4 ms·

NHS money 'wasted' on homeopathy

21 points by prat 17y ago

prat 17y ago
Does anyone know if the US/NIH spends on such techniques?
- tokenadult 17y ago
  See http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3344 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3344 for information about United States federal funding of "alternative medicine" research. I think homeopathy is not as routinely covered by health insurance in the United States as in some other countries, but of course the insurance system in the United States is not really a national system at all, but a collection of varied private contracts state by state.
seven 17y ago
I do not see why to put 'wasted' in quotes. I am always shocked to see how many people, who should know better, fall for the homeopathy scam. Some do believe that it is 'medicine with natural ingredients' and start to argue that our modern medicine is based on the natural medicine. While this is true, it has nothing to do with homeopathy. The concept of homeopathy is fundamentally flawed and is based on crazy pseudo science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy Then there is this 'but if it helps with the placebo effect it is not that bad' argument. It is that bad because some people put too much faith into it and try to cure for example Malaria with sugar pills. It wont work. People will die. I am just shocked that this stuff is still available in 2010...
- Roridge 17y ago
  This isn't just a few people who "fell for homoeopathy" this is an entire countries health system, where Dr's will have prescribed homoeopathy to patients. Hence why wasted is in quotes.
  - axod 17y ago
    Let's be honest here. It's not an "ENTIRE" countries health system. The NHS funds a few small homoeopathy clinics. I would be extremely surprised if any GP has 'prescribed homoeopathy'. I'm sure it's almost always the case that the patient asks/demands to be prescribed it because they've read/heard something about it, or conventional medicine just isn't working for them. As the NHS is publicly owned, it has to try and please most people. If a segment of society believe in alternative medicine, unfortunately it's going to be hard to tell them "Yes, you pay your taxes for healthcare, but we do not believe in alternative medicine, so we will not provide it for you". At the end of the day though this is a ridiculously small % of people, and a ridiculously small amount of money compared to the full NHS budget.
    - Roridge 17y ago
      The NHS is for the entire country.How would a patient get Homoeopathy if a GP hadn't referred them? What part of the NHS in the UK is publicly owned? I pay my NI the same as everyone, but they never asked me as an owner what I felt about it.
      - axod 17y ago
        There's a difference between a GP suggesting homoeopathy, and a GP refering a patient after the patient has requested homoeopathy. >> "but they never asked me as an owner what I felt about it." You get to vote. You get to write to your MP, your local hospital, etc etc.
        Roridge 17y ago
        Being able to "vote" on something is not the same as owning something. >> There's a difference between a GP suggesting homoeopathy, and a GP refering a patient after the patient has requested homoeopathy. That is a fair point, but you can't say for sure that a GP hasn't perscribed or refered someone for this treatment. So kind of irrelevant. But it remains that the HNS wasted the money. As you yourself pointed out they didn't put it to good use because they spent it on homeopathy. Anything not put to good use is wasted is it not?
- rauljara 17y ago
  The BBC's common practice is to put quotes around headline elements that are, in fact, quotes. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee are the ones making the claim that said the money is wasted, and the headline title is quoting them. It took me a while to get used to that practice, myself. After years of reading American headlines, a lot of BBC headlines look like they are trying to be ironic or something.
  - eli 17y ago
