• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

NHS funding of homeopathy

Missis said:
What is the consumer status of someone who comes to your house and gives you vials of water for health problems? If the water doesn't help, or the SDSHom is a jerk, whom can I complain to?
Click to expand...


You could try the Society of Homeopaths (if the homoeopath in question is a member), but judging by their response when several of their members were caught recommending that tourists not take their anti-malaria treatments, you probably wouldn't get far.
 
"People may even die of malaria if they follow this advice " (quote from Mojo's link above).
Scary stuff indeed.

Does anyone know if G.P.'s actually refer patients to Homeopaths?
 
Apparently 42% of GPs in the UK refer patients to homeopaths:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/ernst-tips-sept-2005.pdf

BTW, James Randi did a nice little write-up on the homeopathy/NHS issue in this week’s Swift newsletter:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/052507.html#i2

He concluded the piece with some frank advice to Peter Fisher.


Asolepius said:
But seriously, it's been another great week and with the skids under homeopathy in the NHS what shall we turn our attention to?
Click to expand...

Chiropractic?
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php
 
I've heard it alleged that GPs often refer hypochondriacs to homeopaths - the attention and sugar pills keep them happy and the proper medicine is saved for people who really are ill.
 
This thread was a complete pleasure to read. That is rare to say on a homeopath thread. Good news is great!

I'll indeed celebrate if/when the cronky hospitals close. They really should deal with hyponchondriacs more effectively.
 
Cynric said:
Hey, this is encouraging progress though, eh? The cynical part of me fears that it's due in large part to the financial squeeze on the NHS trusts, but good work Profs' team!
Click to expand...

Well, if the National Health Service had infinite funds, I wouldn't see any problem with funding homeopathy. Yes, it's utterly psuedoscientific nonsense, but that's no reason to not give them money. Sometimes placebos are a nice thing to have around. The only problem is that because they have limited funds, it is better to save the money for the treatments that actually work. So the fact that a financial squeeze is motivating this isn't so bad, I think.
 
A few more updates regarding Professor Gustav Born’s letter to NHS health trusts and Dr Peter Fisher’s response to it…

In this week’s Swift newsletter James Randi has published a letter which Frank Odds, Professor of Medical Mycology at the Institute of Medical Sciences in Aberdeen, UK, recently sent to Dr Peter Fisher:

Delighted to see that NHS Trusts are increasingly removing their support for the voodoo you propagate for patients too gullible and unknowledgeable to recognize snake oil when it’s prescribed for them on the NHS.

-snip-

I hope your campaign fails and that your hospital is officially removed from NHS support. The mere fact that you ask people to advise of celebrities willing to aid your campaign is clear evidence that your “medicine” is unable to stand on its own merits. Truth is something arrived at by a process of reasoned evidence gathering, not by public flaunting of the misguided views of people with a claim to fame in entertainment.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/060107.html#i4
Click to expand...


And in his blog this week, Dr Steven Novella (an academic neurologist on full-time faculty at Yale University School of Medicine) takes a critical look at Peter Fisher’s assertion that Dr Gustav Born and his colleagues are closed-minded:

The dismissal of appropriate scientific criticism as “closed minded” is a standard favorite in the world of pseudoscience, so it is no surprise. It is so common and abused it warranted an article just on this topic.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=110
Click to expand...


And finally, at the current Guardian Hay Festival of Literature, Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones (a professor of genetics at UCL), and Martin Rees (President of the Royal Society), have been dismissing complementary medicine as “quackery”.

Asked what he felt homeopaths and other “quacks” would do if they were no longer allowed to practice “alternative” medicine, Dawkins retorted that he couldn’t care less.

For more of their views, scroll down this link:
http://www.iblog.co.uk/
Click to expand...



:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Another update – this time, homeopathy patients are on the warpath:

Barnet homeopathy patients are planning to 'go to war' with Barnet health bosses over a decision to stop routine funding of new referrals for homeopathy treatment.

At a packed board meeting on Thursday, the Primary Care Trust (PCT) announced that routine funding would stop from August 1, 2007, and funding for routine follow-up appointments would cease six months later. After these dates, all requests for funding homeopathic treatment would be considered on an individual basis' by the PCT.

Finchley resident Pam Kish, 52, suffers from breast cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, and has been taking homeopathic medicine since 2002.

