Why NHS Homeopathy Must End

Great article and good news if the BMA maintain the courage of their convictions and vote for this action to be taken.

And then there’s the case of Penelope Dingle, wife of Australian wellness guru Peter Dingle, who died after allowing treatment of her rectal cancer with homeopathy.

The inquest continues…

Cracking post – we must end this madness now!

Excellent as always. Rochelle should be in jail.

(And you’ve got ‘will voting’ in the standfirst).

I don’t know what sugars are used in the pills, but shouldn’t there be warnings on the label for diabetics. If lactose is used a warning for folks unable to digest it would also be needed.

It’s been a hard road. In 2008 I submitted a motion calling for NICE to report on Homeopathy- but no time was found in the agenda for a full debate.

By the device of attaching my motion to others about scientific standards I was able to establish BMA policy that NICE should report. But of course, they have not done so.

It has been reported that when he was Minister of Health, Andy Burnham, had ‘discussions’ with Prince Charles about the issue. Though those are confidential. They should not be.

If Prince Charles has an opinion about homeopathy which he wishes to influence public policy, then he must tell us what it is and what evidence he has for holding the opinions he does. He must not deny us the secret of his insights. As a past President of the BMA he must enter the public debate. Or keep silent.

NICE stated at the Parliamentary Committee on Homeopathy (February 2010) that they would report on homeopathy “when we are asked”.

So, rather that simply asking (which hasn’t worked), I am now demanding that no more money be spent by the NHS on homeopathy “unless and until NICE reports”.

Given the paucity of evidence, it shouldn’t take them very long.

That’s it. The End.

It’s now up to those who support NHS Homeopathy to get their evidence together and persuade NICE otherwise. And if they were to succeed, I would recommend all NHS patients have homeopathy. But the default position must be – no expenditure without evidence.

And most certainly Boots should not be allowed to sell homeopathic products as ‘medicines’. When even they admitted they had no evidence of efficaciousness. And even Prince Charles ‘Tonics’ had to be moved to shelves under “Food Supplements” not “Medicines”. (At the behest of the Advertising Standards Authority.)

I’m not sure that NHS funding of homeopathy legitimises the activities of lay homeopaths, except in the minds of the lay homeopaths and their supporters. It’s symptomatic of their strange world view. NHS homeopathy is carried out by doctors and I always thought that some of the lay homeopaths have it in for both doctors and the NHS? There is an element of having your cake and eating it.

playing with an anagram solver produced this:

homeopathy = empathy + hoo

I beleive the motion will be read on Wednesday

http://www.bma.org.uk/images/armagenda2010_tcm41-197493.pdf
Homeopathy
* 301 Motion by THE AGENDA COMMITTEE: That this Meeting believes that, in the absence of valid
scientific evidence of benefit:
(i) there should be no further commissioning of, nor funding for, homeopathic remedies or
homeopathic hospitals in the NHS;
(ii) no UK training post should include a placement in homeopathy;
(iii) pharmacists and chemists should remove homeopathic remedies from shelves indicating
they are ‘medicines’ of any description, and place them on shelves clearly labelled
‘placebos’.
301a Motion by SHROPSHIRE DIVISION: That this Meeting demands that homeopathy should not be funded by
the NHS due to lack of convincing evidence that it is effective. In fact there is recent evidence that it does
not work any better than a placebo and can divert patients away from more evidence based therapy that
they may require.
301b Motion by SCOTTISH COUNCIL: That this Meeting believes that, given the complete lack of valid scientific
evidence of benefit:
(i) homeopathy should no longer be funded by the NHS;
(ii) no UK training post should include a placement in homeopathy.
301c Motion by SOUTH DEVON DIVISION: That this Meeting is concerned to improve patients’ fully informed
choice, and calls for those pharmacists and chemists regulated by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain (or its successor during 2010 – the General Pharmaceutical Council) to remove homeopathic
remedicines from shelves indicating they are ‘medicines’ of any description, and to place them on shelves
clearly labelled ‘placebos’.
301d Motion by CONFERENCE OF HONORARY SECRETARIES OF BMA DIVISIONS: That this Meeting calls for
there to be no further commissioning of nor funding for homeopathic medicines within or by the NHS
unless or until the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) determines the cost-effectiveness of such
medicines and sets out guidelines and recommendations for their use in the NHS.
301e Motion by SHROPSHIRE LMC: That this Meeting believes there is insufficient clinical evidence to justify
NHS funding for homeopathy clinics.
301f Motion by NORTHAMPTONSHIRE LMC: That this Meeting requests that homeopathy should be first in line
for NHS cuts in this economic crisis since it is unproven and expensive, and patronage by royalty should not
ensure funding for unproven treatments. Homeopathic hospitals should be paid for and funding for
homeopathic drugs should no longer be available on the NHS.
Contingency time Wednesday 11.05-11.10

