And while you carry on with the bickering about how many zeros you have on the end of your figures, and whose number is bigger than the other, perhaps you could excuse the rest of the population whilst, in the meantime, they go and get themselves cured – with homoepathy.

I’ve been thinking about your question, about why quackometer might focus on AltMed rather than the well recognised deficienies of medical practice. I think the answer might be that medicine is often mistaken in practice, while homoeopathy (for instance) is mistaken in principle – in other words, its founding principles are demonstrably false. Then too, medicine has self corrective mechanisms which (slowly and painfully!) correct errors, while homoeopathy is resistant to self-testing and correction. Finally, a blog is an activelt selected view – I don’t think you could conclude that the quackometer author is in favour of medical error, or doesn’t think they are also significant.
(BTW I didn’t understand your point about IVF – could you clarify it for me?)

Homeopathy on the NHS has a negligable effect on my income but I do earn some money through homeopathy.
I do however support homeopathy on the NHS.

As for your explaination about the clinical evidence website I will just repeat that 46% are of unknown
efficasy and 4% ineffective. If you think that most of these treatments are non conventional treatments then that is your opinion. The situation is clear to me and to people I speak to.
Add Clomifene Citrate and intrauterine insemination to another two ‘effective treatments’ previously given instead of the effective IVF.
This sort of thing should not be happening.
My point was only to ask why you are spending so much time on homeopathy when it has such a tiny part of the budget.

It is your blog though and you can write whatever you like as far as I am concerned. You sure have a lot of anger and venom for homeopaths. I dont suppose that SOH action last November helped?

Funny how homeopathy is so popular among Pharmacists and Drs in France and Germany. Lots seem to believe the huge amount of research from the Boltzmann Institute.

It is quite an easy ride for you here.
You may be able to influence the future of NHS homeopathy but the principal effects on UK homeopathy will be driven from Europe.
In future some things you will like and some things you wont like. Same for me.
I hardly expect you to change your views from what I say. If you think that I am thick because I dont change mine then I have been called worse.
Thank you for agreeing with me the % issue.
However, I warn you that this may not be the last time that we reach some sort of an agreement.

By citing the BMJ clinical evidence site, you really are being a bit thick and hypocritical.

Let’s take this slowly.

Firstly, you assume that the article is talking about ‘conventional’ treatments. It does not say this. We know the NHS commonly employs many dubious techniques – including homeopathy, reiki etc. It also uses many techniques, e.g. the variants of counselling techniques, that do not have sound evidence bases. And, yes, pharmacies are full of quackery too. The point of the BMJ site is to highlight these areas and to persuade researchers to develop evidence bases.

As for homeopathy, we have an overwhelming evidence base and it it places the technique firmly in the ‘does not work’ box. This is only now disputed by those that profit from homeopathy and are prepared to misrepresent the science.

By ignoring evidence, Homeopaths are now systematically incompetent in their practice and so by bringing up the BMJ site, you are being thoroughly hypocritical.

For me, the absolute expenditure on homeopathy on the NHS is immaterial. (But good estimates place it much higher than you might think, when all the hospitals, doctors’ and GPs’ time and support is taken into account.)
What homeopathy on the NHS represents is far more dangerous. It is the rejection of the approach espoused by the BMJ clinical evidence site – that clinical decisions should have the best evidence available to inform them and that public spending decisions should be based on the best evidence and not paternalistic judgement, politics or wishful thinking.

Am I right John Chemist? Would you like to declare your interests? Do you have a large material interest in keeping homeopathy on the NHS?

Again if you wish to delude yourself that the homeopathic budget is 100 times greater than it is then fine. I would only suggest that you check this out with someone else.
Your calculations would make the homeopathic NHS drug budget around 50 million for 50,000 prescriptions- Thats £1000 per prescription.

“Black duck- You must be happy with helping to reduce the expenditure on homeopathy from 0.005% to 0.004%”

Now to me 0.001% is 1/1000, first decimal place is ten, then hundreds and finally thousands!

92 billion is ninety two thousand million, dividing this number by one thousand is easy, simply remove the thousand and you are left with ninety two million. You seem incapable of actually using a calculator so maybe words will help.
This is not my belief this is fact.

Now the NHS budget is 92 billion, the drugs budget is 9.965 billion (in 2004/5) which figure do you want to use. Either way 0.001% of it is a lot of money.

http://jonathanhearsey.com/?p=48

Great blog, Andy.

JH

Let us extend this requirement for proof to all treatments – I am sur ethat you all want that?
Put it another way there are approx 50,000 homeopathic prescriptions per year that must come to around £500,000.
Should it turn out that this figure is 500 million for 50,000 prescriptions then I will be contacting the NHS fraud line along with the black duck.