Your news
Have you got a story to tell? Do you have pictures or video clips to share? Get in touch »
Have your say on homeopathy
3:25pm Friday 1st June 2007
Comments (33)Patients of the Royal London Homeopathic hospital are invited to attend a public meeting to have their say on Homeopathy Services in Barnet.
The consultation meeting, organised by Barnet Primary Care Trust (PCT) will take place on Thursday, June 7 from 6.30 to 8.30pm in the Education Centre at Edgware Community Hospital, Burnt Oak Broadway.
The PCT is hosting the event to explain why it is considering changing the referral pattern for the service and give patients the chance to share their views on the proposals.
Light refreshments will be available.
Your Say YourTimes Series
Suse Moebius RSHom, NW London says...
7:47am Sat 2 Jun 07
Sadly I can't go to that meeting. For those who can: why not ask about the letters to PCT commissioners by Baum, Born and colleagues of May 2006 and 2007? This year, they attached a document purporting to demonstrate why homeopathy is said 'not to work'. The letter acknowledges the evidence isn't 'complete', but it's not possible to form an opinion - requests in writing to two of their number to provide this document so we, the public, too can know what they told the PCT commissioners merited no response. These gentlemen are acting outside of any official structure to take direct influence on PCTs with the sole purpose of damaging homeopathy and other complementary therapies. Why? And in what position are the PCTs in relation to such letters, when these Emeritus Professors by such actions accord themselves a quasi-official advisory role, while not flagging their various anti-complementary affiliations? For those who wish to inform themselves about homeopathy: try www.trusthomeopathy.
org and www.homeopathy-soh.o
rg - the official organisations of the medical and non-medical homeopaths respectively, with plenty of research information.
org and www.homeopathy-soh.o
rg - the official organisations of the medical and non-medical homeopaths respectively, with plenty of research information.
Deetee, Kent says...
8:48am Sat 2 Jun 07
People who want to use homeopathy DO have a choice - there are hundreds of practitioners around who are willing to provide this for a fee.
Just don't ask the taxpayer to fund it when it has been conclusively shown not to work any better than a placebo, and there are dozens of effective, proven remedies the NHS is unable to provide (eg for breast cancer) because of financial constraints.
Just don't ask the taxpayer to fund it when it has been conclusively shown not to work any better than a placebo, and there are dozens of effective, proven remedies the NHS is unable to provide (eg for breast cancer) because of financial constraints.
Sue, North London says...
9:26am Sat 2 Jun 07
Deetee's comments above - please can you prove your statements? No? I thought not! In fact there are many studies which do prove the efficacy of homeopathy and homeopathy does not suffer from 'thalidomide syndrome'
Simon, North London says...
2:10pm Sat 2 Jun 07
Sue asks for proof that homoeopathy doesn't work. However, if public money is to be spent on it, surely the onus must be on its proponents to prove that it does work.
Systematic reviews of trials of homoeopathy have consistently failed to conclude that homoeopathy works. For example, Shang et al. (Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32) concluded that the results of the available trials are compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects; Cucherat et al. (Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;56(1):27-33) concluded that while there is some low-quality evidence for homoeopathy, studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies; Altunc et al. (Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 Jan;82(1):69-75) concluded the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition; Professor Edzard Ernsts systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Dec;54(6):577-82) concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice. Even Linde et al. (Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43)
, which is often put forward as supporting homoeopathy, concluded that, while further research appeared to be warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Systematic reviews of trials of homoeopathy have consistently failed to conclude that homoeopathy works. For example, Shang et al. (Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32) concluded that the results of the available trials are compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects; Cucherat et al. (Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;56(1):27-33) concluded that while there is some low-quality evidence for homoeopathy, studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies; Altunc et al. (Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 Jan;82(1):69-75) concluded the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition; Professor Edzard Ernsts systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Dec;54(6):577-82) concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice. Even Linde et al. (Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43)
, which is often put forward as supporting homoeopathy, concluded that, while further research appeared to be warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Purushottama, India says...
5:35pm Sat 2 Jun 07
Dear Sir,
On the so called Scientists conduct following tests:
1) Let them take what Master took - the juice of Cinconha Bark and let them explain why they develop the symptoms though they ( I think) are in good physical health.
2) Place before them various case studies on dangerous side efects of of their so called " Scientificaly proven (?), efficacious, clinically tested modern medicines which have ruined patients including giving birth to still born and deformed babies and let them explain what science lies behind it.
3) Let them produce all their credentilas vis a vis pharma companies including the grants thay recieve .
4) Let them also produce the proof that Science has come to an end that there is nothing more left for the science or the scientists to research because all their statements claim that they have done scientific research in the matter whereas it appears that not even a single Homoepathic research center could be cited by them as having worked with.
5) These people should also be made known that for a Homoeopath the four pillrs on which it stands are - Organon, Materia Medica, Repertory and the immense faith of two hundred plus years by the CURED patients . We do not look upto any magazine to certify that our system work. A magazine can not be a Bible for us because we have our own time tested literature to work with.
6) Let them also convince the Homoeopathic patients that they are not advocating Medical Fundamentalism in favour of only one system of medicine.
7) Let them tell the world what makes them silent about the dangerous side effects of modern drugs.
8)While in Homoeopathy since last two centuries no remedy is withdrawn from the shelf why the modern " Scientifically tested and efficacious "drugs are coolly withdrawn ( and some times dumped in third world countries). Will the dear Scietists able to explain what science was involved in introducing the medicines and then withdrawing them or getiing themselves banned ??
9) Last but not the least is who has authorised anybody to prevent the patients from having a choice -are they also not taxpayers like anybody
else and dont they enjoy equal rights like those who advocate or take modern medicines??
On the so called Scientists conduct following tests:
1) Let them take what Master took - the juice of Cinconha Bark and let them explain why they develop the symptoms though they ( I think) are in good physical health.