The Independent reports on the BMA in “Doctors call for total NHS ban on homoeopathy” at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/doctors-call-for-total-nhs-ban-on-homoeopathy-2011735.html

This is a “balanced” article with a plea at the end to not ban NHS funding.

Darryl Cunningham has produced a story strip about homeopathy.

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/06/homeopathy.html

Have a look at this one:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-declare-war-on-britains-tranquilliser-crisis-2017933.html

How much is the cost of all this? ‘£8 billion a year’
How many people affected? ‘1.5 million’

A bit of perspective is needed

Le Canard Noir

OK, costs may not be the main issue for you but what about the 1.5 million people affected?

Here’s another example of the overuse of drugs;

http://www.fftimes.com/node/229972

As for the baby with eczema how do you know what happened in that case? Your comments are presumptions that fit in with your own ideas. You could have equally said ‘the baby made a full recovery without the risks of side effects from the steroid creams.’

What gets me is the hysteria emanating from the anti-homeopathy brigade. your comments are mild compared with some I have seen.

I have used homeopathic remedies on occasions, on a trial and error basis and found them to be both effective and ineffective. Effective when the correct remedy is used but ineffective when the incorrect remedy is used, suggesting that there are medicinal differences between the sugar pills.

Perspective still needed

I,ll believe homeopathy works the day I see a homeopathic birth control pill, that no one gets pregnant on while using it…

Amazing!! You cite evidence of homeopathy actually working in your own anti-homeopathy litany, (and lets not pretend this article is not extremely and openly biased, written very much like an article in the Sun Newspaper) and then mock the person stating homeopathy cured them. Your argument is totally circular.

Homeopathy works for her therefor she believes in homeopathy
She believes in homeopathy therefor she must be a loon
She is a loon and believes in homeopathy, therefor only lunatics believe in homeopathy

Just as a bit of background… I suffered with asthma for many years. I was given inhalers and they cured the attacks when they happened, but the attacks soon became more frequent. my dosage was upped. the attacks skyrocketed. my inhaler was changed, that week i ended up in hospital unable to breathe. From that day (aged 8) I outright refused to take inhalers any more. Over 6 months the asthma faded. I am now 29 and havent had an attack in 20 years. If homeopathy is nothing more than sugar pills, at least they wont do me any harm. conventional medicine nearly killed me. There is enormous evidence that homeopathy is effective, but hey, who cares about evidence when your mind is already made up.

( AGED 8 )

Gabe – you are making the fundamental error that all believers in homeopathy make. Let’s be clear – anecdotes are not evidence. Just because you witness an improvement in health after a treatment does not mean that treatment was the cause of that improvement. An improvement does not mean ‘works’.

Asthma and eczema are common childhood ailments. The key word here is ‘childhood’ as for many, the conditions will improve over time and disappear by adulthood. For your anecdote to become evidence you would have to demonstrate that the improvements you saw were the specific result of your taking homeopathy and not just an expected improvement over time. Many children lose their asthma from childhood without taking homeopathy. How do you know you were not just like these children?

This is hard to do. That is while properly controlled trials are so important. And that is one of the key ways we know homeopathy is totally ineffective.