    Right, they're called "scare quotes." It's not meant to convey irony, just that the accusation that the money was wasted is not an objectively verifiable fact and, anyway, that the BBC itself does not necessarily agree with that characterization.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - timthorn 17y ago
      No, this isn't saying that the accusation is not an objectively verifiable fact, simply that it's not the BBC stating it. These are quotes being used as they are meant to be.
      - eli 17y ago
        Right, and the BBC isn't stating it because it isn't a fact. It's almost the same thing. And of course they're being used properly. Scare quotes can be used to quote a person and to provide distance from their words Look at another example off the homepage: Hope over peanut allergy 'cure' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7899383.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7899383.stm Cure is in quotes because it's not yet proven that the technique is indeed a cure. Not because the BBC wants to give proper credit to whichever person called it a cure.
        timthorn 17y ago
        It's not news that money spent on homeopathy is wasted (saving for placebo effects, etc). It's news because the Select Committee has said so, and the quotes are needed to attribute the claim to a third party.
- maqr 17y ago
  Some people don't even have water and sugar!
  - nzmsv 17y ago
    ...so let's pay 1000x the cost for our water and sugar, because this particular water is infused with magic.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
If the homeopaths could just prove that it works, James Randi would give them $1million, free and clear. Sceptic James Randi is so convinced that homeopathy will not work, that he has offered $1m to anyone who can provide convincing evidence of its effects. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
- idleworx 17y ago
  Please stop it with the James Randi defense. He's just as biased as the people he claims to investigate. He's a pseudo-skeptic as much as a pseudoscientist is a pseudoscientist. Just because Randi is offering 1million $ for anything is not proof that homeopathy (or anything else for that matter works). http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/the-demystifying-adventures-of-the-amazing-randi/1 http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/the-demystifying-adv...
  - billpg 17y ago
    But if it worked as well as people say it does, I'd cheerfully take a day out of my life to earn a million dollars. They don't even have to demonstrate it works, just that you can tell homeopathy from water.
  - isleyaardvark 17y ago
    I read the article at your link and I thought it was quite complimentary to Mr. Randi. Furthermore, the description of the test in that article didn't leave much room for bias to have an effect.
djhomeless 17y ago
I've used homeopathy here in the UK and it does work. However, I seriously doubt any GP here would refer someone to a homeopath unless already suggested by the patient. Different strokes for different folks you know? It's not for everyone. Personally though, I prefer acupuncture, which is also available via the NHS.
- seven 17y ago
  Just because you got ill, used homeopathy and then got better, does not mean that homeopathy does work. Not even if the same happened to your uncle and your brother in law. Science is currently the best way we have to look at the world from a not that subjective perspective. Homeopathy does no better than the placebo effect. If something claims to 'work'.. then I expect it to 'work' better than a placebo. Homeopathy is not better. Not a bit. Believe me, I would be very happy if some of the pseudo science stuff would work. Live would be great! edit: fixed typo
- texel 17y ago
  Well, you should prefer acupuncture. It's a much more effective placebo.
metabrew 17y ago
You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine.
billpg 17y ago
I make the sun raise every morning. No, seriously. Every morning, I wake up and the sun has risen. Clearly I made it happen. It happens while I'm asleep so it can't have been the placebo effect.

