NHS funding of homeopathy

Good grief, but Lulu has learned an awful lot of impressive words, and makes maximum use of them, without understanding any of them. I will be surprised if the PCT got more than halfway without falling asleep.

But wait! I suddenly realise that I have a full blown college of homeopathy right here in my home city! Well alright then, half blown - they run their courses in the Red Lion. Methinks there is potential for some fun here...........
 
I wonder how the homeopaths will respond to this one:

April 23, 2008

Homeopathy - what a waste of time​

Research clearly suggests that this alternative therapy doesn't work except as a placebo

Simon Singh


On Saturday night, perhaps for the first time in history, there was a round of applause at the announcement of a hospital closure. I was speaking at a seminar organised by Skeptics in the Pub, and I had just explained that the Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital is due to close next year because of a huge drop in the number of referrals.

Nobody in the audience was belittling the suffering of those patients who would be deprived of homoeopathic treatment, but instead they were endorsing the fact that the money saved would be spent on more effective treatments.

More…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3798760.ece
 
I wonder how the homeopaths will respond to this one:

Some replies could be:

You are reducing choice for the patient.

Placebos are good.

This will reduce my income.

You skeptics are being beastly to me.
 
Jerome Whitney, physics teacher of 25 years standing, has gone for the "there are so positive studies, and you're not using real science" approach. I wonder if he's any relation to Jerome Whitney, homoeopath.

See also here (in view of Jerome's comments, it is a bit unfortunate for him that one of the trials Ernst mentioned in the article was in fact of individualised homoeopathy for childhood asthma).
 
Well, here’s how the Faculty of Homeopathy has responded:

The Rise and Rise of Homeopathy

Statement from the Faculty of Homeopathy in response to Trick or Treatment by Simon Singh & Edzard Ernst

Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst have rehashed their well-known arguments against complementary medicine in order to enhance sales of their forthcoming book “Trick or Treatment”, by damning the science and ignoring the patients. They conclude that homeopathy does not work, having selected trials on paper, but they ignore evidence from the real world – the truth is patients get better with homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy has never been so popular; currently 15% of the population of Britain trust it(1) and over 30 million Europeans use it.

There are over 100 controlled trials of homeopathy, a tiny minority of which are negative – hardly the lack of data they claim(2,3). In 2005, the largest outcome study of homeopathic treatment reported that 70% of 6,500 follow-up patients, experienced improvement in their health. Eczema, asthma, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis, depression and chronic fatigue syndrome – difficult chronic problems suffered by many people – all improved.(4)

Despite the lack of funding for homeopathy research, there is a healthy research culture. The British Homeopathic Association and the Faculty of Homeopathy are taking forward a number of research initiatives in the medical and dental professions, which will help give the public and healthcare purchasers the evidence they need in order to continue accessing homeopathy for a wide range of conditions.

Dr Sara Eames, President of the Faculty of Homeopathy, said, “The health service is increasingly patient-focused, yet the evidence presented by Singh and Ernst is more about statistics than people. If you consider the evidence from outcome studies, there can be no doubt that homeopathy is a safe and effective way of helping many people. I have worked as a GP but now choose to use homeopathy to help patients, many of whom have not responded to other treatments”.

Ends/....

References:

(1) Global TGI Barometer, January 2008; Issue 33.
(2) Mathie RT. The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 84-91.
(3) The Research Evidence Base for Homeopathy. Faculty of Homeopathy, 2007. http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/pdf/Summaryofresearchevidence.pdf
(4) Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6 year university hospital outpatient observational study. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2005; 11: 793-798.

Notes:

Members of the Faculty of Homeopathy are statutorily regulated health professionals who integrate homeopathy into their practice. They have conventional medical qualifications and additional postgraduate training in homeopathy. They are required to have current registration with their statutory body – in the case of doctors, with the GMC – and to undergo the same revalidation processes as their medical colleagues. They are able to prescribe both conventional and homeopathic medicine in the best interests - and with the full, informed consent - of their patients.

Contact details:

Bob Leckridge 0141 211 1600 (mob:07725613474)

Sally Penrose 0870 444 3949 (mob;07533913589)


http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticles/articles/000001/000152.htm

For those who have never heard of Bob Leckridge, see here:
http://heroesnotzombies.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/response-to-another-attack-on-homeopathy/
 
Last edited:
There are over 100 controlled trials of homeopathy, a tiny minority of which are negative

Homeopaths often state things like this. Which controlled trials in particular are they referring to? I've never come across a properly controlled trial paper which shows it does work.
 