She said: "It was a kangaroo court and it's disgraceful they can get away with it. These are public servants who are here to help us.

"We are going to have to go to war and we shouldn't have to do that as ill patients."

Read on…

http://www.times-series.co.uk/display.var.1523240.0.patients_fight_for_homeopathy_rights.php
Click to expand...


And watch out, America…

Healing home: Homeopathic college planning 5-acre campus
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/07/16/story1.html?b=1184558400^1490093#
 
So 186 MPs have signed a motion in support of homeopathy?

Sigh....
 
Early Day Motion 1240


NHS HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITALS
28.03.2007


Vis, Rudi

That this House welcomes the positive contribution made to the health of the nation by the NHS homeopathic hospitals; notes that some six million people use complementary treatments each year; believes that complementary medicine has the potential to offer clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients, including chronic difficult to treat conditions such as musculoskeletal and other chronic pain, eczema, depression, anxiety and insomnia, allergy, chronic fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome; expresses concern that NHS cuts are threatening the future of these hospitals; and calls on the Government actively to support these valuable national assets.
Click to expand...


I believe the signatories are all listed at that link. 197 so far...
 
What is an Early Day Motion? Looking at some of the others leads me to think it's really just a bit of a lark thing for parliamentarians.
 
EDMs don't seem to achieve much in terms of changing legislation, but they can give important political capital for special interests. Surely no disadvantage in being able to claim the support of a significant number of Members of Parliament.
 
Well, fortunately, my MP (John 'Spock' Redwood) hasn't signed up for this. Some of the names on there do surprise me though - I thought people like Diane Abbott, Keith Vaz, Tim Yeo, and Nicholas Soames had more sense!
 
Distressing but not surprising. Those who pursue irrational ideas do so with far more passion than most who follow reason. I have looked at the Commons website but can't find this motion that The Times mentions. Just want to know if my MP has signed it.
 
OK, a suggestion.

Why don't we compose a letter explaining why we disapprove of homoeopathy so much (and particularly the use of NHS funds to pay for it!) and send it to all these credulous parliamentarians.

I'm sure most of them don't even know what homoeopathy is. I certainly didn't until I started frequenting these forums. The homoeopathic industry have done a great job of obfuscating the principles by which their magick operates, and most people I know equate 'homoeopathic' with 'natural' and nothing more.

All the woo - the dilutions, the memory of water etc. - is basically hidden by clever and pernicious advertising. We need to reverse this tide. These MPs are, by and large, a smart bunch of people, and if we explain to them in a very clear and concise manner exactly what homoeopathy is, and exactly how it differs from "natural" remedies like St. John's Wort or echinancea or something, a large number of them will come round.

Anyone up for drafting this?
 
Asolepius said:
Distressing but not surprising. Those who pursue irrational ideas do so with far more passion than most who follow reason. I have looked at the Commons website but can't find this motion that The Times mentions. Just want to know if my MP has signed it.
Click to expand...

All signatories are listed here.
 
If, as it seems, they are lumping Homeopathy with other complementary medicines I fear there is little hope.

For example, some herbal remedies clearly work. Homeopathy clearly does not, beyond placebo.

Writing to each MP explaining that other complementary medicines may have efficacy but homeopathy clearly does not may help.

Any qualified person willing to do so *cough* Rolfe *cough*.

I would be willing to add my signature/name to any such letter.

Thoughts?

.
 
Looking around, hpathy writes:

If you are a UK resident, tell your MP to sign Early Day Motion 1240 in support of NHS Homoeopathic Hospitals. Two hundred MP’s must sign this motion by July 6th. There is a sample letter in this journal asking MP’s to sign EDM 1240.
Click to expand...


That date has passed and they didn't get the 200. But I don't know what would happen if they did.
 
I PM'd Rolfe and he's agreed to help.

I'm serious - let's get this letter written. Polite, not aggressive or condescending, but explaining exactly what homoeopathy is. Most people just conflate it with "natural", and this is the misconception we need to counter!
 
volatile said:
I PM'd Rolfe and he's agreed to help.

I'm serious - let's get this letter written. Polite, not aggressive or condescending, but explaining exactly what homoeopathy is. Most people just conflate it with "natural", and this is the misconception we need to counter!
Click to expand...

If you start a thread about this let me know and I'll make it a sticky and mention it in the next Newsletter.
 
