Latest NHS pearls of woo wisdom

[Asolepius]

I picked this up from the previous thread on NHS funding of homeopathy, and thought it important enough to start a new one. Some of us have had a few battles with various public sector health sites, and now the NHS has surpassed itself with NHS Choices. Here is what it says about homeopathy. It seems to me that the government is reacting to criticism of CAM by redoubling its efforts to support it, whatever the science may say. I wonder what's going on?

 

[Almo]

That page doesn't "support" homeopathy. It looks like it was written by someone who knows it doesn't work. Note all the uses of the word "claim" in it.

 

[fingersmith]

I'm not sure I see the problem here either, it states in the Afterwards tab that it is clinically unproven.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the problem is a NHS site expressing an equivocal point of view on homoeopathy.

Why are they presenting both sides of the argument as if they're equally valid?

How about putting a warning on the site informing readers to always consult a qualified medical doctor before going to a homoeopath, who likely will not be able to diagnose a serious medical condition?

Also, the NHS is a finite resource. If some people want to spend their money on sugar pills and water while having a nice long chat about their aliments, good luck to them. But expecting the state to pay for it when there is no proof of efficacy? Come on!

 

[Blue Wode]

Ivor makes a good point. That NHS page isn’t all it might seem. For example, in its ‘useful links’ section it has a link to the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), which in turn has a link in its news section to the following “important new provings”:

Aspartame
Chlamydia
Electricity (2 provings)
Mobile phone radiation
Nitrogen
Plastic wrap (2 provings)

http://www.a-r-h.org/news.htm

Also, the ARH's links page promotes woo outfits such as HRH’s Foundation for Integrated Health, and Lynn McTaggart’s ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’…
http://www.a-r-h.org/links.htm

Really reliable information for your average NHS patient. Not.

 

[fingersmith]

Ivor does make a good point, but I think it's for a different argument. I'm sure the general consensus here is that homeopathy shouldn't be available on the NHS, but while it is, you can hardly expect them to slate it on their websites can you?

 

[Blue Wode]

I'm sure the general consensus here is that homeopathy shouldn't be available on the NHS, but while it is, you can hardly expect them to slate it on their websites can you?

Then why would there be a section dedicated to homeopathy and not to a CAM therapy like chiropractic? After all, a limited amount of chiropractic treatment is available on the NHS (and probably a greater amount than the current homeopathy provision).

I think Asolepius is right to question what’s going on.

 

[Asolepius]

I'm not sure I see the problem here either, it states in the Afterwards tab that it is clinically unproven.

Oh come one, all the links are to partisan homeopathy sites. There is not a single one to any sources of clinical trials on homeopathy. These would be extremely easy to find - Bandolier, Cochrane - and that's without considering very well respected sceptical sites such as EBM-First. Why on earth provide all this flannel about what to expect in a consultation etc, if the author doesn't believe it? Well, I am as usual going to challenge this. Watch this space.

 

[Asolepius]

Ivor does make a good point, but I think it's for a different argument. I'm sure the general consensus here is that homeopathy shouldn't be available on the NHS, but while it is, you can hardly expect them to slate it on their websites can you?

I think we can expect them to tell the truth.

 

[fingersmith]

I think we can expect them to tell the truth.

I quite agree, I'm not sure what lies you're referring to but they should not be telling any.

Oh come one, all the links are to partisan homeopathy sites. There is not a single one to any sources of clinical trials on homeopathy. ...(snip)... Why on earth provide all this flannel about what to expect in a consultation etc, if the author doesn't believe it? Well, I am as usual going to challenge this. Watch this space.

I agree I would class links to non pro-homeopathic sites and studies as useful. But as to why all the info is given about the consultation etc. well part of the remit of the site seems to be to give info on services available on the NHS. I would expect them to say what's involved in the process. Rectal Examination follows the same format, but without the part stating clinically unproven.