Erm… I did not take any homeopathic remedy for my asthma. I simply stopped taking my “conventional” medicine. The problem cleared up almost immediately. While taking the medicine the problem had been accelerating rapidly. I am not particularly a believer in homeopathy, any more than I am a believer in conventional medicine. In my mind they are both, in most cases, merely nice people trying to cure other peoples ailments. The problem is when money becomes involved peoples priorities shift. This is an almost universal truth. Im not saying money makes you evil or anything as hard and fast as that, just that it adds another dimension to what was before a simple “you are ill, I know how to fix you.”

I believe that whatever was in my inhaler was NOT the right treatment for me. I also strongly suspect that the doctor who prescribed it to me has not lost much sleep over this matter, in his extremely expensive comfortable bed. The same can be said of the doctor who prescribed me antidepressants within 5 minutes of me stating “Ive been having trouble getting up in the morning and concentrating at college.” No more questions were asked. I was prescribed some (rather expensive) antidepressants and told that was that. I didnt take them. I haven’t visited any sort of doctor, homeopathic or otherwise since. I have also been a shining example of good health ever since.

My point is: There is an enormous amount of money in conventional medicine. For the doctors (unfortunately not the nurses), for the consultants, and the companies making medicines. This makes me wary of them. There may be money in homeopathy but a tiny sliver in comparison. How often do you hear golddiggers say “I’m gonna find me a rich homeopath”? The fact that there is little money in homeopathy makes me feel that although there is a lot of evidence against its validity, the people who practice it (for the large part at least, and yes there will be exceptions) are doing it because they want to make sick people healthy.

I have had this Evidence/Anecdote argument before and I dont think it holds water. Yes a proper scientifically controlled trial is the best way to determine if something works. but there are flaws in that method. For it to be effective, you have to KNOW that you have taken into account EVERY variable. This is usually nigh on impossible. With homeopathy it is even more difficult as the idea behind the treatment is to give the bodies immune defences the tiniest of nudges in the right direction and hoping it will essentially “get the idea” and cure the disease itself. People who do these sorts of trials are often guilty of assuming that they are infallible and also that the 10’000 layman outside banging on their door shouting “IT WORKED FOR ME!” are nothing more than uneducated ill-informed irritations. Anecdotal EVIDENCE should not be totally discounted, especially when it comes from a very large number of sources. Perhaps they know of a variable the scientist doing the trial failed to notice.

I dont mean to be aggressive but this article has angered me with its sensationalist, unbalanced approach, sounding more like it is drumming up unnecessary anger and division, rather than aiming to get people the best medical help they can get. It is extremely easy to bash the “fringes” and nowhere is this more prevalent than on the internet. People can be called “quacks” “loonies” “conspiracy theorists” all safe in the knowledge that they are miles and miles away, and as long as the original article includes enough derision and mocking, any attempt to defend themselves will be met by a crowd of insults, normally not from the original writer, but from the totally uninformed masses who know nothing about the matter other than what they have read in this awful article. Homeopathy is not “totally ineffective” Even if it is nothing more than a placebo, placebos work. If it is more than a placebo, then thats a bonus.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that before making statements like “And that is one of the key ways we KNOW homeopathy is totally ineffective” you should look inside yourself and ask a few questions.
“Why am I so certain of myself, have I personally proved without any shadow of a doubt that my views are correct, or am I making a bit of a leap of faith? Do I feel comfortable making this leap of faith because I am “with” the status quo and “against” the fringes? Would I be so very bold if I had to meet a large room containing all the people my words will effect, or would I choose my words more carefully? Perhaps your answers to these questions will all affirm your previous views unequivocally. However if that is the case, then from my point of view, you are no scientist.

gabe

My article is about how homeopaths promote their sugar pills for malaria. Do you believe placebos can prevent or treat this lethal disease? I am not sure you understand to what sense a placebo can be said to ‘work’. They alter beliefs – not the course of a disease.

You also appear to be under many illusions. Presuming you are from the UK, how much money do you think your doctor makes from prescribing certain drugs to you? In any country, getting kick backs for prescriptions is totally unethical and something that only nutritionists do.