2) Place before them various case studies on dangerous side efects of of their so called " Scientificaly proven (?), efficacious, clinically tested modern medicines which have ruined patients including giving birth to still born and deformed babies and let them explain what science lies behind it.
3) Let them produce all their credentilas vis a vis pharma companies including the grants thay recieve .
4) Let them also produce the proof that Science has come to an end that there is nothing more left for the science or the scientists to research because all their statements claim that they have done scientific research in the matter whereas it appears that not even a single Homoepathic research center could be cited by them as having worked with.
5) These people should also be made known that for a Homoeopath the four pillrs on which it stands are - Organon, Materia Medica, Repertory and the immense faith of two hundred plus years by the CURED patients . We do not look upto any magazine to certify that our system work. A magazine can not be a Bible for us because we have our own time tested literature to work with.
6) Let them also convince the Homoeopathic patients that they are not advocating Medical Fundamentalism in favour of only one system of medicine.
7) Let them tell the world what makes them silent about the dangerous side effects of modern drugs.
8)While in Homoeopathy since last two centuries no remedy is withdrawn from the shelf why the modern " Scientifically tested and efficacious "drugs are coolly withdrawn ( and some times dumped in third world countries). Will the dear Scietists able to explain what science was involved in introducing the medicines and then withdrawing them or getiing themselves banned ??
9) Last but not the least is who has authorised anybody to prevent the patients from having a choice -are they also not taxpayers like anybody
else and dont they enjoy equal rights like those who advocate or take modern medicines??
Simon, North London says...
3:48am Sun 3 Jun 07
Purushottama:
1) The fact that Cinchona bark produces malaria-like symptoms (at least in those who are allergic to it, as it appears Hahnemann, or "the Master" as you call him, may have been) does not prove that homoeopathy works.
2) The fact that some drugs have side effects (which nobody denies) does not prove that homoeopathy works.
3) The fact that some research is funded by drug companies does not prove that homoeopathy works.
4) Nobody claims that "Science has come to an end". Even if they did so, this would not prove that homoeopathy works.
5) The fact that homoeopathy has been in use for a long time, and people have faith in it does not prove that homoeopathy works.
6) Allegations that doctors are "advocating Medical Fundamentalism" do not prove that homoeopathy works.
7) The fact that some drugs have side effects (which nobody denies) does not prove that homoeopathy works. And neither does alleging some sort of conspiracy on the part of the medical profession.
8) The fact that homoeopathy has not withdrawn any remedy over the last 200 years, while medicine continues to advance, does not prove that homoeopathy works.
9) Advocating patients "having a choice" does not prove that homoeopathy works. If people want to choose treatments that can not be demonstrated to be effective, that is a matter for them, but they shouldn't expect others to pay for them.
1) The fact that Cinchona bark produces malaria-like symptoms (at least in those who are allergic to it, as it appears Hahnemann, or "the Master" as you call him, may have been) does not prove that homoeopathy works.
2) The fact that some drugs have side effects (which nobody denies) does not prove that homoeopathy works.
3) The fact that some research is funded by drug companies does not prove that homoeopathy works.
4) Nobody claims that "Science has come to an end". Even if they did so, this would not prove that homoeopathy works.
5) The fact that homoeopathy has been in use for a long time, and people have faith in it does not prove that homoeopathy works.
6) Allegations that doctors are "advocating Medical Fundamentalism" do not prove that homoeopathy works.
7) The fact that some drugs have side effects (which nobody denies) does not prove that homoeopathy works. And neither does alleging some sort of conspiracy on the part of the medical profession.
8) The fact that homoeopathy has not withdrawn any remedy over the last 200 years, while medicine continues to advance, does not prove that homoeopathy works.
9) Advocating patients "having a choice" does not prove that homoeopathy works. If people want to choose treatments that can not be demonstrated to be effective, that is a matter for them, but they shouldn't expect others to pay for them.
Sue, North London says...
10:37am Sun 3 Jun 07
Wow Simon!
Did we offend you in a previous incarnation? Why are you so vehement? Why are you so upset with people who want to exercise their choice. We are tax payers too! Everyone knows you can make research say anything, especially when the funding body stands to make billions and billions.
Why can you not get your head around 'choice'?
No one can prove religion works either, so do you want that banned?
No one can live in your scientific bubble where all of human existence is confined to 'what Simon believes in' or 'what science can prove'!
I don't want to live in your sanitised world. I want to live in a world of choice and wonder and freedom!
Did we offend you in a previous incarnation? Why are you so vehement? Why are you so upset with people who want to exercise their choice. We are tax payers too! Everyone knows you can make research say anything, especially when the funding body stands to make billions and billions.
Why can you not get your head around 'choice'?
No one can prove religion works either, so do you want that banned?
No one can live in your scientific bubble where all of human existence is confined to 'what Simon believes in' or 'what science can prove'!
I don't want to live in your sanitised world. I want to live in a world of choice and wonder and freedom!
Andy, Oxford says...
11:00am Sun 3 Jun 07
Sue - choice is good. Informed choice is even better. Informed opinion says the homeopathy is a placebo-based treatment. We all support 'choice' and as tax payers we have choices to provide universal access to solid, evidence based treatments or witch-craft.
Homeopathy is nothing more than sympathetic magic. By standing in stark opposition to all of physics and chemistry, it present its advocates an overwhelming and formidable burden of proof. Those that do not accept that, do not understand the magnitude of the problem with the theory of homeopathy.
Homeopathy is nothing more than sympathetic magic. By standing in stark opposition to all of physics and chemistry, it present its advocates an overwhelming and formidable burden of proof. Those that do not accept that, do not understand the magnitude of the problem with the theory of homeopathy.
Cath, London says...