No need to reinvent the wheel surely.

Perhaps a copy of the Homeopathy document published by "Sense about Science" could be included, with a punchy intro on why NHS homeopathy is a waste of space, time and our money?

ETA - perhaps I'd better post this on the sticky I guess.

ETA again - see I've been beaten to it.
 
Last edited:
Finchley resident Pam Kish, 52, suffers from breast cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, and has been taking homeopathic medicine since 2002.

She said: "It was a kangaroo court and it's disgraceful they can get away with it. These are public servants who are here to help us.
Click to expand...

Has anyone suggested that there are other hospitals in the area that will treat cancer cases, and that these credulous patients can buy their sugar pills themselves at any local pharmacy?
 
Sorry volatile.

:blush: I didn't refresh before posting and missed your post.

.
 
Homeopathy supporters taking to the streets

A new development…

SIGN THE PETITION - Homeopathy worked for me

Defending choice in medicine

H:MC21 was set up in September 2007 to inform the public about homeopathy and its relation to orthodox medicine. It will do this through research, publication and campaigning.

Campaign
Our first project is to counter the wave of negative publicity by collecting signatures to the following declaration:

Homeopathy worked for me

If you would like to sign this declaration now, please visit http://www.hmc21.org. You can also go to our Campaign page to find out more.

Everyone who has benefited from homeopathy can sign this declaration.

It not only gives a voice to those people whose experience is denied by the recent attacks, it will also, for the first time, begin to establish the extent to which homeopathy has helped the general public in the UK, whether through prescription or self-medication.

March
We plan to organise a march on the 22 June 2008 to coincide with the end of Homeopathy Awareness Week. Organisers will take the complete list of names to No.10 Downing Street with the demand that the NHS honours the commitment to homeopathy enshrined in its charter, and that positive steps be taken to enable everyone who needs homeopathy to obtain it through the NHS.

With your help, it is possible for us to collect at least 250,000 signatures by next June!


http://www.naturopathy-uk.com/blog/2007/10/09/sign-the-petition-homeopathy-worked-for-me/
Click to expand...


Will we be seeing Peter Fisher waving a placard at the head of the march?
 
Blue Wode said:
Apparently 42% of GPs in the UK refer patients to homeopaths:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/ernst-tips-sept-2005.pdf
Click to expand...


Research carried out for the recent consultation about funding of the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital found that although 52% of GP practices in West Kent referred patients to homoeopaths, less than 1% of the patients in those practices were referred, and referral was almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clinical decision.

http://www.westkentpct.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=11159 (pdf document)
 
Asolepius said:
...and this page caused a loud guffaw from me! Don't hold your breath anybody.
Click to expand...


Some news. Not only have they filled that page…

Why It Works 1 - Arguments for Homeopathy
http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2555?opendocument&part=4

…but they’ve also managed to fill another one:

Why It Works 2 – Questions about Orthodox Medicine
http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2555?opendocument&part=5


In fact, it seems that the campaigners have had a burst of activity. On Saturday, two of their founding members plus staff from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (RLHH) and the League of Friends of the RLHH, joined a 7,000-strong march through central London protesting against cuts in the NHS:
http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2555?opendocument&part=8

This was the leaflet that they handed out during the demonstration:
http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/pages/2555:A5DemoSingle.pdf/$file/A5DemoSingle.pdf


And they’ve even made an attempt to answer their critics:

Balance in the survey

Surely in order to gain a balanced response and a survey outcome free from bias, "No" & "Don't Know" options should be available. (TW)

However, in real research it's normal to allow a "no" option or even a "maybe" or "don't know". If you provided alternatives, you'd be much more likely to get an accurate answer, even if it isn't the answer you were hoping for. (BR)

At this time we are not trying to discover what outcomes people have experienced from homeopathic treatment. To do that we would need to gather far more evidence than simply their view of their treatment. For example, it would be important to know who prescribed the treatment; to establish the degree of training the prescriber had received; to verify the existence of the prescriber; and so on.

The current survey is an attempt to establish only one piece of information: how many people in the UK believe that they have benefited from homeopathy, so to gather any other information is not only pointless, but would entail a lot of work sorting out the unnecessary answers and throwing them away. If you want to know the height of Beachy Head, you do not measure all the other cliffs. We have been clear about the fact that we are seeking certain information, and we have framed the survey to gather only that information. This is efficient and appropriate.

