NHS funding of homeopathy

[Asolepius]

He's not the only one: Rustum Roy seems to think that RCTs aren't proper science; see the launch announcement for his new journal.

I'm not sure if these people don't realise what they are saying, or that they do and don't care. They seem to think that the RCT is a special construct of orthodox medicine. Of course it isn't, it's what we use to test all scientific hypotheses. If they reject the RCT, they throw the baby out with the bath water. I wish I had a quid for every time I have had to say this, but not once has any sCAMmer answered it.

 

[Acleron]

It all makes gruesome sense.

Axiom:- Homeopathy works

Contradiction:- Statistical analysis shows that homeopathy is no different from placebo
Conclusion:- Statistics don't work

Contradiction:- RCT shows homeopathy to be no different than placebo
Conclusion:- RCT doesn't work

On a slightly different vein. Ullman over in Wiki has just produced this reference as an authoritative rebuttal of Shang's meta-study. It includes the following.

Homeopathy, perhaps more than any other discipline evokes such intense reactions in antagonists and protagonists alike. Simply put, the reason is that the homoeopathic principle so fundamentally challenges the majority-held prevailing view of nature and of the biomolecular paradigm.

So now let's throw out the whole of science.

I'm saving this ref for the next time Ullman says 'Homeopaths do proper science'.

 

[Asolepius]

Ullman as usual confuses opinion with evidence. It's not the majority held view, it's the overwhelming body of evidence. The problem is that he and his fellows are encouraged by the lay media, which can't tell the difference between facts and opinion.

 

[Asolepius]

On a slightly different vein. Ullman over in Wiki has just produced this reference as an authoritative rebuttal of Shang's meta-study.

Something wrong - I can't access that page, although I have cookies set to accept.

ETA - strange, I know that site and have not had problems before.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It all makes gruesome sense.

Axiom:- Homeopathy works

Contradiction:- Statistical analysis shows that homeopathy is no different from placebo
Conclusion:- Statistics don't work

Contradiction:- RCT shows homeopathy to be no different than placebo
Conclusion:- RCT doesn't work

On a slightly different vein. Ullman over in Wiki has just produced this reference as an authoritative rebuttal of Shang's meta-study. It includes the following.



So now let's throw out the whole of science.

I'm saving this ref for the next time Ullman says 'Homeopaths do proper science'.

"There can be little doubt that the next 250 years will not
only evidence explanatory mechanisms for homeopathy as we
know it now, but in addition to dispensing with some aspects
of theory or practice that will be found genuinely to be spurious
or wanting, there will nevertheless be brought to the fore
other mechanisms and modalities that we will be able to use
sustainably and responsibly in the future."

But, we have have perfectly good explanatory mechanisms for homeopathy: wishful thinking, regression to the mean, placebo effect and lying. The only spurious part of homeopathic practice is the idea that their sugar pills have specific therapeutic benefit. All they need to do is accept this simple fact and they can rejoin the rational world.

Problem sorted.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

On a slightly different vein. Ullman over in Wiki...

Link to that Wiki, please.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Is this it?

 

[Acleron]

Yes, that's it. It's ref [10].

Asolepius, it's a pdf document, I've a copy if that makes it easier for you.

 

[Acleron]

Dana is really rocking, his latest is

Homeopathy does not break any laws of physics; it extends our understanding of it

 

[Asolepius]

On a slightly different vein. Ullman over in Wiki has just produced this reference as an authoritative rebuttal of Shang's meta-study.

Found it at last. A rebuttal? Certainly not. It hardly says anything about Shang et al, while trotting out the usual dog and pony show of homeopathy's canards (how's that for mixing zoological metaphors?).

 

[Acleron]

Agreed but rabbits and lizards could be in there too.

The interesting part of this piece is that the authors deny that homeopathy has anything to do with science. So is this 'authoritative' editorial a denial of Shang AND showing that homeopathy is pseudoscience, or not denying Shang and thus showing that homeopathy is no better than placebo.

 

[fls]

Is reference to Kuhn ever followed by anything plausible anymore?

Linda

 

[Asolepius]

Well the homeopaths do love to pillory Shang et al because the analysis wasn't perfect, so they see it as a soft target. But they forget (or ignore) the other 12 or so systematic reviews and meta-analyses that showed the same thing. Now usually when we get one such analysis it's considered pretty much definitive, but here we have over a dozen. 13 nails in the coffin.