12:32pm Sun 3 Jun 07
India, where the average life expectancy is around 65 (compared with the UK's79), 10 times higher infant mortality rate, and high incidence of death from infectous diseases hardly seems to be the ideal place to cite as "effectiveness" of homeopathic medicine. It's only since India invested hevily in "orthodox" medicine that life expecatncy/infant mortality etc started to improve.
If you want disproven placebo treatment, fine, that is your choice, but with limited resources, the NHS has to focus on what has been proved to work - and it isn't homeopathy.
As for homeopathy not doing any harm, tell that to the families of people who have died from giving up "conventional" treatment to use homeopathy and other forms of "alternative therapies".
If it works - it isn't "alternative".
If you want disproven placebo treatment, fine, that is your choice, but with limited resources, the NHS has to focus on what has been proved to work - and it isn't homeopathy.
As for homeopathy not doing any harm, tell that to the families of people who have died from giving up "conventional" treatment to use homeopathy and other forms of "alternative therapies".
If it works - it isn't "alternative".
Simon, North London says...
12:34pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Sue: you posted, "why can you not get your head around 'choice'?
No one can prove religion works either, so do you want that banned?"
I have not advocated that homoeopathy should be banned: merely that, since the NHS does not have unlimited resources, it should not be publicly funded unless it can be demonstrated that it actually works.
No one can prove religion works either, so do you want that banned?"
I have not advocated that homoeopathy should be banned: merely that, since the NHS does not have unlimited resources, it should not be publicly funded unless it can be demonstrated that it actually works.
Sue, says...
3:26pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Oh dear! Another missionary induced iconoclastic holocaust! How predictable! You are all so sure you are right, aren't you?
By the way, when did this new law - that only orthodox scientifically provable and 'acceptable' belief is allowed - become law? I don't remember voting for it?!
I am old enough to remember when this sort of vitriol was poured over the entry of counselling, psychology and psychotherapy into the NHS. Would anyone today argue that we remove funding from these services?
The trouble with science is that 'they used to know but now they are not so sure'. It was 'science' to allow lots of nasty things we now find disgusting, like the atom bomb and nuclear fuel and the over use of antibiotics and pesticides. Wasn't that 'good science' once?
Alternative treatments take enormous amounts of pressure off the NHS because most of our clients do pay privately, and most of our clients don't die from giving up convential treatment. Most people in this country die from iatrogenic illness induced by conventional medicine.
Sad but true, which is why homeopathy became so popular in the first place.
Anyway the WHO report on homeopathy proves just how much homeopathy could potentially save the NHS, but as this would dent the massive profits made by the pharmaceutical companies, so I can see why there is this sudden storm of protest. It all makes an economic sort of sense, if you are more interested in profit that in freedom of choice that is!
By the way, when did this new law - that only orthodox scientifically provable and 'acceptable' belief is allowed - become law? I don't remember voting for it?!
I am old enough to remember when this sort of vitriol was poured over the entry of counselling, psychology and psychotherapy into the NHS. Would anyone today argue that we remove funding from these services?
The trouble with science is that 'they used to know but now they are not so sure'. It was 'science' to allow lots of nasty things we now find disgusting, like the atom bomb and nuclear fuel and the over use of antibiotics and pesticides. Wasn't that 'good science' once?
Alternative treatments take enormous amounts of pressure off the NHS because most of our clients do pay privately, and most of our clients don't die from giving up convential treatment. Most people in this country die from iatrogenic illness induced by conventional medicine.
Sad but true, which is why homeopathy became so popular in the first place.
Anyway the WHO report on homeopathy proves just how much homeopathy could potentially save the NHS, but as this would dent the massive profits made by the pharmaceutical companies, so I can see why there is this sudden storm of protest. It all makes an economic sort of sense, if you are more interested in profit that in freedom of choice that is!
Purushottama, India says...
3:34pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Dear Simon,
Why did you take that much pain to retype all I wrote and at the end put a phrase " that does not prove that Homeopathy works" or in short TDPHW. A single sentence that "all what you have said
does not prove that Homeopathy works " would have been sufficient to express your point .One can convince the unconvinced but can not convince ( rather need not try also )to convince those who refuse to be convincned . Any way Thank You sir.
In spite of all this I do beleive or so to say firmly by experince that Homoeopathy WORKS.It is neither witchcraft nor placebo effect -much against the wish of some. Some two decades ago I too was as sceptic about the small sugar pills as anybody else would have been for about 5 years. As it is said Let the light of Knowledge come from all sides - tried it for Tonilitis and ganlion within ny circle and surprisingly I found it worked - not as a palliative but as a permanent cure. No recurrence till now. Then I found it working on fevers , injuries, diarroeah and so on and so forth. Latest one in the list was a sudden squint in the eyes of a lady diagnosed as Lateral Rectus Palsy by a most ultra modern Eye Hospital , no findings in MRI scanning still condition getting worse with modern doctors getting clueless and suggest Steroid ( no medication done all along ) and a Homoeopathic Doctor gives remedy and cures within two weeks without surgery all have convinced me that that Homoeopathy WORKS.I can quote a lot of cures. Then why on earth shoud I get anybody else to say that it works? My refernce to the side effects of modern medicine was not to positively prove that Homoeopathy works but only to point out how much your Science has failed us and critics take same " Science" as the basis to decide whether other systems works or not.Instead will it not be prudent to have an introspection before criticising other systems? Your "Science" says -Dont take Ayurvedic medicines because they have TOO MUCH of heavy metals and does not stand the toxicity test and in contrast Homoeopathy has TOO LESS so that also does not work!!!and you do admit that modern drugs have side effects ( for which honest admission I am thankful ). So only take ... what??? Will the patient not be able to decide what is good for himself and what cures him mildly and surely ? Take a couple of doses and if a system does not give him relief and cure will he stick to that system?? I would like the issue be given a fair thought rather dispassionately by all.A satisfied customer is a good advertisement and same is the case for Homoeopathy.The cured patients themselves are a proof. We can give hundreds of such cases but at the end critics will stick to their single point agenda - TDPHW.
