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.
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.
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