The headline was 'Homeopathic hospital fears'...

[chillzero]

I saw this headline, and thought it might be about trying to exclude homeopathy from a hospital, due to the fears about its effectiveness.
Imagine my horror....
BBC news, of all places (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3702307.stm)

my vote for daft quote of the day:
Doctors at the hospital believe that for many patients homeopathic treatments are the only alternative to expensive drugs, repeated GP visits and emergency admissions.

I mean, if you are not going to use drugs, visit the GP, or use emergency services - that REALLY reduces your options anyway. Plus, I personally don't believe the word 'only' should ever be used when examining alternatives to anything - maybe it's a 'never say never' attitude, but there is rarely 'ONLY' one option - particularly in consideration of your health. Saying this is the only alternative implies that these patients (and the unit is to be used as an example for a cancer unit!) do not and/or should not try the drugs, GPs, etc. Maybe I'm being pedantic.

Anyway - back to topic - I never knew this was even available on the NHS, and I am shocked at the report's neglect of the fact that funds used for this are desperately needed elsewhere. There has been a lot of bad UK press lately about poor hygeine etc - basic care requirements in the NHS - who sets these priorities for funding? At least it seems this will restore some sense to Glasgow.

Also - the article states there are beds in this unit - why is this required for homeopathic treatment? (I am not being facetious - I really don't understand). Particularly in light of bed shortages in NHS - and this hospital is no exception:
proposal for bed erquirements (http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/ggnhsb/depts/p+c_care/acute_archive/services/htmleafs/l11.htm) .

Anyhooo - comments?

[geni]

There are about 5 UK homeopathic hospitals. They are starting to run into problems with people asking inconvient questions.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Such as: Say, why are you dumping the unused portion of my homeopathic medication down the drain?

~~ Paul

[thaiboxerken]

I have a guess as to the "bed" question. Homeopath's are starting a trend towards real medicine, lately what these quacks are calling homeopathic tend to actually have a dosage of medicine in it. For example, they might take a Bayer, crush it up, put it in 8 oz. of water and call it a homeopathic solution. Of course, they don't show the client any of this. Maybe the beds are made up so that they can do some "homeopathic" surgeries and have people stay afterwards, the only difference being between real surgery and homeopathic surgery being a license.

I'm not saying that this is what really happens, but with quacks, the level of dishonesty is really never known.

[Pantastic]

Im glad they're shutting down these cranks. If they were to show that homeopathy works, then they would be deserving of funding. It doesn't and they aren't.
These 'doctors', did they learn nothing in medical school (if they even went to medical school)? Did they not learn that treatments must be shown to work in properly conducted trials? Sometimes I despair...

[Pantastic]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I have a guess as to the "bed" question. Homeopath's are starting a trend towards real medicine, lately what these quacks are calling homeopathic tend to actually have a dosage of medicine in it. For example, they might take a Bayer, crush it up, put it in 8 oz. of water and call it a homeopathic solution. Of course, they don't show the client any of this. Maybe the beds are made up so that they can do some "homeopathic" surgeries and have people stay afterwards, the only difference being between real surgery and homeopathic surgery being a license.

I'm not saying that this is what really happens, but with quacks, the level of dishonesty is really never known.

Homeopathic surgery? What do they do, only remove a 100th of a tumour?

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe. Or they could be removing something totally unrelated to an illness. Quacks don't really care, as long as they can have your money.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cabby
I saw this headline, and thought it might be about trying to exclude homeopathy from a hospital, due to the fears about its effectiveness.
Imagine my horror....
BBC news, of all places (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3702307.stm)

<snip>

Also - the article states there are beds in this unit - why is this required for homeopathic treatment? (I am not being facetious - I really don't understand). Particularly in light of bed shortages in NHS - and this hospital is no exception:
proposal for bed erquirements (http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/ggnhsb/depts/p+c_care/acute_archive/services/htmleafs/l11.htm) .

Anyhooo - comments?

As I have pointed out in another post regarding a Glasgow paper's coverage of this - the In-Patients division treats patients with conventional medical treatments and employs homeopathic *counselling*, this reported by their medical correspondent. Unfortunately in a later *editorial* this fact morphed into the marvels of homeopathic treatment and the stupidity of stopping the programme. Surprising? Not really for editors with agenda (agendum, agendas? - bias)

[thaiboxerken]

Complementing real medicine with homeopathic treatment. To me, that's just another way for hospitals to make huge profits with very little overhead. The extra overhead only being the "homeopaths" themselves, not any extra medicine.

[Prester John]

But Greater Glasgow Health Board said they may have to be closed in order to fund a large modernisation programme.

Well homeopathy is 200 years out of date :D

[EHocking]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Complementing real medicine with homeopathic treatment. To me, that's just another way for hospitals to make huge profits with very little overhead. The extra overhead only being the "homeopaths" themselves, not any extra medicine.

What you have to remember that this was and is a homeopathic hospital (since 1914 from it's own blurb).

So in effect what we have is a homeopathic hospital complementing it's treatments with *real* medicines!

The NHS approach to complementary medicines does not condone or promote them - it only recognises that there is a common law precedent that allows people to practice it without training (as long as they don't call themselves doctors) and merely worked it into the *insurance* system of the National Health Service due to demand.

ie This from nhs direct's Encyclopaedia definitions of homeopathy <http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=247&AreaID=1509&LinkID=1112>
"Despite the inability to reproduce the anecdotal evidence in clinical trials, homeopathy remains one of the most popular complementary therapies in the UK."

This approach by the government is probably down to the House of Lords, Science and Technology Special Committe (6th) report on Complementary and Alternative Medicines <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12301.htm>

It's actually quite an interesting read and certainly debunks olaf's disingenuous appeals to authority regarding "100,000 doctors" and the NHS.