21 points by prat 17y ago

prat 17y ago

Does anyone know if the US/NIH spends on such techniques?

tokenadult 17y ago
See http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3344 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3344 for information about United States federal funding of "alternative medicine" research. I think homeopathy is not as routinely covered by health insurance in the United States as in some other countries, but of course the insurance system in the United States is not really a national system at all, but a collection of varied private contracts state by state.

seven 17y ago

I do not see why to put 'wasted' in quotes. I am always shocked to see how many people, who should know better, fall for the homeopathy scam. Some do believe that it is 'medicine with natural ingredients' and start to argue that our modern medicine is based on the natural medicine. While this is true, it has nothing to do with homeopathy. The concept of homeopathy is fundamentally flawed and is based on crazy pseudo science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy Then there is this 'but if it helps with the placebo effect it is not that bad' argument. It is that bad because some people put too much faith into it and try to cure for example Malaria with sugar pills. It wont work. People will die. I am just shocked that this stuff is still available in 2010...

Roridge 17y ago
This isn't just a few people who "fell for homoeopathy" this is an entire countries health system, where Dr's will have prescribed homoeopathy to patients. Hence why wasted is in quotes.
- axod 17y ago
  Let's be honest here. It's not an "ENTIRE" countries health system. The NHS funds a few small homoeopathy clinics. I would be extremely surprised if any GP has 'prescribed homoeopathy'. I'm sure it's almost always the case that the patient asks/demands to be prescribed it because they've read/heard something about it, or conventional medicine just isn't working for them. As the NHS is publicly owned, it has to try and please most people. If a segment of society believe in alternative medicine, unfortunately it's going to be hard to tell them "Yes, you pay your taxes for healthcare, but we do not believe in alternative medicine, so we will not provide it for you". At the end of the day though this is a ridiculously small % of people, and a ridiculously small amount of money compared to the full NHS budget.
  - Roridge 17y ago
    The NHS is for the entire country.How would a patient get Homoeopathy if a GP hadn't referred them? What part of the NHS in the UK is publicly owned? I pay my NI the same as everyone, but they never asked me as an owner what I felt about it.
    - axod 17y ago
      There's a difference between a GP suggesting homoeopathy, and a GP refering a patient after the patient has requested homoeopathy. >> "but they never asked me as an owner what I felt about it." You get to vote. You get to write to your MP, your local hospital, etc etc.
      - Roridge 17y ago
        Being able to "vote" on something is not the same as owning something. >> There's a difference between a GP suggesting homoeopathy, and a GP refering a patient after the patient has requested homoeopathy. That is a fair point, but you can't say for sure that a GP hasn't perscribed or refered someone for this treatment. So kind of irrelevant. But it remains that the HNS wasted the money. As you yourself pointed out they didn't put it to good use because they spent it on homeopathy. Anything not put to good use is wasted is it not?
rauljara 17y ago
The BBC's common practice is to put quotes around headline elements that are, in fact, quotes. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee are the ones making the claim that said the money is wasted, and the headline title is quoting them. It took me a while to get used to that practice, myself. After years of reading American headlines, a lot of BBC headlines look like they are trying to be ironic or something.
- eli 17y ago
  Right, they're called "scare quotes." It's not meant to convey irony, just that the accusation that the money was wasted is not an objectively verifiable fact and, anyway, that the BBC itself does not necessarily agree with that characterization.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - timthorn 17y ago
    No, this isn't saying that the accusation is not an objectively verifiable fact, simply that it's not the BBC stating it. These are quotes being used as they are meant to be.
    - eli 17y ago
      Right, and the BBC isn't stating it because it isn't a fact. It's almost the same thing. And of course they're being used properly. Scare quotes can be used to quote a person and to provide distance from their words Look at another example off the homepage: Hope over peanut allergy 'cure' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7899383.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7899383.stm Cure is in quotes because it's not yet proven that the technique is indeed a cure. Not because the BBC wants to give proper credit to whichever person called it a cure.
      - timthorn 17y ago
        It's not news that money spent on homeopathy is wasted (saving for placebo effects, etc). It's news because the Select Committee has said so, and the quotes are needed to attribute the claim to a third party.
maqr 17y ago
Some people don't even have water and sugar!
- nzmsv 17y ago
  ...so let's pay 1000x the cost for our water and sugar, because this particular water is infused with magic.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

If the homeopaths could just prove that it works, James Randi would give them $1million, free and clear. Sceptic James Randi is so convinced that homeopathy will not work, that he has offered $1m to anyone who can provide convincing evidence of its effects. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

idleworx 17y ago
Please stop it with the James Randi defense. He's just as biased as the people he claims to investigate. He's a pseudo-skeptic as much as a pseudoscientist is a pseudoscientist. Just because Randi is offering 1million $ for anything is not proof that homeopathy (or anything else for that matter works). http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/the-demystifying-adventures-of-the-amazing-randi/1 http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/the-demystifying-adv...
- billpg 17y ago
  But if it worked as well as people say it does, I'd cheerfully take a day out of my life to earn a million dollars. They don't even have to demonstrate it works, just that you can tell homeopathy from water.
- isleyaardvark 17y ago
  I read the article at your link and I thought it was quite complimentary to Mr. Randi. Furthermore, the description of the test in that article didn't leave much room for bias to have an effect.

djhomeless 17y ago

I've used homeopathy here in the UK and it does work. However, I seriously doubt any GP here would refer someone to a homeopath unless already suggested by the patient. Different strokes for different folks you know? It's not for everyone. Personally though, I prefer acupuncture, which is also available via the NHS.

seven 17y ago
Just because you got ill, used homeopathy and then got better, does not mean that homeopathy does work. Not even if the same happened to your uncle and your brother in law. Science is currently the best way we have to look at the world from a not that subjective perspective. Homeopathy does no better than the placebo effect. If something claims to 'work'.. then I expect it to 'work' better than a placebo. Homeopathy is not better. Not a bit. Believe me, I would be very happy if some of the pseudo science stuff would work. Live would be great! edit: fixed typo
texel 17y ago
Well, you should prefer acupuncture. It's a much more effective placebo.

metabrew 17y ago

You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine.

billpg 17y ago

I make the sun raise every morning. No, seriously. Every morning, I wake up and the sun has risen. Clearly I made it happen. It happens while I'm asleep so it can't have been the placebo effect.