In response to Paul's assertion that I display a "lack of understanding of how homeopathy works": I would say that I have a good understanding of how homeopathy purports to work. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Apologies that all the links here are to Wikipedia - at least it has not been victim to hacking (Now is that just a coincidence? Until evidence to the contrary, a skeptic would prefer to think so.)

My comment that it would be as effective to drink tap water accords with the outcomes of many independent studies of how homeopathy purports to work, often in those words or very similar.

In individual situations it can be very difficult to disentangle causation from coincidence or correlation. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There are also different levels of evidence for different types of "alternative medicine", which is why I feel that it is unhelpful to bundle them altogether when considering just one of them. Some other types of "alternative medicine" would suffer a loss of deserved credibility if portrayed as being "like homeopathy" in terms of evidence for either efficacy or effectiveness. 

Personally, although I do not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever for the claims made by homeopathy in terms of it's "remedies", I do believe that there is value in the type of client-focused contact it typically provides.

For this reason, I encouraged my very skeptical mother to take up a suggestion from a mutual friend that she visit a homeopath who she had visited. This was at a time in my mother's life when I felt that she would benefit from this sort of consultation, ie. not from the "remedies" that would be recommended. This was not on the NHS as I do not think homeopathy was available on the NHS at that time, certainly not where she lived.

My mother had several long-standing health problems that had been both managed and mismanaged by the NHS. There was no suggestion at any time, from myself, our friend or the homeopath that she should swap allopathic treatment, eg. insulin injections for diabetes, for homeopathic treatment and she would have never have given credence to any such advice anyway. 

My mother was initially troubled by what she felt was an excessive and inappropriate interest in her life and personal circumstances but I encouraged her to persist. After a couple of consultations she warmed to the practitioner and felt that it was helpful to talk to him. After four consultations she felt that she had had enough, in a good way. She felt that it had been a very positive experience and would recommend it to others - but not to waste any time and money on the "remedies", which she never took.

I find it encouraging, and think it is worthwhile and money well spent, that there are research projects and clinical trials seeking to identify and disentangle any effects of homeopathic consultations from any effects of homeopathic remedies.

However, given the overwhelming evidence already available that there is nothing to be gained from ingesting homeopathic remedies, I do not believe that these should be prescribed on the NHS. 

If you then consider the "consultation" element of homeopathic medicine, there is already better evidence for other forms of "talking therapies", along with appropriate training and regulation of practitioners.  Looked at from a "patient safety" perspective as well as good use of public money, it would therefore be more sensible to redirect current NHS funding for homeopathy to the "talking therapies", not to pharmacologically-based treatments.

The debate about the provision of homeopathy on the NHS is also part of a wider debate, not about "alternative medicine" provision on the NHS but about placebo provision on the NHS. This debate therefore encompasses both allopathic and homeopathic medicine/remedies.  Including homeopathy in this debate is understandable, because homeopathy bases its claims for effectiveness on the "remedies".  However, its inclusion risks overlooking the contribution of the nature of a consultation to the improvement of feelings of well-being, which might have an impact on general health and resistance to illness.

In case my point got missed in all that. Firstly, no, I do not think homeopathy should be funded on the NHS.  Secondly, current evidence suggests that it should be stopped and that the money would be best be redirected to funding "taking therapies" that have a good evidence base and adequate provisions for patient and public safety.

Liz Panton


I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here: http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters


http://www.givingvoiceuk.org/



On 1 September 2011 12:40, Paul Swann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In that case then yes, in my view homeopathic medicine should be provided on the NHS, together with other effective naturopathic treatments, some of which have proved effective in my experience.

 

Your suggestion that “all homeopathic medicine could be replaced by one prescription for all conditions that it purports to treat, ie. drink tap water out of very small, expensive bottles” simply displays your lack of understanding of how homeopathy works - and presumably ukskeptics.com’s, whose website appears to have been hacked – I do like that logo :)

 

Sadly the NHS is guilty of providing “extremely bad, even life-threatening, intervention(s)” on a daily basis.

 

I’ve nothing more to say, other than generally agreeing with Colin’s comments.

 

Paul

 

 

From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Liz Panton
Sent: 01 September 2011 12:04


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Should homeopathic treatments be available on the NHS? (from the Friends of the RLHIM)

 

The orignial email was about homeopathy.

