Homeopathy: pharmacists dispense with professional guidance

by , Senior Health Researcher Consumer Rights 23 May 2013
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
15 - 3
avatar

As soon as you talk about homeopathy, it divides opinion. But the debate raises wider issues when some pharmacists fail to explain there’s no clinical evidence that certain alternative remedies work, like homeopathy.

Homeopathy remedy

There are people who swear by homeopathic remedies, and everyone’s entitled to their opinion. However, if you ask your pharmacist whether a homeopathic remedy works you’d expect their response to be based on scientific evidence. This is the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s (RPS) official advice:

‘The pharmacist should advise on the lack of evidence on the efficacy of homeopathic products… and provide advice relevant to the patient’s condition.’

Some pharmacists say homeopathy works

However, in our snapshot investigation, 13 out of the 20 pharmacies our trained mystery shoppers visited failed to follow this guidance. For example, one pharmacist said that homeopathy does work and another said it’s very good and will help. The RPS does not endorse homeopathy as a form of treatment. And even though membership of the RPS is voluntary, our expert panel was clear that any pharmacist who recommends a homeopathic remedy should make it clear it’s their personal opinion.

On visits rated satisfactory and good by our expert panel, pharmacists were very clear about the lack of evidence. One said, ‘it’s all anecdotal, you know, it’s homeopathy, so there’s no science behind it.’

Separate personal experiences from professional advice

There was also no excuse for pharmacists who did not give the correct advice when asked about homeopathic treatment for a cough that had lasted over a month. 17 of them failed to spot this potentially serious undiagnosed condition – only three advised us to see a GP when asked for a homeopathic remedy for this cough. And our visits actually took place during a nationwide NHS campaign urging people to see their GP if they’d had a cough for more than three weeks.

We have to be able to rely on pharmacists to give us clarity over what we buy. It may be difficult if they have personally had positive experiences with homeopathic treatment. But they need to clearly separate the anecdotal, and their own views, from the evidence base. That surely has to be the hallmark of professionalism.

Should pharmacists only recommend remedies backed by scientific evidence?

Yes - pharmacists should only recommend remedies backed by science (68%, 715 Votes)

Maybe - as long as pharmacists make clear it's just their personal opinion (17%, 179 Votes)

No - pharmacists should be free to recommend any remedy, including homeopathy (15%, 158 Votes)

Total Voters: 1,052

Loading ... Loading ...

495 comments

Add your comments

avatar

chrisb1

Deja vu though Nancy. You eventually reach a point where banging your head against a brick wall really hurts, and becomes a pointless exercise. These people are prejudiced and biased against anything considered to be alternative, and whether it works or not. Bear in mind they never answer our posts with any degree of rationality, such as why 45,000 Medical Doctors practice Homeopathy within Europe.

I was going to post an actual case on the absolute 100% cure of “Eisenmenger Syndrome” (considered to be incurable by Mainstream) using high dose Ascorbate (24 Grams per day), and the role of Vitamin D3 supplementation (food sources are inadequate) in the cure (yes cure) of infant heart failure, when the alternatives would be a heart-transplant or death, and in answer to Davids post on the futility of taking supplements. We should try to understand that many here suffer from the: “all you need is a balanced diet” Syndrome: an emerging Medical condition it seems.

We will never change any of their minds Nancy and regardless of the evidence put forward, but I may just persevere a little longer.
What peeved me the most recently were the posters acting as Judge and Jury of Dr Andrew Wakefield, who was struck off the Medical register as a scapegoat in the vaccine/regressive autism fiasco (I researched this thoroughly) because they are spoon-fed and just tow the party line. Some of these are supposed to be “scientists”…huh? excuse me!!
Good to have you here.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: “Judge and jury” on Wakefield? Not hardly.

The support from those who howl “abuse” over vaccines is a perfect example of the crank mindset. Everything is weighed according to the support it gives for their pre-existing agenda.

It’s a perfect microcosm of the battleground mentality of cranks. They don’t do nuance. That’s why science has such trouble laying their zombie arguments to rest: science *only* does nuance. A substantial body of evidence, including extensive comparison of records over several decades and several countries, provides no support for a link between MMR and autism. The response of the cranks is “see? there is doubt, you cannot *prove* it is safe!” – and then they subject their children to chelation therapy, God help us, in order to “cure” them.

So yes, to an irrational individual, trying to convince rational people of an irrational agenda will always look like banging your head on a brick wall. You could always try not doing that.

[This comment has been edited due to breaking our commenting guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

avatar

Dr. Nancy Malik

@Chris

based on my experience with dealing with skeptics for the last 5 years, you may or may not agree:

One should not argue with skeptics, or for the matter of fact, with anyone. Argument is a lost battle. There is no winner in an argument.

When I started 5 years, I was not that cool. But very quickly I realise it’s futile to argue with them (as you are feeling now) bcoz they are naysayers. Then I thought how to deal with them. So whenever they asked me questions, I started searching for the answers, if I don’t know them. More they ask me, more I got motivated to reply them but with evidence.

Then I realise they kept on asking more or less the same questions every time. That forced me to document my answers (what I said onlie foul langune) every time.
us
Then I realise the data is growing bigger. So I categorise the data that would make it look coherent and put up as blogposts.

Now I have reached a state where I do enjoy with them but do they? I doubt because I found many of them getting hot-headed with me especially on twitter and ultimately back out. They kept on trying different ways to confront me. But I never use foul language. I listen only to their questions that forced me to search and learn new things.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Nancy: Whether or not you and Chris should keep arguing with skeptics rather depends on whether you want to proselytise your religion and look ridiculous in the process, or whether you want to stop looking ridiculous by shutting up until you have some actual credible evidence (which I confidently expect to arrive some time around the heat death of the universe).

Actually Chris has seriously undermined what little credibility the pro-homoeopathy side of this debate might have salvaged, by supporting Wakefield and defending a site that one of the most famous sources of abject nonsense on the internet.

Needless to say, I am very happy he came along!

avatar

dieseltaylor

For those who spend time on multiple forums there is a certain sense that the most effective way to suborn a discussion is to “bat badly for the other side”. Not something that I have ever done BTW.

In passing I should mention you can buy software and multiple access points to the internet to become various characters. The software when loaded up will keep track of all a particular persona so you keep you story and style straight. The concept is designed to allow you to steer opinions or bury them with much generated cross-talk.

The Which? threads are highly conducive to burying as topics relevant cannot easily be seen and dealt with separately. Added to which as the posts are not numbered referring back to specific posts is a nightmare.

Now I have signed the alltrials petition which has surprisingly few signatories currently. I look forward to seeing people confirm here they have signed and from Which? that they will be publicising this with its general readership.

avatar

Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

Nancy.
You – despite multiple requests on many different discussion groups and fora – are yet to produce anything resembling credible evidence to show any benefit for homeopathy. You constantly harp on about studies you think show evidence of benefit, failing totally to understand such basic concepts as the placebo effect, observer bias, and regression towards the mean. Your repeated Gish Gallops of poor quality studies may impress some, but ultimately are always exposed as being worthless.
Let’s just stick to the scientific facts and evidence. Homeopathy has no basis in science. It is pre-scientific in its origins and has not advanced since, despite attempts by some to claim that water has a memory (it doesn’t) or that quantum effects are at play (they’re not). For homeopathy to work would mean scrapping all the laws of chemistry, physics and biology that have been shown to be based in evidence. Hahnemann’s “laws” of homeopathy have never been proved in any way, unlike, for example, Newton’s laws of motion. Finally, when studies of homeopathy are subjected to appropriate scientific scrutiny and the important factors I mentioned earlier are taken fully into account, the evidence is clear – it’s just a placebo, and a very expensive one at that. It’s called critical appraisal, something which homeopaths fail to either understand or accept.
You claim that skeptics have used foul language to you online, but when challenged to provide evidence of this, none is forthcoming. You mistake robust challenges to your views as being abusive when they are no more than robust and expose the lack of credibility to your arguments.
The data you claim shows increasing evidence for homeopathy sadly does no such thing. Adding more and more poor studies to a catalogue of poor studies simply shows homeopathy for what it is – worthless. All you and others are doing is exposing homeopathy for the nonsense it is and thereby allowing others to help expose it and in the process consign it to the annals of history. Keep up the good work!

[This comment has been edited for breaking our commenting guidelines. Thanks, mods]

avatar

wavechange

Dieseltaylor

I agree that it would be a good idea to have post numbers. Obviously it is possible to see and quote the date and time of posts, but having numbers would be a great help. I’m not sure how best to make suggestions about how to improve Which? Conversation.

avatar

Figgerty

Perhaps a Conversation? on how to improve Which? Conversation.

I would suggest: An edit feature as I often see a typo or remember something I should have sais just as soon as my post appears, Post numbers as I try to read all comments before I post but in Conversations like nuisance calls and beating the call centre, so many of the posts said the same thing it was difficult to get to the last read post. I know there is a date and time on each post but my drug muddled and ages brain can not remember such detail – a post number would be best. Also if I am subscribed to a conversation and access it through a link in the email, I should be directed to the post of that specific email.

I like the thumbs up/down as sometimes you just wish to agree or disagree with the post.

Members should also be able to suggest topics for Conversation and also suggest criteria for reviews I noticed in a ‘cleaning the stairs’ topic that many mentioned the weight of a vacuum cleaner, considered important for hand held cleaners but not for regular ones. Yet many mentioned the weight of regular cleaners as they used them for stairs.

avatar

anarchic_teapotr

“Then I realise they kept on asking more or less the same questions every time”

Yes dear. Did you ever work out that it’s because they are very important questions and you never answer them?

avatar

wavechange

A Conversation about how to improve Which? Conversation is the one I’m waiting for, Figgerty. :-)
I’m sure many of our regular contributors feel the same and the major upgrade earlier this year has shown what can be done. You can send in suggestions for topics.

Meanwhile, back on topic…. I keep looking at this Conversation to see if there is any input from pharmacists. I’m going to look out for homeopathic ‘remedies’ when I next collect a prescription at the pharmacy in my local Tesco. I don’t recall seeing any among the bottles of cough linctus and anti-smoking products. Maybe they are hidden under the counter, like packets of cigarettes in a newsagent’s shop.

avatar

chrisb1

Thank you Nancy I do agree with you, and the response after our chat was rather predictable don’t you think. For example, Homeopathy as a “religion” nonsense, and the false accusations about Andrew Wakefield. The truth will out in the not too distant future, and the BMJ, along with Fiona Godlee and Brian Deer will be forced to recapitulate; some predict that this will be the end of the BMJ, as I do.

