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.
If the homeopathy is performing as well as placebo, but doctors offering placebo treatments do so at a risk of litigation, wouldn't the Homeopathy still be better than nothing?
Or is No Treatment = Placebo?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Simon Singh is being currently driven to bankruptcy because of a libel suit in the UK, for saying exactly the same thing about Chiropractic remedies. I hope the homeopaths sue these MPs for libel, and just perhaps, that will make lawmakers think about reforming the ridiculous British libel laws.
Which is why a scientist is being sued for libel because he called chiropractors quacks and frauds.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Herbal medicine is by no means same thing as naturopathy.
True naturopathic treatment involves NO medication, of herbal or industrial sources. Naturopathy is a system involving the use of light, heat, exercise, massage, nutrition, air, acupuncture, etc., that focuses on disease prevention but also is used to treat some disease. Some people who practice naturopathy also recommend herbal medicines, but this is counter to what naturopathy is really all about.
That said, you're absolutely correct about naturopathy, or even herbal medicine, being completely different from homeopathy.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Naturopathy is using unrefined naturally occurring herbs to cure illness. It isn't terribly effective, but it is scientific, if only at a rudimentary level. Pick and herb, see if it works, pick another if it doesn't. Use as much as needed until problem solved.
Homeopathy is based on some notion of sympathetic vibrations with the body's own natural frequencies or some crap like that. Mystical pseudo-scientific hogwash. That is why the homeopaths always hyper-dilute everything with water. The idea is that your body only needs a small sample of "the right stuff" in order to "remember" how to heal itself. Of course, at that dilution, it is indistinguishable from non-existence, but that never seems to mean anything to the mystics.
Huge difference.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
I feel like the Chinese are doing it right. Chinese traditional medicine is deeply ingrained in Chinese culture, but they have no hesitation in adopting western medicine when necessary.
Traditional medicine for prevention and getting people to regularly pay attention to their health and see doctors.
Modern medicine for those times where there is no herbal treatment.
Best of both worlds.
if they are ruling it out because it works no better then placebos then i guess the real drug companies should watch out http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all
According to medicinenet.com: "As practiced today, naturopathic medicine integrates traditional natural therapeutics -- including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional oriental medicine, hydrotherapy, and naturopathic manipulative therapy -- with modern scientific medical diagnostic science and standards of care>>
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
In Britain as Christianity gets less and less popular astrology, magic, neo-paganism, etc become more popular. Far too many people actually seem to care what's printed in a horoscope.
The benefits of vitamins and minerals on the other hand do have evidence backing them up, but members of the alt-med community goes so far as claiming that they cure AIDs.
While I've never heard the AIDs claim, I wouldn't be surprised. Interestingly enough, there may be some evidence behind such a claim. Even the famous MD Anderson did cancer treatment trails during the 80's and found that their early formulations were as effective, if not more effective than some conventional (at the time) radiation therapies against some cancers. The studies were stopped before wider testing could be conducted. Regardless, they did prove that alternative vitamin therapies may have value for various serious conditions and diseases. Interestingly enough, the cost of the vitamin therapy some something less than twenty bucks. The cost of conventional therapies was hundreds to thousands of dollars. Not hard to see why the studies were not picked up and continued.
Also keep in mind, the use of vitamins for burn victims, at the time, was unheard of and considered quackery, but is now part of a standard treatment; whereby fewer antibiotics are required. Generally, western doctors are completely ignorant on the benefits of vitamins and herbs and in many cases are more than willing to tell people they are quackery, when in fact there exists a huge body of evidence to the contrary. Though this has slowly started to change, somewhat, over the last decade. Truth be known, western doctors are horribly ignorant on nutrition in general, and of the systemic effect of various vitamins and herbs. Generally their knowledge has been extended to be made aware of potential Rx conflicts. More research is required but because its simply not as lucrative as conventional Rx, no one wants to fund it.
I will point out that since the 80's conventional radiation therapies and protocols have significantly improved and I no longer remember the specific test results. I do recall the vitamin therapy was not shown to be significantly better - but then again, it was very early research. Furthermore, I do recall most all vitamin tests had results better than placebo.
As a side note, its widely believed lucrativeness of the vitamin market, if it could be placed under FDA and drug company control, was what was behind the FDA+DEA raids, whereby they stole inventory and held hostages (no joke, literal truth) during the 80's. Oddly enough, this all started shortly after MD Anderson's preliminary results indicated vitamins may prove to be an alternative cancer treatment. Which is to say, by arresting everyone who purchased and/or dealt in vitamins, and by requiring prescriptions (which was also actively being pushed by the FDA) for vitamins, the Rx companies hoped to grab the market and in doing so, drastically increase its lucrativeness. This is of course why there were farcical commercials showing DEA raids into people's homes to make arrests for vitamin ownership; as the FDA has already made overtures it intended to progress this way.
As an example, synthetic vitamin E used for acne, which requires an Rx, which has a higher death rate and higher potential for organ damage associated, cost some 20x more than natural vitamin E and shown to be as equally effective. Accordingly, given that the Rx companies have previously worked hard to gain exclusive control over the vitamin market and have no problems pushing more dangerous alternatives at far, far higher prices, I believe it speaks loudly to the legitimacy of vitamins as potential treatments for many ailments.
Long story short, factually, vitamins have a huge body of evidence supporting they are in fact effective for treating a long list of ailments and disease. This, of course, does not mean I'm advocating they can cure AIDs or cancer - only that its not outside the realm of possibilities. And that for some types of cancer, preliminary research indicates that it is in fact possible. Regardless, at the end of the day, your point remains, there are lots and lots of quacks making completely unfounded claims about vitamin and herb cures.
That is actually a interesting question.
Have any studies show addiction to placebo ?
There's a lot of people with severe fatigue problems (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Lupus, **Crohn's disease**, etc.), that regular doctors can't help, and usually can't even diagnose.
Without the diagnosis and subsequently treatment for my Crohn's Disease by **regular doctors** I'd be dead... as of 25 years ago.
There's a lot of people who have problems with wheat gluten, for instance, which exhibits itself with symptoms like migraines and fatigue, but regular doctors are of no use here as they don't even consider diet as a factor in treating patients, and think that someone eating healthy foods is just the same as someone eating junk food loaded with HFCS.
I've regularly been tested for gluten/wheat intollerances, and lactose intollerance, and have been referred to a dietician, by **regular doctors**, to help treat my Crohns, and YES, it was THEIR recommendation! And such atittudes aren't a rarity either, they're the norm in my experience here.
What works, through the processes of science, becomes medicine, and what doesn't work, becomes alternative medicine. That's how we separate the two - it's that simple.
And yes, from regular doctors, I've regularly been prescribed and received recommendations regarding many medicines of a herbal-like nature (even snippets of advice like trying dreadlock waxes with tea-tree oil to help fight the psoriasis, etc, along with... leave it, it'll get better in time of its own accord) - 'cos if it works best, they'll recommend it!
Perhaps "regular doctors" in the UK have subtly important differences in attitude perhaps? Focussed towards treating the individual with the best care and advice they have at their hands, rather than a focus on assisting pharmacuticals and their associates make more money?
Perhaps because it's deceptive, and profiting off lies is generally considered unethical,
Western doctors often prescribe placebos for people.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I didn't know the taxpayer funded homoeopathy (since this is an article about the UK, I'm bloody well using the British spelling). When and by whom was this started?