NHS funding of homeopathy

[Deetee]

Good for you, you tenacious little fellow. Now please explain why the fact that this episode comes from the mid 19th Century matters.

I would have thought this would be obvious. The thread is based upon the role of homeopathy within the modern day National Health Service. Now I know homeopathy hasn't advanced one iota over the last 150 years, but medicine has.
By your logic it would be fine for me to make the bald assertion that "Medical treatment for syphilis is ineffective". (Well it was 100 years ago, so my claim is correct.)

If we wish the discussion to be based on assertions framed as suggestions of possibilities then we might as well rename the JREF skeptics forum as the Hpathy forum

Would you accept that painkiller addiction is a iatrogenic disease as described above? If so here is one testimonial to the use of a homeopathic remedy

http://www.drugs.com/forum/111089-post570.html
No it’s not a study that proves that this is generally the case.

True, it's not. In fact the case described says this:

Exercising like walking and bike riding along with upper body stretches helped a lot .Drinking a least 64 ozs will help rid your body of toxins .Vitamins , minerals ,lots of fruits and veggies helped me feel better .Hot showers and baths help with the restless legs and crawling skin .Hot herb tea will help relax you .I found a great homeopathic natural sleep aid which worked better than ambien .You can find it at some health food stores or on the net .It is called coffea cruda 30 .Cutting way down on processed food white sugar and white flour putss less toxins in your body to begin with..Massage was the trick to my success . It helped with my painful muscles and over all body aches

So I guess, based on this testimonial you would be perfectly happy to concur with the following statements:

"Drinking water to rid your body of toxins may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Vitamins, minerals and lots of fruit and veggies may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Hot showers and baths may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Hot herb tea may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Cutting way down on processed food white sugar and white flour may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Massage may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

I'm glad you brought up the following link as "another example of homeopathy being used as part of a treatment of pain killer addiction": http://www.treatmentforaddiction.com/article.cfm/id/180675
It adds dozens of other entirely anecdotal remedies to the above list.
Hopefully people will read it and weep. You think it reasonable to consider that these things may help. Well I think it is reasonable to expect to be shown evidence that they do help. Do you, or does Phytotherapist have any?

People make many claims on this board. It is usual to make claims that have some general applicability and which are based upon a reasonable amount of evidence.
We cannot uncritically accept every unmerited assertion framed as a suggestion of a possibility without challenge. One could make endless claims that "X may be useful in situation Z", counting on your reliance on the power of the single anecdote and your faith in the applicability of assertions, suggestions and possibilities. That way madness lies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No but fingers crossed - ...

Amazing how this stuff is ingrained in our culture.

 

[Darat]

I regard it as a figure of speech rather than any actual statement of belief - along the lines of say "I changed my mind".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From post #14

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/ne...should charge for some operations'/article.do
ETA - The link works if you copy and paste it.

Link fixed, no copy paste needed.

Sorry, there I go again not noticing the current discussion is 4 pages in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I regard it as a figure of speech rather than any actual statement of belief - along the lines of say "I changed my mind".

It's definitely is a figure of speech. My atheist self says 'Jesus' and 'Good God' all the time. I didn't mean to imply you still held remnants of belief there. I just meant it's interesting how much of this stuff permeates our culture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
We cannot uncritically accept every unmerited assertion framed as a suggestion of a possibility without challenge. One could make endless claims that "X may be useful in situation Z", counting on your reliance on the power of the single anecdote and your faith in the applicability of assertions, suggestions and possibilities. That way madness lies.

And how many people need to believe in something in order to have 'everyone' pay for it for the believers? Is one lunatic enough? How about one religious sect? A cult of believers?

Did someone write down this policy somewhere in the operating procedures of the NHS? "If X number of people believe, the NHS will provide the services?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And how many people need to believe in something in order to have 'everyone' pay for it for the believers? Is one lunatic enough? How about one religious sect? A cult of believers?

Did someone write down this policy somewhere in the operating procedures of the NHS? "If X number of people believe, the NHS will provide the services?