There is no need to pit allopathic against homeopathic, or to introduce arguments for or against other "alternative" medicine/approaches in general, when considering the original question.  That was limited to the issue of whether or not homeopathic medicine should or should not be provided on the NHS.

There are other treatments which might be questioned but that is not the question here and it is a distraction to introduce them.

The fact is that is that all homeopathic medicine could be replaced by one prescription for all conditions that it purports to treat, ie. drink tap water out of very small, expensive bottles.

In some cases that would cause no harm. In others it could be an extremely bad, even life-threatening, intervention providing false reassurance.

In my opinion it is a waste of public money to provide this service on the NHS and the fact that it is provided on the NHS gives homeopathy and it's practitioners a credibility that is undeserved.

Liz Panton


I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here: http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters

 



On 1 September 2011 11:20, Colin REvell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

THERE ARE SIDE-EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES TO EVERYTHING WE DO IN LIFE, IF WE DON'T TAKE SELF-RESPONSIBILITY AND MODERATION. HOMEOPATHIC IS NO-MORE DANGEROUS, THAN ALLOPATHIC DRUGS - CAN WE REALLY TRUST THE BIG PHARMA''S?
 
WE ALL HAVE SELF-RESPONSIBILITY AND NEED INFORMED CHOICES/DECISIONS, NOT TO BE PATRONISED AND TREATED LIKE CHILDREN AND TOLD WHAT TO DO AND SAY BY 'BIG-BROTHER' - DO YOU TRUST THEM IN TELLING US 'THE-TRUTH' IN 'THIS AGE OF ANXIETY?'
 
'OWELLIAN STATE'
 
FREEOURPEOPLE

Colin Revell
 

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:10:46 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]


Subject: Re: FW: Should homeopathic treatments be available on the NHS? (from the Friends of the RLHIM)
To: [log in to unmask]

Homeopathy is far less life threatening to patients than Big Pharm!

 

From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Liz Panton
Sent: 30 August 2011 23:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Should homeopathic treatments be available on the NHS? (from the Friends of the RLHIM)

 

Absolute waste of money and can be dangerous nonsense too! 

 

 

 

Am I right in recalling that it was only added to the NHS after lobbying by Prince Charles, renowned expert on Evidence Based Practice in healthcare?

 

Liz Panton

 

 

I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here: http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters

 

 

On 30 August 2011 15:44, Colin REvell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:39:48 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: Should homeopathic treatments be available on the NHS? (from the Friends of the RLHIM)
To:

Dear All

 

I have been asked to circulate the info below in which many of you may be interested.

 

Kind regards

Adrian

Adrian Delemore, Network Organiser
Justice in Health Network (JIHN)

Phone: 07973 834 012

--- On Tue, 30/8/11, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Should homeopathic treatments be available on the NHS? (from the Friends of the RLHIM)
To:
Date: Tuesday, 30 August, 2011, 15:01

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

 
 
 
Dear Friends,

Apologies if you have already received this, but do please circulate it to your friends and colleagues, put it on your Twitter, Facebook or other social networking site.

The Guardian is running a poll asking whether homeopathy should be available on the NHS – click here to cast your vote or go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2011/aug/30/homeopathy-nhs

.

The amount spent by the NHS on homeopathic treatments has fallen over the past decade, according to figures from the NHS Information Centre, reaching a record low last year. Should such treatments be offered at all?

The poll closes on the 1st September.
 
Thank you. 
 
Sato                             

_____________________________________

 

 Ms Sato Liu, Projects Manager

 FRIENDS of the  Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine

60 Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3HR

Registered Charity No: 269289

Email: [log in to unmask]

Tel: 020 3448 8930

Website: www.friendsrlhim.org

Twitter @FriendsRLHIM

Facebook: Friends ~Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine

_____________________________________

 P  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail  

  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential and is intended solely for the person or
Entity to whom it is addressed.  If this is not you, please forward the
Message to [log in to unmask].  We have scanned this email
before sending it, but cannot guarantee that malicious software is
absent and we shall carry no liability in this regard.
 
We advise that information intended to be kept confidential should not
Be sent by email.  We also advise that health concerns should be
Discussed with a medical professional in person or by telephone.
NHS Direct can also provide advice.  We shall not be liable for any
failure to follow this advice. University College London Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust (UCLH).

________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.

 

________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.

________________End of message________________ This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.

________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).

Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]

Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.


________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).

Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]

Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.

________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).

Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]

Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.


________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).

Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]

Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.