In spite of all this it is good that the critics have made laymen like me come in defence of Homoeopathy because that is the way in which we can expresss our gratitude to the system.
Regarding the efforts to phase out the system from public domain to private one, it is not the economical considerations involved but the principles involved in so far as an honest taxpayers' right to exercise a right of a judicious choice on the system of treatment they would prefer to have notwithstanding their financial capacities and capabilities to seek such treatments from private sources at their own cost. It is said in Sanskrit - Sathyameva Jayathe - Truth wins ultimately.
Why did you take that much pain to retype all I wrote and at the end put a phrase " that does not prove that Homeopathy works" or in short TDPHW. A single sentence that "all what you have said
does not prove that Homeopathy works " would have been sufficient to express your point .One can convince the unconvinced but can not convince ( rather need not try also )to convince those who refuse to be convincned . Any way Thank You sir.
In spite of all this I do beleive or so to say firmly by experince that Homoeopathy WORKS.It is neither witchcraft nor placebo effect -much against the wish of some. Some two decades ago I too was as sceptic about the small sugar pills as anybody else would have been for about 5 years. As it is said Let the light of Knowledge come from all sides - tried it for Tonilitis and ganlion within ny circle and surprisingly I found it worked - not as a palliative but as a permanent cure. No recurrence till now. Then I found it working on fevers , injuries, diarroeah and so on and so forth. Latest one in the list was a sudden squint in the eyes of a lady diagnosed as Lateral Rectus Palsy by a most ultra modern Eye Hospital , no findings in MRI scanning still condition getting worse with modern doctors getting clueless and suggest Steroid ( no medication done all along ) and a Homoeopathic Doctor gives remedy and cures within two weeks without surgery all have convinced me that that Homoeopathy WORKS.I can quote a lot of cures. Then why on earth shoud I get anybody else to say that it works? My refernce to the side effects of modern medicine was not to positively prove that Homoeopathy works but only to point out how much your Science has failed us and critics take same " Science" as the basis to decide whether other systems works or not.Instead will it not be prudent to have an introspection before criticising other systems? Your "Science" says -Dont take Ayurvedic medicines because they have TOO MUCH of heavy metals and does not stand the toxicity test and in contrast Homoeopathy has TOO LESS so that also does not work!!!and you do admit that modern drugs have side effects ( for which honest admission I am thankful ). So only take ... what??? Will the patient not be able to decide what is good for himself and what cures him mildly and surely ? Take a couple of doses and if a system does not give him relief and cure will he stick to that system?? I would like the issue be given a fair thought rather dispassionately by all.A satisfied customer is a good advertisement and same is the case for Homoeopathy.The cured patients themselves are a proof. We can give hundreds of such cases but at the end critics will stick to their single point agenda - TDPHW.
In spite of all this it is good that the critics have made laymen like me come in defence of Homoeopathy because that is the way in which we can expresss our gratitude to the system.
Regarding the efforts to phase out the system from public domain to private one, it is not the economical considerations involved but the principles involved in so far as an honest taxpayers' right to exercise a right of a judicious choice on the system of treatment they would prefer to have notwithstanding their financial capacities and capabilities to seek such treatments from private sources at their own cost. It is said in Sanskrit - Sathyameva Jayathe - Truth wins ultimately.
Purushottama, India says...
3:42pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Dear Sir,
Regarding that comment on high mortality rate etc. etc. plese read History who ruled us for past 3 centuries and why our traditional 'orthodox' systems like Ayurveda and Yoga were destroyed and now why these systems are favourites for patenting in the Western countries!!!
Regarding that comment on high mortality rate etc. etc. plese read History who ruled us for past 3 centuries and why our traditional 'orthodox' systems like Ayurveda and Yoga were destroyed and now why these systems are favourites for patenting in the Western countries!!!
Simon, North London says...
10:21pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Purushottama wrote, "why did you take that much pain to retype all I wrote..."
You posted 9 numbered points, none of which actually supported the proposition that homoeopathy works (you chose mostly to attack your idea of what "science" and "Medical Fundamentalism" is rather than attempt to defend homoeopathy): I addressed each point in turn.
In your more recent post, you at least say something about why you think that homoeopathy works. Unfortunately, the sort of anecdotal evidence you describe can not actually establish that homoeopathy works, because of the lack of any experimental control. Because of this it fails to rule out (among other possibilities) spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean, reporting bias, and the placebo effect.
Anecdotal accounts like the ones you refer to claim that homoeopathy has effects that are so great as to be self-evident; however, when trials are carried out that control for factors other than the homoeopathic remedies administered, these effects have a remarkable tendency to disappear. This suggests strongly that the recoveries are not caused by the homoeopathic remedies administered.
You posted 9 numbered points, none of which actually supported the proposition that homoeopathy works (you chose mostly to attack your idea of what "science" and "Medical Fundamentalism" is rather than attempt to defend homoeopathy): I addressed each point in turn.
In your more recent post, you at least say something about why you think that homoeopathy works. Unfortunately, the sort of anecdotal evidence you describe can not actually establish that homoeopathy works, because of the lack of any experimental control. Because of this it fails to rule out (among other possibilities) spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean, reporting bias, and the placebo effect.
Anecdotal accounts like the ones you refer to claim that homoeopathy has effects that are so great as to be self-evident; however, when trials are carried out that control for factors other than the homoeopathic remedies administered, these effects have a remarkable tendency to disappear. This suggests strongly that the recoveries are not caused by the homoeopathic remedies administered.
Andy, Oxford says...
11:56pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Sue, your comments give the clearest reason why homeopathy should not be funded by the NHS. You say,
"Most people in this country die from iatrogenic illness induced by conventional medicine."
