Slashdot Mirror
NHS Should Stop Funding Homeopathy, Says Parliamentary Committee
An anonymous reader writes "Homeopathic remedies work no better than placebos, and so should no longer be paid for by the UK National Health Service, a committee of British members of parliament has concluded. In preparing its report, the committee, which scrutinizes the evidence behind government policies, took evidence from scientists and homeopaths, and reviewed numerous reports and scientific investigations into homeopathy. It found no evidence that such treatments work beyond providing a placebo effect." Updated 201025 19:40 GMT by timothy: This recommendation has some people up in arms.
The Brits seem to be on the forefront of pseudo-science debunking.
Seems to me to be the exact opposite. The fact that they were funding it up to this point is be a sign of backwardness.
It's worth noting that homeopathy != all natural remedies nor does it mean the only medication that works come from pharmaceutical companies and doctors.
Or maybe it's not worth noting. I had to look what homeopathy actually was though, since a lot of "natural" remedies get lumped into it as well. Even vitamins/minerals or probiotics tend to be looked on as non-traditional medicine and thus highly suspect.
Homeopathy is not about herbs... you do not seem to know what Homeopathy really is.
This youtube video is a nice introduction what homeopathy is all about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U
From the fine article:
"Either we are governed by evidence and science, or by Prince Charles." --Edzard Ernst
Awesome.
-Peter
But combining this with a a earlier /. article about the placebo effect and modern drugs (http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/07/1526234/Placebos-Are-Getting-More-Effective)
You get that even if they only produce the placebo effect they will do as good as many popular current drugs for patients and without the horrible side effects that come with them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
99% of homeopathy is simply people using random herbs that are ineffective
99.999% of homeopathy is either water or sugar.
Deleted
The difference between a placebo and homeopathy is the doctor prescribing a placebo KNOWS there is no medicinal value in what they are giving to a patient, whereas the person using homeopathy CLAIMS there will be a medicinal benefit.
In the former, the doctor is merely giving sugar pills (or something similar) in a controlled environment to test whether the person's condition is real or imagined, or is part of a study to see if a new medicine actually works.
In the latter, the person using homeopathy claims that by repeated dilutions of a mixture to the point there is no discernible ingredient other than water, that somehow, through some unknown conveyance, the water "remembers" what it was instilled with and thus, miraculously, can become effective at treating an ill.
So no, homeopathy is not better than nothing. If anything, it is more harmful because a) people with serious medical conditions do not seek out real medicine to alleviate what afflicts them, b) it sucks money from people without offering any evidence that what it claims to do actually takes place, c) it runs counter to every scientific principle of how things really work, thus dumbing down even further the public's understanding of how science is performed.
Granted, a and b aren't really that bad as it tends to cull the herd, but c is what exasperates those who use common sense by having to listen to such drivel.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Idunno. Perhaps because it's deceptive, and profiting off lies is generally considered unethical, and funding people who profit off lies with taxpayer money is usually pretty unpopular (especially during a budget crunch), and stuff like that? For starters.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
It has nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with the fact that homeopathy is "watered down horseshit" by definition - the more watered down, the better. If it were merely diluted from full strength, then you could formulate a theory of action that was consistent with modern knowledge of chemistry. However, when it's diluted so that the odds of finding a single molecule of the "active ingredient" are 10^80-to-1 against, there's no point even investigating further. If homeopathy worked, it would invalidated all modern physics and chemistry. Since you and I are still alive and able to have this conversation over a network of computers, it can't work.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Placebos work great till people start getting addicted to them.
Like a religion?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
There is nothing wrong with the ideal of disallowing libel, but it is the way in which that ideal is implemented in British law that is what causes most people to "bitch". For example, in the chiropractic case, the courts have essentially asked Simon to defend against the worst possible allegation that one could possibly read in to his case --- he now essentially needs to prove dishonest intent on the part of the chiropractors, which is even more unfair by the fact that *his* intent to make that claim dishonestly was assumed with little opportunity for him to defend it.
Specifically, his statement was "despite a lack of evidence, the BCA happily promote these remedies ..." and the judge decided that the claim of dishonest conduct was implied by the use of the word happy. I don't know how you feel, but I'd say that any fair reading of that statement is not going to assume that that claim was made. The upshot of all of this is that Simon Singh has to prove that chiropractors are intentionally dishonest or pay up around half a million pounds. He can't just argue that reasonable people should have some reason to believe a remedy works before they sell it! He's clearly being sued for making a statement which was an expression of his opinion.
A law is judged by the way it is implemented, and the effect of the British libel laws (in this case and many others) has been to chill criticisms. I disagree with you --- I think the American system, which also allows people to sue for Libel, but asks the plaintiff to prove that the defendant stated something specifically untrue as fact, is far more ideal. There may be a lot more "noise" on the news, but at least no one's being censored.
Now you can claim it was a fluke. But you cant convince me that a 4 year old who didn't understand the infection or the treatment was miraculously cured by placebo effect.
I'm unimpressed. If you have a horrible infection, its almost certain that in two weeks either your immune system kicks in and you're cured, or it doesn't kick in and you're dead. Why would this be surprising?
Time does heal a lot of wounds. If drinking weird substances is a way to pass the time, then so be it.
Also correlation does not equal causation. I had an infected paper cut on my thumb for the last couple days. Its healing nicely thank you. I prefer vi over emacs most of the time. Therefore vi is an antibiotic. Huh? No causation means the correlation is meaningless, just a fluke.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The very moment a sufficiently peer reviewed and accredited study shows that the herbs in question have an actual quantifiable benefit, it is no longer "Herbal Medicine" or "Alternative Medicine" it is simply "Medicine" and would therefore be covered under the health coverage in all major modern industrialized nations except the US, which it would depend on what kind of an insurance plan you can afford.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Actually, Chinese traditional medicine might be even worse than homeopathy. Homeopathy may be a load of rubbish, but at least it doesn't have a billion people craving rare animal penis.