[Corallinus]

You do indeed need training to practice effectively as a homeopath and also, lots of new clinical trials have been started this year as funding has become available.

The Faculty of Homeopathy has just received funding and is starting a new study sometime this year.

There are in fact a lot of studies and recent ones at that around that demonstrate the positive benefits of homeopathy and it is very good that doctors can recognise this.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Corallinus
You do indeed need training to practice effectively as a homeopath and also, lots of new clinical trials have been started this year as funding has become available.

The Faculty of Homeopathy has just received funding and is starting a new study sometime this year.

There are in fact a lot of studies and recent ones at that around that demonstrate the positive benefits of homeopathy and it is very good that doctors can recognise this.


More claims without evidence...

There is no reproducable evidence that homeopathy has an effect other than placebo.

[geni]

Originally posted by Corallinus
There are in fact a lot of studies and recent ones at that around that demonstrate the positive benefits of homeopathy and it is very good that doctors can recognise this.


Don't bother lying. The most recent studies say it doesn't work.

November 2003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14651731

[Pantastic]

Originally posted by Corallinus
There are in fact a lot of studies and recent ones at that around that demonstrate the positive benefits of homeopathy and it is very good that doctors can recognise this.

Most doctors don't recognise homeopathy (I say most, because there are always some bad apples).

If you could provide links to these recent studies showing the positive benefits of homeopathy I would be interested in reading them.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Pantastic


Most doctors don't recognise homeopathy (I say most, because there are always some bad apples).

If you could provide links to these recent studies showing the positive benefits of homeopathy I would be interested in reading them.

0

That is a homeopathic dilution of the link in binary. Hope it helps.

[Corallinus]

I am not lying at all and I have to tell you that there are a lot more recent studies out there that demonstrates a significant effect over and above placebo rather than just this one study that you seem to keep referring too.

Just trotting out this Belladonna trial seems to be the only study that you know and actually proves nothing at all. It certainly does not prove that homeopathy has no effect. One trial one bad result. That means nothing. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons a little and come up with something more than the old Belladonna trials that you seem to love quoting. Or perhaps you don't know any of the others that exist?

[geni]

Originally posted by Corallinus
I am not lying at all and I have to tell you that there are a lot more recent studies out there that demonstrates a significant effect over and above placebo rather than just this one study that you seem to keep referring too.

More recent that nov 2003?

Just trotting out this Belladonna trial seems to be the only study that you know and actually proves nothing at all. It certainly does not prove that homeopathy has no effect. One trial one bad result. That means nothing. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons a little and come up with something more than the old Belladonna trials that you seem to love quoting. Or perhaps you don't know any of the others that exist?

You want more trials? I tend to mention that belladona study because it is the most recnt of my favriot papers. But if you insist here are some other recnt trials

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14651731&dopt=Abstract

A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a homeopathic treatment of neonatal calf diarrhoea was performed using 44 calves in 12 dairy herds. Calves with spontaneously derived diarrhoea were treated with either the homeopathic remedy Podophyllum (D30) (n = 24) or a placebo (n = 20). No clinically or statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was demonstrated. Calves treated with Podophyllum had an average of 3.1 days of diarrhoea compared with 2.9 days for the placebo group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14650548&dopt=Abstract

We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725251&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo. The improvement in both conditions was substantial. Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12716269&dopt=Abstract

Swelling and use of analgesic medication also did not differ between arnica and placebo groups. Adverse events were reported by 2 patients in the arnica 6C group, 3 in the placebo group and 4 in the arnica 30C group. The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12562974&dopt=Abstract

[Pantastic]

Originally posted by Corallinus
I am not lying at all and I have to tell you that there are a lot more recent studies out there that demonstrates a significant effect over and above placebo rather than just this one study that you seem to keep referring too.

Just trotting out this Belladonna trial seems to be the only study that you know and actually proves nothing at all. It certainly does not prove that homeopathy has no effect. One trial one bad result. That means nothing. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons a little and come up with something more than the old Belladonna trials that you seem to love quoting. Or perhaps you don't know any of the others that exist?

I repeat:

If you could provide links to these recent studies showing the positive benefits of homeopathy I would be interested in reading them.

[Prester John]

Corallinus said
I am not lying at all and I have to tell you that there are a lot more recent studies out there that demonstrates a significant effect over and above placebo rather than just this one study that you seem to keep referring too.


Well it shouldn't be too hard for you to reference them should it ?

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Corallinus
and also, lots of new clinical trials have been started this year as funding has become available. ...
There are in fact a lot of studies and recent ones at that around that demonstrate the positive benefits of homeopathy and it is very good that doctors can recognise this.

It took less than sixty years for heart surgery to go from being thought impossible to being considered common-place. Any explanation for why a treatment that has existed for over 200 years needs new studies to prove it works?

[chillzero]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards


It took less than sixty years for heart surgery to go from being thought impossible to being considered common-place. Any explanation for why a treatment that has existed for over 200 years needs new studies to prove it works?

probably for the same reasons that a belief that existed for centuries (the earth is flat) needed to be studied.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Strangely I can find no record of any of the casualties from the recent factory explosion in Glasgow being taken to this hospital for treatment. I wonder why that is? This was a major incident and emergency plans were in place across Glasgow's hospitals. Maybe if they weren't wasting money on "treating" patients with water, there would be more beds available when they are genuinely needed.

"According to NHS Greater Glasgow, those wounded in the explosion were being taken to the Western Infirmary, the Southern General, the Royal Infirmary and Victoria Infirmary.

Those described as "walking wounded" were being treated at Stobhill Accident and Emergency."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3705293.stm

[Yahweh]

10,000!
10,000!
10,000!

(Sorry)