So, all of the NHS, bar your favourite quackery, is killing patients on a scale that would put Harold Shipman to shame? Conventional medicine is the greatest risk to us all?
This attitude shows why homeopathy is very harmful. Its not the silly sugar pills that harm, its the delusional and insulting beliefs that may turn people away from trusting real medicine in favour of voodoo.
Real medicine has doubled life expectancy over the past hundred years. Very few children now die of the big child killers, polio, measles etc through effective immunisation. Adults do not die of TB in vast numbers, minor injuries and infections do not kill due to antibiotics. Other illnesses can be worked through due to intensive care facilities that support weakened hearts, lungs kidneys etc. Transplants save lives. AIDS is not a death sentence any more. Lives are transformed through hip replacements. Childhood leukemia is beaten by thousands of kids. Hard tumours are treated effectively through radiotherapy. Medical imaging allows accurate diagnoses and allows timely intervention.
We can expect to live for twice as long as our great grandparents. We live healthier, fuller and more pain free lives.
How much of that miraculous transcendence is due to homeopathy?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The public purse should not be paying for 18th century foolery.
"Most people in this country die from iatrogenic illness induced by conventional medicine."
So, all of the NHS, bar your favourite quackery, is killing patients on a scale that would put Harold Shipman to shame? Conventional medicine is the greatest risk to us all?
This attitude shows why homeopathy is very harmful. Its not the silly sugar pills that harm, its the delusional and insulting beliefs that may turn people away from trusting real medicine in favour of voodoo.
Real medicine has doubled life expectancy over the past hundred years. Very few children now die of the big child killers, polio, measles etc through effective immunisation. Adults do not die of TB in vast numbers, minor injuries and infections do not kill due to antibiotics. Other illnesses can be worked through due to intensive care facilities that support weakened hearts, lungs kidneys etc. Transplants save lives. AIDS is not a death sentence any more. Lives are transformed through hip replacements. Childhood leukemia is beaten by thousands of kids. Hard tumours are treated effectively through radiotherapy. Medical imaging allows accurate diagnoses and allows timely intervention.
We can expect to live for twice as long as our great grandparents. We live healthier, fuller and more pain free lives.
How much of that miraculous transcendence is due to homeopathy?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The public purse should not be paying for 18th century foolery.
IMD, Luna says...
6:28am Mon 4 Jun 07
Can anyone explain to me the difference between a Homeopathic Doctor and a Witch Doctor?
They both apply threatments based on unproven methods that have existed for a long time, which people "believe" in and sometimes work. And more often don't. But in both professions the doctors oddly enough manage to recall their triumphs and ignore their failures.
Unlike the poor, pharamaceutical slaves in modern EBM who study the effects of treatements, learn from mistakes and do their best to find out and then apply treatments that actually work (and abandon those that don't) - rather than ones they believe in.
They both apply threatments based on unproven methods that have existed for a long time, which people "believe" in and sometimes work. And more often don't. But in both professions the doctors oddly enough manage to recall their triumphs and ignore their failures.
Unlike the poor, pharamaceutical slaves in modern EBM who study the effects of treatements, learn from mistakes and do their best to find out and then apply treatments that actually work (and abandon those that don't) - rather than ones they believe in.
Ian, London says...
8:17am Mon 4 Jun 07
There have been NO rigorously controlled, medically significant trials demonstrating anything other than placebo effect for homoeopathy and its magic water treatments. None of the pro comments above have been able to show anything more than anecdotal 'evidence' that these potions work. For heaven's sake, the fact that the idiot Windsors see fit to spout unsubstantiated support for this should be reason enough to banish homoeopaths and their sheeplike patients to more sympathetic shores (by all means go to India if you like).
If individuals wish to delude themselves into believing they've experienced benefits from this charlatanism, fine. Just don't expect to do it at my expense. "It's my choice!" you cry - well yes it is, so pay for your choice yourselves and may you lead a long and happy life.
If individuals wish to delude themselves into believing they've experienced benefits from this charlatanism, fine. Just don't expect to do it at my expense. "It's my choice!" you cry - well yes it is, so pay for your choice yourselves and may you lead a long and happy life.
sue, says...
1:49pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Check out:
mercola.com
scientific-misconduc
t.blogspot.com
1. Simon - please stop ridiculing Purushottama's gentle Indian culture. You're not being very politically correct and it is becoming embarrassing! Please stay polite.
2. Andy - Iatrogenic medicine does kill - do some research before you rant please. Real medicine has doubled life expectancy over the past hundred years? I think you will find that its improved sanitation and diet.
3. If you wonder why there is not any clear research into homeopathy, why not ask who funds all the research? Drug companies? Oh! Well... How much money do you think this research costs, who does it benefit and how much do you think alternative medicine has? About 10p at the last whip round!
4. What have you lot got against alternative view points that makes you so vitriolic? None of you have really looked into this in any depth. Your comments are circulating around and around and being repeated and repeated by all those who join this 'witch hunt', but for people who jump so eagerly into the 'witch hunt', I ask you to look for the uncomfortable historical precedents behind such attitudes. When you have satisfactorily hoovered out 'unsavoury idealistic heresies' from an NHS which belongs to EVERYONE, not just 'true believers', where will your 'purist' idealogies lead you next? Who else will you exclude? Who will be the next target for your - well I have to call it hatred because though we alternatives are trying to remain calm to discuss this issue, you lot are escalating your tone and becoming really rather abusive.
I would like to thank the Hendon and Finchley Times for allowing so many comments on this issue, as the Mail online cut a similar debate off after 11 comments. However, as the tone and content is becoming so nasty, I will sign off here. I am saddened that so many people get enjoyment from inquisition. I had really thought this was part of history and had no part in our modern world. It is as if the enlightenment never happened. I am sorry I was wrong.
mercola.com
scientific-misconduc
t.blogspot.com
1. Simon - please stop ridiculing Purushottama's gentle Indian culture. You're not being very politically correct and it is becoming embarrassing! Please stay polite.
