"Evidence Check: Homeopathy" in UK parliament

[Matt]

Granted. But something that's considered to contribute to the placebo effect, is "tender loving care". And it's sometimes lacking. There's no tick-box for it. It was very badly lacking at Stafford hospital. See http://www.channel4.com/news/article...claims/3677437 for some recent news. I feel unhappy at seeing "knight in shining armour" pundits promoting themselves by attacking easy targets like homeopathy and chiropractors, whilst steering clear of the big important stuff like the "400 patients who died needlessly in appalling conditions".

Best start a new thread on Stafford. It's appalling but not really relevant here.

[Farsight]

Your brush-off exactly demonstrates my point. That second example wasn't Stafford, that was Maidstone:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...og&sa=N&tab=wn

People lying in faeces, hundreds of deaths? But you don't know about it, and you're not interested? How typical. Because neither are those self-promoting pundits pretending to be knights in shining armour protecting the public interest. They couldn't give a toss. They only bang on about alternative medicine because they're trying to emulate Dawkins. They find a nice easy target that nobody's really interested in, and talk it up to promote themselves as champions of public good. And meanwhile they play down the patient-care placebo aspect, and they aren't interested in the scandalous patient-care failures like Stafford and Maidstone.

What planet are they on? And what planet are you on?

[tolman]

Granted. But something that's considered to contribute to the placebo effect, is "tender loving care". And it's sometimes lacking. There's no tick-box for it. It was very badly lacking at Stafford hospital.

As far as I understand, it still is.

Somewhere where consultants can't be bothered to turn up to meetings about high death rates, but where they do turn up when possible changes to their car parking are on the agenda isn't likely to change quickly even when problems are known about.

[chaggle]

Your brush-off exactly demonstrates my point. That second example wasn't Stafford, that was Maidstone:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...og&sa=N&tab=wn

People lying in faeces, hundreds of deaths? But you don't know about it, and you're not interested? How typical. Because neither are those self-promoting pundits pretending to be knights in shining armour protecting the public interest. They couldn't give a toss. They only bang on about alternative medicine because they're trying to emulate Dawkins. They find a nice easy target that nobody's really interested in, and talk it up to promote themselves as champions of public good. And meanwhile they play down the patient-care placebo aspect, and they aren't interested in the scandalous patient-care failures like Stafford and Maidstone.

What planet are they on? And what planet are you on?

Many people have a cause about which they care and which they promote - that doesn't mean that they don't know about or are insensitive about others nor that they "couldn't give a toss". I expect there are many equally deserving causes which even you don't do much about.

You think Alternative Medicine is an easy target which nobody's really interested in?

Do you think that the admittedly appalling situations at Stafford and Maidstone are somehow worse than some of the damage done by alternative medicine?

BTW I don't understand why you think that Matt doesn't know about and is not interested in Maidstone. All he did was quote your Stafford post.

[Matt]

Your brush-off exactly demonstrates my point. That second example wasn't Stafford, that was Maidstone:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...og&sa=N&tab=wn

People lying in faeces, hundreds of deaths? But you don't know about it, and you're not interested? How typical. Because neither are those self-promoting pundits pretending to be knights in shining armour protecting the public interest. They couldn't give a toss. They only bang on about alternative medicine because they're trying to emulate Dawkins. They find a nice easy target that nobody's really interested in, and talk it up to promote themselves as champions of public good. And meanwhile they play down the patient-care placebo aspect, and they aren't interested in the scandalous patient-care failures like Stafford and Maidstone.

What planet are they on? And what planet are you on?

Brush Off? I said it had no relevance to the UK Government's investigation into the evidence for homeopathy. That you've cited an example outside of Stafford makes no difference to that. I asked you to start a new thread on the subject as it was something I was happy to discuss. I hadn't yet read your submission about Maidstone at the time but I've no problem with a new thread that discusses that too.

[Mojo]

Placebo power is fine, but don't forget that with genuinely effective treatment you get the placebo effect as an added bonus too.

And homoeopathy doesn't appear to be any better at producing a placebo effect than conventional medicine. See Nuhn T, Lüdtke R, Geraedts M. Placebo effect sizes in homeopathic compared to conventional drugs - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Homeopathy. 2010 Jan;99(1):76-82.

CONCLUSIONS: Placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy did not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine.

Note also that this study looked specifically at studies of individualised, or "classical", homoeopathy, which with its long consultations (or perhaps you could say "tender loving care") is often said to maximise the placebo effect.

[Mojo]

I feel unhappy at seeing "knight in shining armour" pundits promoting themselves by attacking easy targets like homeopathy and chiropractors, whilst steering clear of the big important stuff like the "400 patients who died needlessly in appalling conditions".

There's a difference in category here. The deaths at Stafford were the result of things going wrong in the practice of medicine. Nobody pretends that medicine is perfect, but it at least has treatments that work. And loads of people, not least the entire medical establishment, are working to make standards as high as is possible. Homoeopathy, on the other hand, doesn't work however "well" it is practised.

[Mojo]

Hello, what's this? I'm against homeopathy on the NHS. And I'm against homeopathy anywhere else. But I do feel cynical about the way certain people attack "alternative medicine" to further their media careers whilst keeping quiet about things like Stafford. They don't give a fig about patient care, and they downplay the power of the placebo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14309026/

http://www.emedexpert.com/blog/gener...er-of-placebo/

I'd like to see more research on the placebo effect, because IMHO that's what complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is riding on.

