Striking a blow against quackery!

[Jon_in_london]

I just found this site:

http://www.worldofalternatives.com/UK-homeopathy.htm

which claims that homeopathy is "Scientifically proven to work"

I have reported it to the Advertising Standards Authority.

I am feeling rather crusaderish these days and I have a feeling the ASA may be hearing a bit more from me! :D

[Zaphod]

I loved the statement on the site that "Homeopathy is non addictive"! Actually, I think addiction to water is supposed to be a good thing.

Zaphod

[bjornart]

As we all knew:

It is important to remember, however, that a medicine is homeopathic only if it is taken based upon the similar nature of the medicine to the illness. A medicine labeled as "homeopathic" will work only if it is homeopathic to the symptoms presented.

So what have they put in the cure against tinnitus? A metallica tape?

[Prester John]

Its says "accepted by the NHS"
does anyone have information on this, knowledge of which trusts / hospitals are involved?

(I can feel a letter to my MP coming on)

[bjornart]

And how come UK-homeopathy wants payment in dollars?

[Rolfe]

There is information about this somewhere. Some is on the HomeoWatch site, I think.

There are four or five homoeopathic hospitals in Britain, although I believe only London and Glasgow have in-patient facilities. (You should read Monica Dickens' account of her time as a nurse in the former, in One Pair of Feet - it's hilarious.)

I'm not sure how integrated these are to the NHS, but they are to some extent I believe. I also read somewhere that one of the London boroughs cancelled its contract with the London Homoeopathic Hospital, because somebody did a cost-benefit analysis.

At GP level, there is often some homoeopathic meddling, and some NHS GPs do give homoeopathic consultations. A friend of mine who is a GP told me she dumped a load of new-mother information leaflets sent to her practice from a central source, and refused to allow them to be distributed, because tacked on the the pages of sensible information there was a section on homoeopathy.

This "slippery delusion" got its knees under the table of real medicine a long time ago, and it's very difficult to dislodge.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

My father's cousin attended the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital several times. He was a confirmed believer who outlived every other family member of his generation, dying in his nineties.

Which proves nothing, of course.

I have been frequently surprised by how uncritical medical professionals often are of unorthodox treatment.
I know one medical professional who is sure Reiki has helped a frozen shoulder. I know physiotherapists who accept accupuncture. I have met a GP who practices homoeopathy.

I am cynical enough to suspect several possible reasons for this:-

1. Medics are only too well aware that much of their own traditional technique is based on smoke & mirrors. They know most conditions get better by themselves and they also know the
placebo effect (as in the now departed "bedside manner") is a vital ingredient of real medecine. They are reluctant to call the kettle black.

2. Medics are a mixed bag of people. They are not all scientists or sceptics. They are as apt to accept odd ideas as any other group of technically educated people.

3. They have, one supposes, seen more than the lay person in their own area of expertise. It's possible some alternative medecines have enough positive aspects that they feel they can tolerate them.

Also, if methods like homoeopathy exist, perhaps it's better that they be tied into the mainstream, so they are being monitored by reasonably trained people, rather than being backstreet operations.

Of course, it should be as subject to audit as any other branch of medecine. It's hard to see how homoeopathy can be costly though: A little goes a long way in that line.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Also, if methods like homoeopathy exist, perhaps it's better that they be tied into the mainstream, so they are being monitored by reasonably trained people, rather than being backstreet operations.I have heard that argument so often, for homoeopaths of course.

The unstated assumption seems to be that at least a qualified vet or medic will realise when a patient really needs treatment, and confine the homoeopathy to cases which are either self-limiting or hopeless. There may be some truth to this where the NHS is concerned, as doctors aren't really free to bounce off in any bizarre direction that takes their fancy.

However, a lot of the professionals who go down that road buy into the whole thing, hook, line, sinker and rowing boat. They're just as dangerous as the lay homoeopaths when they start peddling unscientific theories and eschewing "allopathy" - for example this nut-job here (http://www.alternativevet.org/homeopathy.htm) and his equally deranged mates (http://www.bahvs.com/history.html) reject much of what their profession practises, and encourage the abandoning of evidence-based treatments:Suppression of chronic disease (the result of much orthodox treatment) will drive the disease inward, possibly to be later expressed as allergy, asthma, epilepsy, cancer etc.This is truly scary.

Any conceivable benefit in keeping some patients at least partly under the wing of real medicine is, in my experience, completely nullified by the immense damage done by allowing the homoeopaths to claim that their nonsense is an accepted part of real medicine, and so must be effective.

The whole thing is political, and it has much more to do with the opprobrium that is attracted when someone criticises a colleague than any practical considerations.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

"The whole thing is political, and it has much more to do with the opprobrium that is attracted when someone criticises a colleague than any practical considerations.

Rolfe."

Hadn't considered that angle. Do you think this has a bearing on why no other doctor stopped Shipman years before he was finally caught?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Hadn't considered that angle. Do you think this has a bearing on why no other doctor stopped Shipman years before he was finally caught? To some extent, perhaps. In fact I'm sure that did operate at some level. Like with the "whistle-blowers" who find themselves suspended, rather than the guy whose failure rate for paediatric heart surgery was about 20 times what it ought to have been. In that case the incompetent went right on operating for quite a long time before he was eventually stopped, and the whistle-blower had to go back to Australia.

But with Shipman I think the largest part was sheer disbelief that the guy could possibly be doing what he seemed to be doing. People simply didn't "think the unthinkable". Once the suspicion really began to be entertained with seriousness, it became evident that something had to be done.

Rolfe.

[trotsky]

hmm unfortunately, I tried this line before with advertising standards (about an acupuncturist). They sent back an e mail stating they could not take action against anyone if there are not hard copies of the advert in circulation. This was because it would be impossible to regulate the whole internet and it was their policy not to try. so i think you're on to a loser as well....?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by trotsky
hmm unfortunately, I tried this line before with advertising standards (about an acupuncturist). They sent back an e mail stating they could not take action against anyone if there are not hard copies of the advert in circulation. This was because it would be impossible to regulate the whole internet and it was their policy not to try. so i think you're on to a loser as well....?

Well, I did get a reply from them and the ASA seems to have some facilities specifically directed at online advertising. I doubt they will do anything as the offending party can just cite Benevista and any number of kooky 'Journal of Quantum Energetic Homeopathic Chakras' articales