You may find this of interest as to who these skeptics really are and what they stand for…………….
http://www.bolenreport.com/skeptics/index.htm
http://www.bolenreport.com/skeptics/Skeptics2/hate%20group.htm

If you have noticed, no one refuted our evidence with any substance as they probably just gave the posts a quick read and responded like automatons, programmed as Skeptics are.

avatar

chrisb1

Paul,
I would like to know how YOU know: “Adding more and more poor studies to a catalogue of poor studies simply shows homeopathy for what it is – worthless”.

So HOW do you know this? Are you an expert on “studies” or Homeopathy perhaps? What qualifies you to state that they are “poor studies”?

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Paul knows this because he is scientifically literate. Unfortunately being scientifically literate and believing in homeopathy appear to be mutually exclusive. Sorry about that.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Homeopathy meets, as far as I can see, every criterion of a religion. You should embrace this. It would give you, in the US at least, some protection from criticism from the reality-based community.

avatar

Figgerty

Wavechange

Perhaps Which? Conversation would be improved if only intellectuals were allowed to take part. Instead we have to put up with the rabble that make up our consumers!!

avatar

wavechange

You are just being provocative today, Figgerty. Sometimes I wish we could restrict access to those who are prepared to use capitals and punctuation where appropriate, but the most important requirement is that we be do our best to be nice to each other.

Take a hundred lines: ‘I must stick to the topic’. I will do two hundred after lunch. :-)

avatar

Figgerty

I did not post in Which? Conversation for a long time after I became a member – because I was afraid of making a fool of myself with bad grammer and poor punctuation. I shed the fear when I disagreed strongly with another members viewpoint and thought WTF, I’m going to have my say. I’ve started and I’m continuing.

avatar

Figgerty

In my experience, conversations often go off topic. Sometimes they are more interesting because of that.

avatar

wavechange

Absolutely, but here is not the place to discuss life, the universe and everything. Having said that, most of the posts have related to homeopathy in general rather than the subject on the card.

For me, it is rewarding to see a physicist promoting use of scientific principles to other disciplines as part of a much needed campaign against pseudoscience.

avatar

wavechange

Sorry – engineer, not physicist.

Hi all, if you’d like to make any suggestions for improving Which? Conversation, please contact us: http://conversation.which.co.uk/contact-us/ We keep a folder of all suggestions and then we discuss when and whether we can implement them. We acted on some of your suggestions in this year’s update to the site. You can also send us suggestions for new debate topics with the same contact us form.

Thanks for the suggestion of post numbers. You can click on the time of each comment and get a specific link for that comment. Eg. Here’s a link to your comment diesel.

Each comment has a unique ID. I know that not quite the same as how forums do things with specific post numbers, but perhaps it will help you in the future.

Again, if you have any suggestions, please email us.

avatar

Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

It’s clear that the concept of critical thinking is one that appears to be alien to several contributors to this discussion. If you are unable and/or unwilling to apply critical appraisal to articles you read and then link to in the assumption that they are supporting evidence for your claims, then expect to have your views strongly challenged and to be soundly criticised. “Scopie’s Law” was described to explain this phenomenon, originally referring to the website “whale.to” but has since come to be applied to many other websites of similar questionable worth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html
Many in the scientific and skeptical communities would apply Scopie’s Law as a variant to several other websites that fit the description of being “quacky”. This would include websites such as “Natural News”, anything related to Jim Humble and his so-called “Miracle Mineral Solution”, anything related to David Icke and, of course, The Bolen Report.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackweb.html

avatar

Rebecca Fisher

Poor Saint Andy Wakefield. His house is up for sale. For just shy of one and a half million dollars.

To see what $1,450,000 buys you in Austin, take a look here.

http://www.austinhomesearch.com/Listing/ListingSearch.aspx?Search=9484f9b4-dea8-4125-a453-0f9f533db08c&SearchType=&ListingType=&ListingDistrictTypeID=&FirstLetter=&Sort=6&view=/

Tell you what – it’s nicer than John Stone’s house.

avatar

Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

Chris,
It’s called applying critical thinking skills. The process of critical appraisal is fundamental to understanding scientific literature and research. Often, the initial assessment of a paper is to assess the type of study being reported on, There is a clear hierarchy of quality of studies ranging from a single case report (the lowest quality), through case series to cohort studies up to double-blind randomised controlled studies and meta-analyses. I suggest you visit the website http://www.cebm.net/ which gives an excellent guide to how to understand scientific evidence and the levels of evidence.
Once the type of study is identified, one can then look at other details such as how the randomisation process occurred etc.
The overwhelming majority of studies of homeopathy fail at the stage of assessing the type of study. Very few trials of homeopathy are double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trials. Those that are generally show homeopathy to be no more than placebo.
It’s remarkably easy to become an expert in homeopathy, when one understands chemistry, physics and biology at the level expected of children sitting science GCSEs. Hahnemann’s “laws” are not laws in the same way as, for example, Newton’s law of gravity is. They were thought up in a pre-scientific era and have never been proven. It is a matter of applying basic science to show how ridiculous Hahnemann’s laws of potentisation and serial dilution are. Homeopathy is a system of therapy built on foundations made of sand.
It beggars belief that homeopathy still exists, but perhaps the fact it does has multiple causes. Modern science cannot explain everything and medicine cannot cure everything, so it is understandable that some people fall prey to quacks and charlatans. However, when the published literature is critically appraised, homeopathy has been shown to be no more than a placebo. That homeopaths still live in denial of the evidence and of basic science merely shows how credulous they and their supporters are. This is a common feature in the parallel universe of so-called “alternative” medicine, being seen in other “treatment” modalities such as reiki, chiropractic, etc. Belief in benefit from homeopathy is delusional in the true sense of the word – a delusion is a false belief, no matter how strongly held that belief is. That medicine cannot cure everything validates homeopathy and other forms of quackery in the same way that a plane crash validates flying carpets.
Some will try to rationalise by claiming that homeopathy works because water has a memory. There are three fundamental problems with this claim. Firstly, water does not have a memory – at least not one that is longer than a few femtoseconds. Even the memory of Dory (the regal tang fish in “Finding Nemo”) is more durable than that of water. Secondly, the water is often mixed with alcohol in various quantities during preparation and the eventual solution is dripped onto sugar pillules. Strangely, homeopaths never explain how this water memory they claim survives in the presence of alcohol or when the water is dripped onto sugar. Finally, back to the basic problem – homeopathy does not work.
Others will try to claim that homeopathy is some sort of nanomedicine or that it works through “quantum” effects. When you read a homeopathy article using such phrases, one might as well not bother at that point. Use of the term “nano” by homeopaths generally shows that they don’t know what they are talking about. “Nano” is often used as a prefix to describe something very small, being a progression in numeric terms from “milli” through “micro” to “nano” (and onwards to “pico” and “femto”. Homeopathic dilutions go way beyond these points. At a dilution of 12C, the molar limit is hit, i.e one litre of solution should contain, on average, 0.6 molecules of the “remedy”. Many remedies are diluted far more, typically 30C. The homeopathic “remedy” which is allegedly the most popular in the USA is Oscillococcinum 200C – given the extreme dilution of this, there are not enough atoms in the entire observable universe to have a reasonable chance of finding a single molecule of the original duck liver! Of course, we should not forget that Oscillococcinum is a fantasy that resulted from bubbles seen on a contaminated microscope slide. It is a fictitious entity. You may argue that not all homeopathic “remedies” are so dilute – a fair point. However, the lack of evidence of benefit for those less-dilute remedies remains a major problem. Many homeopaths deny germ theory and still think in terms of scientifically nonsensical theories of “vital force” and “miasms”.
As for talking about “quantum” effects, homeopaths who start talking about quantum physics simply show they have no idea what “quantum” means in terms of real science. Use of such words amounts to either fooling themselves or trying to fool others by the use of pseudoscience.
The bottom line remains that, after over 200 since its inception, the evidence shows that homeopathy does not work beyond a placebo effect and there is no scientific rationale as to why it should. It should be consigned to the annals of history. If any homeopath is so convinced of the validity of a therapy they offer, they should enter to take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

avatar

Guy Chapman

I had forgotten, but am happy to confirm, that Andrew Wakefield’s findings have indeed been confirmed by multiple independent investigators.

Specifically, in his original paper he concludes: “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described”

This does seem to be in line with the findings from other studies, which also consistently find no association.

http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/ill-admit-it-wakefields-research-has-been-replicated-over-and-over-again/

avatar

chrisb1

“This does seem to be in line with the findings from other studies, which also consistently find no association”.

Writing in the BMJ, research microbiologist David Lewis, of the National Whistleblowers Center, explains that he reviewed histopathological grading sheets by two of Dr. Wakefield’s coauthors, pathologists Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony, and concluded there was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield:

“As a research microbiologist involved with the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples, I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of “non-specific colitis.” Dhillon indicated “non-specific” in a box associated, in some cases, with other forms of colitis. In addition, if Anthony’s grading sheets are similar to ones he completed for the Lancet article, they suggest that he diagnosed “colitis” in a number of the children.”

In a press release, Lewis continued:

“The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield’s files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield ‘faked’ a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Now that these records have seen the light of day, it is time for others to stop using them for this purpose as well. False allegations of research misconduct can destroy the careers of even the most accomplished and reputable scientists overnight. It may take years for them to prove their innocence; and even then the damages are often irreparable. In cases where mistakes are made, every effort should be taken to fully restore the reputations and careers of scientists who are falsely accused of research misconduct.”

A team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease – and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus … the team’s leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: ‘Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.

This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus. What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct.

That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.”

Here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:

The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

avatar

chrisb1

Guy, I applaud you for your tenacity, and you have more than proved to my own satisfaction that you are most definitely a “medical party-liner”, as I used to be, but sometimes we have to see “out of the box” and be prepared to challenge our views of the World, and as I was.

There is of course no blame to be attached here, because you are a product of your own sociological/cultural/environmental and educational belief system, and as are most. No doubt you would demonstrate as much zeal if you had been born and raised in a culture of TCM or Ayurveda Medicine: much depends on where we are born, and the cultural influences to which we are exposed in our formative years.

The only thing I would have hoped for in this exchange, would have been at least a small degree of impartiality, but sadly has not been the case.

avatar

Robin

Scientific analysis and the advances brought by such endeavours are not reliant on anyone’s background, upbringing or beliefs, but rather on good quality evidence, repeatable by other independent observers.

Despite the long, patient chain of explanations made in this thread you don’t seem to have grasped the difference between belief and evidence. Nor is what you call evidence acceptable to the majority of people in the UK. The use of evidence as you seem to understand it, went out of fashion along with witch trials and the like.

