Homeopathy

Hacawick said on 23 May 2012

If this really is an issue of money them let's just stop treating people who have chosen not to take care of themselves all their lives. If you choose a bad diet and choose to smoke then maybe the NHS should choose not to treat you? But surely that would be taking peoples choice and right to health away from them? Yes it would and it would be wrong, and its wrong to deny people choice of treatment when they pay into a system. The government wastes millions every year! So let's not pretend that this is about the NHS spending money on Homeopathy. Its about Homeopathy being a massive threat to the pharmaceuticala companies. I believe in conventional medicine and complimentary, as they both have their place.

Its sad that they can't just all work together. Homeopathy works, I don't even care how or why, but conventional does too and I also don't know how or why.

Paul Sayer said on 08 May 2012

I have paid into the NHS for many years. Therefore I had expected to receive medication if I fell ill. This did not happen as my doctor was unsure what was wrong with me. When I saw a homeopath however my condition improved a great deal and I was soon on the way to being cured. Unfortunately treatment was stopped by my GP, who can offer no conventional treatment, and my illness is now returning. People who complain about paying for homeopathy on the NHS forget that the patients using homeopathy have already paid for their treatment through their contributions.

Paul Sayer said on 30 April 2012

I have paid into the NHS for many years. Therefore I had expected to receive medication if I fell ill. This did not happen as my doctor was unsure what was wrong with me. When I saw a homeopath however my condition improved a great deal and I was soon on the way to being cured. Unfortunately treatment was stopped by my GP, who can offer no conventional treatment, and my illness is now returning. People who complain about paying for homeopathy on the NHS forget that the patients using homeopathy have already paid for their treatment through their contributions.

Well Informed Citizen said on 24 April 2012

It seems fairly obvious that Hahneman, the original inventor of homeopathy, did not recognise the placebo effect of his original preparations and his method. And it seems that all who have followed his method since then, have been using his flawed reasoning, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been.

If I were a homeopath, I would *definitely* want to know if my preparations had any real effectiveness, or efficacy!

I would also want to know if there was any reality to its precepts and its contentions (water having memory, law of similars, etc).

If it turns out that, as is the case, homeopathy is *merely* a placebo, then I would alter my views and behaviour to suit the scientific concensus. Perhaps reluctantly, but nevertheless, it would happen.

I would hate to think that I might have wasted a ton of my time following a useless practice, and adhering to a useless modality, but, that is life. Sometimes, you just get it wrong!

Better to admit that your original source of information which led you to believe that homeopathy was good and effective, was just wrong. And then to move on, and onto better things, and better sources of information.

Cheers all, have a good and productive life.

steven brookes said on 11 April 2012

This nonsense is based on the infinite dilution of various molecules. Tap water is an infinite dilution of every molecule that has ever existed so instead of wasting NHS money on these alternative practitioners let's just get people to drink a glass of water.

steven brookes said on 11 April 2012

This nonsense is based on the infinite dilution of various molecules. Tap water is an infinite dilution of every molecule that has ever existed so instead of wasting NHS money on these alternative practitioners let's just get people to drink a glass of water.

WilliamRHB said on 09 April 2012

It is sickening that I have to go to work this morning where I will work hard and earn money that will be forcibly taken from me to fund this nonsense.

BrianJones said on 29 March 2012

It may seem surprising to those unfamiliar with the placebo effect, but it is entirely possible that it could remove the symptoms of hay fever.

Good quality reliable research comparing homeopathic remedies with placebo show there is no difference in their effect - so the remedies have no specific action beyond the placebo effect. This is the conclusion of the report linked to above.

Using homeopathy for a relatively minor condition such as hay fever is unlikely to cause direct harm. The real risk is when homeopathic remedies are relied on for serious illness, in place of effective treatments. People can and do suffer or die unnecessarily in this way - including children.

Homeopathic theories are based on pre-Dickensian beliefs of health and illness - and reject or ignore many of the advances in understanding and knowledge of the past 200 years.

Many homeopaths undermine the work of the NHS with claims that modern medicine (in particular vaccinations and drugs) cause more harm than good - and deny the progress that has been made in healthcare.

They also promote theories that undermine the work of the NHS, impeding the hard work of the many dedicated health professionals seeking to improve healthcare, and their misinformation confuses attempts to educate people about health and illness.

I do hope that revised advice on homeopathy on this page will provide real choice, by making clear the lack of evidence for homeopathy and its risks.

Smallie said on 21 March 2012

I've come across this page only because I googled Homeopathy after being on mixed pollens for the past 3 weeks. After reading all the comments slagging it, I just had to write my perspective.

I never really knew what homeopathy involved, just that it was an alternative to traditional medicine. I've lived in the UK for the past 4 and a half years after moving here from Canada. I've also suffered from seasonal allergies or hayfever for the past 20 or so years. Before I moved over, I had managed to maintain a good handle on my hayfever in Canada, but since my move here, it's been so much worse. Chalk it up to new strains of trees and plants and grasses that my body isn't used to, but my symptoms are far worse here, and definitely more unbearable. They also start off earlier in the year like in March or April once the cherry blossoms appear. I'm not a fan of taking anti-histamines or any kind of allergy drugs, but have done just to eleviate those really bad horrible days when your just want to pull your nose out of your head.

About a 3 weeks ago, I had made an appointment in the afternoon to confirm my pregnancy. It was a warm morning and right off the bat I started sneezing, my eyes were itchy and my throat was scratc.hy. I knew right away that it was my allergies acting up already, and I thought, What am I in for if I'm pregnant and going through morning sickness and hayfever at the same time!

I asked the doc about my pregnancy is whether I could take anti-histamines or if they were a no-no. They are a no-no and she said my only option was to try homeopathy and wrote me a note to take to the chemist. We went there straight away and purchased a little vial. I started taking them on March 2nd and haven't looked back. They work! They're the only thing that has worked since I've been in the UK. And I'm sorry, but it's not a placebo cause if your eyes are itchy, your nose is runny, and your throat is scratchy no amount of sugar pills will cure that!

GWendover said on 12 March 2012

Indeed, people may feel better or have reduced symptoms after taking a homeopathic remedy. However, there are well-understood reasons for this (such as the placebo effect) which are a much better explanation than suggestions that homeopathic remedies themselves have an effect.

Good quality research which takes account of other effects, so tests the effect of remedy itself, shows that the remedy has no effect.

The report at the link above includes the evidence presented to the recent House of Commons Committee inquiry, including the strongest scientific evidence that could be produced in favour of homeopathy.

Both the evidence and the report's conclusions clearly show that when the body of scientific evidence is considered as a whole, that evidence strongly shows that homeopathic remedies do not have an effect.

laburnum said on 30 January 2012

There are numerous examples of homeopathy being effective.
A good site to visit is http://www.getwelluk.com/

There is also the site www.wiki4cam.org to read more about homeopathy.

holistictherapy said on 26 January 2012

It shocks me that homeopathy has been offered and paid for by the NHS (funded by the nation's taxpayers). It does not matter that some people believe it works when the available facts do not demonstrate its efficacy. A holistic approach to healing is important, but homeopathy has no place in modern medicine.

avishay said on 01 December 2011

Homeopathy proves me and my patients every day its effectiveness treating successfully chronic diseases. There is no doubt that law of similars and dilution of materials in a way that goes beyond Avogado law, seems strange and peculiar; nevertheless, we should not try to disqualify this healing method only because some issues are not fitting with those of science or medicine.
I remind you that greatest discoveries were of people who knew and believed in their knowledge, which was not fitting to the every day norms.

Homeopathy is the art of healing, and from my point of view, it was discovered and established many many years before humanity can understand or embrace it as a healing method. It was discovered before its time- and it seems that humanity is not yet ready to deal with it,hug it, use it and embrace it warmly.
This is my opinion on this subject

Avishay

Sky Pixie said on 21 November 2011

So many eloquent points have been made about the absurdity of homeopathy. I will try to refrain from repeating those made here and elsewhere nearby.

I spent many years dealing with conventional medicines - some of them turned out to be worse than useless, others were superb, others were discarded when identical products hit the market, all are somewhere on that spectrum. Yes, patients somatized, had self-limiting conditions, and some were disgruntled at not being offered better magic, advanced hand-holding techniques, tea-and-the-lavishing-of-sympathy. I could just never manage to suspend my disbelief to be complicit in the hoodwinking of patients with carefully shaken water. I understand that it was unethical to dispense placebo tablets in any other guise - which perhaps shows one of the many double-standards from which homeopathy continues to profit.

As I approach my impoverished retirement I wonder now if it is too late to introduce my own 'Pixie Medicine' that might deliver to me a tiny sliver of this enormous money-spinner. To give me some fighting chance of success then I will gladly accept all homeopathic arguments if this art-form is referred to hereafter as 'magic'. Patients can then make better informed choices - and my Pixie magic can be shown to match other such magics at every turn.

Anyway, sorry about that tiny diversion. What might be more interesting to consider is, while I'm newly happy for adults to purchase or receive my remedies for themselves, I have always felt very queasy when witnessing homeopathic remedies being given to children. I'm still not entirely sure why. Perhaps it's because children are expected to be gullible and one feels a greater duty to protect them in the absence of even the flimsiest of informed choices.
My new integrated form of pixie magic requires only that I blow air on the back of the patients hand whilst holding it - this removes the need for water and succussion etc. Don't dismiss it- it just works. OK?

Sky Pixie said on 21 November 2011

So many eloquent points have been made about the absurdity of homeopathy. I will try to refrain from repeating those made here and elsewhere nearby.

I spent many years dealing with conventional medicines - some of them turned out to be worse than useless, others were superb, others were discarded when identical products hit the market, all are somewhere on that spectrum. Yes, patients somatized, had self-limiting conditions, and some were disgruntled at not being offered better magic, advanced hand-holding techniques, tea-and-the-lavishing-of-sympathy. I could just never manage to suspend my disbelief to be complicit in the hoodwinking of patients with carefully shaken water. I understand that it was unethical to dispense placebo tablets in any other guise - which perhaps shows one of the many double-standards from which homeopathy continues to profit.

As I approach my impoverished retirement I wonder now if it is too late to introduce my own 'Pixie Medicine' that might deliver to me a tiny sliver of this enormous money-spinner. To give me some fighting chance of success then I will gladly accept all homeopathic arguments if this art-form is referred to hereafter as 'magic'. Patients can then make better informed choices - and my Pixie magic can be shown to match other such magics at every turn.

Anyway, sorry about that tiny diversion. What might be more interesting to consider is, while I'm newly happy for adults to purchase or receive my remedies for themselves, I have always felt very queasy when witnessing homeopathic remedies being given to children. I'm still not entirely sure why. Perhaps it's because children are expected to be gullible and one feels a greater duty to protect them in the absence of even the flimsiest of informed choices.
My new integrated form of pixie magic requires only that I blow air on the back of the patients hand whilst holding it - this removes the need for water and succussion etc. Don't dismiss it- it just works. OK?

Sky Pixie said on 21 November 2011

So many eloquent points have been made about the absurdity of homeopathy. I will try to refrain from repeating those made here and elsewhere nearby.

I spent many years dealing with conventional medicines - some of them turned out to be worse than useless, others were superb, others were discarded when identical products hit the market, all are somewhere on that spectrum. Yes, patients somatized, had self-limiting conditions, and some were disgruntled at not being offered better magic, advanced hand-holding techniques, tea-and-the-lavishing-of-sympathy. I could just never manage to suspend my disbelief to be complicit in the hoodwinking of patients with carefully shaken water. I understand that it was unethical to dispense placebo tablets in any other guise - which perhaps shows one of the many double-standards from which homeopathy continues to profit.

As I approach my impoverished retirement I wonder now if it is too late to introduce my own 'Pixie Medicine' that might deliver to me a tiny sliver of this enormous money-spinner. To give me some fighting chance of success then I will gladly accept all homeopathic arguments if this art-form is referred to hereafter as 'magic'. Patients can then make better informed choices - and my Pixie magic can be shown to match other such magics at every turn.

Anyway, sorry about that tiny diversion. What might be more interesting to consider is, while I'm newly happy for adults to purchase or receive my remedies for themselves, I have always felt very queasy when witnessing homeopathic remedies being given to children. I'm still not entirely sure why. Perhaps it's because children are expected to be gullible and one feels a greater duty to protect them in the absence of even the flimsiest of informed choices.
My new integrated form of pixie magic requires only that I blow air on the back of the patients hand whilst holding it - this removes the need for water and succussion etc. Don't dismiss it- it just works. OK?

rationallawful said on 30 June 2011

A medical therapy is an intervention which helps people's health improve, ie makes them better than before the intervention. The reason Homeopathy is popular and medically effective is because it can and does do that. What is controversial is why: is it due to (a) some physical property in the therapy?; (b) something about the way it is administered?; (c) something in the peception of the patient?; or (d) a combination of some or all of (a) to (c)?

Any therapy can be effective whether due to (a), (b), (c) or (d) and it is scientisim not science to argue that a therapy cannot be classified as a 'valid' treatment in our comprehensive health service unless its effectiveness is proven to be due (eg) to (a). Furthermore so to argue is as irrational as saying a girl with red hair is barred from a job either because she's not a boy or because she's got red hair (examples of irrational inclusion / exclusion criteria). Science is wonderfully helpful in seeking to understand why something 'works' and indeed in the ranking of potential therapies in given circumstances where there is a choice between effective treatments; however certain so-called scientists in their shrill call for removal of homeopathy from the NHS have lost sight of the true aim of medicine which is the relief of suffering. Homeopathy may not be a universal panancea but it is part of the solution not part of the problem, and when practised and integrated into medical treatment (as it is) by qualified medical practitioners time and time again it demonstrates that it is a safe, effective and excellent value for money therapy which can work when 'mainstream' therapies alone fail to work.

Thunderballs said on 13 June 2011

It is an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment that Homeopathy has been associated with never mind offered under the NHS.

It is immaterial that some people believe it works when it is clearly unscientifically proven and if it were true, would overturn huge proven scientific certainties in other disciplines.

GestaltGirl said on 16 March 2011

Sometimes the drugs just don't work. I have tried conventional medicine and have placed my trust in 'evidence based medicine.' However, in the short term, the side effects ended up being far worse than the actual symptoms of the illness! Aetiology of illness is unknown so the drug treatment is definitely not a choice for long term use either. My conclusion is drug treatment can be alot less effective than placebo and can even cause harm for an individual. If homeopathy is as effective as placebo then I think that's actually a good start! Let the patients decide, it's our NHS afterall.

Guy Chapman said on 30 January 2011

I think the most balanced treatment of homeopathy on the web is at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

If people want to spend their own money on it after reading that, it's up to them. Obviously public money should be restricted to evidence-based medicine.

Nigma said on 08 December 2010

It's interesting how homeopathy doesn't dissolve away despite extensive efforts to discredit it. If people know it works then jeering won't alter that. The last Which? report I recall said the vast majority who tried it were satisfied or very satisfied with the results.

Cuba, using a homoepathic Leptospirosis vaccine last year had very much better results than with standard vaccine: shame that no scientific or medical journal sees fit to publish the data.

Of course it works. Worldwide it is the most used alternative to drugs, and less toxic therefore especially good for children and pregnant women.

It's also cheap, and with NHS costs rising so rapidly it needs to be encouraged. A century ago, public demand and public subscription funded our five great homeopathic hospitals; we need them still.

unblinkered said on 02 November 2010

I fail to understand how people are so critical of homeopathy when they don't bother to research it for themselves. A recent poster said that no medical trials show any evidence of it being effective - but there are studies out there that do just that (see the 'research' section of the Faculty of Homeopathy, for example, the registration body for medical professionals who use homeopathy in practice). It is also effective enough for farmers to use for their cattle and for vets to 'cure' incurable diseases - some powerful placebo effect there then!!

Who funds most drug research or university research into orthodox medical studies? The drug companies, of course! Therefore, who is going to fund studies into a form of medicine that won't bring in huge profits? I became disillusioned as an NHS hospital professional (radiographer) 30 years ago, when I realised that modern medicine usually fails to 'cure' disease. It just suppresses symptoms, or chops out or replaces parts that fail. I sought an alternative when I had children, tried many things and found homeopathy extremely effective. If modern medicine is so wonderful then why is chronic disease still increasing each year, why is iatrogenic disease still increasing (3rd most 'fatal' disease in the US!), why must the NHS spend billions on drugs (and this is increasing too) - when there may be other ways of dealing with illness? No homeopathic pharmacy is going to make a fortune like Big Pharma does....the remedies cost a matter of pence per patient, who often only needs one or two doses. Homeopaths cannot claim to 'cure' disease but often patients find that their symptoms disappear for good (and by patients, I include babies and animals who are unlikely to respond to the placebo effect.) Would people rather take drugs for life (with the side effects) or find another way of dealing with disease? I agree that more research needs to be done - but who is going to pay for this when the drug companies are in full control?

Grahamfff said on 27 September 2010

I find it most regreattable that the way NHS has covered this subject is to give uncritical voice to the claims of homoeopathy without giving readers the information they need to evaluate those claims.

To refer readers to the websites of the British Homeopathy Association is like settling the question of the shape of planet by a reference to the website of the Flat Earth Society. The BHA is not a reputable scientific body - in fact it is hardly a scientific body at all - and is most certainly not unbiased.

It is interesting that proponents posting above overwhelmingly refer to person experience (as if the plural of 'anecdote' was 'data'). One poster has even twisted logic on its head by pretending that the lack of evidence for homoepathy's effectiveness is somehow a failre of Western technology - the very technology that has caused Western mortaility rates to plummet.

Other proponents have alluded to their right to choose homoepathy; I would suggest that the taxpayer should exercise their right to choose not to fund this twaddle. And NHS Direct should be helpling people understand the scientific evidence relating to it.

User484495 said on 04 September 2010

Let's make this clear. It is not a case of science or medicine being unable to explain how homeopathy works. As far as I am aware no professionally conducted medical trial has ever shown homeopathy to work at all. It has never been shown to be better than placebo.

Before the fans start complaining about mysterious vested interests etc etc. Stop, take a look at the manufacturers of homeopathic remedies. How much of a vested interest do you think they have?

Also, please don't confuse herbal remedies with homeopathy. One is the basis for many modern medicines, the other is sugar. The two are totally different.

retnhsworker said on 10 August 2010

Do the people that support homeopathy accept that the procedures adopted by 'witch doctors' in Africa and their equivalents in other societies also work? It seems to me that the evidence used to support homeopathy differs in NO WAY from that used to support examining the entrails of chicken, casting runes or whatever. Or are these procedures different because they are used only in 'primative societies' while we are 'developed', 'advanced' or whatever?

An answer would be most appreciated.

sophie100 said on 09 August 2010

Back in the mid-nineteenth century there were surgeons who would wipe their scalpels on the soles of their boots in order to show their disdain for the concept of germs. How, after all, could something exist that could not be seen?

The fact that western technology cannot demonstrate how homoeopathy works is quite different from therefore asserting that it *cannot* work.

As for the placebo effect: as an explanation it is hardly more scientific. Explain, if you will, how believing you will get better means that you get better - in scientific terms, that is. As it happens I have no problem with the concept, but then, I'm not tied down by scientific dogma.

As for the referred placebo effect: explain, if you will, how that differs from faith healing?

It might be worth bearing in mind that Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, was as surprised as anyone else at his findings. Despite what the anti-homoeopathy brigade would have you believe, he was a true scientist, who based his ideas on a very large number of practical experiments.

As for those who dismiss anecdotal experience: bear in mind that it was Einstein who said that knowledge without experience has no value.

Experience really is more important than knowledge.

unblinkered said on 16 July 2010

Just a correction to my previous post - the remedies are potentised by dilution and succussion (my post had been 'modified' as I originally wrote succussion in capital letters, but the modifier mis-spelled the term when he or she changed it!)

unblinkered said on 16 July 2010

I am disappointed with this account of what homepathy is meant to be.

There are several inaccuracies in the description, for example suggesting the Samuel Hahnemann had 'ideas' without explaining where he got them from! He was very much involved in the medicine of his time and was trying to find better ways of treating people, and his ideas developed from his practice as a medical doctor as well as observing the action of conventional medicines. He did a lot of research and his ideas developed as a result of his findings.

Secondly, the preparation of homeopathic remedies is a combination of dilution and sucsussion, not 'succession' as stated in the description.

Thirdly, the provings are not carried out as stated, they are done over a period of several weeks by healthy participants who keep a daily journal of all the effects of the remedy (physical, mental and emotional) and when the proving is complete (ie no more symptoms have appeared) the results are compared and the common ones or very intense ones are entered in the Materia Medica of the remedy.

I have used this system of medicine for over 20 years, not only on my family but also on pets, newborn babies and people who did not know they were receiving the remedy, and have found it extremely effective. I therefore consider that there is more than the 'placebo effect' going on. Just because at present science has no proof or acceptable explanation of how it can work, does not mean that it doesn't work. Science cannot explain how gravity or magnetism works, we just have some theories but no actual explanation, but we all know that they work!

There are also plenty of pharmaceutical medicines whose action is not understood, but that doesn't stop doctors from using them or, come to that, the NHS from spending vast sums of money on providing them!!

I could go on, but can't see the point in trying to convert those people whose 'interests' are at stake or those who believe them!

Asharlan said on 09 July 2010

I love the way many people commenting on here keep saying that if contributors say that homeopathy works for them it somehow 'doesn't count'. What do we go to a health practitioner for? If it works.....it works!! I've been actively avoiding GPs and seeing a homeopath for 15 years. When I used to see a GP with flu symptoms he would barely look up from his desk before signing off another antibiotics prescription. Within one year of seeing my homeopath my 3 times a year chest infections had stopped. I barely get one cold a year now and it reaches my chest about once every 3 years. I don't care if it's 'placebo'....or whether it has an unexplained scientific basis. IT WORKS far better than a GP was ever able to for me. Saying that 'anecdotes don't count'. What else is there? I don't care if supposedly scientific proof says it 'can't work'. It does!! Get over it. This blind faith in science that won't even let you open your eyes to accepting people's own experiences is sooo incredibly arrogant. I used to take antibiotics at least 3 times a year because of my Dr's inability to cure my illness and lack of interest in even trying. I haven't taken any now in almost 10 years. And yes I'm fully fit and healthy. My homeopath sought to support my healing not to simply suppress my symptoms. And it worked. Deal with it.

Non Sheeple said on 07 July 2010

How ignorant you all are calling homeopathy mumbo jumbo nonsense!

Commenting on a subject none of you have actually experienced personally yourselves! Its like a vegan telling you that meat has no nutrition!

I have been to homeopaths as my mother who suffered from severe sinusitis for years. Now your tax money could have paid for a very expensive nasal scraping, but instead she saw a homeopath. The homeopath treated her with natural remedies and herbs (just like you all eat for nutrition and well being) and after 6 months course she has never ever suffered from sinus again.

I have had my hormones balanced without the use of man made chemical drugs that toxify the body. I find them to always heal the problem not mask the symptoms unlike modern medicine that has only been around for 200 years. Herbal remedies and treatments have been used for 1000's of years!!!!

Perhaps you all need to take your modern medicine and read the back of the bottle and see what the long term affects are of those ingredients. Then you tell me anyone you know who has died of basil or lavender poisoning. In fact it contains so much good stuff herbs that you should be eating more of it and organic!!!

Stop being media stereotypes and go research before you comment about an area you have no personal experience...make up your own mind dont follow the rest of the sheep out there!!!

Check your shampoo labels the main ingredient is Sodium Laureth Sulphate, a foaming agent which is used in larger quantities at your local mechanic to degrease your car!!! I have suffered for years of scalp problems itchy and flaky until I switched to all natural. My hair glows now and I never touch engine degreaser again that actually adds to long term health damage...Go on research that instead of picking on an natural way of life that does not harm only repairs!!

VickyAdds said on 25 June 2010

I like to use a combination of medical and complementary healthcare but have never been quite sure about the principles of homeopathy. I think it's great that the NHS have laid out all the facts about homeopathy simply and clearly. Not sure I believe it can really work but it's good to have all the evidence to hand to make up my own mind.
VA

jomc20 said on 20 June 2010

I am dismayed to read comments made by people who still, despite all the evidence against it, say that Homeopathy works, or works for them. No it doesn't and it absolutely cannot work - it is sugar and water. Anecdotes are not proof. Charles Draper's explanation is excellent. I may not be a scientist but surely common sense should tell people that a theory dreamt up 200 years ago which results in potions which are nothing but water cannot possibly have any effect other than the placebo effect. Many ailments get better in time and occasionally this natural healing process may coincide with someone taking a Homeopathic 'remedy'.

I am incensed that the National Health Service and hence myself as a tax payer, is still paying for this mumbo-jumbo! We are living in the 21st century and should leave superstition and quack treatments which have no scientific basis behind. Did Homeopathy cure polio, whooping cough, TB or indeed anything? The more science advances, the more people retreat into primitive pre-scientific beliefs. I for one am glad I don't live in a time when all that was available was Homeopathy and Naturopathy .

The problem is that people are scared of hospitals and suspicious of modern drugs, drug companies and side effects. Maybe more education is the answer to combat the charlatans making billions from so-called 'alternative medicine'. And the Health Service should not be encouraging this nonsense just to get hypochondriacs out of doctors' surgeries.

Bobbonkers said on 07 June 2010

Would you believe me if I told you children and animals do benefit from the placebo effect.
6 month old teething babies like the sugar content in homeopathic pills, next time save yourself a fortune and buy sugar cubes.
I dont know the medical history of your cat but I would assume that after all the eye-drops and other irritants your vet pescribed, 3 days of bathing with distilled water would do wonders for the moggys eyes.
Homeopathy has a very good track record for treating things that would get better anyway, not so good with cancer or heart disease.

Londonborn said on 05 March 2010

I appreciate the current scientific research does not recognise any effect greater than placebo but this does not explain why it works on babies and animals.
I was surprised at how efficient the teething pills worked on a 6th month old baby, and our cat who, as the conventional vet said, had 'untreatable congunctivitis' was healed within 3 days of being treated with homeopathic medicine.
Until someone can explain why it does work in these cases when placebo can't possibly be the cause then i see no reason why it wouldn't work.

whackarat said on 23 February 2010

@Robert Mathie:

Would that be the same meta-analysis which "...was later qualified by the authors, who wrote:

'The evidence of bias [in homeopathic trials] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.'"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=345826566

thatlad2000 said on 22 February 2010

Just in case you are unclear: homeopathy has NO EFFECT other than as a placebo. It doesn't matter if it "worked for you" or not. There is NOTHING (other than sugar or water) in the "medicines" prescribed by homeopaths. What next - traditional voodoo cures on theh NHS? Will my GP prescribe a course of intensive prayer? Will he cast some runes on his desk to decide how best to me

romyboots said on 18 February 2010

It is very important to me to be able to choose homeopathy as my preferred healthcare option.
I am not interested in what anybody else thinks about this. I am not interested in whether science has yet been able to ascertain how it works.
I am interested in the fact that it has worked for me where conventional medicine has failed, and as a result has improved the quality of my life immeasurably, without side effects.
The architect of the NHS, Nye Bevan, championed homeopathy and so do I and many others whose views are not currently being heard or creditted in the backlash against homeopathy

Jon Bowen said on 13 February 2010

Why does the NHS provide this statement about homeopathy without commenting on its efficacy?
Probably because they are frightened that they might offend someone's "beliefs".

Not only is there no evidence that homeopathy works, but also some homeopaths will discourage people from combining it with certain conventional treatments that are supposed to interfere with its efficacy (e.g. corticosteroids). This is dangerous.

Homeopathy is in the same league as the dowsing rods being sold to the Iraqi government for mine detection. It misdirects funds from things that are effective, and leads people to make decisions that may have serious adverse consequences for them.

It is time to bring an end to mumbo jumbo.
We urgently need laws that effectively control the sale and promotion of products that might be used in safety critical applications, such as healthcare and security.

Chris Thompson said on 25 November 2009

It is an absolute scandal that NHS money is being spent supporting homeopathic medicines at the same time as certain cancer drugs, proven to extend the live of cancer sufferers, are being denied to patients on the grounds of cost. When will this madness end?

Robert Mathie said on 03 July 2009

Readers are advised to consult the websites of the British Homeopathic Association and the Faculty of Homeopathy (links are top right of this page) for a precise account of homeopathy and its context within the NHS. From these sites it will be clear, for example, that 44% of randomised controlled trials in homeopathy have reported positive effects, and only 7% have been negative. These data are similar to the findings of a comprehensive meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy (Linde et al., Lancet 1997; vol 350: pp834–43), in which 48% of trials were positive.

It should also be noted that different homeopathic remedies and different dilutions of the same remedy have been distinguished from each other using Raman and infrared spectroscopy, even though all should theoretically contain nothing but water (Rao et al., Homeopathy 2007; vol 96: pp175–182). Such findings may relate to complex processes such as the formation, during succussion, of colloidal nanobubbles that could contain the remedy source material.

The cost of homeopathy to the National Health Service is minuscule. Recent figures show that the NHS spent £12 million on homeopathy over a three-year period from 2005. £4 million a year for homeopathy (equating to 6 pence per annum per head of the British population) compares more than favourably to the amount the NHS spends each year on management consultants for example (approx. £320 million) or on treating in-patients with adverse reactions to conventional drugs (approx. £460 million).