This is the new drive in the NHS; to "personalise" the service people receive when they use it. I think the next big one is going to be applying the principles of Feng shui to the wards.

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/26jan01/article11.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=c1350d33eaf2726934ca4fb95cccaf46

 

[Mojo]

So I guess, based on this testimonial you would be perfectly happy to concur with the following statements:

"Drinking water to rid your body of toxins may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Vitamins, minerals and lots of fruit and veggies may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Hot showers and baths may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Hot herb tea may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Cutting way down on processed food white sugar and white flour may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Massage may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses"

"Beer may be very useful in weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses."

I'm quite prepared to test this, if I ever turn out to be taking "unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses."

 

[tkingdoll]

Did someone write down this policy somewhere in the operating procedures of the NHS? "If X number of people believe, the NHS will provide the services?

Why not? Isn't number of believers one of the factors taken into account when the govt. decides what religions can be officially recognised (and thereby enjoy the healthy tax breaks they so generously bestow)?

It might as well be based on number of believers as anything else, given that there isn't anything else to base it on. Letting fringe opinion dictate what medicine should be funded is as daft as letting popular opinion dictate it. Of course only informed opinion and medical consensus should dictate it but politicians aren't catering to doctors, they're catering to both the masses and any minority prepared to yell a bit.

 

[Ocelot]

Deetee,

You asked for evidence of a faily innocuous stetement. I have helped out by providing such evidence. It's your right to dispute it, almost anything can be disputed. I contest however that you're wasting effort with your pyhonist brand of ultra skepticism on essentially the wrong question.

There IS a possibility that placebo's have a positive role to play in some circumstances. You have failed to add any evidence that this is not the case merely poo pooed the examples I've provided.

The more important question is whether the possible benefits of placebos outweigh the real disadvantages of an industry that finds it in it's best interests to attack science and evidence.

 

[Deetee]

There IS a possibility that placebo's have a positive role to play in some circumstances. You have failed to add any evidence that this is not the case

Therein lies the problem. I cannot be expected to prove a negative.

Phytotherapist said homeopathy may be "very useful" in the situation of "weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses". This is the positive claim and I expected to see that it had some evidential basis.

I would like to see recent published evidence that it's benefit is clearly documented and is of genuine clinical significance (i.e. "very useful"). Anecdotal stories do not count. The specific scenario in which it was claimed homeopathy may help was in weaning people off unnecessary and dangerous drugs that had caused illness in themselves. So specific examples would be nice. And remember, if a drug is causing side effects, and is withdrawn, pople would be expected to get better/feel better anyway. What we have to see evidence of is that homeopathy has a specific beneficial effect in this situation.

Phytotherapist made a general remark pronouncing the benefits of homeopathy where one is not warranted and where he has failed to produce evidence to support the claim.

I accept there is a possibility placebo (in the form of homeopathy) could help mitigate some medical conditions. I am quite prepared to accept evidence if it is presented to me, and accept that I may be wrong in disagreeing with him. (As one UK politician, when asked why his opinion had changed from the one he had expressed some years earlier, supposedly replied: "When the facts change, so do my opinions".)

 

[Ocelot]

Therein lies the problem. I cannot be expected to prove a negative.

Phytotherapist said homeopathy may be "very useful" in the situation of "weaning off people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs that cause iatrogenic diseases and iatrogenic neuroses". This is the positive claim and I expected to see that it had some evidential basis.

I would like to see recent published evidence that it's benefit is clearly documented and is of genuine clinical significance (i.e. "very useful"). Anecdotal stories do not count. The specific scenario in which it was claimed homeopathy may help was in weaning people off unnecessary and dangerous drugs that had caused illness in themselves. So specific examples would be nice. And remember, if a drug is causing side effects, and is withdrawn, pople would be expected to get better/feel better anyway. What we have to see evidence of is that homeopathy has a specific beneficial effect in this situation.

Phytotherapist made a general remark pronouncing the benefits of homeopathy where one is not warranted and where he has failed to produce evidence to support the claim.