And I am quite happy to defend that homeopathy is a nonsense with any room of people. The science, reason and evidence is on my side. And I would be very condemning of any homeopath who defended the use of their sugar pills against dangerous diseases. My conscience would allow nothing else.

Your article is about how homeopaths should be totally ousted from the NHS and not only that but ridiculed at the same time. I do not believe sugar pills alone can cure malaria. I also do not believe that conventional medicine is much better. A point highlighted by the fact that a friend of mine who spent two years digging wells in some of the poorer areas of Africa caught malaria despite taking every precaution under the sun, including the harsh regime of anti malaria tablets that have caused irreparable damage to her liver which she will live with for the rest of her life.

I am indeed from the UK but lived in Texas at the time of the treatments I mentioned and the totally ineffective treatments cost my parents a fairly large chunk of their not so large income. My total refusal to take the medicines prescribed scared them immensely, and they tried for some weeks to persuade me to take them, until they saw my symptoms fading. In the end my refusal to take the medicine not only cured the problem but also saved them a large sum of money. I am very sure I understand how a placebo can be said to work. Its quite simple. Placebo taken-Problem goes. Yes I understand that the placebo does not actively effect the disease, it effects the mind of the person it is administered too. The human mind/body/immune systems are incredibly powerful and complex things. Things which we as a race do not fully understand. We know a lot about them, but in no way know everything about them.

Do you know absolutely everything there is to know about the human mind/body/immune systems? If so I withdraw, defeated. If not perhaps you should be a little more scientific in your approach. By all means stand against homeopathy, but your tabloid-esqe writing style leads me to believe you are less concerned about finding the truth, more concerned that people merely agree with your entrenched, unmovable, almost religious belief that all homeopaths are fools and should be ridiculed and ignored at all costs. Until then, I remain, resolutely, a fence sitter. Open and willing to listen to both sides of the argument, as long as they remain sensible and dont descend into mere closed minded volleys of abuse from either side.

By the way, what does your conscience tell you about “conventional” doctors prescribing medicines that are not only ineffective, but counter productive? A placebo will at best cure the problem, at worst do nothing. Putting large amounts of chemicals into the body on the grounds that one effect they appear to have is to cure the disease in question, can and has killed, and will no doubt do so many many times again.

gabe – you appear to be confusing ‘closed mindedness’ with ‘coming to conclusions based on reason and evidence’.

I am very open minded about evidence. As you will see on the front page of this site, I have been running a simple challenge to homeopaths for 222 weeks. (Versions of this challenge have been running for 170 years). If a homeopath can demonstrate a very simple experiment to confirm what they say then I will change my mind. Being closed minded is not being able to countenace changing your mind no matter what. Ask a homeopath what experiment they would conduct that will change their mind – you will not get an answer.

You are also very confused about placebos. Placebos do not cure diseases – by definition – they are inert treatments. What can happen though is peoples beliefs can be manipulated, expectations changed etc. Giving a placebo is a deceit. Pure and simple. You may have good intentions in giving a placebo – but it is still lying.

And yes, I can get quite angry at people like you who claim to ‘fence sit’. Giving ineffective treatments to people who need real treatments will harm them. You sit on a fence whilst harm is being done. Do you see why people might get a tad angry about that?

So, a simple question:

Is it possible, like so many other children, you had a period where you suffered from asthma, and then grew out of it, naturally?

Hehe, this response amuses me.

“you, like the vast majority of the population, do not understand what science is, or what it does. It’s Ok. Should you want to, you can find out.”

WOW! Did you use your magic science to look into my brain? Im glad you have reassured me that it’s ok and that I can find out. You see I was starting to worry that with my unfortunate background of a silly father who is little more than an honorary fellow of cambridge university due to the advances he has made in theoretical physics, an ill-educated mother who scrapes a living teaching psychology and cognitive therapy and a sister who has a doctorate in the history of science, that I was ill equipped to understand science, but seeing as a black duck has reassured me, now I feel better.