In this context your request for impartiality makes no sense. As has been explained, ad nauseum, if evidence is produced you would be able to convince sceptics, that’s the entire point, they are impartial as to the outcome of any scientific question, they just demand proof not opinion. You may think you have provided evidence, and I refer you back to the many comments firmly debunking that idea. If it works it should be quite simple to prove it, in 200 years it has not been possible. It is not a case of not knowing how it works, it just hasn’t been shown to work. You and others will probably continue to infer or believe there is some conspiracy or injustice. The topic of this conversation is homeopathy, and in that context the injustice is that for the UK taxpayer funding ineffective homeopathic treatments, to the individuals mislead by claims that there is evidence, who as a result may not seek known effective treatments.

If there is lack of impartiality it is coming from the supporters of homeopathy which is sad.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Your analysis is predictably self-serving. I am no fan of the pharmaceutical industry, because I have read Ben Goldacre’s books. That does not mean I believe that poor evidence in one area justifies another thing supported by massively worse evidence,. which seems to be your position.

Homeopathy is ridiculous on so many levels that its value as a teaching tool for critical thinking should not be underestimated. That is, however, its only value.

avatar

wavechange

Guy

Thanks for all your effort and even more for your patience. As someone who has tried to help new biological sciences undergraduates improve their critical thinking skills, I don’t think that homeopathy is a very good topic because the argument is so one-sided, a bit like trying to decide whether smoking is beneficial or harmful.

Whether the public should be swallowing vitamins and other supplements is a far more interesting issue because of their established biochemical role, the fact that few need them, and that in many cases they are little more than a harmless waste of money.

avatar

chrisb1

Robin, yes I understand what you mean now: Scientific analysis of “good quality evidence, repeatable by other independent observers”.

So for example you mean the 5 separate and independent studies, made in 5 separate countries, that corroborated the findings of Dr Andrew Wakefield, but rejected by the GMC and the BMJ?

avatar

Robin

You really don’t understand and have just proved it (again).

Endless repetition of faith based opinion against overwhelming evidence to the contrary seems to be your preference.

Using Wakefield as an example, along with the Royal family as you started off with, speaks volumes about your low standards of “evidence”. Perhaps you believe diluting your argument makes it stronger?

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: you are , quite simply, wrong. There is no credible link between MMR and autism.

In October 2004, a meta review assessed the evidence given in 120 other studies and considered unintended effects of the MMR vaccine. The authors concluded that although the vaccine is associated with positive and negative side effects, a connection between MMR and autism was “unlikely”.

In February 2005, a study compared autism in Japan before and after the 1993 withdrawal of the MMR vaccine: the autism rates continued to increase, which means that the withdrawal of MMR in other countries is unlikely to cause a reduction in future autism cases.

A 2007 review of independent studies performed after the publication of Wakefield et al.’s original report found that these studies provide compelling evidence against the hypothesis that MMR is associated with autism.

A review of the work conducted in 2004 for UK court proceedings but not revealed until 2007 found that the polymerase chain reaction analysis essential to the Wakefield et al. results was fatally flawed due to contamination, and that it could not have possibly detected the measles that it was supposed to have detected.

A 2009 review of studies on links between vaccines and autism discusses the MMR vaccine controversy as one of three main hypotheses which epidemiological and biological studies fail to support.

In February 2012, the Cochrane Library published a review of dozens of scientific studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children, which found no credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease.

There is no credible evidence of an MMR-autism link.

[This comment has been edited due to breaking our commenting guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

avatar

chrisb1

Guy, for your information, the decision to exonerate Prof. Walker-Smith is a clear indication that the GMC’s case against the Royal Free doctors was “manufactured” to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents’ reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations leveled at Prof. Walker-Smith and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total skepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

This decision shows that:

1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children’s needs.

3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Brian Deer, politician Evan Harris, the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.

The decision vindicates Prof. Walker-Smith (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: No, the exoneration of Prof Walker-Smith only shows that he was not responsible.

The counts found against Wakefield were:
1. He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR, and failed to declare this conflict of interest.
2. He ordered investigations “without the requisite paediatric qualifications” including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures on his research subjects without the approval of his department’s ethics board and contrary to the children’s clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children’s symptoms or medical history.
3. He “Act[ed] ‘dishonestly and irresponsibly’ in failing to disclose … how patients were recruited for the study”.
4. He conducted the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital’s ethics committee.
5. He Purchased blood samples—for £5 each—from children present at his son’s birthday party, which he joked about in a later presentation.

The main thing that got Wakefield struck off and disqualified from practice in the UK was the twelve cases of abuse of developmentally challenged children.

It is not surprising, given the extremely serious nature of these charges, that others who appeared to be involved in the fraudulent research were caught up in the maelstrom. It is most regrettable. The fact that they have been exonerated and Wakefield has not is no accident: he was the one doing the invasive tests on autistic children without proper approval and consent.

The children were not “properly investigated”. There was no credible reason for the tests and (most importantly) they were not sanctioned by the ethics board which exists precisely to prevent maverick doctors from conducting treatments and tests which are not robustly justified and clearly in the interests of the patient. This is an extension of the Helsinki Protocol on clinical trials.

I feel sorry for Wakefield, up to a point; he was a decent doctor at one point, my own doctor trained with him and they used to play rugger together. At some point he fell for one of the oldest problems in science and medicine: substituting self-belief for self-criticism. It is a sobering lesson for any doctor engaged in research on human subjects. It doesn’t matter how sincerely you believe in the result, the ethical review board is there to make sure that your actions are appropriate and in the patients’ best interests.

avatar

wavechange

Joanna – Do you know if the Royal Pharmaceutical Society or the regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council, is intending to take any action as a result of the Which? investigation?

avatar

John Ward

Thanks Wavechange for trying to get us back to the kernel of the nut.

avatar

lessismore

So much time is spent trying to control what people can and can’t do and to fit people into boxes which are inappropriately shaped. Science does not fit in a box either – it is constantly changing.

What I find inexcusable was the difficulty the parents who were worried about the MMR had in getting separate injections for their children. The Minister, his daughter and the beef-burger should remain a constant reminder of the arrogance of government.

avatar

Guy Chapman

@LessIsMore: There is nothing wrong with preventing people from committing fraud or giving bad and misleading health advice. Pharmacists’ regulations have, as far as I can see, always mandated proper regard for evidence, professional integrity and ethics.

Hello everyone, I’m glad this debate has been so vigorous, however, I’m afraid I’m going to have to warn some of you again.

Please do not write in a way that personally attacks another commenter. You should only be debating the points at hand, not criticising other individuals. This is happening on both sides – try and rise above the pop shots and engage with the points made as best you can. This will increase the respect for your POV, but more importantly, it will produce a more valuable debate.

I’d also like to make a plea for you to stay on topic. This debate is about homeopathy and the fact that pharmacists have failed to explain that it is not backed by science. We’re very happy for you to steer away from this very strict topic, but please try and stay in the vicinity.

avatar

chrisb1

Yes Guy, there is nothing wrong with preventing people from committing fraud or giving bad and misleading health advice, as long as that includes both Mainstream and Alternative.

Btw, Oh my goodness me. Health Freedom is not a lobby by quacks in evading evidence and scrutiny. Health Freedom is as it states: the freedom to choose the type of healthcare that is appropriate for a particular health condition, that I choose to undergo, and not forced into having any treatment of care against my will.

Re’ Health Freedom…………

If you would like a good laugh, I suggest you read this article concerning “Cherries”, which Americas FDA (Food As Drugs Agency) are labeling as “drugs”……………..
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm

You are not allowed to advertise any fruit/vegetable or product with any health claim (even though that claim is backed by Science) because if you do, that fruit or vegetable or product automatically becomes a “drug” and you are forced to discontinue any advertising of any health benefits.
So if you advertise that Vitamin C can cure scurvy, then Vitamin C automatically becomes a “drug”.
This seem sensible to you?

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: As I have pointed out, many skeptics are active in exposing and even trying to fix the issues with medicine. Problems with overstated evidence in medicine absolutely do not justify using an alternative that not only has much worse evidence, but is utterly implausible.

Health claims require robust evidence. Specific claims to treat or cure disease require a specific type of evidence. That’s a level playing field. The health fooldom lobby want the freedom to do everything they say the drugs industry would do if it were not regulated. Only an idiot would allow that.

As for edge cases? Hard cases make bad law, and crank website claims would make even worse law.

avatar

Guy Chapman

So, here is the original source (not some natural woo site hyping it to the skies): http://www.fda.gov/Food/ComplianceEnforcement/WarningLetters/ucm081724.htm

Here’s an example letter: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ComplianceEnforcement/UCM186717.pdf

So, they are making specific claims to treat or cure disease, which exceed what is permitted by law. Do you think all manufacturers should be allowed ot make claims to treat ore cure disease which exceed what is legally permitted? Or do you think that this should apply only to those who make products that invoke the naturalistic fallacy?

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
“Problems with overstated evidence in medicine absolutely do not justify using an alternative that not only has much worse evidence, but is utterly implausible”………………………only means the evidence that does not support your view of what constitutes “evidence”. A very narrow minded view.

Health claims for various items such as “cherries” are actually backed by scientific evidence in effectively treating a condition, which is actually identical in the way that a prescribed pharmaceutical only “treats” disease, and does not cure it. Remember I mentioned that many drugs used for specific diseases only “manage” the illness/disease, and do not cure them. But according to you the latter is quite acceptable, where the former is not.

The primary study, published by Michigan State University……….
http://www.cherryjuicepower.com/pressreleases.htm

The Health-freedom lobby only want the choice to pursue a healthcare modality that has been demonstrated to work, and work for quite some time, and not have these privileges removed or eroded by vested interests that perceive them as “competition”: a reasonable stance and request.

I agree with you there could easily be some crank health-websites out there that are fraudulent, and need to be avoided or closed down, but then fraud seems to be endemic in most walks of life, so this wouldn’t be unusual. The websites you refer to are quite few and far between, but one of the better ones which publishes on the science is Mercola.com and Doctoryourself.com, both of which support their views on Natural health via scientific presentation.
All of this is ignored by our Mainstream fraternity because it doesn’t fit in with their perception of treating or overcoming ill-health issues.
My future-son-in-law has Ewings sarcoma and has gone the Mainstream route of Oncology, where they have been very helful, but his Oncologist, when asked about incorporating the “Budwig Protocol” as a way of combatting his cancer replied: “I have heard it is very good at treating cancers, but I am not allowed to recommend it, because it is not based on Pharmaceuticals”.

So most health claims for natural products (even cherries) are supported by science and scientific studies, but this is still not allowed to be advertised.
No of course I do not think that all manufacturers should be allowed to make claims to treat or cure disease which exceed what is legally permitted, but that would only mean that the law needs to be changed in favor of actual scientific and accurate evidence.
You are not aware then Guy of the corruption and influence of Big Pharma in lobbying Congress to have health and other laws made in their favor…………..
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/11/12175/opinion-big-pharmas-stranglehold-washington

and in Europe…………..
http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2012/big-pharma-spends-over-40-million-year-lobbying-eu-dwarfing-public-health-ngos

On the subject of the main topic……………………..
Dated 22/05/201
“Ten homeopathic flu vaccines have been licensed for use by Canada’s health regulator. They join a growing list of homeopathic vaccines available to Canadians, including ones to prevent polio, measles and pertussis (whooping cough). All of the vaccines have passed tests that deem them to be “safe and effective when used according to instructions on the label.”
The latest licences have been granted to a range of homeopathic flu vaccines called Influenzinum, which have been manufactured by various companies, including BJ Pharmaceutical, Boiron and Homeocan………………………
http://www.wddty.com/homeopathic-flu-vaccines-are-effective-says-health-regulator.html

No doubt you will dismiss this as nonsense or “not evidence-based” or other such nonsense.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Do you actually know what a logically valid argument looks like? Appeals to authority, distraction fallacies, straw men… there’s not one argument you ave raised that is not fallacious on some fundamental level!

Mainstream is mainstream because that’s the way science works. Evidence is reviewed and discussed in the literature, and as the observed facts and the theories converge, so consensus forms.

Science is very good at assessing outliers and establishing whether they are evidence of a profound change in how things should be viewed, or merely errors. Homeopathy falls firmly into the category of errors, and will continue to do so until you have produced work that is as robust as the work which conflicts with your beliefs. If I were you I would start with a much easier challenge such as squaring the circle or creating energy from nothing.

avatar

chrisb1

Health Canada has given ­homeopathic remedies approval under the Canadian Food and Drugs Act and issued a Natural Product Number (NPN) or Homeopathic Medicine Number (DIN-HM) for this product. This number lets the public know that the product has undergone and passed a review of its formulation, labelling and instructions for use and permits the manufacturer to market the product in ­Canada. Boiron Laboratories has performed clinical trials on its product, Oscillococcinum, and found it to be effective, as have the many Canadians who can attest to its ­efficacy.
http://www.hans.org/magazine/1022/Save-Our-Right-to-Choose

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: They have indeed. That makes them idiots, it does not make homeopathy valid. Health Canada is about politics, this discussion is about science. The two are fundamentally different.

avatar

chrisb1

Let me remind all of you: “Boiron Laboratories has performed CLINICAL TRIALS on its Homeopathic product, Oscillococcinum, and found it to be EFFECTIVE, as have the many Canadians who can attest to its ­efficacy”. This has nothing to do with politics.

Guy, “Mainstream is mainstream because that’s the way science works”.!!

Mainstream is actually Mainstream because that’s the way MONEY works. Are you aware of the “Flexner Report”? which under the influence of the Rockefellers effectively closed down all of the Medical schools in the United States if they did not conform to the “drug and surgical model” of disease and its remedy? (the German model) and forced them to close them by withdrawing funding: this included Homeopathic and Naturopathic schools, ensuring an absolute monopoly. Money was the name of the game then, and still is now.

The AMA (American Medical Association) attempted to outlaw Chiropractic for example because it was a healthcare modality that was seen as competition.
For over 12 years, and with the full knowledge and support of their executive officers, the AMA paid the salaries and expenses for a team of more than a dozen medical doctors, lawyers and support staff for the expressed purpose of conspiring (overtly and covertly) with others in medicine to first contain, and eventually, destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States and elsewhere.” They didn’t succeed and Chiropractic won-out through the legal system.

Some of you would do well to read a copy of: “When Healing Becomes A Crime” by Kenny Ausubel, which lists all of the dubious and unlawful activities (and there are many) of the Mainstream body the AMA.

“Do I actually know what a logically valid argument looks like”?

“Appeals to authority” can be a valid support for an argument/debate, because authority figures are normally very experienced and highly qualified in their specialty: they offer opinions based on that experience which can support an argument. Would I rather have my plumbing fixed by a “do-it-yourselfer” or would I seek out highly qualified advice with someone who has expertise.?
You are now “clutching at straws”; and no I am not offering “straw men” arguments: or a type of argument that is based on an informal fallacy by misrepresenting your position. There is nothing “fallacious” about my position or argument at all. That is how you perceive my position and not how I perceive my position.

Robin, WHICH do say that “some pharmacists fail to explain there’s no clinical evidence that certain alternative remedies work, like homeopathy.”…………………………….
Is an opinion, and a reiteration of “Mainstream opinion” and not based on anything except an opinion. Such is the mindset that permeates our society. Unless the RPS endorse it, then it must be wrong and bogus right? Wrong. Such is the stranglehold that Mainstream thinking has on Western society.

“SCAM as religion”?
Well, allow me to enlighten you Robin on other forms of Religion…………………

According to the US government’s Office of Technology Assessment (US OTA) — only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice are supported by controlled clinical studies. That’s it — just 10-20 percent!

It is estimated that 20% of all antibiotics prescriptions are written for the treatment of sinus infections, which are indeed bacterial. In fact, it’s accepted gospel that antibiotics are the sine qua non of treatment for bacterial sinus infections. And to prove the point, the vast majority of people with sinus infections get better after treatment with antibiotics.

Unfortunately, although antibiotics for sinus infections may be medical gospel, the treatment was also part of the 80% of medical procedures that had never been tested…until now. And the verdict isn’t good. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the accepted gospel turns out to be unacceptable. In their study of 166 adults with sinus infections, the researchers found that those who took the antibiotic amoxicillin didn’t feel better any faster than those who received a placebo. People in both groups experienced about the same amount of relief after three days…………………………..
Jane M. Garbutt, Christina Banister, Edward Spitznagel, Jay F. Piccirillo. “Amoxicillin for Acute Rhinosinusitis – A Randomized Controlled Trial.” JAMA. 2012;307(7):685-692. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/7/685.short

To quote the report, “There is now a considerable body of evidence … that antibiotics provide little if any benefit for patients with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis.” They then added, “Yet, antibiotic treatment for upper respiratory tract infections is often both expected by patients and prescribed by physicians.”

More Medical Religion………….

Medical doctors now have multiple scientific studies performed by their own people, that confirm that angioplasties are expensive and essentially useless, and their response is not to stop using the procedure, but to speed up access to it?!!

I should also mention that off-label prescriptions account for at least 21 % of pharmaceutical sales, amounting to at least 150 million prescriptions annually. And in fact, once a drug has been approved for any condition, physicians can prescribe it for any other application they choose without repercussions. About seventy-five percent of the time, there’s a complete lack of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy or safety of the off-label application.

The New England Journal of Medicine, “The FDA may be conceding to drug manufacturers the responsibility for regulating their own off-label marketing practices. … I believe that the FDA must take an active role in fostering evidence-based practice, eliminating subversion of the approval process, and requiring a balanced and fair presentation of the scientific evidence.”
Medical Doctors then can prescribe drugs based on purely “anecdotal evidence” or even on the basis of the barest of rumors or even wishful thinking. In contrast, natural health practitioners are not allowed to prescribe comparatively benign herbs and Nutraceuticals that have long and verifiable track records of safety and efficacy — often stretching back decades and involving millions of people.

When you mentioned SCAM Religion, you omitted to mention Medical Religion.

avatar

wavechange

Oscillococcinum – a quack product made from ducks.

Maybe the next homeopathic product could be made from tripe. :-)

No-one denies the problems with conventional medicines and work continues to overcome them.

avatar

Robin

Breathtaking volte- face (again):

“Appeals to authority” can be a valid support for an argument/debate, because authority figures are normally very experienced and highly qualified in their specialty: they offer opinions based on that experience which can support an argument. Would I rather have my plumbing fixed by a “do-it-yourselfer” or would I seek out highly qualified advice with someone who has expertise.? ”

then very shortly after

“Unless the RPS endorse it, then it must be wrong and bogus right? Wrong. Such is the stranglehold that Mainstream thinking has on Western society.”

So an authority is right when it supports your view and wrong when it does not and this supports your argument, and you get to choose which authority is correct?

Your first of many appeals to authority, your very first post, cited the British Royal Family, in what way do they meet your stated criterion of “highly qualified in their specialty” in regard to advice issued by pharmacists?

You are demonstrating you would adhere to “mainstream thinking” by using a professional plumber to attend to your plumbing requirements. Thus suggesting you trust them as a source of expertise. As they are so proficient at moving water around perhaps they should branch out into homeopathy?

You seem to wilfully miss the point. RPS members are supposed to behave in a certain way – this Which survey found evidence, remember that..evidence, that many were not. The RPS doesn’t stop pharmacists talking about homeopathy they just expect them to adhere to their guidelines and make it clear there is no evidence to support efficacy of homeopathy over placebo and hence no mislead the public.

Why would you expect the UK public, or its own membership, to disregard the expert opinion of the RPS, which is a professional body for those who issue and prepare medication for the public, as opposed to disregarding any other authority you pick?

Amusing as many of the wandering off into tangential arguments may be there is so little content of the original conversation subject left it is difficult to see how it can have any effect. Hang on a minute…

avatar

chrisb1

Oscillococcinum – a quack product made from ducks: yep, which is no better than the ingredients of medical vaccines.

Here’s a list……………

Aluminum.
Antibiotics.
Bovine serum (from an ox or cow)
Formaldehyde (a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building materials and to produce many household products). Also a carcinogen.
Egg protein.
Gelatin (derived from collagen obtained from various animal by-products)
Human Albumin.
Lactose. (Intolerance in many)
Phenoxyethanol (can cause diarrhea and vomiting and can affect the central nervous system (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2008).
Polysorbate 80 (Can cause allergic reactions such as redness or rash (Coors et al., 2005, p. 596).
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) (When large quantities are eaten, MSG can cause nerve damage and can affect brain functioning (Sears, 2007, p. 210).
Sorbitol
Thimerosal (contains mercury)

Quite the “Witches brew eh?

avatar

wavechange

Obviously we should get rid of vaccines and effective medicines because the increased life expectancy they have helped to create is causing many problems for society.

avatar

Robin

Of course water consumed in high volumes, over a short period of time can be lethal too, so best we avoid that completely too. Don’t start me on the toxicity of Oxygen lest we all give up breathing

darn I went off topic.. apologies.

avatar

chrisb1

Robin,
I did not say that when an authority supports my view that it is automatically correct, anymore than another authority is right when they offer a differing viewpoint. I am just illustrating that there is more than one side to a coin, and where you are rejecting the other side of the coin (my side)

I also did not say that The Royal Family are an “authority” on anything, except to say that they have endorsed the use of Homeopathy for decades and I suppose they do this because it is a bogus therapy? experience and personal use counts for something, does it not?