Concern troll is concerned?

[chaggle]

Good article by Martin Robbins in The Guardian

Despite an election pledge to take an evidence-based approach to health, the Conservatives have appointed MPs Nadine Dorries and David Tredinnick to the Health Select Committee

Tredinnick is also a passionate advocate of homeopathy, and has filed a string of Early Day Motions in an effort to raise support for magical homeopathic remedies in parliament. EDMs are listed with their signatories on the internet, providing a handy guide to the identity of the more credulous and ill-informed MPs.

And lots of other good bits

[Pebble]

Your brush-off exactly demonstrates my point. That second example wasn't Stafford, that was Maidstone:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...og&sa=N&tab=wn

People lying in faeces, hundreds of deaths? But you don't know about it, and you're not interested? How typical. Because neither are those self-promoting pundits pretending to be knights in shining armour protecting the public interest. They couldn't give a toss. They only bang on about alternative medicine because they're trying to emulate Dawkins. They find a nice easy target that nobody's really interested in, and talk it up to promote themselves as champions of public good. And meanwhile they play down the patient-care placebo aspect, and they aren't interested in the scandalous patient-care failures like Stafford and Maidstone.

What planet are they on? And what planet are you on?

I think you may be confusing several issues here. As you say homeopathy is bogus, however, there are those who wish to promote such magical thinking and ensure, that like creationism in schools in the US, alternative nonsense gets a 'level playing field' as seen through their eyes. They however will not accept a level playing field that requires evidence to adopt therapies.

The examples of nosocomial infection and poor nursing & medical standards you highlight are important, but the solution there is to fix conventional medicine, not to conflate the two arguments.

No one here is trying to defend poor medical practice, but a position that one cannot criticise alternative medicine until you have cleaned up your own house or have a perfect alternative, is not sustainable. To make your position viable you would have to show that people were arguing that there is no need to worry about or address poor medical practice because it is better than the alternatives.

[chaggle]

Well that was a bloody waste of time and money then wasn't it? Why on earth do they bother?

Homeopathy will continue to be available on the NHS despite an influential health committee condemning it as medically unproven.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...al-report.html

The Commons Science and Technology Committee said there is no evidence the drugs are any more effective than a placebo - the same as taking a sugar or dummy pill and believing it works.

Last month, doctors attending the British Medical Association (BMA) annual conference backed this view, saying homeopathic remedies should be banned on the NHS and taken off pharmacy shelves where they are sold as medicines.

The treatment was described as "nonsense on stilts" and that patients would be better off buying bottled water.

Ms Milton said the Government welcomed the MPs' report but "remain of the view that the local National Health Service and clinicians are best placed to make decisions on what treatment is appropriate for their patients".

Why are local NHS and clinicians best placed? Does homeopathic efficacy vary by area?

Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who was a member of the Science and Technology Committee when it published its report, said: "This is not a good start for the new Health Secretary when it comes to evidence-based policy.

"How does the Government justify allowing treatments that do not work to be provided by the NHS in the name of choice, when it allows medicines which do work to be banned from NHS use?"

[smudge]

Well that was a bloody waste of time and money then wasn't it? Why on earth do they bother?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...al-report.html





Why are local NHS and clinicians best placed? Does homeopathic efficacy vary by area?

Quite ridiculous.
This is what some mean when they talk of "choice". We all have to foot the bill to allow others the 'freedom' to choose watered down shit over science.
Obviously, despite rumors to the contrary, we currently have money to waste....

[Pebble]

Quite ridiculous.
This is what some mean when they talk of "choice". We all have to foot the bill to allow others the 'freedom' to choose watered down shit over science.
Obviously, despite rumors to the contrary, we currently have money to waste....

There is a neat point here that is counter-intuitive.

Medicine is relatively expensive, because it works. That is it has been shown to improve quality of life, reduce risk or reduce mortality. Homeopathy is cheap - it may not work, but if the recipient thinks it works, then politically there is no downside. The voter gets what they want, they may have a poor quality of life as a consequence, they may die earlier - but you are not paying (any singificiant amount) for their treatment, and dead people cost the state almost nothing. Think of the pension savings, the long term care savings, the medical care savings. Sure there will be the odd disaster, but on average treating people with placebo is cheap - that is why the Chinese promoted barefoot doctors and acupuncture when the state was poor 30 - 40 years ago.

[chaggle]

I agree with all of that - that homeopathy provides a convincing and cheap method of delivering placebo is its only redeeming feature (provided the ethical and trust problems can be overcome).

But why bother having an inquiry into it if you're just going to ignore the recommendations?

[chaggle]

Tom Chivers demands Hoodoo on the NHS

The time has come. The Government has denied our rights as consumers, and as patients, for too long. My campaign starts here: fund hoodoo folk magic on the NHS.

You might think this is ridiculous, that the African conjuring practices clearly do not work, and that magic and nonsense have no place in the NHS. But you would be wrong. The Department of Health has released a statement about magic and nonsense – in the specific form of homeopathy – on the NHS, and it has come down firmly in its favour.

In the Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report ‘Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy’, it says that: “Complementary and alternative medicine, including [magic and nonsense], has a long tradition, and very vocal proponents and opponents”. Well: you can’t claim that hoodoo lacks that. It’s been around since at least 1875, and the African and Christian traditions it is based on far longer.