Jump to content

Homeopathic NHS GP


MJ
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, no. :lol: All I meant was that a placebo can be small and white too. The appearance of a placebo is unimportant in discussing homeopathy really; I just thought it was an interesting aside whilst we were on the topic.

 

I am prepared now to accept that it must have been the homeopathic remedy without understanding why.

But do you also understand why, if it worked, this is simply so amazing and incredible? And why many scientists are so highly sceptical?

 

there are problems with some of the clinical trials in that they inappropriately follow a medical research model

I think that this is a valid point. Something central to the tenets of modern homeopathy is that is holistic - so perhaps it needs testing in this way. I'm not sure I know enough about what a homeopathic practitioner does to prepare their remedy in order that I could suggest a suitable approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe that the placebo effect can be very powerful, and that anyone who swallows any medicine would only do so if they thought at some level that it might work.

 

But having said that, I have noticed that many scientists are prepared to exaggerate the evidence against alternative approaches that do not fit their paradigm. Inadequate research does not equate to proof of no effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homeopathy contains like 10(to the power of) -35million content of the actual medicine.

 

10(to the power of)-32million would contain ONE atom of the medicine, figure it oot.

 

Those figure might not be exact but its to the same kind of ratio.

 

Randi discusses it here:

 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3545427974575475981&q=James+Randi+Google&total=48&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are problems with some of the clinical trials in that they inappropriately follow a medical research model

I think that this is a valid point. Something central to the tenets of modern homeopathy is that is holistic - so perhaps it needs testing in this way. I'm not sure I know enough about what a homeopathic practitioner does to prepare their remedy in order that I could suggest a suitable approach.

 

The obvious approach is the randomise patients to receive either homeopathy assessment and individualised remedy, OR homeopathy assessment and placebo (double blind). But it is difficult to get funding for this sort of study as it doesn't fit the medical model and "lacks control" of the treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But having said that, I have noticed that many scientists are prepared to exaggerate the evidence against alternative approaches that do not fit their paradigm.

 

I would love to see evidence of this.

 

:lol: :lol: :wink: OK. I'll need a little time to find the links for you. But I have repeatedly read in medical journals (with refereneces) that it has been demonstrated that various alternatives (acupuncture etc) are ineffective for specific conditions. When I obtain the articals cited they are typically reviews of very poor research that conclude that there is no evidence either way. No evidence is not the same thing as evidence of no effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, Mag. However, as it has been said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Homeopathic claims are highly extraordinary and the burden of proof lies very much with the homeopath.

 

It is precisely the 'homeopathy assessment' to which I refer when I say that I don't know enough about it to control the test. This is very much the point I trying to make - until I understand that, then I have no way of recommending ways in which the process could be controlled for.

 

What is it about this process which makes it so objectionable to science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know about homeopathic medicine its should be very specific to the person who is being treated hense all the weird and wonderfull questions. It is said to work on humans and animals. Not sure if I belive it works or not but have seen it given to very young babies with very bad colic and it worked for them where nothing modern medicine had to offer had :shock:

Also have never met a pharmacist yet who took any kind of drug except under extreme duress and I mead extreme :D :shock: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the interesting point Fjool. Why is it difficult to get funding for research that studies alternatives as they are practiced? It's almost as if the established scientific community is afraid of something.

 

I am currently involved with a research project studying Pilates inspired exercises in multiple sclerosis. And I have had to fight very hard to have a protocol that allows for the exercise programmes to be individualised as they are in clinical practice. If they were 'standardised' then no Pliates clinician would expect the treatment to be succesful. This is true of many alternative therapy approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the interesting point Fjool. Why is it difficult to get funding for research that studies alternatives as they are practiced? It's almost as if the established scientific community is afraid of something.

 

I can give you a few reasons, and I assure you that it is not science who is afraid. Why would it be? Assuming you were a GP... wouldn't you (also thinking that part of taking the job would be to help people) support new medicines that could help cure even more? Of course you would. Scientists and Doctors care about human health, and if homeopathy had any benefits other than to the pockets of the seller, I'm sure they'd happily support it.

 

Anyway. There are two distinct reasons why I would say that homeopathy doesn't get much funding.

 

A) Scientists don't need to consider many of them because they have been heavily discredited and disproven in the past. Further consideration would both be unnecessary and would, at least in the eyes of a homeopathic doctor: confirm their susperstitions,

 

and B) They simply don't want it. They do not want to be publicly scrutinized by a committee in order to justify the funding, and hell, why would they? The 'alternative medicine' scene is nearly a £200million industry in the UK alone. Watch the links I posted.

 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&q=Enemies+of+Reason&total=498&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-4720837385783230047&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=2868&q=Enemies%2Bof%2BReason&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4720837385783230047&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4720837385783230047%26q%3DEnemies%2Bof%2BReason%26total%3D498%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H22_UkoxavQHBNloxYH48yykDlCSVA

 

 

When an 'alternative medicine' becomes science, it simply becomes a 'medicine'.