Robert Mathie PhD
Research Development Adviser
British Homeopathic Association

Charles Draper said on 02 May 2009

2/2

Advocates of homeopathy sometimes respond to this argument by asserting that the curative effect of homeopathic remedies arises from a "memory" of the vanished active ingredient that is somehow retained by the water in which it was dissolved (and then by the starch when the water is evaporated!). But the diffculty, once again, is not simply the lack of any reliable experimental evidence for such a "memory of water". Rather, the problem is that the existence of such a phenomenon would contradict well-tested science, in this case the statistical mechanics of fl
uids. The molecules of any liquid are constantly being bumped by other molecules - what physicists call thermal
fluctuations - so that they lose any 'memory" of their past configuration within a fraction of a second.

In short, all the millions of experiments confirming modern physics and chemistry also constitute powerful evidence against homeopathy. Despite this, the NHS continues to fund homeopathic 'treatment' at the taxpayers' expense. No one, not even the Health Minister, seems to know how much the NHS spends annually on unproven (or disproven) "complementary and alternative" therapies, because the NHS does not bother to keep track.

Estimates of the annual cost range from £50 to £450 million.

For footnotes and source, see: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/
sokal/sense_about_science_PUBL.pdf

Charles Draper said on 02 May 2009

(1/2)

I too am worried by the NHS's decision to fund and promulgate information regarding homeopathy and similar alternative health treatments. Rigorous meta-analyses have shown homeopathy to be no more effective than placebo treatments, and have in fact revealed an inverse correlation between the methodological quality of studies and the observed effectiveness of homeopathy. In other words - sloppier studies were more likely to show that homeopathy worked.

The above article is also misleading in that it suggests homeopathy is some sort of herbal remedy. While many plants have been shown to posesses medicinal properties, homeopathy relies on the notion the these properties can be increased by dilution with water, often to a level at which no molecule of the material is likely to remain.

There is thus no plausible mechanism by which homeopathy could work, unless one rejects everything that we have learned over the last 200 years about physics and chemistry: namely, that matter is made of atoms, and that the properties of matter - including its chemical and biological effects, depend on its atomic structure. There is simply no way that an absent ingredient" could have a therapeutic effect. High-quality clinical trials find no difference between homeopathy and placebo because homeopathic remedies *are* placebos. (So homeopathic remedies are not just useless but also harmless, unlike conventional or herbal medicines. There is no danger of an overdose!).

Introduction

Comments

Hacawick said on 23 May 2012

Paul Sayer said on 08 May 2012

Paul Sayer said on 30 April 2012

Well Informed Citizen said on 24 April 2012

steven brookes said on 11 April 2012

steven brookes said on 11 April 2012

WilliamRHB said on 09 April 2012

BrianJones said on 29 March 2012

Smallie said on 21 March 2012

GWendover said on 12 March 2012

laburnum said on 30 January 2012

holistictherapy said on 26 January 2012

avishay said on 01 December 2011

Sky Pixie said on 21 November 2011

Sky Pixie said on 21 November 2011

Sky Pixie said on 21 November 2011

rationallawful said on 30 June 2011

Thunderballs said on 13 June 2011

GestaltGirl said on 16 March 2011

Guy Chapman said on 30 January 2011

Nigma said on 08 December 2010

unblinkered said on 02 November 2010

Grahamfff said on 27 September 2010

User484495 said on 04 September 2010

retnhsworker said on 10 August 2010

sophie100 said on 09 August 2010

unblinkered said on 16 July 2010

unblinkered said on 16 July 2010

Asharlan said on 09 July 2010

Non Sheeple said on 07 July 2010

VickyAdds said on 25 June 2010

jomc20 said on 20 June 2010

Bobbonkers said on 07 June 2010

Londonborn said on 05 March 2010

whackarat said on 23 February 2010

thatlad2000 said on 22 February 2010

romyboots said on 18 February 2010

Jon Bowen said on 13 February 2010

Chris Thompson said on 25 November 2009

Robert Mathie said on 03 July 2009

Charles Draper said on 02 May 2009

Charles Draper said on 02 May 2009

Useful links

NHS Choices links

External links

Site policies

Other NHS sites

About the NHS

Other channels

Other Languages

Contact NHS Choices

Create an NHS Choices account

Saved pages

Recently visited pages

Pages you might like