NHS funding homeopathy: Your views

Of course homeopathy should be available on the NHS. This energy-based medicine is one of the most curative systems of medicine ever devised. That we cannot explain at this moment how homeopathy can work its magic in no way means that it does not work. Not too long ago we didn't know how aspirin worked. No one stopped using it or attempted to prevent other people from using.

My personal experience is that it's the best medicine going. After suffering for years from the consequences of head injuries and getting no improvement from other forms of medicine, I began a course of homeopathic treatment. Today I have a full, rich and satisfying life. I am able to pursue my own interests and handle family responsibilities. I now use homeopathy exclusively for all my health issues chronic or acute, injuries and dental problems.

It is outrageous that anyone would attempt to prevent others from exercising their choice of medicine or prevent others from enjoying the good health homeopathy can provide.

C Redd wrote:

Of course homeopathy should be available on the NHS. This energy-based medicine is one of the most curative systems of medicine ever devised. That we cannot explain at this moment how homeopathy can work its magic in no way means that it does not work. Not too long ago we didn't know how aspirin worked. No one stopped using it or attempted to prevent other people from using.

Homeopathy is quackery. It literally does nothing, and all well-designed trials have shown it to 'work' at the same level as placebo.

It is not the case that we simply don't know how it works. It's that we know it doesn't. All of its major tenets are either scientifically impossible or wholly unsubstantiated. This is not surprising since homeopathy has its origins in the outdated and false concept of Vitalism.

It is outrageous that anyone would attempt to prevent others from exercising their choice of medicine or prevent others from enjoying the good health homeopathy can provide.

UK citizens are free to drink expensive water and take expensive sugar pills all they wish. They should not expect taxpayers to pay for these costs.

it is nothing but WATER in BOTTLES. as the above poster says, QUACKERY of the worst sort. Aspirin was known to work because of Salicylic acid in it many years ago.

Re the comment above, methodologically reliable, controlled clinical trials proving homeopathic efficacy have been published in at least 24 international and national non-homeopathic journals including:

Lancet, British Medical Journal, Rheumatology, Phlebology, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Pediatric Infective Diseases Journal, National Scientific Journal, Cancer and Thrombosis Research.(The Shang analysis has long since been debunked for a number of reasons including Shang's refusal to identify the 8 trials he used out of the 100+ trials supporting homeopathy.)

Studies have been performed on animals and plants, in vivo and in vitro. Studies have been done on many diseases including cancer, head trauma, fibromyalgia and childhood diarrhea (a tremendous cause of death in many countries). They have all evidenced for homeopathic efficacy. Obviously, evidence from trials on animals, plants, in vivo and in vitro cannot be claimed to be placebo.

It is a sad commentary that people go to such extraordinary lengths to influence others not to try or use one of the world's most curative systems of medicine.

Mage,

"They should not expect taxpayers to pay for these costs." Hopefully, you are just uninformed or misinformed.

You expect taxpayers to pay for conventional drugs/care don't you? Maybe you're not aware of the fact that conventional drugs/care are the number one killer of Americans today claiming upwards of 784,000 lives per year. This number comes from the records of the CDC and the offices of medical examiners across the country. In fact, it is most likely LOW because only 5% to 20% of "negative events" are ever reported. On the other hand, there are no records of anyone having died from the use of homeopathy.(It is REAL medicine which cures. NO ONE has died as a result of using homeopathy over conventional medicine despite the "skeptic" claims.)

Hopefully, your comment is based on lack of information about the facts of medicine today and on lack of knowledge about and experience in using homeopathy. Hopefully, you really don't mean that you don't want humanity to have the benefits of a truly curative medicine.

Homopathy? disgusting! there are enough gays around already without Charlie promoting it.

When people are saying it has been proven to not work science doesn't work like that. They have not proved that homoeopathy does not work anymore than we have proved that it does. There is just no evidence for either way. How can a policy decision be based on taking speculations from a realist’s scientific paradigm as absolute fact? This is much the same way as believing the truth offered by a priest pre-enlightenment and basing decisions on what the Bible says is truth. Sure enough to look for proof that it works in real terms as in that it has an effect on society and its structures (it even woks in animals). But don’t allow politicians to announce as a ‘Fact’ that it does not work when it mealy remains one of the many mysteries of life. Stop these politicians proclaiming to priestly ‘truths’ as a basis for their political addenda’s, this after all is what caused the holocaust biased on eugenics, Just do whatever works.

C Redd wrote:

Mage,
"They should not expect taxpayers to pay for these costs." Hopefully, you are just uninformed or misinformed.
You expect taxpayers to pay for conventional drugs/care don't you? Maybe you're not aware of the fact that conventional drugs/care are the number one killer of Americans today claiming upwards of 784,000 lives per year. This number comes from the records of the CDC and the offices of medical examiners across the country. In fact, it is most likely LOW because only 5% to 20% of "negative events" are ever reported. On the other hand, there are no records of anyone having died from the use of homeopathy.(It is REAL medicine which cures. NO ONE has died as a result of using homeopathy over conventional medicine despite the "skeptic" claims.)
Hopefully, your comment is based on lack of information about the facts of medicine today and on lack of knowledge about and experience in using homeopathy. Hopefully, you really don't mean that you don't want humanity to have the benefits of a truly curative medicine.