I accept there is a possibility placebo (in the form of homeopathy) could help mitigate some medical conditions. I am quite prepared to accept evidence if it is presented to me, and accept that I may be wrong in disagreeing with him. (As one UK politician, when asked why his opinion had changed from the one he had expressed some years earlier, supposedly replied: "When the facts change, so do my opinions".)

Well I give up. You claim you'll change your mind when confronted with evidence but I've done that and all you've done is poo pooh the evidence.

You claim that the clear data from the cholera epidemic of iatrogenic complications are irrelevent as medicine has moved on. And indeed it has however Iatrogensis is still arguably the third leading cause of death in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenic#Incidence_and_importance

Clearly had any of those 225,000 victims per year chosen placebo treatment rather than evidence based medicine then there's a possibility that the outcome would have been better.

I have given an example of a common iatrogeneric: disease pain killer addiction. Common sense dictates that homeopathy, which is a placebo cannot produce any physical addiction. Surely we see from here that the overprescription of pain killers whihc physicians acknowledge is a common error amongst their numbers is one example of wehre the homeopathic alternative is preferabe. It is not difficult to find direct evidence that some hypocondriacs exhibit drug seeking behaviour even when rewarded with "almost homeopathic quantities of opiates" It's no great stretch to see the possibility that homeopathy MAY help wean people off such drugs.

The case is proven at that point. However I go further and provide an example where homeopathy was used by soemone weaning themselves off pain killers drugs. I explained then why the anecdotal evidence was relevent. Only one example was required to puncture the contrary argument. Not only have I provided the seemingly obvious example of where homeopathy might be of benefit in weaning people from unnecessary and dangerous drugs I have shome by example that it does happen.

Not only is it obvious that a homeopathic pain killer are a preferable stubstitute to someone addicted to pain killers but I have demonstrated that it is not unheard of to attempt such a substitute.

However you dispute my argumnent as to that standards of evidence pretending that I'm asking you to prove a negative. Which is clearly not true. I'm merely asking you to cite evidence or reasoning that explain why you seem to believe that such cases are impossible. A possibility remains as possibility unitl it is logically shown to be impossible.

If somebody claims that it's possible that the caffeine in 30C solutions has a chemical effect, a simple demonstration of the molar limit of solution will demonstrate that this is impossible.

Clearly you will be satisfied with nothing less than a current study demonstrating the effectiveness of homeopathy in combatting iatrogeneric conditions.

I'm duboius as to whether such a study exists, Isn't it rather stating the obvious? What would they use a control when testing a placebo? If something is recognised as an Iatrogenic conditions than treatment regimes change so such a study would by definition be looking at out of date information. However since I have no subscription to medical journals I am not able to supply the evidence of such a standard as you demand.

So you win. Well done. I hope you can enjoy your victory. I look forward to reading about your forthcoming adventures where you refuse to accept any evidence that maybe sheep can't roller skate or that farts might smell bad.

 

[Rolfe]

Ocelot, I think you're trying to prove something other than the original claim. Which involved using homoeopathy to "wean off" treatment that was useless or harmful. This is not what you're discussing.

If a treatment is shown to be useless or harmful, it is stopped. You have shown no evidence at all that introducing sugar pills and a pack of lies helps in any way with this process.

Rolfe.

 

[Ocelot]

Ocelot, I think you're trying to prove something other than the original claim. Which involved using homoeopathy to "wean off" treatment that was useless or harmful. This is not what you're discussing.

If a treatment is shown to be useless or harmful, it is stopped. You have shown no evidence at all that introducing sugar pills and a pack of lies helps in any way with this process.

Rolfe.

Actually the orginal statment was that it might help. Also I wish iatrogenesis was so clear cut.

My first suggestion was not a direct answer to DeeTee's request for evidence but a illustrative response. I chose to ingnore that when DeeTee alleged it was invalid because the iatrogenic practices regarding cholera had now ceased. This was daft In view of the fact that as you say when treatment is shown to be harmful it is stopped.

So daft it was in greater need of the slapdown than the fact that I wasn't ever directly addressing the claim. I'm no medical expert but it seems to me that Phyto's initial claim was so blindingly obvious that it required no evidence.