2. Andy - Iatrogenic medicine does kill - do some research before you rant please. Real medicine has doubled life expectancy over the past hundred years? I think you will find that its improved sanitation and diet.
3. If you wonder why there is not any clear research into homeopathy, why not ask who funds all the research? Drug companies? Oh! Well... How much money do you think this research costs, who does it benefit and how much do you think alternative medicine has? About 10p at the last whip round!
4. What have you lot got against alternative view points that makes you so vitriolic? None of you have really looked into this in any depth. Your comments are circulating around and around and being repeated and repeated by all those who join this 'witch hunt', but for people who jump so eagerly into the 'witch hunt', I ask you to look for the uncomfortable historical precedents behind such attitudes. When you have satisfactorily hoovered out 'unsavoury idealistic heresies' from an NHS which belongs to EVERYONE, not just 'true believers', where will your 'purist' idealogies lead you next? Who else will you exclude? Who will be the next target for your - well I have to call it hatred because though we alternatives are trying to remain calm to discuss this issue, you lot are escalating your tone and becoming really rather abusive.
I would like to thank the Hendon and Finchley Times for allowing so many comments on this issue, as the Mail online cut a similar debate off after 11 comments. However, as the tone and content is becoming so nasty, I will sign off here. I am saddened that so many people get enjoyment from inquisition. I had really thought this was part of history and had no part in our modern world. It is as if the enlightenment never happened. I am sorry I was wrong.
tom, north london says...
2:55pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Sue - Simon doesn't appear to have ridiculed purushottoma's culture at all. You're claiming he is to make him seem racist and it's a pathetic approach. Anyway, what's so gentle about Indian culture? Is it the caste system? Is it Sati (the burning of widows)? Is it wide-scale abortion of feamle foetuses to avoid having to pay dowries?
You let slip in an earlier comment that you're a quack when you wrote "our clients". You've a vested financial interest in keeping this whole nonsense going as do all of the other frauds who claim to be charming poor healers - as you well know, there's a lot of money in them sugar pills.
For the record, over-use of antibiotics was never considered a good thing scientifically, it's doctors giving them out left, right and centre to their patients to either get them to go away (NHS doctors) or to get them to come again (private doctors) that led to antibiotic resistance. This has long been recognised as a bad thing.
As for your ridiculous claim that modern medicine hasn't been responsible for increasing life expectancy, that's easily rebutted with the simple example of broken bones. In the victorian era (so post-introduction of homeopathy but before antibiotics and anaesthetic) someone suffering a broken leg would probably be dead within 5 days (10-day survival was considered to be very good!). I don't really need to highlight the contrast to the situation now.
You let slip in an earlier comment that you're a quack when you wrote "our clients". You've a vested financial interest in keeping this whole nonsense going as do all of the other frauds who claim to be charming poor healers - as you well know, there's a lot of money in them sugar pills.
For the record, over-use of antibiotics was never considered a good thing scientifically, it's doctors giving them out left, right and centre to their patients to either get them to go away (NHS doctors) or to get them to come again (private doctors) that led to antibiotic resistance. This has long been recognised as a bad thing.
As for your ridiculous claim that modern medicine hasn't been responsible for increasing life expectancy, that's easily rebutted with the simple example of broken bones. In the victorian era (so post-introduction of homeopathy but before antibiotics and anaesthetic) someone suffering a broken leg would probably be dead within 5 days (10-day survival was considered to be very good!). I don't really need to highlight the contrast to the situation now.
Harry, says...
6:45pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Sue, I'm not sure that we're reading the same responses. Simon seems to have remained remarkably civil and hasn't ridiculed anyone.
There is no witch-hunt, and your martyrish tone is really quite unwarranted. Nor is everyone "so sure that they're right". In fact, most people are quite open to the possibility that something different works, all they require is evidence. You have made some claims, now prove them. Until you have, don't expect people to be happy that their taxes are going to homoeopathy rather than chemotherapy, surgery and other proven techniques. Homeopathy is a multi-billion pound business, there's plenty of money in it to go toward research. So why have there been no high-quality studies that suggest that homeopathy actually works?
There is no witch-hunt, and your martyrish tone is really quite unwarranted. Nor is everyone "so sure that they're right". In fact, most people are quite open to the possibility that something different works, all they require is evidence. You have made some claims, now prove them. Until you have, don't expect people to be happy that their taxes are going to homoeopathy rather than chemotherapy, surgery and other proven techniques. Homeopathy is a multi-billion pound business, there's plenty of money in it to go toward research. So why have there been no high-quality studies that suggest that homeopathy actually works?
Don Pedro, London says...
8:11pm Mon 4 Jun 07
If some gullible whackoes want to buy homeopathic "remedies" then I see no reason to prevent them. A massive, and expensive, meta-analysis of a huge number trials of homeopathic preparations was recently conducted, and paid for, by the NHS. Conclusion: proof positive that there is no effect stronger than placebo.
Let's be crystal clear : there is no homeopathic 'insulin,' there is no homeopathic alternative to heart surgery, there is no homeopathic alternative to oxygen. Every penny you spend on fancy water is a penny you cannot spend on these proven, life-saving items.
If you want to indulge your neuroses, kindly do so at your own expense.
Let's be crystal clear : there is no homeopathic 'insulin,' there is no homeopathic alternative to heart surgery, there is no homeopathic alternative to oxygen. Every penny you spend on fancy water is a penny you cannot spend on these proven, life-saving items.
If you want to indulge your neuroses, kindly do so at your own expense.
Quixotematic, Lewisham says...
10:35pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Homeopathy does have a potential place within modern healthcare. it is the best palliative for chronic hypochondria known to humankind. It allows neurotic parents to medicate their children without risk of harm and, best of all, lactose costs very little.