 

The very fact that most homeopathic medicines have never been put to the test is something I'd worry about. And if they have been tested, its been without a control, which is pretty much the basis for testing anything related to anything :) .

 

I do believe that there is nothing to homeopathy because you get the same answers from homeopathic 'doctors' as you do from other pseudoscientists about how 'science' can't analyze it because its on a different level to science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should be very specific to the person who is being treated hense all the weird and wonderfull questions

If it works for pets and babies, then the question stage must be one of two things: irrelevant, or supplementary. Unless the questions can be answered by proxy?

 

Does anyone have a link to where one finds a list of such questions and how they influence the decision made by the homeopathic practitioner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how venement people can get about homeopathy. I don't find that new NSAIDs work for me, but I don't deride everyone who uses so called conventional medicine. I'm not stupid I just use what works for me. Nor want to inflict these beliefs on anyone else, my daughter had some prescription medication she was prescribed by a NHS GP that worked and the local (very local) teachers refused to allow her to use it because they have no understanding of it. But they did say if I could get it from a shetland doctor it would be okay. So here's hoping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is precisely the 'homeopathy assessment' to which I refer when I say that I don't know enough about it to control the test. This is very much the point I trying to make - until I understand that, then I have no way of recommending ways in which the process could be controlled for.

The homeopathy assessment could be carried out by homeopathic practitioners with a recognised qualification. The process does not need to be standardised in order to find out whether 'homeopathy' works. It just needs to be applied in the individualised way that it is normally used, by a practitioner who is 'blind' as to whether, at the end of the assessment, the patient will be given the individualised remedy they prescribe, or a placebo. If the whole package or 'black box' of 'homeopathy' was found to have any effect, then practioners may wish to attempt to unpack the black box and discover how and whether different elements work. But if we standardise the assessment in a way that it is not used by homeopathic practitioners, then we have not really studied homeopathy.

 

This approach to studying the whole black box of a treatment approach has been used recently to examine chiropractic and physiotherapy. This approach can be scientifically rigorous in randomising patients and double blinding both patients and practitioners. The conventional medical model of reasearch works well for conventional pharmaceuticals as they produce a single medication for a single condition. The pharmaceutical industry of course have multi billion pound interests in maintaining their's as the only recognised approach to reasearch.

 

Here are some links to abstracts of recent systematic reviews of homeopathy. In one trial there is the assumption that the remedy should be standardised for a specific condition (flu) and in the other there is an interesting discussion of this problem.

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/frame.html

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000353/frame.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The homeopathy assessment could be carried out by homeopathic practitioners with a recognised qualification. The process does not need to be standardised in order to find out whether 'homeopathy' works. It just needs to be applied in the individualised way that it is normally used, by a practitioner who is 'blind' as to whether, at the end of the assessment, the patient will be given the individualised remedy they prescribe, or a placebo. If the whole package or 'black box' of 'homeopathy' was found to have any effect, then practioners may wish to attempt to unpack the black box and discover how and whether different elements work. But if we standardise the assessment in a way that it is not used by homeopathic practitioners, then we have not really studied homeopathy.

 

This approach to studying the whole black box of a treatment approach has been used recently to examine chiropractic and physiotherapy. This approach can be scientifically rigorous in randomising patients and double blinding both patients and practitioners. The conventional medical model of reasearch works well for conventional pharmaceuticals as they produce a single medication for a single condition. The pharmaceutical industry of course have multi billion pound interests in maintaining their's as the only recognised approach to reasearch.

 

So are you suggesting that the tests need to be different for homeopathic medicine? Like I've said, once an alternative medicine becomes science, it is known as a medicine. As this is the case, why should the tests differ?

 

When you take homeopathic medicine, you're drinking water.

 

http://www.fdhom.co.uk/about.asp - Check out this Homeopathic website that tells it like it is.

 

Also, one of the UK's oldest peer-reviewed medical journals' homeopathic study found it to be bunk: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1447471.htm | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you suggesting that the tests need to be different for homeopathic medicine?
The tests need to be done in a different way, but still need to be scientifically rigorous. If the rationale of the treatment approach is one of treating the person rather than the condition, then you can't study the approach by giving the same remedy to everyone with the same condition.

 

Like I've said, once an alternative medicine becomes science, it is known as a medicine. As this is the case, why should the tests differ?
Many currently used medical procedures (as opposed to pharmaceuticals) do not have an evidence base. This is because they are as complex to research as homeopathy is. E.g. research has shown that the complex (individualised) packages of care given to stroke patients in stroke units is effective. We are just now starting to attempt to unpack that 'black box' of care and examine which of the elements of care are most effective. But it looks as if none are effective in isolation, and that it only works as a complex, individualised, package. However this care is conventional 'medicine'. On the other hand, chiropractic treatment has been shown by scientific studies to be effective for low back pain. Yet because the paradigm of chiropractic is very different to that of conventional western medicine, it would still be viewed by most as an 'alternative'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...