"When treatement is harmful it should be stopped"

Agreed.

The suggestion appears to be that the following might work..

"When patients demand treatment that would be harmful and there is no substitute that would be benficial then instead substutute with treatment that is useless."

So I considered an example of pain killer addicts using placebos including homeopathy as part of their recovery.

Now tell me what greater evidence is possible? A double blind trial where some pain killer addicts are given homeopathy as a placebo and others are given a placebo as a placebo and see if the placebo effect is more powerful than the placebo effect in fighting withdrawal?

Surely this the power of the placebo effect doesn't require proof here where it is cited as the reason for homeopathy's limited reported sucess. Surely the effects of placebos on pain are well docuement.

I suppose there could be a study where people undergoing pain killer withdrawal were given a placebo and others had no intervention. We could then not only prove that the placebo effect existed (covering old ground) but proove that it had an effect on drug withdrawal. Yet this demand for proof of the placebo effect comes from people who I doubt would flinch from attributing apparently sucessful studies on alternative drug withdrawal aids to the placebo effect.

I can't find details of such a study right now. I'm just astonished not that I'm being asked if they exist but who it is doing the asking.

 

[fls]

Some points about iatrogenic problems and homeopathy as an effective placebo....

You are assuming that iatrogenic death and disability are something to be avoided, but they are not. I know this seems crazy so I will explain. You need to ask, "how could I have prevented this iatrogenic death and what would the consequences be?" For example, the largest cause, by far, of iatrogenic problems is adverse drug events. And within that category, the use of blood thinners accounts for a large portion. It may be that the only way to prevent a specific death from the use of a blood thinner would be to avoid the use of blood thinners in general. And the consequences of avoiding blood thinners in general would be increased death and disability among those people whose use of the blood thinner prevented death and disability. So it may be that in order to prevent one death from blood thinners, ten people would die who otherwise would not. Most people would find this trade-off unacceptable, so we have to accept that iatrogenic problems cannot and should not be entirely avoided.

Even the death from an iatrogenic cause in an individual may not be preventable in that individual; it would just be from a different cause. An example of this would be the death from chemotherapy in an individual who would have otherwise died from their cancer. Only a small portion of iatrogenic deaths are found to be preventable (i.e. preventable in that particular individual)

A large portion of medical research, and the activities of physicians and hospitals, are directed at finding ways minimize iatrogenic problems. Examples - identifying those people who are more likely to have a complication, identifying those people most likely to benefit from a treatment, investigating errors, implementing programs that significantly impact errors (such as computerized prescribing), standardized monitoring, etc. We have to accept that some consequences of medical care are not preventable, but that to withhold medical care in general would lead to far more devastating consequences. If those 225,000 victims chose placebo instead, then the death toll would be far higher, and would still include most of those 225,000.

As to homeopathy....the question as to whether or not homeopathy is an effective placebo is not answered with a single example. Very little of the placebo effect depends upon receiving a treatment. The bulk of the effect is due to regression to the mean, which occurs regardless of whether or not a pill is taken. All you are really talking about with the use of homeopathy as a placebo, is how well subjective perceptions are influenced by the process and how much of this is specific to homeopathy. I would guess that the process is more effective that simply prescribing a sugar pill - that the attention provided during the consultation process provides additional benefit. But none of that is specific to homeopathy, and without a direct comparison, you cannot conclude that homeopathy does it better than evidence-based medicine.

Linda

 

[Professor Yaffle]

fls - I will be linking to you above answer every time I encounter some idiot coming out with the "allopathy kills x number of people every year" argument. If thats ok with you.*

*Hard cheese if it is not okay, as I have already done so once.

 

[fls]

fls - I will be linking to you above answer every time I encounter some idiot coming out with the "allopathy kills x number of people every year" argument. If thats ok with you.*

*Hard cheese if it is not okay, as I have already done so once.

Of course. I'm sick of hearing that one, too.