You make the rather odd assumption that I have something against scientists purely because I say you aren’t one? You sir, need to keep your ego in check. Anyway, this is all getting a bit personal, a sure sign of a flawed argument….

and on that note…you keep trying to persuade me that i am confused about the meanings of words. Although I am suggesting nothing about your argument in particular, I would like to mention that usually when someone argues their point by picking fault with the language I use rather than the general idea I am quite obviously attempting to put across or attacking me in an argumentum ad hominem style, it makes me wonder whether they are interested in coming to the correct conclusion together, or merely appearing to be correct to any onlookers who do not understand the argument itself.

I will say again….I am not confused about placebos. In fact I may as well just cut and paste my previous statement: “Its quite simple. Placebo taken-Problem goes. Yes I understand that the placebo does not actively effect the disease, it effects the mind of the person it is administered too.” I know the placebo does not act directly on the disease, but merely tricks the mind into believing it will get better, at which point quite astoundingly, it does get better. If taking the placebo makes the disease go away, the placebo has worked, no matter the mechanism by which it did so. To cure someone with no chemical invasion, no side effects, and certainly no long term liver damage is an amazing thing in my opinion, and should not be scoffed at merely because it doesn’t require years of training and a cocktail of complex chemicals.

I am in no way trying to persuade you that homeopathy is fantastic, but simply that writing the whole thing off as useless superstition despite its long history, its innumerable practitioners and the enormous wealth of people who will happily tell you when and how it improved their lives, is little more than self indulgent egotism.

“And yes, I can get quite angry at people like you who claim to ‘fence sit’. Giving ineffective treatments to people who need real treatments will harm them. You sit on a fence whilst harm is being done. Do you see why people might get a tad angry about that?”

Giving ineffective treatments to people who need real treatments will not harm them, it simply won’t help either. Giving harmful treatments to someone, such as malaria tablets that cause liver damage, and apparently don’t prevent malaria, does actively harm them. But the people selling the malaria tablets apparently aren’t that bothered. Giving me ventolin nearly killed me. I don’t know why and probably never will. Some sort of dependency/tolerance issue I assume. It seems the people selling the ventolin don’t particularly care. Yes I understand that you, I, and many others get angry when they see someone who is desperately in need of proper medical treatment being treated by someone who is not helping them in the slightest. Just the way I get angry when I think back to the useless doctor getting paid god knows how much an hour to do little more than throw antidepressants at every patient who comes genuinely asking for help. I did not need antidepressants any more than I needed ventolin. You see many doctors are just as bad as many homeopaths. However I doubt very much you would call for the NHS to cut all funding to conventional medicine, because of a few bad eggs.

I also understand that a huge number of people have chosen to avoid conventional medicine for whatever reason, and despite a lack of positive results in controlled medical trials have found homeopathy improves their quality of life. What you are suggesting is not tighter controls on homeopathic practice, it is the total eradication of homeopathy. You are essentially trying to take away an option that helps many ill people recover. You are doing exactly what you claim makes you so angry. Placebo or not, it makes some people healthier.

In answer to your question, yes there is a chance that my asthma accelerated rapidly of its own accord. Totally unconnected from the ever increasing medication. There is a chance that my young body got over the asthma at coincidentally exactly the same time that i made the decision to throw away the medicine and try letting my own immune system do its job. This is entirely possible. I do not personally believe this to be the case. But I will not rule it out. You appear to be suggesting that the many thousands (probably millions, if not more) of people who found they got better shortly after taking a homeopathic remedy were all affected by the same fluke. A greater or lesser probability than 1:720 I wonder…..

We as a race are by no means at the end of our education. We do not know everything about the body. We know remarkably little about the mind. We do not fully understand the interactions of particles, in water, out of water, totally unconnected from water. What we do know is that many people appear to have their lives improved by homeopathy, and just because we cannot work out how, you suggest we bin the whole idea. And then you have the arrogance to insult MY scientific credibility.

In regard to the experiment you outline on the front page of your website. It seems you are suggesting a perfectly healthy person take 6 random medicines and then in some manner akin to a wine tasting, tell you what six remedies they just took. I fully understand why no one has taken you up on the offer. I suggest you try injecting six different mystery vaccines and then telling me what you are now supposedly immune to.