The Faculty are supposed to be medically qualified (and registered). It is rather worrying that people who are allowed to practise as doctors etc. are unable to see the problem with the Spence study.
 
Blue Wode - I've read Mathie's `Research Evidence Base for Homeopathy' and it totally ignores the small matter of trial quality. I have `Trick or Treatment' here in front of me, and everyone should understand that it's not in any way a selective presentation of the evidence. It systematically reviews all the evidence and presents conclusions based on the highest quality studies. What the homeopaths really don't like is having their crap studies rejected.
 
I have the book in front of me as well, Asolepius. :)

I have always agreed with the sceptics that homeopathy is basically nonsense. In fact, I think it was very generous of Prof. Ernst and Simon Singh to mention what Dylan Evans, author of Placebo, suggested regarding what homeopathic remedies should carry on their labels:

Homeopathy

Warning: This product is a placebo. It will work only if you believe in homeopathy, and only for certain conditions such as pain and depression. Even then, it is not likely to be as powerful as orthodox drugs. You may get fewer side-effects from this treatment than from a drug, but you will probably also get less benefit.”

(Page 284)
 
Last edited:
My word. These guys need a serious refresher course in logic. That whole response is a waffling argumentum ad populum.
 
There are over 100 controlled trials of homeopathy

In 200 years they've managed 100 trials? And we're supposed to be impressed by this? What would they say about real medicine if there were only 100 trials ever conducted on it? The more I hear homeopaths argue, the more I wonder how anything that debunks itself so thouroughly manages to be so popular.
 
There are over 100 controlled trials of homeopathy, a tiny minority of which are negative...

Yet the very references they use for that statement say that the majority of controlled trials of homeopathy show no difference from placebo. When they say "negative" what they really mean are trials that show homeopathy is worse than placebo (something which is bound to happen by chance a tiny minority of the time). The majority of trials are what they call 'inconclusive' which means they failed to find a difference between placebo and homeopathy. And even the so-called 'positive' trials are mostly negative - that is there were no differences found in the main outcome measures. They claim a positive effect by trolling through the data until they find one clinical difference between the two groups and proclaiming that as an effect of the homeopathic remedy. The only trials that can truly be said to be positive to the standards used for some conventional pharmaceuticals (that don't depend upon trolling and gross manipulation of the results after the fact) are the oscillococcium/influenza studies. And the best they show is that the duration of the symptoms are shortened by a few hours (hence my comment that entire practice of homeopathy is equivalent to "take two aspirin and call me in the morning").

Either the people making these claims have never read their own references, or they are prepared to lie through their teeth. Neither option recommends them.

Linda
 
The Queen Mother???


Well no doubt some alt-medders will credit homeopathy with helping her to reach 104 before her demise. Indeed, some people believe that homeopathy continues to be beneficial in the hereafter…

I beieve that a homeopathically prescribed drug works even after the patient’s death. I have my own reasons to believe that way. Many symptoms may reappear but still the drug goes on working.

http://www.mynaturalhealthcare.com/altmed/homeopathy/Homeopaths-Are-No-Better-Than-Allopaths.htm


Now all we need is a psychic.


As for Prince Phillip, obviously 'Shonky' hasn’t realised that homeopathy must have failed him earlier this month when he had to be admitted to King Edward VII's Hospital in London for a few days for "assessment and treatment for a chest infection".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7330697.stm

Of course, it’s unlikely that Phillip’s recent encounter with scientific medicine will cause him to think more critically about not only homeopathy, but also about some of his other interests…
FLYING SAUCER REVIEW, the international journal established in 1955, is a quarterly magazine printed by quality litho on fine art paper, and with overseas governments and air force libraries as long-term subscribers and read by Prince Philip since the 1950s, FSR is recognised as the leading international organ in the world on the subject.

http://www.fsr.org.uk/


:rolleyes:
 
Well no doubt some alt-medders will credit homeopathy with helping her to reach 104 before her demise. Indeed, some people believe that homeopathy continues to be beneficial in the hereafter…

Can anyone here substantiate a story I'd been told that the late QM dabbled with alt. med. to such a serious degree that she attempted to treat some symptoms for sufficient time before colon cancer was eventually diagnosed by real doctors that she required a permanent a colostomy and had a bag for the rest of her life? The definite implication was that intervention was delayed by the alt med dabbling resulting in an invasiveness of treatment that could have been avoided.
 
So what happens to the 'must work because it's so popular' argument?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom