Heartland

CPOB: A homeopathic "medicine" has been granted a license in the UK: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 294395.ece

(Oh and one of the "related links" to that story says Acupuncture really can help relieve back pain -- erm, no it can't, at least no better than placebo.)

I am f*cking sick of outright quackery being promoted to the detriment of real medicine (you know, the stuff that actually cures illnesses). There is only a limited amount of money in the NHS and the fact that a "Traditional Chinese Medicine" place down the road from us gets NHS money really gets my goat.

These treatments do not work, and they actively cause harm. People pursue "alternative therapies" rather than the treatment that actually works at great expense, and end up sick anyway.

A case in point: 13-year-old Daniel Hauser needs chemotherapy for Hodgkins Lymphoma, but his mother has decided he's better off with "natural" treatments. Cut a long story short, a court ordered that he receive the treatment (against his parents' wishes) and he and his mother have gone on the run. He will die if he is not found quickly.

It makes my blood boil.

markfiend wrote:A case in point: 13-year-old Daniel Hauser needs chemotherapy for Hodgkins Lymphoma, but his mother has decided he's better off with "natural" treatments. Cut a long story short, a court ordered that he receive the treatment (against his parents' wishes) and he and his mother have gone on the run. He will die if he is not found quickly.

It makes my blood boil.

He actually had one course of chemo, but he didn't like it, so she decided it was 'poison'. Well, DUH!!! Yes, it's true, it is - and it's bloody unpleasant - but it's 'poisoning' the mutant cells THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF KILLING YOUR SON, YOU STUPID TWAT!!!

Not to mention that, at 13, he's essentially illiterate. Cripes. These people don't deserve to be parents.

markfiend wrote:CPOB: A homeopathic "medicine" has been granted a license in the UK: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 294395.ece

(Oh and one of the "related links" to that story says Acupuncture really can help relieve back pain -- erm, no it can't, at least no better than placebo.)

I am f*cking sick of outright quackery being promoted to the detriment of real medicine (you know, the stuff that actually cures illnesses). There is only a limited amount of money in the NHS and the fact that a "Traditional Chinese Medicine" place down the road from us gets NHS money really gets my goat.

These treatments do not work, and they actively cause harm. People pursue "alternative therapies" rather than the treatment that actually works at great expense, and end up sick anyway.

A case in point: 13-year-old Daniel Hauser needs chemotherapy for Hodgkins Lymphoma, but his mother has decided he's better off with "natural" treatments. Cut a long story short, a court ordered that he receive the treatment (against his parents' wishes) and he and his mother have gone on the run. He will die if he is not found quickly.

It makes my blood boil.

Dear Sir,

if used in the correct way homeopathic methods can work great, a I have experienced that myself.
For example I had an incident involving a load of shreds of Hogweed that were cast over my right arm and the greater part of my neck, resulting in vast excems on the affected areas of skin that weren't cured by what I got from the dermatologist. My sister was in the last bits of her education as a healer (The online dictionary offers "Registered German Naturopath" as translation as well, seems to be a very krautian thing to have that profession established:?:) then and offered to try a nomeopathic treatment. She was taught that those "medicals" are best applied whe injected to the accupuncture centres, nodes, whatever you call them. With an almost spookish effect: The excems that shone red for over 6 weeks blurred and vanished within *hours* and were gone completely after two days.
There are a lot of quacks under way in that buisness, but there actually are some who do have methods that *work*. Why there are such vast diffculties to monitor what's the difference between those and the others is beyond me, but it sure is worth spending much more effort on finding out what does the trick. Even one case of evident effect of homeopathics would justify the effort as there's knowledge to be gained about things not understood so far about processes in our bodies. Most apparently, the effect is not a biochemical one, rather a stimmulation of the body's own means of defense and repair.

Properly conducted trials find no difference between homeopathy and placebo.

Homeopathic remedies are nothing but pure water; the repeated dilutions mean that the effective dilution in a standard "30C" preparation would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to a single patient.

With all respect, an anecdote such as yours Jums demonstrates nothing. You might be mis-remembering how bad you were, you might be mis-remembering how quickly you got better. The fact that you took the remedy just before you got better does not mean that the remedy caused the improvement.

You know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

To me it demonstrated enough.
There's new knowledge in range, I think. Some input about how the body works if one looks beyond the point of mere treatment of illnesses. There were other phenomena not understood, for example the effect that makes insects fly was discoverred some 50 years after the first supersonic flight.
Just don't merely rely on investigations of the matter that were financed by Pfizer&Co, for homeopathical "medicine" technically speaking can be mixed together by everybody.

eotunun wrote:the effect that makes insects fly was discoverred some 50 years after the first supersonic flight.

You know why?

They were treating insects as if they were fixed-wing aircraft, completely failed to take into account the fact that insects flap their wings

markfiend wrote:You know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

Hear hear! Don't start me!

markfiend wrote:

eotunun wrote:the effect that makes insects fly was discoverred some 50 years after the first supersonic flight.

You know why?

They were treating insects as if they were fixed-wing aircraft, completely failed to take into account the fact that insects flap their wings

..or rather that no one actually cared to take the effort of investigating the eddies that cause the lift..
Still, isn't it stunning that as normal things as that were not investigated after having the means like interferometrical photography for so long, especially when exactly that method was used to measure variartions in air density due to compression/decompression effectes since the late thirties/early fourties?
-By the way, no matter where the lack of understanding came from, I simply love the quotation that "thankfully bees don't know they can't fly".
Thankfully so many patients don't know their medicine doesn't work.

Can't see the harm in homepatics if they have some sort of positive effect, Mark.

I know your SKEPPticism and your rational thought and all, and I respect it and appreciate it...

But people DID get cured in Lourdes. Some close relatives DID recover from cancer thanks to homeopatic 'water'.

And acupuncture, in combination with osteopatic treatment, DID alleviate the severe back ache I had during a three-month hernia.

The doctors suggested surgery for that. So glad I didn't take them up on the offer.

It's not because it can't be scientifically proven that it's not working.

IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:It's not because it can't be scientifically proven that it's not working.

It may all very well work in practice but does it work in theory

eotunun wrote:Thankfully so many patients don't know their medicine doesn't work.

QFT

markfiend wrote:Properly conducted trials find no difference between homeopathy and placebo.

This is true, but it's also not true.
True, in a trial there is no difference between the recorded effects of the homeopathic remedy and the placebo. But in real-world studies there is a marked difference.
In a trial, you know that there's a 50% chance that you're taking the placebo, so the seed of doubt is already implanted. But if someone tells you that you're taking the drug, then the psychosomatic effects are greatly enhanced. And perhaps that is the value of homeopathic or "alternative" medicine, in that it helps the body heal itself. The mind is a powerful tool in this respect.
I would be the last person to say that someone should or shouldn't try a particular therapy or treatment, but if nothing else has worked I'd be inclined to the "well, what do you have to lose by trying this?" camp.

EvilBastard wrote:

markfiend wrote:Properly conducted trials find no difference between homeopathy and placebo.

This is true, but it's also not true.
True, in a trial there is no difference between the recorded effects of the homeopathic remedy and the placebo. But in real-world studies there is a marked difference.
In a trial, you know that there's a 50% chance that you're taking the placebo, so the seed of doubt is already implanted. But if someone tells you that you're taking the drug, then the psychosomatic effects are greatly enhanced. And perhaps that is the value of homeopathic or "alternative" medicine, in that it helps the body heal itself. The mind is a powerful tool in this respect.
I would be the last person to say that someone should or shouldn't try a particular therapy or treatment, but if nothing else has worked I'd be inclined to the "well, what do you have to lose by trying this?" camp.

^ yep, exactly what he said...

EvilBastard wrote:In a trial, you know that there's a 50% chance that you're taking the placebo, so the seed of doubt is already implanted. But if someone tells you that you're taking the drug, then the psychosomatic effects are greatly enhanced. And perhaps that is the value of homeopathic or "alternative" medicine, in that it helps the body heal itself. The mind is a powerful tool in this respect.

Well isn't that the point though? If the only action of the "drug" is that it has a psychosomatic effect, then it is a placebo, by definition.

I guess, in theory, a real doctor could prescribe a sugar-pill and say "this is a new wonder-drug that will work wonders for your arthritis" or whatever, but isn't that a little dishonest? A little... unethical?

EvilBastard wrote:I would be the last person to say that someone should or shouldn't try a particular therapy or treatment, but if nothing else has worked I'd be inclined to the "well, what do you have to lose by trying this?" camp.

Sure, I suppose so, but the problem isn't people using this stuff as a last resort when conventional treatments have failed, it's people using this stuff instead of conventional treatment. Which is fine if it's only their own health they're endangering, but all too many people subject their kids to it. Like Daniel Hauser's mum, referenced up-thread. (She, incidentally, has turned herself and her son in, and is reportedly now allowing chemotherapy to go ahead. Score 1 for rationality.)

markfiend wrote:Well isn't that the point though? If the only action of the "drug" is that it has a psychosomatic effect, then it is a placebo, by definition. I guess, in theory, a real doctor could prescribe a sugar-pill and say "this is a new wonder-drug that will work wonders for your arthritis" or whatever, but isn't that a little dishonest? A little... unethical?

True - a doctor could do this. In most cases it would be unethical, but there are cases where it has been done (for good, valid, humane reasons) and has proved efficacious. The terminally ill patient for whom nothing can be done but is given a placebo which halts the progress of the disease, relieves pain, or has other positive effects.

markfiend wrote:The problem isn't people using this stuff as a last resort when conventional treatments have failed, it's people using this stuff instead of conventional treatment. Which is fine if it's only their own health they're endangering, but all too many people subject their kids to it.

Denying a child access to medical treatment for no reason other than "I don't believe in it" is criminal, imho. There are grounds to refuse treatment (quality of life, for example), but none whatsoever to withold treatment from a patient who has already proved receptive to it (as in this case).

There are a couple of problems here:
In some countries the pharmaceutical/medical industry punches well above its weight when it comes to policy. In the US the pharmaceutical business is so desperate to have people take drugs that it invents illnesses (Restless Legs Syndrome, Peripheral Neuropathy) in order to increase consumption of product. The philosophy seems to be "There must be something wrong with you, so what drugs can we encourage you to take?" rather than, "If there's something wrong with you, we might be able to help."

A refusal in some quarters (doctors, the pharmaceutical industry) to accept that there are instances where drugs are less useful than allowing the body to heal itself. There are also instances where this isn't the case, of course, but presenting a holistic approach (this drug in conjunction with this herb, this diet, this massage, this smell, this wavelength of light) could limit the negative drug side-effects experienced by many patients.

Some patients have been so turned off the idea of "regular medicine" that they chase after any charlatan or faith healer that promises a cure, eschewing reasoning and logic. They too need to remember that there are many forms of medicine, and sometimes the most effective is the "regular" kind.

When I had really bad pain (and I did in January this year) I woulda snorted powdered dog shit, washed down with warm cat's pish if I hoped for some relief, sometimes the hope is all we have.

I am now a High Reverend Pastor of the Golden Turd, Healer of Ailments and Head Meate Burner in the Church of the Drive Thru' Elvis - We Will Cure You!
"Thang yuh veh'a mush!" Revr'nd

a new commercially produced drug is giving me the relief I craved, but I wouldn't rule out alternative suggestions partially because: the drug that's providing me relief is primarily used for treating another ailment my pain relief is, apparently, a side effect...

James Blast wrote: sometimes the hope is all we have.

Aye, I can see that. But I don't know, is false (or dubious) hope better than no hope?

Maybe it is.

I'd say yes, otherwise you could just be a rent-a-goff and bleat online and generally bring a party to it's knees

your mileage may vary...

Fair enough

hmmmm

markfiend wrote: I guess, in theory, a real doctor could prescribe a sugar-pill and say "this is a new wonder-drug that will work wonders for your arthritis" or whatever, but isn't that a little dishonest? A little... unethical?

Maybe starting a totally different discussion here Mark, but I feel the term 'unethical' already describes best an industry that thinks about sales first and well-being later (Merck - Vioxx scandal anyone?).

IZ.

Granted, but science-based medicine is not the pharmaceutical industry. And despite what the anti-science brigade would have you believe, the research is not in the industry's pocket. There's far closer scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest than there is in the "alt-med" world.

Being a "pharma shill" would be as much career suicide to a genuine scientist as would pseudoscience. If only the same standards were held up in the altie world.

Another thing: if (as an example) homeopathy could be demonstrated to work better than placebo, do you not think the scientific community would be all over it? There would be a Nobel prize for whoever figured out how it worked.

(Split the topic) (and left a post of mine behind )

markfiend wrote:Another thing: if (as an example) homeopathy could be demonstrated to work better than placebo, do you not think the scientific community would be all over it? There would be a Nobel prize for whoever figured out how it worked.

Hmm, tricky one. I don't think they would be 'all over it'. But I think they will spend some money to have a look at it behind closed doors to be absolutely SURE it works (we're talking science here; they are not allowed to 'just assume', only Einstein and Newton were allowed to say that).

Then they probably patent it and claim it for their own as they did several times in the past *shrug*.

The main point is, while Science is always busy to hunt after facts and proof, they completely fail to see that there MIGHT be solace in the power of the mind. The term 'just accept it bastards' will just not suffice

As with a lot of stuff in the past, they will find a rational explanation for the beneficial effects of homeopatic stuff, I'm sure.

Just like they scientifically explained that, for example, laughing a lot keeps you healthy, not just because it IS, but because of the relaxation of muscles, the production of endorphines and antibodies and the increase of blood flow.

It's not because you can't explain it YET that you have to throw it away as complete nonsense IMO. I've know people that significantly got better after listening to their favourite artist perform live. It is also proven that metal music is good for plant growth. They just don't know WHY yet

IZ.