In fact I don’t suggest you do this. Despite your rather offensive language towards me I wish no ill upon you, and would suggest you actually avoid ingesting any unnecessary medication unless you are about to croak, your (probably weakened from years of obseletion from premature medical intervention) immune system has failed you and you have no other option. The fact that there are major arguments against the efficacy of vaccination I have no real desire to get bogged down in now.

What I would really like to see, is a website giving a full and balanced argument. Perhaps essays from leading “experts” from both sides. Discussions and forums where the science is the focus, not the nature of the person speaking. It may well be that after researching the matter, I find I totally agree that homeopathy is nothing more than superstition. It is equally possible that after reading all the information I can I will decide that there is more to homeopathy than our current understanding of science allows us to unravel. However, your sensationalist style, in my opinion, does more harm than good to your cause. All it will achieve is to draw in the dumb, the easily persuaded, those weak minded enough to be swayed by your tabloid-esqe style of writing, and drive away anyone with enough confidence in their own intelligence to make their own decisions when faced with complete arguments from both sides.

On an interesting side note, I have just happened upon this:

http://abchomeopathy.com/scientific.htm

“You may be wondering why all the notable trials of homeopathy compare it to a placebo. This is because an empty ‘placebo’ pill has been proven to be beneficial in treating many conditions. For example, see this article on CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/27/ethics.matters/). It is worth noting that at least homeopathy has never been proven worse than placebo, unlike conventional medicines, such as Seroxat – the anti-depressant that lead to suicides.”

Seroxat was in fact the antidepressant I was wrongly prescribed. I binned the prescription on my way home. I had not heard of it causing suicides before today and certainly had no idea at the time of being given the prescription. Apparently after a few weeks of medication a large number of people attempted suicide, whereas a statistically significantly smaller number attempted suicide when given placebos. I am somewhat gobsmacked. I now think myself INCREDIBLY lucky. My ingrained distaste for putting unnecessary chemicals in my body has now possibly saved my life twice it seems.

I have never visited a homeopath, but think it unlikely that i could be killed by a sugar tablet unless it was administered at an extremely high velocity. What I would give to visit the doctors who prescribed me these medicines, and sit down for a little chat with them over tea and perhaps a biscuit. Perhaps administered at extreme velocity.

gabe

You persistently labour under the misconception that placebos can “cure” disease. For significant physical conditions the accumulating evidence is firmly that this is not true. 

Read this;

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/spin-city-placebos-and-asthma/

You will see that it relates to asthma and deals directly with the dangerous divergence that exists between what a patient reports to be their subjective experience under the conditions of a trial and that it can be in defiance of the objective facts of their medical status. Can you come up with reasons why patients would do this? If you can, it would show you have properly grasped the mechanics of placebo-controlled studies. You might want to tell us about the Hawthorne Effect as part of your answer.

You have become very touchy at implications that you have not really got a good understanding of the need for scientific trials and the near-uselessness of anecdote, but everything you write suggests you have not. The scientific credentials of your family are not terribly helpful here when we are discussing the arguments that you are presenting. It is not fallaciously ad hominem to say that your arguments are ill-founded and infer that your understanding of the scientific method is weak. It is a sad truth that it is weak for many people even doctors and people who work as scientists. The ways in which medical trials can deceive and confuse are actually quite subtle. 

If you read that SBM article you will also gain an insight into the way that SCAM promoters spin trial results in flagrant contradiction of what actually occurred. 

The other point that bears repeating is that reiterating the mantra that Big Pharma can be naughty lends exactly zero credibility to homeopathy. There are many good discussions to be had about how to control drug companies, but promoting homeopathy, and almost any other SCAM modality that you might cite, is just an unhelpful distraction the net effect of which is to diffuse the criticism of Big Pharma by making its most vociferous opponents look like easily dismissed loons precisely because they are easily dismissed loons. 

gabe

It might be helpful to get you to answer another specifif question. You have repeated, “Placebo taken-Problem goes. ” How do we measure whether a problem has ‘gone’?