The options you suggest would introduce massive bias, since the "No" and "Don't know" answers could come from people who have never had homeopathic treatment, and as a result there would be no basis for a useful statistical relationship between the "Yes" option and the others. Indeed, any attempt to create one would inevitably be biased, and so gathering this additional information would be a waste of time.


Insight and self-appraisal

Our complaint is that homeopaths appear to lack any insight into what they are doing. There is almost no critical self-appraisal of their own work. (The Quackometer)

The practice of homeopathy requires constant and thorough critical self-appraisal of one’s work, and, as has been pointed out in What are randomised control trials?, the choice of remedy involves a careful assessment of the reaction to the previous one. As for insight into what we are doing, this is growing all the time. For example analyses are being developed:

• Of the relationship of different chemical elements in their action on the human body (see Scholten Books & Links: Homeopathy - Remedies);

• Of the actions of different classes of substance (whether from mineral, vegetable or animal origins) (see Sankaran Books & Links: Homeopathy - Theory);

• Of emotional factors and how they relate to illness (see Sankaran Books & Links: Homeopathy - Theory);

• Of treatment for autism, Asperger syndrome and ADHD (see Reichenberg-Ullman Books & Links: Homeopathy - Practice);

• Of different methods of approach and their appropriatenes for particular cases (see Watson Books & Links: Homeopathy - Practice);

• Of the process of consultation (see Kaplan Books & Links: Homeopathy - Practice).


Homeopathy as a positive experience

It is the blind refusal to accept anything other than that homeopathy can be a positive experience. (The Quackometer)

Reactions to potentised remedies vary and they may not be entirely positive experiences, or indeed pleasant ones. This is explained in Why It Works – 1 (see Reactions and Provings).


http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2555?opendocument&part=7#opponents
Click to expand...


Looks like it’s back to square one.
 
Last edited:
Blue Wode said:
<< SNIP >>

This was the leaflet that they handed out during the demonstration:
http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/pages/2555:A5DemoSingle.pdf/$file/A5DemoSingle.pdf
Click to expand...

From the leaflet:

Homeopathy has a consistent scientific theory of health and illness. All aspects of the theory can be tested and verified. Its medicines cannot be patented and are cheap to produce. It produces no side effects, no rebound effects, and the medicines still work in the same way as they did 200 years ago. Homeopaths have detailed records of the process of treatment which constitute evidence second to none in the medical world.
Click to expand...

Wrong Planet? Different Universe? :mad:
 
Last edited:
Blue Wode said:
Looks like it’s back to square one.
Click to expand...
No. They can bluster all they like, and churn out reams of drivel such as this, but they have the skids under them and they know it. Note that under `Why it works' they can only muster one reference, a paper which I have read and is notorious for being a load of pseudo-political claptrap. I won't dignify any more of this rubbish with further analysis.:mad:
 
"For example, it would be important to know who prescribed the treatment; to establish the degree of training the prescriber had received; to verify the existence of the prescriber; and so on."

Seems like they're still beating the "No True Homoeopath" drum..
 
From the last link in Blue Wodes posting
Exasperation
I would like to express my exasperation with the professor at Exeter University who keeps rubbishing homeopathy and other alternative approaches to the treatment of illness and disease. Every so often the "establishment" (in this case the medical one) has a fit of demonising what it would like to see eliminated, rather like Hitler demonising the Jews. The media rushes off to find a scientific "expert" who will confirm its suspicions that "there is nothing in homeopathy". There is a tendency in the human psyche to demonise or ridicule anything that threatens the "safe" orthodox view and that cannot be "rationally" explained, which boils down to a fear of the unknown. It should be resisted by every possible means. We still know too little about how the bodymind organism works to draw absolute truths from any branch of science. At the root of this denial is the secular belief that nature is without consciousness and that there is no dimension of reality beyond the human brain. (Anne Baring)
Click to expand...

The professor is Edzard Ernst who slates homeopathy but supports acupuncture. Can't please them all I suppose.
Aah, the old Hitler comparison, Anne Baring is obviously rattled.
'There is nothing in homepathy' Very correct.
If there is so little known about this thing called a bodymind organism, whatever it is, shouldn't we have some evidence based investigations and not bodymindless blatherings?
Now we can see, they are not on a different planet, the're in a different dimension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom