babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
British MPs: Stop funding homeoquackery
February 23, 2010 - 2:21pm
Quote:
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.The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which released its report on homeopathy on Monday, also urges governments in other European countries where homeopathy is popular – notably Germany, France and Austria – to be equally wary of funding homeopathy. "We feel there's a real message, not just in the UK," says committee chairman and Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis.
In preparing its report, the committee, which scrutinises 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.
Read it here.
I like this:
I guess that means St. Mungos isn't covered by the National Health Service.
Dilute the funding and it'll become even more powerful!
LOL! Here you folks go, a penny at the bottom of the swimming pool. A fortune!!
I'd rather have "quack" cures than quack diseases.
I dislike the thread.
1. It comes across as anti-choice
2. It has tunnel-vision; it belittles a rather benign and - to some - useful treatment while remaining highly uncritical of the rest of the realm of medicine where all the quacking about quackery comes from. If you want to talk about skeletons in the closet...
Homeopathy is still an option for you. But if you live in the UK, you can no longer expect the government to pay for it. I would assume the same is true of crystal healers and magic potions. Surely you would agree that the taxpayer has every right to not want to pay for nonsense that simply cannot be shown to work, yes? Or should I buy a ticket to Benny Hinn's next faith healing tent revival and charge it to the government?
This isn't about choice; it's about taxpayers funding that choice.
From here:
http://www.usask.ca/nursing/cne/docs/distance/20061102/integrative_medic...
That would be expensive.
If Canada chooses not to fund junkets to Miami for cardiac surgery that is available right here - would that also be "anti-choice", jas?
If it's about taxpayers funding that choice, then I guess that other choice we know so well is legitimate while the former is not? I don't see anything cheap about allopathic medicine, unless we consider sweeping problems under the rug an efficiency.
Is universal healthcare best with allopathic treatment and managerialism? The answer is clearly no. Anti-choice isn't about choice-as-a-client, but choices as citizens. Our choices are constrained by those wealthy enough to disengage with the process, the manipulation of treatment by Big Pharma, and a series of private economic interests that are not willing to commit to Canada beyond how it can make them richer. The fact that I *have* to spend money for treatments that aren't covered makes me less a citizen and more a client - I dislike this. For others they have lost faith in healthcare or are so dependent on it that they make themselves sicker. Clearly there is need for a renewal of universal health-care that addresses wellness and preventative care better.
Very well. But why would this health care include treatments and practices that have been demonstrated to be ineffective?
I'll re-use my example: should public revenues be used to fund religious faith healers? Where is the merit in that?
What problems are being swept under the rug, and why should we pay for healthcare that doesn't work?
True, but not relevant. We shouldn't fund fads even if they were dirt cheap. I'm sure you agree with that, but the cost thing invites red herrings and straw persons.
The rest of the realm of medicine is not the topic, homeopathy, or rather not paying for homeopathy with public funds, is the topic. Homeopathy has been overwhelmingly shown to be nothing more than water and ineffective beyond the placebo effect. If you wish o counter with some evidence why this is false, go for it. However, since the most conclusive information we have is that homeopathy doesn't work, how do you defend pissing our tax money away on expensively bottled water and sugar pills?
Sorry, I forgot to conduct my double-blind study and submit it to you for scrutiny, so you can write off any personal experiences and experiences of family and friends with this 'quackery'.
I won't defend "pissing away tax money" on what you deem ineffective forms of treatment, but can you acknowledge that, given that a staggeringly large number of Canadians do "piss their money away on alternative forms of therapy", there is something seriously wrong with the level of care from what currently is?
I find what most of you against homeopathy espouse actually defends a very problematic institution of medicine and treatment. Look at where we have come to with chronic illnesses, and who benefits off of these conditions. I find the imaginary is quite bleak, given that most comments take a particular version of science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge.
I cannot imagine what the conversation would be like if homeopathy's origins weren't situated within a Western context; would people be so willing to thrash it to bits? Would you go after other societies with the same vigor if their system of government funded - or just protected - "ineffective treatments" ?
Ah, one of babbles perenial topics. Get rid of homeopathy.
There are so many that still use it, why remove it from public support? What would be the result? Would it reduce our dependency on drugs or would it result in a shift towards other drugs? Drugs that probably cost a whole lot more to the public purse. People often feel better listening to music or going for a hike in the woods, ride a horse, play with the dog, going bird watching or star gazing, singing or dancing. Are we at babbles so arrogant that we know what make individuals feel better. We need far more alternatives , not less. Conventional medicine is unsustainable in my opinion and very likely will lead to a dead end. But that is another topic.
It's got nothing to do with what I deem or don't deem. Anecdotes are a place to start, and that's fine. But from there, somebody does do the double-blind studies and when the claims can't be reproduced or are overwhelmingly false - which, in the case of homeopathy, they have been - then it's time to say that the anecdotes were, well, just anecdotes.
So never mind doing a double-blind study yourself. Just go look up the other studies that have been done. There have been many. None of them have shown any of the effects and the claims of homeopaths that water has "memory" are incredibly improbable. So improbable that, in addition to the overwhelming physical evidence, we probably shouldn't publicly fund it.
Anecdotes are excluded from science. It is no surprise why the experiences of doctors who see tumors disappear without reason, or who pray to God, or engage in spiritual practices, before applying science through surgery are written off as anecdotes, irrelevant or quack practices.
Thank you, Bubbles, for your contribution; I enjoyed it.
Though I have disagreed with timebandit many times in the past, in this case I agree completely.
Homeopathic remedies are doses of expensive water and I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for it either.
IMO homeopathy is one of the alternative "medicines" that results in naturally derived medicines that work, being tainted with the same brush of quakery.
I would support government funding of all those useful and enriching activities.
But not that homeopathic fraud.
Exactly.
Care to show me the double blind studies that support the health benefit of music, hiking in the woods, horse riding, bird watching and star gazing.
No I don't.
Care to show me anyone that claims music, hiking, horse riding, bird watching, and star gazing can cure disease? No one does - there's no money in it. Unfortunately, I can link you to lots of quacks that make that claim for homeopathy.
So, government funding for the arts, for appreciation of nature, for physical recreation - yes, by all means. For tricking people about their health? Not on my watch.
Meh, these were all the same folks screaming H1N1 and defend their criticisms of alternative therapies on the backs of the same "western medicine model" that treats disease not symptoms or lifestyle. All to the benefit of those that use us. I'm no homeopathic but the derision it's given here by the usual suspects is downright laughable. Them scientists got everything all figured out already, eh? The know all we need to know about neurology and biology and their synthesis? No need for critical thinking?
This evidence based stuff may not have found anything more than placebo effect with homeopathy but I seem to recall a fair number of much worse products released upon us by the same method with disastrous results.
Actually, there has been at least one study that found exercise was as effective as SSRIs on mild to moderate depression.
I'd love to see doctors give prescriptions for gym memberships.
I also think that the notion that doctors medicate but do not advocate for better lifestyle is a load of crap. The issue is not with the recommendations that we eat better and exercise, it's that many people are not willing to make the change, and the doc can't make them. I've never been to a doctor who didn't ask questions about my diet and exercise as part of my patient history.
I've also witnessed my close friend who has arthritis, food allergies and a serious weight problem receive extensive counselling for nutrition, exercise and weight loss without prescription drugs - from her FP. Goodness. I'm sure he'll be tossed out of conventional medicine any moment, though. For sure.
But all this is digression. The thread is about homeopathy, not the shortcomings of mainstream or science-based medicine, it's not about H1N1, or any other red herrings that posters friendly to the idea of homeopathy drag in. Seriously, if you want to debate homeopathy, show us some evidence that we're wrong and you're right. Not anecdotes or persecution fantasies - actual evidence.
It's water, people. Just water.
It gets, and deserves, the same derision as Magic Healing Crystals, a Scientology "Audit" and healing by the laying on of hands. I'm genuinely baffled that you think it deserves some sort of respect that it's not getting. How much respect am I supposed to give to something THAT JUST DOESN'T DO ANYTHING?
Vaccination is about prevention. I have little time for those who minimized the scale of the pandemic, whether in advance or in hindsight.
The derision is important, once the logical argument doesn't appear to have any effect after almost 200 years of homeopathic ineffectiveness.
Science is about method, not final conclusions. That's what distinguishes science from the nonsense tales of "my uncle was dying until he sucked on the peach pit in the healing tent".
"Do no harm" is an important principle - but it sure doesn't measure up as a total replacement for science-based prevention and healing.
This is enough indication for me that discussing this further is not worth the time and energy. Good thing you used a relatively culturally neutral example (peaches coming from and prominent in other so-called places of "civilization") even if in poor taste.
What are you implying - that there's something racist about saying that homeopathy is nonsense? Or is it colonialist? I know - it's fear. It's fear of watery substances in little bottles. Or hatred. No, let's go back to racism. That's a really good argument
I think I'll argue that members of the British royal family are known users of homeopathetic remedies and therefore anyone sympathetic to this kind of thing is a racist imperialist. There's nothing like a good debate!
Next time please think before you lunge.
If you read my responses I have been referring to science - not homeopathy - in my responses. This particular response by Unionist was a shot at a number of alternative therapies for being non-scientific, not just homeopathy.
I was going to replace the word "suck" for "pass", "the peach pit" with "egg". There, now we have an example of a colonized group's practices as "nonsense" tales.
This is far from a "good debate".
What? "Poor taste"? I love peaches! And by the way, my uncle recovered fully and has been doing fine ever since... thanks for asking!
Absolutely wrong, j.m., not even close. My post was aimed at gossipy ANECDOTAL evidence, which universally is substituted for the scientific method when justifying homeopathy and like fraudulent approaches. Sorry you didn't understand my point, hope you do now.
Oh, and by the way, if you think what I call science is some colonial or race-based prejudice, you're entitled to your anti-scientific opinion - I hope I'm reading you wrong here, because from what I've read of your posts, you appear to accept the existence of an objective real world out there.