Linda

 

[Phytotherapist]

I'm also sick of hearing people saying that "Allopathy kills....". I prescribed for decades "allopathic" medicines and I never hurt or killed anybody. I'm also sick of hearing that "doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US" because it is misleading and false. It would be like saying that "Italians are mafiosi" (meaning all Italians). Insulting people and categorizing them leads nowhere. I also totally disagree calling people with different opinions "idiots". I would call them ignorant, meaning that they ignore the facts or some other non insulting terminology.

In the current year I had 1,502 new patients: 749 of them came to see me directly and the rest came to me after visiting other doctors. The ratio is aproximatly 50%-50% ( 15 years ago was 5%-95% meaning that only five percent came to me withouth seeing other doctors). I will only consider people that came to me with health problems from other doctors. 684 of them had "iatrogenic" problems not only because many doctors unnecessarily overprescribe but also because they made premature diagnoses. This is because many of them underestimate the value of Interrogation and Case History e.g. Last Friday a lady came to me with a strong "headache" lasting 5 months. Before coming to me she visited six doctors and a specialized hospital unit for headaches to no avail. She was desperate and losing hope. I spent 40 minutes "interrogating" her and I had to postpone the physical examination today. 6 months ago she started taking regularly 3 cups of mint tea a day. Friday I told her to stop taking the tea because that may have been the cause of her headache but she refused because, in her opinion, that wasn't the cause. Then I said: OK, I have an Homeopathic remedy that will solve your problem but Homeopathy doesnt work if you take mint, so I convinced her to give-up mint tea. Today she came to me very happy telling me that her headache disappeared the day after she came to me. I had big problems explaining to her that her headache was cured not by Homeopathy but by simply stopping taking mint tea. I had many thousands of similiar stories with people taking wrong drugs, herbs or food. Homeopathy that has no pharmacologically active molecules (and therefore has no therapeuthic action but also no side effects) helped me in weaning off thousands of patients from drugs, herbs, junk food, cigarette smoking etc. I agree that driking adequate amounts of water has also a therapeutic action and and this is why I use Homeopathic liquid remedies to persuade many patients to drink more water e.g. pour 20 drops of Sepia 12 CH in 1.5-2 L of water and drink it during the day, and it works. I'm aware of the facts that other things may be useful to wean off people from unnessessary drugs but I dont find them in the forms of tablets, liquids etc. and therefore it would be very difficult for me to substitute say, Moduretic tab with a "hot bath" or similiar. Deetee, can you tell me which Pharma pays you 6 figures to post on this tread?

This is why I say that Homeopathy is very useful in the hands of experienced doctors in the context of the proper Conventional Medicine but can also be very dangerous if used instead of evidence-based (I dislike this word) Medicine.

 

[Mojo]

I'm also sick of hearing people saying that "Allopathy kills....". I prescribed for decades "allopathic" medicines and I never hurt or killed anybody. I'm also sick of hearing that "doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US" because it is misleading and false. It would be like saying that "Italians are mafiosi" (meaning all Italians). Insulting people and categorizing them leads nowhere. I also totally disagree calling people with different opinions "idiots". I would call them ignorant, meaning that they ignore the facts or some other non insulting terminology.

In the current year I had 1,502 new patients: 749 of them came to see me directly and the rest came to me after visiting other doctors. The ratio is aproximatly 50%-50% ( 15 years ago was 5%-95% meaning that only five percent came to me withouth seeing other doctors). I will only consider people that came to me with health problems from other doctors. 684 of them had "iatrogenic" problems not only because many doctors unnecessarily overprescribe but also because they made premature diagnoses.

Do you see the contradiction between these two paragraphs? First you say that you object to this sort of "misleading and false" characterisation of doctors, and then you claim that almost 91% (684 out of 753) of the patients who had visited other doctors had suffered "iatrogenic problems" because the doctors had mistreated or misdiagnosed them.

 

[Deetee]

Deetee, can you tell me which Pharma pays you 6 figures to post on this tread?

You are confusing me with Linda (fls). I usually freelance, but one company (Glaxpoo-Pfizzer) gives me a variable rate, depending on pharmaceutical returns from local pharmacies according to a predetermined formula - I get $500 for each 5% increase in sales within the week following any promotional posting.