Roger Denne, Sydney, Australia says...
12:56am Tue 5 Jun 07
Any Sceptic who visits the clinics of Dr Banerji in Calcutta,India, would have to say Homoeopathy works. His system of Homoeopathy based on practical experience treats two to three to thousand patients every week in five clinics,treating patients whose symptoms have not been cured by conventional medicine, or who are trying to avoid a prescribed operation.
Andy, Oxford says...
12:12pm Tue 5 Jun 07
So Roger, let's just imagine you are in a car crash tomorrow, catch a life-threatening virus, or get cancer. Where would you rather be? At dr Banerji's Calcutta clinic, or being treated by hard working australian medics in Sydney?
If Dr Banerji has published data that shows his methods work, then let's see them. otherwise, isn't this just one more anecdote, subject to all the usual falacies and logical problems?
If Dr Banerji has published data that shows his methods work, then let's see them. otherwise, isn't this just one more anecdote, subject to all the usual falacies and logical problems?
Simon, North London says...
11:41pm Tue 5 Jun 07
There does appear to be some material available about Dr. banerji's work. The Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation submitted 12 cases for evaluation by the Cancer Advisory Panel for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (a US government body), under a "best case series" programme in which practitioners were invited to submit accounts of their best cases. According to the minutes from a CAPCAM meeting in December 1999, "four of these cases appeared to document tumor regression after administration of a homeopathic cancer treatment." Considering the many thousands of patients Dr. Banerjis clinic treats (the article mentioned below says that patient flow into the clinic often exceeds 1,000 per day), only being able to find four cases when allowed to cherry-pick the best ones does not look like a very good success rate. And it is not established, even for these four cases, that the regression was actually caused by the treatment: there was no control group, so factors cannot be ruled out. The fact that one event followed another does not prove any causal relationship.
Interestingly, Dr. Banerji does not appear to practice homoeopathy in the same way as it is usually said to be practiced in this country. According to an article in the October 4th 2000 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, "unlike classical homeopathy, which individualizes the treatment for each patient, the Banerjis have standardized their approach so that all lung cancer patients receive the same prescription for their cancer." This standardized approach should make Dr. Banerjis brand of homoeopathy considerably more straightforward to test in double-blind placebo-controlled trials than classical homoeopathy is. There are a couple of papers on pubmed with the author "Banerji P." and mentioning homeopathic remedies. Again, neither of these is a study of individualized homoeopathy (both seem to have used a remedy called Ruta with calcium phosphate), and neither abstract mentions a control group.
Interestingly, Dr. Banerji does not appear to practice homoeopathy in the same way as it is usually said to be practiced in this country. According to an article in the October 4th 2000 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, "unlike classical homeopathy, which individualizes the treatment for each patient, the Banerjis have standardized their approach so that all lung cancer patients receive the same prescription for their cancer." This standardized approach should make Dr. Banerjis brand of homoeopathy considerably more straightforward to test in double-blind placebo-controlled trials than classical homoeopathy is. There are a couple of papers on pubmed with the author "Banerji P." and mentioning homeopathic remedies. Again, neither of these is a study of individualized homoeopathy (both seem to have used a remedy called Ruta with calcium phosphate), and neither abstract mentions a control group.
Paul Hill, South Wales says...
10:35am Wed 6 Jun 07
Why do you guys even need a taxpayer-funded Homeopathy centre?
Can't you just drink out the tap?
Can't you just drink out the tap?
Cath, London says...
11:11am Wed 6 Jun 07
Sue wrote" If you wonder why there is not any clear research into homeopathy, why not ask who funds all the research? Drug companies? Oh! Well... How much money do you think this research costs, who does it benefit and how much do you think alternative medicine has? About 10p at the last whip round!"
Actually, in 2005, the CAM market was worth around £250million. It's grown a lot since then, mainly due to CAM practitioners putting out all kinds of anecdotes and dressing it up as "evidence".
It's BIG business, and could easily afford to do some proper trials. But, as the manufacturers of the magic water potions know, it would be foolish to do so,as they know the outcome would kill the business.
Actually, in 2005, the CAM market was worth around £250million. It's grown a lot since then, mainly due to CAM practitioners putting out all kinds of anecdotes and dressing it up as "evidence".
It's BIG business, and could easily afford to do some proper trials. But, as the manufacturers of the magic water potions know, it would be foolish to do so,as they know the outcome would kill the business.
doug, Barnet says...
11:19am Wed 6 Jun 07
Homeopathy is a treatment that in trials to date, has not demonstated any clinical benefit.
The NHS has limited resources and should spend money on treatments that have been proven to work. What could be more sensible than that? Why is that a witch hunt?
The NHS has limited resources and should spend money on treatments that have been proven to work. What could be more sensible than that? Why is that a witch hunt?
Spanky, London says...
11:29am Wed 6 Jun 07
Why is it always gullible women who believe in this nonsense? They sit at home watching their 'psychic TV' channels, reading their horoscopes, and popping their expensive placebos. And I bet most of them are over weight too.
Homeopathy is a sham. Anyone with half a brain knows this. I am rejoicing at the moves being made by the NHS to have it withdrawn. It gives me hope in mankind again.
Homeopathy is a sham. Anyone with half a brain knows this. I am rejoicing at the moves being made by the NHS to have it withdrawn. It gives me hope in mankind again.
Simone, Edgware says...