This is just flippant nonsense and you know that…………………..
“You are demonstrating you would adhere to “mainstream thinking” by using a professional plumber to attend to your plumbing requirements. Thus suggesting you trust them as a source of expertise. As they are so proficient at moving water around perhaps they should branch out into homeopathy”?

No I haven’t missed the point Robin. The WHICH report found that the Pharmacists questioned were at fault in offering non-comformist and conflicting advice given by the RPS. (An infallible society perhaps)?
Pharmacists should adhere to RPS guidelines that is true as they are………..well………..pharmacists! so the fault lies with the Pharmacists, not with Homeopathy. RPS guidelines on Homeopathy are erroneous, so the guidelines should state that pharmacists are not qualified to offer advice on Homeopathy at all, so shouldn’t give any.

The UK public do not have to disregard the expert opinion of the RPS, I didn’t say that, but if they wany advice on Homeopathy they should go to a Homeopath. You are approaching this as if the RPS is the ONLY authority.

avatar

chrisb1

“Obviously we should get rid of vaccines and effective medicines because the increased life expectancy they have helped to create is causing many problems for society”.

Just one example……………….
Mass vaccination had little effect on smallpox. Smallpox disappeared in countries with little or no vaccination, such as Australia and New Zealand, as well as countries with widespread vaccination………………..
Dick G. Smallpox: A Reconsideration of Public Health Policies. Progress in Medical Virology 1966: 8: 1-29

When the World Health Organisation (WHO) launched its Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme in 1967, its strategy involved mass vaccination of 100% of the populations of countries where smallpox still existed. It soon became clear that this was not working and a different approach was found to be more successful: the ‘surveillance-containment strategy’. This did not rely on mass vaccination but instead depended on quickly finding new cases and isolating them to prevent spread. This was accompanied by selective vaccination of close contacts. This approach proved far more effective than the policy of mass vaccination, and the last case of wild smallpox was diagnosed in Somalia in 1977. Two years later, WHO declared the world free of smallpox…………………………………..

Hopkins, Jack W. 1989. The Eradication of Smallpox: Organizational Learning and Innovation in International Health. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Brilliant, Lawrence B. 1985. The Management of Smallpox Eradication in India. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fenner, F., D. A. Henderon, I. Arita, Z. Jezek, and I. D. Ladnyi. 1988. Smallpox and Its Eradication. Geneva: World Health Organization.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: In your zeal to promote the anti-vaccination line, you are denying the facts. See where it says that as smallpox retreated, there were targeted campaigns of isolating infected individuals and *selective vaccination of close contacts* – that’s the clue. Immunisation prevented spread beyond the shrinking pool of infected individuals.

Smallpox was eradicated by scientific medicine, with immunisation being a part of the eradication programme. There is no significant informed dissent from this view.

Homeopathy, by contrast, has never provably prevented or cured a single case of a single disease. That’s why there is no real controversy over pharmacists using medicine, but there is controversy over their selling homeopathy.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Oscillococcinum is the canonical quack remedy.

Joseph Roy invented it based on “oscillococci”, bacteria he claimed to have identified in Spanish flu victims. He subsequently identified the same “oscillococci” in cancer victims and many other patients, leading him to suppose they were the cause of much human suffering. He claimed to have isolated them in the liver of a duck, and based on this the modern product is prepared from the heart and liver of a (different breed of) duck.

It is a 200C remedy, that is a dilution of one part in ten to the four hundredth power. There are around ten to the eightieth power atoms in the entire known universe.

Oh, and oscillococci do not exist. And flu is not caused by any bacterium.

Everything about it is wrong. And yet it “works” exactrly as every other remedy “works”, through placebo effects and a mechanism of institionalised confirmation bias that would result in the conclusion that it “works” regardless.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, is this the same Boiron that had to settle class actions for consumer fraud in the US and amend its packaging to remove references to “active” ingredients that don’t exist in the finished product at any detectable level?

avatar

Robin

And in what way does that address your volte face? You claim one authority is correct and another wrong, for no logical reason other than it suits you. Remember you made a plea for impartiality, in what way does your position demonstrate impartiality and rational unbiased assessment of the evidence? My point is valid a plumber has as much authority as a homeopath.

“experience and personal use counts for something, does it not?”
Not if it is not supported by credible evidence, just because someone firmly believes something doesn’t make it true.

You now divert the discussion off to vaccination despite a request from the mods to keep the discussion on topic.

I am glad we agree that pharmacist should follow the recommendations of the RPS. I utterly disagree with your assertion: “RPS guidelines on Homeopathy are erroneous, so the guidelines should state that pharmacists are not qualified to offer advice on Homeopathy at all, so shouldn’t give any.” . There is no evidence homeopathy is effective beyond that of placebo, so they are correct in what they say.

If the public want to discuss homeopathy they should consult a homeopath? You are approaching this as if homeopaths are the ONLY authority. They aren’t an authority BTW. That is a very dangerous stance to take, the whole point of the survey was that some pharmacists were missing signs that could represent serious illness. Suggesting the public avoid medical experts and seek health care advice from a homeopath is irresponsible.

avatar

chrisb1

Your point being?

Placebo? same old diatribe, or here we go round the mulberry bush. None of you it seems have investigated my links on Homeopathys best research, but then why would you? as you have fixed dogmatic impervious opinions.

Robin, the English was quite clear: one authority has equal standing as any other, it is just that you discount the authorities that I post on. That is the distinction.

So we need credible evidence for experience of personal use. Well you go look for all the credible evidence you want using the “Gold standard” RCT no doubt but testimonials (thousands of them) are very credible for me and thousands like me. If it works it works………….that’s it. Voila. Leave science to wallow in their wanton proof. The proof my dear is in the pudding.

I did not mention vaccination FIRST………..Wavechange did. I just countered his argument with science, which you have all ignored, and/or twisted to suit your own agenda. Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination: you are just towing the party line and reiterating your own dogmas and ignoring the evidence.

It is claimed by medical historians that the vaccination process wiped out smallpox throughout the world. However, the truth is that compulsory vaccination was abandoned because more deaths were caused by the vaccinations than there were cases of smallpox. A slight of the hand trick was used to foster the claim that smallpox was eradicated by the vaccination practice. Everyone who had been vaccinated and who developed smallpox was diagnosed as having chicken pox!

This is the truth on smallpox vaccination……………………..not that you will believe it of course……………………
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/02/26/smallpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness/

Homeopathy does not work by placebo; you have just ignored the evidence really, or evidence that does not fit in with your criteria as to what does constitute evidence.

Why on earth would I want to visit a Medical expert when I would only need to visit a Homeopath for certain aliments (more safely) that medical experts cannot address.? (Research Iatrogenic deaths within the Medical profession) and compare this with Iatrogenic deaths via Homeopaths.

Mainstream has much going for it, that I will admit: trauma, ER; Surgical intervention, Anesthesia; Diagnostics and so on, but I would rather stay alive for longer. My Mother died of neglect within the NHS. Anyone seen the news lately re’ The Mid-Staffordshire Hospital Trust? and that’s just for starters and only the tip of the iceberg.

[This comment has been edited for breaking our commenting guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

avatar

Robin

I haven’t discounted what you put forth as evidence, I just find it wanting, by a country mile. As did a Cochrane review amongst others.

“Homeopathy does not work by placebo” is two words too many.

I had already read a lot of the studies you refer to, and you’ve guided me to a few more. If anything they have only served to confirm my opinion that there is no credible evidence for any effect of homeopathy above that of placebo. The reasons have been stated repeatedly already.

You state testimonials are very credible for you. That has been obvious throughout, but testimonials are not proof. This demonstrates that you accept lower standards of evidence than most people, including every medical regulatory body. Bloodletting, for example, was very popular for quite a long time, and I am sure it got some great testimonials and, this might please you, the Royal Family were fans for quite a long time.

Because trials of homeopathy have failed to reach standards that will convince most people, homeopaths have taken a position that it is the process that is wrong, that is just twisted logic.

“any known detectable level. This doesn’t mean the product is ineffective and not very useful”
Wow, just wow. Have you heard of the parable of the Emperors new clothes?

If you believe something that can’t be seen, can’t be measured, or detected in any way, has no rational explanation how it might work, you are taking it on faith, perhaps that’s why people draw comparisons to a religion?

On the plus side we have established a little more common ground, you accept medicine, as opposed to magic, has a role to play in treating the majority of health problems. Although we probably differ in the extent of our opinion, we also agree medicine, note just medicine, no need for “mainstream” it is either medicine or it isn’t, is not perfect. We know it is not perfect and that is one of the main reasons some people keep challenging to see the evidence, and thus contribute to the advancement of medicine for everyone’s sake. The demand for evidence applies to anyone making claims equally, be they pharmaceutical companies, homeopaths, hypnotists, hyper-galactic trans-planar eyelid therapists etc. The all trials campaign is a good example of how everyone can push for higher, not lower, standards of evidence and transparency.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: It’s not the testimonials for which we require evidence. We already know that they can be explained by perfectly mundane factors such as natural course if disease, cognitive biases and placebo effects.

The thing that requires evidence is the bizarre claim that taking something that has no objectively provable connection to a symptom, and diluting it until nothing remains, will somehow cure the disease that produces the symptom. Further, the even more extraordinary claim that a different single preparation of none of something is required for individuals with identical disease.

Remember, your prophet says this is the sole principle of cure. Not an adjunct, the sole principle.

avatar

chrisb1

Extraordinary Evidence: Homeopathy’s Best Research………………….
http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org/extraordinary-evidence-homeopathy-s-best-research/

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Best? No wonder you have completely failed to make any progress in changing the scientific consensus then.

You’ll notice how (unlike your polemical sources) the Wikipedia article on homeopathy covers both sides of the debate, giving weight according to the objective quality of evidence. Which is why homeopaths hate it, just as fans of remote viewing hate our reality-based perspective on that.

The conclusions are robust and well sourced, and that is why Which? rightly concluded that advising homeopathy is inappropriate for pharmacists and why it is shocking that so many are prepared to profit form unevidenced treatments in this way.

I read a great phrase today: “While the idea of equal time for opposing opinions makes sense in a two-party political system, it does not work for science, because science is not about opinion. It is about evidence. It is about claims that can be, and have been, tested through scientific research — experiments, experience, and observation — research that is then subject to critical review by a jury of scientific peers. Claims that have not gone through that process — or have gone through it and failed — are not scientific, and do not deserve equal time in a scientific debate.”

Science is not one “side” of a debate. Science is the outcome of a debate. There are no physical processes which violate the laws of thermodynamics, whatever free energy suppression conspiracists might think. No particle can have both its position and its momentum known simultaneously whatever Einstein might think about God’s gaming habits. No flames contain phlogiston. This is not a point of view, it is the settled consensus of science after decades or centuries of patient exploration. To overturn this consensus will require work of at least equivalent quality.

I have an opinion. My opinion is that there is no reason to think homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no good evidence it does work.

The scientific consensus is slightly different. It is that no plausible reason has been advanced why it should work, the proposed mechanisms conflict with well-established scientific principles and have failed to be supported by credible evidence and often display a profound ignorance of the relevant science (e.g. Milgrom’s “quantum flapdoodle”), and the clinical observations are all consistent with the null hypothesis.

The science with which homeopathy conflicts is of a very high quality. High enough that, say, finding silicates in water held in a glass vessel (which is an expected result ad indeed a known problem with sensitive chemical experiments) is not going to change it. What you need is not more of the same kind of unpersuasive evidence, but different evidence of a massively more rigorous kind. You have to start refuting the null hypothesis rather than just repudiating it.

Science is not a court of law, it is a process. Homeopathy is rooted in immutable certainties, and just like pretty much every other 18th Century theory rooted in immutable certainties, it has been left behind by the scientific process, which has found that its immutable certainties are neither certain nor immutable.

Hahnemann was born around thirty years after Newton died. Darwin was born when Hahnemann was middle-aged. By middle age, Darwin knew enough to be contemptuous of homeopathy, as did Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. Hahnemann pre-dates the acceptance of Avogadro’s work. Mendeleev was a child when Hahnemann died. Hahnemann was wrong in a way that was understandable then; the excuse for this error passed not long after he did.

Science started showing homeopathy’s assumptions to be fundamentally wrong by the mid 19th Century, and by the end of the 19th Century it would have been clear to any scientist that homeopathy needed to completely revise its theories to account for observed fact. But homeopathy has no way of doing that.

In the US, osteopaths started out as a branch of chiropractic, but they reviewed their core doctrines, embraced scientific evidence, changed track and are now essentially indistinguishable from doctors. Homeopathy cannot re-examine its core doctrines, because they are what defines homeopathy. Homeopathy without the doctrine of similia would be like the Catholic Church without Christ.

So to pharmacists again.

Pharmacists should not propose faith healing, reiki, crystals, ju-ju, or vodun. They should not promote “live blood analysis”, “miracle mineral solution”, black salve or coffee enemas. They should not promote creams claimed to enlarge the breasts or p****, supplements claimed to make adults grow, vitamin megadoses or anything else promoted by nutritionists and rejected by dieticians.

It does not matter who makes the product, the pharmacist should stick with evdence-based advice and leave the quackery to Holland and Barrett.

Which is why homeopathy has no place in a pharmacy. It has not earned its place there. We have a hard enough time squeezing out the ridiculous hype of products that do work, albeit not as well as the makers would like you to believe.

avatar

chrisb1

“No wonder you have completely failed to make any progress in changing the scientific consensus then”.

It’s called “closed minds” Guy.

“Polemical sources”, meaning a person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.
Nope, not really. I am not being controversial or argumentative or involved in refutation just for the sake of it. My position is defending a subject which you have disagreed with: a defensive position in stating my case and supported by millions.

The BMJ……………
“Civil servants suppress evidence on homeopathy on NHS website after lobbying from prince’s charity”.
“The way in which lobby groups and powerful people can influence government has come to light after an article on homeopathy on the public information website NHS Choices was stripped of all evidence questioning its effectiveness as a result of intervention by a charity set up by the Prince of Wales………………….

“The Department of Health commissions the NHS Choices website from the private information company Capita to provide “objective and trustworthy information” to help patients make decisions about their health and treatment…………..

“But evidence obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by David Colquhoun, emeritus professor of pharmacology at University College London and a fellow of the Royal Society, indicates that the health department can edit the content if it contradicts its own policies, even if that content is based on evidence………………….

Emails obtained from NHS Choices by Colquhoun show that …………………..
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1071

This is a whopper to end all whoppers……………………

“Pharmacists should not promote creams claimed to enlarge the breasts or p****, supplements claimed to make adults grow, vitamin megadoses or anything else promoted by nutritionists and rejected by dietitians”………………..

………………………….as long as you know that Dietitians recommend “foodless foods” to the Royal Marsden Hospital cancer patients, in the mistaken belief that nutrition is based on calories, and white sugar products such as “Mars bars” will give them energy………………………

A new study published in the journal “Cancer Epidemiology, Mile Markers, and Prevention” is presenting evidence of the link between the consumption of refined carbohydrates and cancer. This case-controlled study looked at the dietary habits of over 1,800 women in Mexico, and found that those who got 57% or more of their total energy intake from refined carbohydrates showed a 220% higher risk of breast cancer than women with more balanced diets.

Researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah were one of the first to discover that sugar “feeds” tumors. The research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said, “It’s been known since 1923 that tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells. Our research helps show how this process takes place, and how it might be stopped to control tumor growth,” says Don Ayer, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Oncological Sciences at the University of Utah.

AND………………..

Dr. Thomas Graeber, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology, has investigated how the metabolism of glucose affects the biochemical signals present in cancer cells. In research published June 26, 2012 in the journal Molecular Systems Biology, Graeber and his colleagues demonstrate that glucose starvation—that is, depriving cancer cells of glucose—activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop that leads to cancer cell death as a result of the toxic accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS)……………………………

Nicholas A Graham, Martik Tahmasian, Bitika Kohli, Evangelia Komisopoulou, Maggie Zhu, Igor Vivanco, Michael A Teitell, Hong Wu, Antoni Ribas, Roger S Lo, Ingo K Mellinghoff, Paul S Mischel, Thomas G Graeber. Glucose deprivation activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop leading to cell death. Molecular Systems Biology, 2012; 8 DOI: 10.1038/msb.2012.20

So Dietitians recommend high sugar content foods to cancer patients!!
Nutritionists give more sensible advice esp’ those connected with “Functional Medicine”.

You make me laugh, you really do, but I am enjoying your sense of humor immensely.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Yet another classic homeopathy reversal.

You assert that scientists and skeptics have closed minds because we will not accept your religious dogmas.

Wrong.

We will, just as soon as you bring credible evidence, plausible mechanisms and all the other things that are missing.

But not before.

avatar

chrisb1

Media Skeptics : A Popcorn Gallery.
Scientism. It’s a relatively new kind of quasi-religious mania that’s associated with a notion of evidence-based medicine that has very little to do with real scientific studies and everything to do with a pop-culture obsession. It denies the existence of an evidence base it doesn’t like, and creates a mythology of an evidence base where one doesn’t really exist. Sound fascinating?

In the past number of years many of us have encountered websites and posts from people who belligerently and rabidly attack any form of medicine that doesn’t revolve around drugs and surgery, ie. conventional medicine. The word “quackery” gets thrown around a lot. So does “placebo”. And “evidence-based,” as if homeopathy wasn’t, right from the start.
Verbal attacks are predictably aimed at homeopathy, acupuncture /Traditional Chinese Medicine, chiropractic, osteopathy, naturopathy and any other form of holistic or complementary medicine. The term “alternative” medicine was actually coined by the drug industry so that they could play semantics with the notion that if something was an alternative to medicine is wasn’t medicine at all…………………………
http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org/media-skeptics-a-popcorn-gallery/

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: So now you have given up even pretending to discuss the subject at hand and have fallen back on the usual “nasty atheists won’t let us promote our religion unchallenged” nonsense.

You lose, matey.

avatar

wavechange

From a comment on plans to withdraw funding for Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital:

If we dilute their funding enough, it’ll make it more effective…

It’s hokum. Pure and simple

avatar

Robin

Perhaps now is an appropriate point to remind everyone how this conversation starts, I.e. with a pretty clear statement about the lack of efficacy of homeopathy, it’s there in bold at the top of the page.

“As soon as you talk about homeopathy, it divides opinion. But the debate raises wider issues when some pharmacists fail to explain there’s no clinical evidence that certain alternative remedies work, like homeopathy.”

This sets the context: are pharmacists followings he advice of a professional body, are they acting ethically, should they be allowed to promote a product which has been shown to have no effect other than as a placebo?

So why are homepaths claims so unconvincing to the majority? Many supporters of homeopathy fall back on conspiracy or “ignorance” or people ignoring their “evidence”. The reality has been stated over and over again, many poor quality studies, cherry picking data, an often rigidly dogmatic faith based ideology and so on. Many studies show lack of effect but are often ignored. If homeopathy worked to the extent claimed it should be really, really simple to prove it. The fact, and it is a well established fact, that it has not been proven after 200 years is the reason the RPS quite rightly expects the membership to be honest, and not make claims that cannot be substantiated to anything approaching even a basic standard of proof. To do otherwise is unethical, misleading and fraudulent.

Pharmacists in the UK are usually treated as respected experts, they have actively sought a bigger role in primary care. It is a matter of deep concern that this study suggests many may not be worthy of our trust. If they make such poor judgments, without making it clear it’s just their personal opinion, not accepted by the majority of pharmacists, how can we trust their judgment in other areas? The report also found failure to make sensible recommendations about conditions such as long term coughing, even during a health promotion campaign on that very subject. As was asked above, I wonder what the professional bodies response has been, if anything?

avatar

Guy Chapman

True, homeopathy believers accuse unbelievers of being “ignorant” of homeopathy. Actually I think most of us find that the more we know about it, the less plausible it gets!

avatar

Robin

I find it hard to think the theory could get less plausible. “The light of Venus” as a homeopathic treatment?

The big difference is when medical science is sceptical, e.g. H.pylori and stomach ulcers, as soon as good evidence emerged it was accepted and well deserved Nobel prizes resulted. And that is against a background of big profits from antacid medications, which rather belies the conspiracy theorists. Ultimately it is another opportunity for the pharma companies to manufacture the treatments and diagnostic test and make a profit (primary outcome) and along the way help people. (I am not rosy eyed about pharma). Medical concepts, as opposed to use of specific drugs, tend to move to acceptance quite rapidly as evidence grows.

Contrast that with 200 years and nothing convincing.

Btw
I had never really thought about SCAM as religion but I can see there are close parallels in behaviour and fervour it is an interesting comparison.

avatar

wavechange

I have been reading Information Sheet 17(2012) produced by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which covers homeopathy: http://www.rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/17-homoeopathy-2012.pdf

Here is an extract:

THE ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY’S POLICY ON HOMOEOPATHY
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) recently reviewed the evidence surrounding the efficacy of homoeopathy and concluded that there was no evidence from randomised controlled trials for the efficacy of homoeopathy over placebo, and no scientific basis for homoeopathy. These views were presented in the Society‟s written and oral submissions to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee for its evidence check on homoeopathy in November 2009. Given the lack of clinical and scientific evidence to support homoeopathy, the RPS does not endorse homoeopathy as a form of treatment.

One of the reasons given for RPS pharmacists getting involved with homeopathic products is that customers may ask for advice.

My suggestion is that if the owners of the shop want to sell homeopathic products these are put on open shelves, along with the packs of 16 aspirin tablets, indigestion pills and the like, which are deemed safe for the public to buy. If the RPS genuinely does not endorse homeopathy as a form of treatment, their members should not have anything to do with it.

The same applies to the NHS.

avatar

lessismore

Perhaps we should call for a separate debate on the lack of perfick magickal qualities of a lot of drugs of the “mainstream” variety? Are doctors warning or adequately warning their patients that these may have unpleasant side effects? How many people are aware that you can officially report unlisted side effects – so that it can be a warning to other patients and that the pharmaceutical company gets to know about it – not just your GP? There’s a form but few people seem to know about it.

Life isn’t tick box – we’re all different and our bodies react differently to different substances.

avatar

wavechange

The yellow card system of reporting drug interactions etc. used to be the restricted to professionals, but anyone can now report suspected problems: https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk

I have contacted a drug manufacturer when I had a problem that a GP seemed uninterested in. The appropriate change was made to the leaflet, though I will never know whether my input had any effect.

I do not know whether pharmacists routinely report problems.

Maybe we should be reporting that homeopathic ‘remedies’ are ineffective. :-)

avatar

Guy Chapman

Yes doctors do warn people of side effects, and so do the compulsory labels.

Most of the skeptics I know would be happy if the labelling on homepathic products was similarly honest.

“Contents: Sugar. For entertainment only. Not to be used for treatment or cure of any disease” would be fine.

avatar

wavechange

I went to collect a prescription from the local Tesco pharmacy and I could not see any evidence of homeopathic products on display. The pharmacist was busy, so I was unable to ask. Either these products are in the store room with the prescription drugs or not stocked at that branch. Either way, they are not on display, inviting anyone to buy them – which is good news.

avatar

Maria

I had the same experience in my local Sainsbury, wavechange. I have also noticed that my nearest major Boots store have relegated their homeopathy products to the bottom shelf in a dark corner of the store. I wonder if increasing public awareness has meant sales have fallen?

avatar

wavechange

I do not expect that the active ingredients will deteriorate through long-term storage on the bottom shelf. :-)

avatar

chrisb1

I am just wondering why those of you who insist and repeat the same old diatribes and mantras against Homeopathy, and with such fervent zeal, as you would against anything else that is considered a health modality outside of Mainstream, do not actually have anything better to do with your time?

Do any of you actually sleep or eat, or go shopping, or even work for a living? as you seem to be always here.
This could so easily be construed/diagnosed as an addiction of sorts, with a fanciful psychiatric label, no doubt: I can recommend some very good alternative therapies to aid in your recovery if your hallowed Mainstream lets you down……………which it probably will.

avatar

Robin

Is that in the same way some have been “insisting and repeating the same diatribes” for homeopathy, a case of pot vs. kettle possibly :-)

Science never sleeps.

Thanks but I’ll pass -I have just had a glass of water.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: We repeat the facts because they remain the facts, despite your belief otherwise. Unlike you, we would change our minds if the science dictated. There is nothing religious about supporting scientific conclusions, though as one whose preferred treatment is indeed a religion you are unlikely to understand this.

The thing about science is that it goes on being true whether you believe it or not.

avatar

chrisb1

Modern medicine is a relatively new phenomenon, say 150 years give or take a decade or two, so one wonders why man has survived thus far without the Medical system, over the last few hundred thousand years?
There is just so much emphasis on evidence and only a particular kind of evidence, when we are missing the real point, which is: does this heal or that heal and the welfare of the patient: this is the only real measure of a health modality and whether you believe it or not.
The dismissal of patient and practitioner – that is, clinical – experience as “anecdote” by certain commenters on this conversation is the purest manifestation of tyranny. All of a sudden, thousands of years of human experience count for nothing, individual examples of benefit and healing are a mirage. All we have to draw on is the sliver of time covered by the era of modern medicine, and for some people, the hair’s breadth of the EBM era. Such an attitude is as blind as religious fundamentalism and shares most of its qualities. And it surely is no coincidence that the RCT-led EBM model benefits pharmaceutical medicine the most, since only the best-resourced interests can afford the trials.

avatar

Robin

No.

If anecdotal evidence is presented, tested and found to have validity then it would be likely to be tested further and if possible the evidence gained used to good advantage in better drugs or treatment. One route for this are case study reports. A doctor observes something they find interesting and share it. If others observe the same phenomenon trials may take place and if good evidence is found progress is made. One example, Minoxidil was used as a blood pressure drug, a side effect in some people was hair growth. Changes from oral to topical use suggested some effect when used in the correct vehicle to allow local absorption without significant systemic effects. A product license was granted. Observation, testing, repeated testing, a large body of consistent evidence, and so on. It is the way it works. As usual it hinges on evidence not anecdote.

On the other hand if multiple studies fail to show efficacy of a claimed anecdotal effect then it gets discussed ad nauseum on line and sometimes turns into a religious experience for some.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, medicine is not like homeopathy, it wasn’t invented from whole cloth by one person. Medicine as it is practiced today is the current state of a scientific endeavour which has been underway for centuries, a process of investigation and evaluation. There have been a few seismic shifts, such as the discovery of antibiotics and indeed the lifting of the taboo on human dissection, but for the most part it is like every other part of science, a series of incremental improvements.

Medicine does not, however, dismiss clinical experience. Why do you think the training for doctors is so long and involves so much clinical work? Being a doctor is not like being a homeopath, you’re using pharmacologically active substances or genuine surgical procedures, you can’t just make it up as you go along.

And to call medicine modern while portraying homeopathy as ancient is simply dishonest. Edward Jenner was a contemporary of Hahnemann as was John Snow, the father of epidemiology.

Medicine does however (and rightly) treat anecdotes and single observations with caution. A doctor who diagnoses something based on instinct is likely to be wrong some of the time; it is said that “in my experience” are the most dangerous words in medicine. These days doctors are looking not only for the obvious but also for the non-obvious. While I was being surgically investigated for suspected colitis my doctor did a blood test for tTG and found that I am in fact coeliac. That is holistic medicine – real medicine.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
let me remind you of something……………..
“According to the US government’s Office of Technology Assessment (US OTA) — only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice are supported by controlled clinical studies. That’s it — just 10-20 percent!”

So when you claim that Medicine is supported by science and clinical trials and operates on the basis of science and/or EBM, in comparison to alternative therapies such as Homeopathy then this is just Medical hypocrisy.
Science may not understand the mechanism for the efficacy or otherwise of Homeopathy, but this should not discount out of hand the practice of its use if practitioners and others know that it works. Do disregard Homeopathy as a placebo or any other mechanism of why it is effective is purely conjectural.
I also notice that none of you refuted or attempted to refute the scientific efficacy of colloidal silver as the most effective antibiotic/antifungal/antibacterial, and which took a back seat in the 40′s because of the advent of inferior pharmaceutical antibiotics, and pharmaceutical influence, or the scientific study that admitted homeopathic remedies are colloidal in nature and contain nano-particles.

Paul,
“Texas court case going nowhere fast. Regurgitating papers and articles which have already been discredited epically fails”……………………….
Just to inform you, the delay in the Texas legal proceedings are only over the “Jurisdiction” of the case and a formality for the go-ahead of the case within the next few months.

Also Paul, “Quackwatch” has been discredited by anyone with an ounce of commonsense, and the leader, Stephen Barrett (a failed MD), has lost more court cases brought by him against alternative therapies/Doctors, than you and I have had hot dinners. Any information provided by that site really has no credibility whatsoever.
However, I would agree with you about David Icke.

Also Guy, your comment……………………..

“Medicine as it is practiced today is the current state of a scientific endeavor which has been underway for centuries, a process of investigation and evaluation”………………….
I refer to my opening paragraph where I stated: “According to the US government’s Office of Technology Assessment (US OTA) — only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice are supported by controlled clinical studies”. Thank you.
And I also refer to my comment on the widespread practice of “off-label” (unscientific usage) of prescription drugs.
“Several years ago an American study estimated that off-label prescriptions at about 20%. More alarmingly both studies also calculated how appropriate the prescribing was. In both cases it was found that over 70% of the prescriptions “lacked strong scientific evidence”…………………
http://jeromeburne.com/2012/04/18/prescribing-off-label-common-and-unscientific/

I could go on.

So while you claim that Medicine is supported by science, and endorses EBM, then you should consider what some may call: the unscientific and fraudulent activities and practices of Modern Medicine, before making any judgements on a therapy such as Homeopathy of which you seem to be in total ignorance.

The word “Hypocrisy” springs to mind here.

Have a nice day.

avatar

Robin

We risk going way off topic again. So please let’s keep this brief.

In the UK, at least some of the off label prescribing is to children. When a drug is approved it is for specific indication(s) and often for legal, practical and/or ethical reasons the only trials are on adults not children. The licence will often be for use in adults only. Where a condition is not life threatening there are reasonable concerns about subjecting children to trials. Where there is reasonable evidence in adults most doctors would consider use of such drugs on children. This is a difficult area, but the alternate is not to treat them. I speak as someone with 2 children with long term health conditions who would have had an even worse time if the majority of the drugs they take, which are not licensed for children, were not considered. The doctors discussed the issues and risks. It is called informed consent.

Getting a licence is laborious and expensive, so once a licence is granted, unless there is a significant change to the mechanism of use, e.g. oral to topical, or a significant market advantage to apply for a new licence for a new set of indications drug companies don’t bother.

Not ideal, but it is an issue in which legal, social and ethical factors all contribute. In many ways it is a lot less about science and scientific method and more about pragmatism in a given legislative framework. The fact that there is discussion of this is an encouraging sign, the ever popular Ben Goldacre’s Big Pharma provides a far better discussion of this than can be presented here.

