effect" is the right phrase either. Maybe something else from the article, like "lateral thinking".

I stole the "limits to the placebo effect" line from BSM. He does do snarky rather well. Maybe it's completely unnecessary. Do I need a final sentence?

ETA

Perhaps mainstream physicians have less to learn from homoeopaths than the latter would like us to believe.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, sent. I'm not convinced these letters achieve a great deal, but it's always worth shoving the odd one in.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Bingo.

They've edited it slightly, including trimming the sentence Mojo suggested omitting, but overall I'm very pleased with how it appears.

Rolfe.

 

[AdinDraco]

Just clicked on the link. Congrats...

 

[Mojo]

Bingo.

I'll keep an eye out for the inevitable whining.

 

[Deetee]

Bingo.

They've edited it slightly, including trimming the sentence Mojo suggested omitting, but overall I'm very pleased with how it appears.

Rolfe.

Fantastic!
Rolfie you are a genius, as ever.

 

[Rolfe]

I think Linda deserves at least equal credit - they've left the part derived from her suggestion uncut, and I think it's the real killer point.

Rolfe.

 

[The Gonif]

Hey, good job! And a very well written rebuttal, too. Kudos to you all for putting in the time and energy to do something like this.

 

[Mojo]

Dr. Tom Dolphin, deputy director of the BMA's junior doctor's committee, provoked raucous laughter by referring to homeopathy as witchcraft.

http://www.ncahf.org/digest10/10-21.html