Your number for iatrogenic deaths (courtesy of quack Gary Null) is ridiculous and completely unsupported.

Homeopathy hasn't killed anyone *directly* because it's only water. People have been killed because they took homeopathic 'medicine' instead of real medicine.

haydn wrote:

When people are saying it has been proven to not work science doesn't work like that. They have not proved that homoeopathy does not work anymore than we have proved that it does. There is just no evidence for either way. How can a policy decision be based on taking speculations from a realist’s scientific paradigm as absolute fact? This is much the same way as believing the truth offered by a priest pre-enlightenment and basing decisions on what the Bible says is truth. Sure enough to look for proof that it works in real terms as in that it has an effect on society and its structures (it even woks in animals). But don’t allow politicians to announce as a ‘Fact’ that it does not work when it mealy remains one of the many mysteries of life. Stop these politicians proclaiming to priestly ‘truths’ as a basis for their political addenda’s, this after all is what caused the holocaust biased on eugenics, Just do whatever works.

haydn,

Homeopathys complete failure in scientific tests (not to mention its absolutely absurd premises and lack of any plausibility) have shown that it does not work.

Why not fund it? Everyone likes free bottled water!

Post some citations to back your assertions.

C Redd wrote:

Re the comment above, methodologically reliable, controlled clinical trials proving homeopathic efficacy have been published in at least 24 international and national non-homeopathic journals including:
Lancet, British Medical Journal, Rheumatology, Phlebology, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Pediatric Infective Diseases Journal, National Scientific Journal, Cancer and Thrombosis Research.(The Shang analysis has long since been debunked for a number of reasons including Shang's refusal to identify the 8 trials he used out of the 100+ trials supporting homeopathy.)
Studies have been performed on animals and plants, in vivo and in vitro. Studies have been done on many diseases including cancer, head trauma, fibromyalgia and childhood diarrhea (a tremendous cause of death in many countries). They have all evidenced for homeopathic efficacy. Obviously, evidence from trials on animals, plants, in vivo and in vitro cannot be claimed to be placebo.
It is a sad commentary that people go to such extraordinary lengths to influence others not to try or use one of the world's most curative systems of medicine.

Mage wrote:

<quoted text>
Your number for iatrogenic deaths (courtesy of quack Gary Null) is ridiculous and completely unsupported.
Homeopathy hasn't killed anyone *directly* because it's only water. People have been killed because they took homeopathic 'medicine' instead of real medicine.

This is incorrect deduction.

The references are not written by him-only put together in one place.

Readers here who are interested in the 150+ studies showing that homeopathy works are welcome to see some of them at:

www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-...
www.worldhomeopathy.org/PositiveHomeopathy.pd...
www.homeopathyheals.com/clinical.html
http://avilian.co.uk

Also see PubMed for more positive homeopathic studies.

For people wishing to see records of a cured case of papillary carcinoma of the thyroid with lab reports:

www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics...

For those interested in a cured case of brain tumor with scans:

www.pbhrfindia.org/index.php/Case-Studies/Cur...

For people wanting to read the fully referenced report substantiating the fact that at least 784,000 Americans die every year as a result of conventional care/drugs:

www.whale.to/a/null9.html

C Redd wrote:

..
For people wanting to read the fully referenced report substantiating the fact that at least 784,000 Americans die every year as a result of conventional care/drugs:
www.whale.to/a/null9.html

Substantiating "the" fact..? Much over-prescription and wrongful prescription of drugs seems established, but not relevant.

The problem is: who to believe?

Maybe some people convinced of homeopathy are scientists and doctors? However, maybe they are all pre-disposed to the idea that it does work? People who seem inclined to believe in spirituality seem also to believe in homeopathy.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/spiritual...
I simply note that I know of nobody convinced by homeopathy who is not religious; or does not believe in spirituality and talk in terms of “healing” or Kama; or something along those lines.

Do sceptics find any convincing results? Find some sceptics and convince them. Well, that seems to have been done many times, but it didn't get us much further forward. The trouble is, they were unconvincing sceptics. Millions of Christians and Muslims “know” that god exists and (presumably) that he intercedes in our Earthly life, or else has pre-ordained what is to occur. They all agree that the evidence is all around us. What they say has logic, but that does not make their claims reasonable, let alone prove they are true. Many people believe in homeopathy and some claim to have been very sceptical before seeing the scientific evidence, but that does not prove that homeopathy has more than a placebo effect. Why? I think it is because there is a vast body of respected scientific opinion that is totally unconvinced by all of the evidence. They do not seem to be unwilling to believe homeopathy works and they would genuinely want to know if it did. However, whenever such people look at the evidence they find flaws in the reasoning, or study, or the claims.(Not flaws in the logic, but that is not important).

The reverse scenario to advocating homeopathy might be climate change scepticism? In effect, climate change sceptics doubt the collective scientific opinion of over 2,500 of the most respected scientists on the planet. Majority opinion seems to be that these sceptics do not sound any more convincing in their denunciation of climate change than advocates do of homeopathic efficacy.

It is my guess that most climate change sceptics would be sceptical of homeopathy too.(I do not doubt that people who take homeopathic remedies feel they benefit from them). Point is: it matters very much WHO is convinced, or unconvinced, by a theory.

Can you offer more credible support for anything you have claimed? For instance, this link you quote is from the “Homeopathy World Community”. Hardly the Lancet, is it?
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum...
Lancet seems quite unimpressed by such “evidence”..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

There are two tribes--the tribe that gets it and the tribe that doesn't. Clearly you're a member of that latter tribe.

88% of the world's population practices one form of religion or another. 12% of the world's population are atheists. So much for the argument that people who know homeopathy works are also religious and, therefore, are being duped by "religious" beliefs.

As to the cured case of papillary carcinoma of the thyroid, the LAB RESULTS PROVE THE CURE.

The International Journal of Oncology is just one high-impact, conventional peer-review journal out of at least 24 which have published 150+ studies evidencing for the efficacy of homeopathy. They published this study in February, 2010, which proves that homeopathics kill breast cancer cells.

www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo-36/2/395

As to the Lancet article you link to, the Shang meta-analysis was debunked years ago. The Lancet announced "the end of homeopathy" five years ago. Since then its use has continued to grow. There are now 100 million people in Europe alone who use homeopathy---because it works, is safe and is, additionally, inexpensive.

You're pulling out of the hat old, tired, worn out arguments given by skeptics who haven't realized that Shang was discredited and his meta-a debunked or that more and more proof of homeopathic efficacy comes in around the world every day.

The link is www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/36/2/395

I will also add that the US government agency NCCAM has decided to continue doing research in homeopathy. Two studies sponsored at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center by NIH now show that homeopathics kill cancer cells.

I predict that EdSed will come back with attempts to deny or distort the facts about homeopathy. When that fails, EdSed will attempt to discredit the source of the information.

(BTW, it's interesting that Dr. Evan Harris lost his seat in Parliament, isn't it?)

C Redd wrote:

The link is www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/36/2/395
I will also add that the US government agency NCCAM has decided to continue doing research in homeopathy. Two studies sponsored at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center by NIH now show that homeopathics kill cancer cells.

No it doesn't, it shows the control substance (alcohol) kills cancer cells. It was also a pre clinical trial that has no relation to homeopathy as a treatment. Why must you continually lie & mislead people C Redd?

http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-le...

C Redd wrote:

The International Journal of Oncology is just one high-impact, conventional peer-review journal out of at least 24 which have published 150+ studies evidencing for the efficacy of homeopathy. They published this study in February, 2010, which proves that homeopathics kill breast cancer cells.
www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo-36/2/395

This truly awful study has been thoroughly torn apart. Their control group was killing cancer cells! They put the homeopathic solvent in a solution which *already kills cancer cells* and we're supposed to be shocked that it still kills cancer cells? They couldn't even be bothered to do statistical analysis of their results (because they weren't statistically significant).

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/a_h...

Mage wrote:

<quoted text>
This truly awful study has been thoroughly torn apart. Their control group was killing cancer cells! They put the homeopathic solvent in a solution which *already kills cancer cells* and we're supposed to be shocked that it still kills cancer cells? They couldn't even be bothered to do statistical analysis of their results (because they weren't statistically significant).
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/a_h...

I'm amazed that the US government agency NIH/NCCAM and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (one of if not the most highly respected cancer centers in the US) did not consult with you when they did this ground-breaking study. I'm equally amazed that the International Journal of Oncology, for some reason, did not consult with you prior to publishing this study in their peer-review journal.

BTW, the "skeptic" blogs you and your colleagues post here are funded by big pharma.

www.whale.to/p/quacks.html
www.elephantsandmice.wordpress.com/
http://avilian.co.uk/2010/04/beware-scientism... 's-onward-march/#more-1492

Thursday's election makes this article obsolete. Dr. Evan Harris, UK MP and antagonist to homeopathy, lost his seat in Parliament. Most likely the incoming UK government is not going to respond to the Sci & Tech Com. request that the NHS stop funding homeopathy (which it has done since 1948). The new government will recognize that there are far more satisfied users of homeopathy (45% of Britons according to a recent poll) than there are "skeptics" who amount to about 300. It will also recognize that funding homeopathy costs very little and especially when compared to the cost of conventional drugs which has skyrocketed in the past few years.