 

[Asolepius]

I see from a comment on the Pulse Today article that the homeopaths are fighting back:

As one of the two consultants working at the Tunbridge Wells Hospital I am very much aware of the benefits homeopathic treatments can offer for patients who had unsatisfactory outcome from conventional treatments.

Our outcome survey shows we help 77% of these patients; 50% are moderately to much better. Late December 2007 West Kent PCT rescinded its decision to stop funding Homeopathy at the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital. This was largely due to legal pressure from patients and will ensure funding at least until September 08 but probably longer.

We hope to use this time constructively to find a compromise ensuring long term funding in this area for this popular, very safe and seemingly effective therapy. With time, much more research funding and within the NHS we should be in a good position to help establish its evidence base.

He seems to think the NHS will thow good money after bad. Well I suppose they might - they keep on doing it for IT systems. I think his wording really means

As one of the two consultants working at the Tunbridge Wells Hospital I am very much aware of the salary I was being paid.....

 

[Deetee]

Hopefully not so much a fightback as the final death throes.

So sad to see comments from medical doctors with so little grasp of reality and such lack of objectivity.

ETA - Nice one from the vet pointing out the duplication (plagiarisation?) from Dr Eames.

ETA again:
Look out for the other homeopathy debate which includes comments from Ernst.

 

[Dragon]

I see from a comment on the Pulse Today article that the homeopaths are fighting back:

As one of the two consultants working at the Tunbridge Wells Hospital I am very much aware of the benefits homeopathic treatments can offer for patients who had unsatisfactory outcome from conventional treatments.

Our outcome survey shows we help 77% of these patients; 50% are moderately to much better. Late December 2007 West Kent PCT rescinded its decision to stop funding Homeopathy at the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital. This was largely due to legal pressure from patients and will ensure funding at least until September 08 but probably longer.

We hope to use this time constructively to find a compromise ensuring long term funding in this area for this popular, very safe and seemingly effective therapy. With time, much more research funding and within the NHS we should be in a good position to help establish its evidence base.

He seems to think the NHS will thow good money after bad. Well I suppose they might - they keep on doing it for IT systems. I think his wording really means

As one of the two consultants working at the Tunbridge Wells Hospital I am very much aware of the salary I was being paid.....

(My bold) Once again homoeopathy appears to depend on the "failure" of conventional medicine. How can someone be intelligent enough to be a consultant and still spout this illogical crapola??
I really am baffled by these people.

eta I take it that the survey he refers to was basically one of their "customer satisfaction" jobs which they like to present as evidence of efficacy.
Yet more bafflement - what is wrong with these people?

 

[Rolfe]

Nice to see some JREF forum members getting out from time to time!

Well done guys.

Rolfe.

 

[Blue Wode]

A small update:

The Government plans to ask NICE to compare the cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies with other treatments, a health minister revealed this week.

The comments came after a Pulse investigation – showing over a fifth of PCTs have cancelled or reduced homeopathy contracts since 2006 – was discussed by MPs in a debate in about homeopathy provision in the UK.

More…
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk:80/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4117180&c=2

About time.

 

[Rolfe]

It'll be interesting to find out what they class as "effectiveness" though. Patients answering, "well, maybe" when their personal therapist asks them, at a time of the therapist's own choosing, whether perhaps they feel a little better, shouldn't count. But probably will.

Rolfe.

 

[Deetee]

It'll be interesting to find out what they class as "effectiveness" though. Patients answering, "well, maybe" when their personal therapist asks them, at a time of the therapist's own choosing, whether perhaps they feel a little better, shouldn't count. But probably will.

Rolfe.

Agreed. The last thing we want is more guff like the Bristol Homeopathy survey being taken as prima facie evidence of effectiveness.

Ernst raises a good point. There are very few comparative trials of CAM against orthodox drugs/therapies. CAM therapy "successes" in the past have been trumpeted on the basis of infrequent, tiny and clinically irrelevant differences in outcome between themselves and placebo/no therapy (eg the study of oscillococcinum for flu where it "shortened" the duration of symptoms by sjust a few hours).

If comparisons are made properly in illnesses that are of medical relevance, then CAM is likely to come up way short. But this is unlikely to ever happen - you can't compare any disease for which effective therapy already exists with an alternative remedy - that would be completely unethical. Studies would have to be confined to looking at conditions which are pretty trivial, or for which we already know orthodox therapies are next to useless - e.g. anti-inflammatory drugs for knee arthritis, pain killers for chronic lumbar backache and so on.
Still, any comparison is to be welcomed.