Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Patients are at risk of being misled over the benefits of homeopathy by the [UK] government's decision to fund the remedies on the NHS, the country's most senior scientist warned today.
Sir John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, said patients might believe homeopathic treatments could protect them against serious illnesses, or treat existing conditions, because GPs and hospitals are allowed to prescribe them on the NHS.
Tens of thousands of people are given homeopathic pills and other preparations by their GPs or at Britain's four homeopathic hospitals, at an estimated cost to the NHS of between £4m and £10m ($5.6 to 13.9 Million) a year. Most homeopathic remedies are diluted multiple times to the point that only water is left, while others are essentially sugar pills.
Professor Beddington said ministers agreed to fund homeopathy on the grounds of "public choice", despite there being "no real evidence" that the remedies work.
"I have made it completely clear that there is no scientific basis for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and that there are serious concerns about its efficacy," Professor Beddington told the Commons science and technology committee today.
He went on to warn that government funding for homeopathy risked legitimising unproven treatments and that patients could harm their health by choosing these over conventional vaccines and medicines.
"There is a danger that the public will think that there is real efficacy for some serious conditions and I believe we have to work on that and make clear that this is not correct," he told the committee.
In June, doctors at the British Medical Association's annual conference voted three to one to halt NHS funding for homeopathic hospitals and ban homeopathic remedies on prescription. A report by the Commons science and technology committee published in February also called for an end to NHS funding for homeopathic medicine.
Professor Beddington cited the case of a man who caught malaria after being advised to take a homeopathic preparation to protect against the disease.
Graham Stringer, a member of the science and technology committee, challenged the government's claim that its policies are based on sound evidence.
"Giving people water or tablets with nothing in them except sugar is in itself harmless, but there is real evidence that homeopaths are prescribing these so-called medicines for things like malaria and other diseases, and in that sense this is very serious. In high street chemists, like Boots, these products are next to serious medicines," Stringer said.
"If the government is paying out millions for homeopathy, people will think there's something in it. The only reason for funding them is that ministers in the last government and in this government have not had the bottle to stop the funding."
When Congress decided to tackle health care reform in 2009 and early 2010, many hoped that government would take the opportunity to ensure that the resources we devote to medicine are spent more intelligently - say, by promoting and funding only medical therapies that are shown to improve health, or at least those therapies we can reasonably expect to be effective. Instead, the health care reform bill proved to be a bonanza for purveyors of junk treatments that have no grounding in evidence or basic scientific fact.
Congressional allies of the so-called "complementary and alternative medicine" industry successfully introduced language in health care reform legislation requiring insurers to cover any state-licensed health care providers including, of course, complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. Language prohibiting discrimination against any state-licensed practitioners survived in the Affordable Care Act President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010.
As a result, the hard-earned money you spend on health insurance will fund a variety of unproven -- and even disproven -- alleged treatments. To take but one example, therapeutic touch (TT), during which practitioners purport to heal a patient by massaging his or her "biomagnetic field" using only their hands. TT, of course, is absolute nonsense. The healing magnetic field TT practitioners purport to use is far too weak to affect the body's biochemical processes, and is more than 100 times weaker than the Earth's magnetic field. TT is but one of a host of junk treatments that insurers will be forced to cover under the health care reform act.
Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group.
Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP.
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospitals of Lyon and University Claude Bernard, France. [email protected]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish, using a systematic review and meta-analysis, whether there is any evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment in patients with any disease.
DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports of controlled clinical trials available up to June 1998, identified by searching bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, PsychInfo, Cinahl, British Library Stock Alert Service, SIGLE, Amed), references lists of selected papers, hand searching homeopathic journals and conference abstracts, and contacting pharmaceutical companies.
TRIALS
SELECTION: Trials were selected using an unblinded process by two reviewers. The selection criteria were randomised, controlled trials in which the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was assessed relative to placebo in patients using clinical or surrogate endpoints. Prevention trials or those evaluating only biological effects were excluded. One hundred and eighteen randomised trials were identified and evaluated for inclusion. Sixteen trials, representing 17 comparisons and including a total of 2,617 evaluated patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two reviewers independently, using a summary form. Disagreements were resolved by a third person.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The evidence was synthesised by combining the significance levels (P values) for the primary outcomes from the individual trials. The combined P value for the 17 comparisons was highly significant P = 0.000036. However, sensitivity analysis showed that the P value tended towards a non-significant value (P = 0.08) as trials were excluded in a stepwise manner based on their level of quality.
CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.
Read your own link, Madeline. It wasn't doctors and scientists who allowed this to happen.Apparently, I spoke too soon......
When Congress decided to tackle health care reform in 2009 and early 2010, many hoped that government would take the opportunity to ensure that the resources we devote to medicine are spent more intelligently - say, by promoting and funding only medical therapies that are shown to improve health, or at least those therapies we can reasonably expect to be effective. Instead, the health care reform bill proved to be a bonanza for purveyors of junk treatments that have no grounding in evidence or basic scientific fact.
Congressional allies of the so-called "complementary and alternative medicine" industry successfully introduced language in health care reform legislation requiring insurers to cover any state-licensed health care providers – including, of course, complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. Language prohibiting “discrimination” against any state-licensed practitioners survived in the Affordable Care Act President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010.
As a result, the hard-earned money you spend on health insurance will fund a variety of unproven -- and even disproven -- alleged treatments. To take but one example, therapeutic touch (TT), during which practitioners purport to heal a patient by massaging his or her "biomagnetic field" using only their hands. TT, of course, is absolute nonsense. The healing magnetic field TT practitioners purport to use is far too weak to affect the body's biochemical processes, and is more than 100 times weaker than the Earth's magnetic field. TT is but one of a host of junk treatments that insurers will be forced to cover under the health care reform act.
Junk Medicine and Health Care Reform: Where Was the Scientific Community? | Center for Inquiry
Well, doctors and scientists? How could you have allowed this to happen?
Everything will be covered Madeline. Boob jobs, penile implants, trips to brothels, pot, heroin needles, Jenny Craig, voodoo... And it will all be free!!!
Apparently, I spoke too soon......
Read your own link, Madeline. It wasn't doctors and scientists who allowed this to happen.
Idiot.
First, fix your quote of my words. As it is now, you gave yourself credit for my words.Apparently, I spoke too soon......
Read your own link, Madeline. It wasn't doctors and scientists who allowed this to happen.
Idiot.
The scientific community did not raise an alarm, did not advocate for rationality and did not make an appearance in an effort to frustrate the greed of the "homeopaths".
We all have to shoulder some blame, but as to this failure of government, IMO our scientists get the lions' share.
Gotta love it---forced by the govt to get health insurance and then you are told what kind of treatment is best for you.
First, fix your quote of my words. As it is now, you gave yourself credit for my words.Read your own link, Madeline. It wasn't doctors and scientists who allowed this to happen.
Idiot.
The scientific community did not raise an alarm, did not advocate for rationality and did not make an appearance in an effort to frustrate the greed of the "homeopaths".
We all have to shoulder some blame, but as to this failure of government, IMO our scientists get the lions' share.
Secondly, you are an idiot. Your own link demonstrates exactly who is to blame for this.
Or, are you yet another idiot who thinks science mixes well with politics? Apparently you are. I am not surprised. You contradict yourself in this post alone. You demonstrate no organization of thought. At all.
First, fix your quote of my words. As it is now, you gave yourself credit for my words.The scientific community did not raise an alarm, did not advocate for rationality and did not make an appearance in an effort to frustrate the greed of the "homeopaths".
We all have to shoulder some blame, but as to this failure of government, IMO our scientists get the lions' share.
Secondly, you are an idiot. Your own link demonstrates exactly who is to blame for this.
Or, are you yet another idiot who thinks science mixes well with politics? Apparently you are. I am not surprised. You contradict yourself in this post alone. You demonstrate no organization of thought. At all.
"Science mixes badly with politics".
Wunnerful excuse for doing fuck-all whilst Congress legislates against science, Si.
Si modo wrote:
You are a fucking moron, Madeline. Scientists do science. Politicians do politics and legislation.
What a colossal idiot you are. Read your own link although reading doesn't help you much.
Clearly, you are brain damaged.Si modo wrote:
You are a fucking moron, Madeline. Scientists do science. Politicians do politics and legislation.
What a colossal idiot you are. Read your own link although reading doesn't help you much.
So, when Congress legislates on matters of medicine and science, IYO the scientists and doctors should MYOB?
And you wonder how irrationality in laws take hold?