3:01pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Simon wrote:Many treatments available on the NHS have not undergone rigorous placebo controlled trials, simply because these are not necessarily appropriate type of trials to do for certain types of treatments. For example many psychological therapies suffer from this difficulty and are studied using different types of trials. A good argument could be made for homeopathy to belong more to these types of therapies, so that placebo controlled trials are the wrong way to assess it. Secondly some therapies, such as the use of Ultrasound in physiotherapy , has very little evidence base behind it and yet has never been questioned and is widely used in the NHS. Thirdly, the studies that Simon is quoting have had all major flaws in their design and I could spend many pages summarising their design faults.Let's not fall into the trap of make definative statements on a therapy if the research is poor. Finally many drugs, especially used for depression, have pretty inconclusive trial data on their efficacy, yet these expensive drugs form the mainstay of treatment for depression on the NHS. We should try and encourage more reasearch into homeopathy with appropriate trials before we dismiss a therapy who's motto has always been 'to heal but do no harm'.
Sue asks for proof that homoeopathy doesn\'t work. However, if public money is to be spent on it, surely the onus must be on its proponents to prove that it does work. Systematic reviews of trials of homoeopathy have consistently failed to conclude that homoeopathy works. For example, Shang et al. (Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32) concluded that the results of the available trials are compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects; Cucherat et al. (Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;56(1):27-33) concluded that while there is some low-quality evidence for homoeopathy, studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies; Altunc et al. (Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 Jan;82(1):69-75) concluded the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition; Professor Edzard Ernsts systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Dec;54(6):577-82) concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice. Even Linde et al. (Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43) , which is often put forward as supporting homoeopathy, concluded that, while further research appeared to be warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Simon, North London says...
3:14pm Mon 11 Jun 07
Simone wrote:
Many treatments available on the NHS have not undergone rigorous placebo controlled trials, simply because these are not necessarily appropriate type of trials to do for certain types of treatments. For example many psychological therapies suffer from this difficulty and are studied using different types of trials. A good argument could be made for homeopathy to belong more to these types of therapies, so that placebo controlled trials are the wrong way to assess it.
Homoeopathic treatments have two components: the consultation and the remedy. Since the remedy is usually a small pill (or sometimes a preparation involving a solvent) the difficulty experienced with some other treatments does not arise; a double blind placebo controlled is a perfectly appropriate way of assessing whether or not the remedy has an effect. I take it that youre not claiming that all the apparent effects of homoeopathy are caused by the consultation.
Secondly some therapies, such as the use of Ultrasound in physiotherapy , has very little evidence base behind it and yet has never been questioned and is widely used in the NHS.
Well, lets question these therapies, then. All Im calling for here is that homoeopathy should be assessed in the same way as other treatments, and that the NHS shouldnt give it the same sort of free ride as it is currently given by the MHRA, who allow homoeopathic medicines onto the market without requiring the evidence of efficacy which is compulsory before orthodox medicines are put on the market. Perhaps, if homoeopathy is provided on the NHS, it should be assessed by NICE.
Thirdly, the studies that Simon is quoting have had all major flaws in their design and I could spend many pages summarising their design faults.
At least one of them (Linde) is considered reliable enough by the Society of Homeopaths for them to claim that it shows that homoeopathy works (see the document An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys on their website), despite the fact that it concluded we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Let's not fall into the trap of make definative statements on a therapy if the research is poor.
Lets not. Lets have some good quality research showing homoeopathy works before we assume it does.
Many treatments available on the NHS have not undergone rigorous placebo controlled trials, simply because these are not necessarily appropriate type of trials to do for certain types of treatments. For example many psychological therapies suffer from this difficulty and are studied using different types of trials. A good argument could be made for homeopathy to belong more to these types of therapies, so that placebo controlled trials are the wrong way to assess it.
Homoeopathic treatments have two components: the consultation and the remedy. Since the remedy is usually a small pill (or sometimes a preparation involving a solvent) the difficulty experienced with some other treatments does not arise; a double blind placebo controlled is a perfectly appropriate way of assessing whether or not the remedy has an effect. I take it that youre not claiming that all the apparent effects of homoeopathy are caused by the consultation.
Secondly some therapies, such as the use of Ultrasound in physiotherapy , has very little evidence base behind it and yet has never been questioned and is widely used in the NHS.
Well, lets question these therapies, then. All Im calling for here is that homoeopathy should be assessed in the same way as other treatments, and that the NHS shouldnt give it the same sort of free ride as it is currently given by the MHRA, who allow homoeopathic medicines onto the market without requiring the evidence of efficacy which is compulsory before orthodox medicines are put on the market. Perhaps, if homoeopathy is provided on the NHS, it should be assessed by NICE.
Thirdly, the studies that Simon is quoting have had all major flaws in their design and I could spend many pages summarising their design faults.
At least one of them (Linde) is considered reliable enough by the Society of Homeopaths for them to claim that it shows that homoeopathy works (see the document An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys on their website), despite the fact that it concluded we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Let's not fall into the trap of make definative statements on a therapy if the research is poor.
Lets not. Lets have some good quality research showing homoeopathy works before we assume it does.
SAJ, Hendon says...
9:47am Sat 14 Jul 07
"The trouble with science is that 'they used to know but now they are not so sure'. It was 'science' to allow lots of nasty things we now find disgusting, like the atom bomb and nuclear fuel and the over use of antibiotics and pesticides. Wasn't that 'good science' once?"
This paragraph is so ridiculous, misinformed and childish that it pretty much removes your right to participate in sensible, rational debate. To be honest, I find it scary that you are working as a health professional.
This paragraph is so ridiculous, misinformed and childish that it pretty much removes your right to participate in sensible, rational debate. To be honest, I find it scary that you are working as a health professional.
In this section
- Hundreds in Barnet scammed by fake car-matching scheme
- Colindale landlord fined over 'dangerous' property
- Road closed after crash
- Two men attack cash guard in NatWest bank
- Barnet councillor re-elected to city wide committee
- Sporting success for borough's young athletes
- Hundreds of motorists hit by vehicle matching scams
- Summer theatre schools for borough's budding performers
- Boy given warning for 'harassing' councillor
- CCTV installation brought forward after crimewave
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Sue, North London says...
10:01pm Fri 1 Jun 07