Remember that despite the many problems with what you call mainstream medicine there is a vast body of evidence supporting a wide range of drugs. This discussion is about homeopathy where no such body of evidence exists. Criticising one thing to justify another doesn’t really work in such a situation and diverts us from the heart of the issue under discussion.

avatar

Robin

Darn I wish you could edit comments. it is Bad Pharma.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, you have trailed more red herrings in that comment than I have the time or energy to rebut individually, especially since most fo them have already been rebutted several times within this debate.

A couple stand out. Your claim that Quackwatch is “discredited” is hilarious in the context of someone who seriously cites whale.to, Gary Null and AoA as sources. Quackwatch is a long-standing and respected source of information on quack claims, the attacks on it by quacks are inevitable and none has ever come close to “discrediting” it – nor would it matter since like Ernst it merely documents the scientific consensus it does not define it (again, being a religion, I can see why homeopathy feels that facts depend for their validity on who states them, but that is not how science works).

Second, the proportion of medical interventions supported by RCTs is comprehensively addressed in doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 – and it is absolutely not a reason to switch to something that has no plausible mechanism or convincing RCT evidence at all.

avatar

chrisb1

Robin,
this does not negate the fact that prescription drugs are being used for non-scientific and off-label use: the science does not support this use and so is essentially fraudulent.
I agree, we should try and keep on-topic but digressions do occur with any discussion/debate and pertinent to the points being made. Both sides are equally “guilty” of this.

You mention that: “This discussion is about homeopathy where no such body of evidence exists”. is only an opinion, and where you have chosen to ignore that evidence.

You also mention that: “there is a vast body of evidence supporting a wide range of drugs”. Yes, but for the support of “what” exactly? Managing symptoms? rather than addressing the true cause of disease….http://www.arthritis.com/arthritis_prescriptions.aspx

Drugs do not cure disease. If they did, you wouldn’ t need another prescription !!

The Father of Modern Medicine, Sir William Osler:
“”Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is today controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science…We take into our bodies which we know little about, drugs that we know less about, to treat diseases that we know nothing about.”

FACT……….
Thus far, 2000 people have received over $2 billion in compensation for thimerosal vaccine injuries.

Name one drug that actually “cures” any chronic disease.?

So try not to be too defensive about practices within Mainstream Medicine, making declarations that it is based on science and EBM when this is clearly not the case at all.

This then would have an equal footing with Homeopathy which you claim has no evidence in its support, but neither do prescription drugs.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: The real mystery is why you think using plausible drugs for indications outside their approval is wrong, while using implausible non-drugs for which there is no credible indication at all, is not.

FACT: There is no credible evidence that Thiomersal causes autism, as the antivaxxers claim. It has been removed from virtually all childhood vaccines with no evident impact on autism rates, and the roots of autism are clearly traceable to early development (in utero, in fact). Medical opinion is close to unanimous in rejecting this purported link.

Science is not done in courtrooms. Even then, on March 13, 2010, the vaccine court ruled in three test cases that thiomersal-containing vaccines do not cause autism. The test cases were among the strongest for this theory. Special Master Hastings concluded, “The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories.”

What is your source for the claim that “2000 people have received over $2 billion in compensation for thimerosal vaccine injuries”? This stands in contrast to the documented outcome above. I have searched for sources for this claim, all the hits are vaccine conspiracist and crank websites such as mercola.com, AoA and the strikingly inaccurately named “Vaccine Truth”.

We apply the same definition of evidence to all claims. You do not. You credulously accept any claim that resonates with your religion and the conspiracist mindset that goes with it, but wilfully reject evidence of vastly higher quality whose conclusions nor implications you dislike.

And then you accuse us of hypocrisy….

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
these “red herrings” as you call them, are pertinent to your false posted claims concerning Mainstream Medicine, so entirely relevant, and no they have not been rebutted: read them again and seek out the facts for yourself.
If you are not willing to do so then you are “in denial”.

On the subject of “Quackwatch”; perhaps you would like to explain (in detail) WHY Stephen Barrett (Psychiatrist) has lost so many if not ALL of the court cases he brought against alternatives. I find it quite amazing how you are in denial of the facts……………………….

There is of course loads more evidence where this came from but space does not allow.

So there we have it: you are just digging deeper and deeper holes of denial, and not really doing yourself any favors; “holes of denial” from which you may not be able to extricate yourself, so please be careful.

[This comment has been edited due to breaking our commenting guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: It is common knowledge that quacks hate Stephen Barrett. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/27/a-nonsensical-attack-stephen-barrett/

As usual, you are relying on a logical fallacy. Even if Barrett were a fraud (which he is not), this would not justify your use of frauds to support your religious views.

avatar

Robin

? In my example, the science supports the use with good evidence in adults. Some drugs have not been specifically tested in children. There can be differences in the way children respond so caution is required, but some drugs are equally effective in children. So I don’t understand what you mean by non-scientific use, the mechanism and biochemistry are understood. Most antibiotics will not have been tested specifically in children, so are used off licence, but they still kill bacteria and save lives.

I agree it’s off label but that is a medico legal issue not scientific. No matter how much you rant the facts do not change.

ALL homeopathy is “non-scientific” (as no rational basis for the theory can be demonstrated) .

ALL homeopathy in the UK is off licence, that’s because no one rational would issue a licence for water or sugar without evidence of efficacy.

Yes many drugs manage a condition, e.g. diabetes as just one example among thousands. As a result people live longer, have fewer amputated limbs, less blindness and so on. What is wrong with that? Contrast that with homeopathy where there is no credible evidence of efficacy for anything.

It is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many people who review the claims made and find them wanting, it is getting a little dull the way you ignore facts.

I don’t understand why cure vs. treat is an issue. Why would I eschew a drug to treat me even if I knew it couldn’t cure me? Irrational argument, especially as homeopath has neither been proven to treat or cure anything other than dehydration perhaps.

Many chronic conditions have a strong genetic component, as our knowledge, and evidence based research develops we are starting to use gene therapy and stem cell treatments that show promise to cure chronic conditions. Not drugs but who cares, it’s the outcome that’s the issue… if water or sugar worked we would use it, they don’t so we don’t. All very simple.

After all the discussion that has gone before this is the best you can do?

“This then would have an equal footing with Homeopathy which you claim has no evidence in its support, but neither do prescription drugs.”

So now it is an outright denial of proof for any prescription drugs? Breathtaking stuff and perverted logic.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Robin: It is easy to test the plausibility of any claim made for homeopathy. Simply replace homeopathy with unicorn tears, if a homeopath would then reject it as self-evidently silly, then it’s bogus.

This unfortunately means that they have no arguments left…

avatar

Robin

The horn of absolutely no dilemma then :-)

avatar

chrisb1

Guy, I think you should read this statement of yours again: “The real mystery is why you think using plausible drugs for indications outside their approval is wrong, while using implausible non-drugs for which there is no credible indication at all, is not”.

First and foremost we should consider removing the word “plausible”. Second: “using drugs for indications outside their approval” is patently wrong and not “fit for purpose”, as the drugs in question have no scientific approval for their medical use if “off-label”. I thought that would have been fairly obvious.

Also Guy, you say……………….
“FACT: There is no credible evidence that Thiomersal causes autism”,
I didn’t say it did, what I did mention were “vaccine injuries” via Thiomersal which was “medically approved” for use at the time.

Yes it has been removed. This is not about Autism but “vaccine injuries”.

AND……………….
“Science is not done in courtrooms”.
No it isn’t, but the “evidence” and characters of Barrett and company were found on close examination not to have any “credibility” to support their accusations aimed at Alternatives. In other words the scientific evidence they submitted was worthless and biased. This isn’t difficult to understand, or is it?

My souce for the claim that 2000 people have received over $2 billion in compensation for thiomersal vaccine injuries?
I suggest you contact the NVICP to corroborate what I have said, but this information is difficult to find because of the lack of mainstream media reporting, which would have an adverse financial effect on the manufacturers of vaccines and kept quiet.

This is what the NVICP has to say………………………..
“Compensation payments from NVICP have averaged $782,136 per successful claim through 2011, with an additional $113 million dispersed to pay attorney fees and legal costs (the act awards attorney fees and costs for unsuccessful claims provided that the litigants bring their claims in good faith and upon a reasonable basis, as well as for successful claims). Compensation for a death resulting from vaccination is capped at $250,000. As of December 1, 2011, the program had awarded $2.35 billion in 2,810 separate claims, including compensation for 390 deaths”.

What you have said here is essentially nonsense…………………..

“We apply the same definition of evidence to all claims. You do not. You credulously accept any claim that resonates with your religion and the conspiracist mindset that goes with it, but wilfully reject evidence of vastly higher quality whose conclusions nor implications you dislike”.

avatar

chrisb1

The original court document is difficult to find, but this is a copy of the transcript whose publishers would be liable for litigation if untrue………………..
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm

and here……….
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/kingbio.htm

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: You really do not seem to be able to tell the different between a fact, and speculation drawn from a fact and informed by bias.

Nothing in the NVICP statement supports your claim that “Thus far, 2000 people have received over $2 billion in compensation for thimerosal vaccine injuries”. That claim comes exclusively from crank websites. In fact, searching the NVICP website for thimerosal yields a number of documents, each of which addresses the evidence (usually in regard to autism) and each supports the conclusion of the vaccine court that there is no credibly established link.

I doubt if you’re interested, but I do think I know the root of this. Antivaccinaitonists have existed for as long as vaccines, but their arguments morph continually. Thimerosal and autism were the favoured bogeymen at the start of the 21st Century, I believe they are moving on now that this link has been comprehensively debunked (not least by the continuing prevalence of autism long after removal of thimerosal from almost all vaccines, but also from good evidence of diagnostic behaviours from birth and according to some authorites even in utero). Thimerosal was a soft target because it contains “teh MERCURY ZOMG!!!11!! eleventy” but there never was any credible evidence of harm.

What has always seemed particularly bizarre to me is that parents who rant against the failure of medical science to prove vaccines absolutely 100% safe (an impossibility, their benefit has to be measured against the risks from the prevented diseases), will cheerfully subject their children to chelation therapy, which is quite dangerous and grossly unethical since there is absolutely no credible evidence of heavy metal poisoning.

The logical disconnects in alties are a source of constant surprise to me.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
this comment and the rest of your post is sheer and utter nonsense, and you are indeed now clutching at the final straws……………

“You really do not seem to be able to tell the different between a fact, and speculation drawn from a fact and informed by bias”.

What I have stated is fact re’ vaccine-injury compensation. It is up to you to investigate further, otherwise you are saying I am a liar.

As of January 2011, the VICP has awarded compensation to more than 2500 families and individual people totaling more than $2.1 billion……………………………….
US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resource and Services Administration. Monthly Statistics Report, January 3, 2011. Available at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm. Accessed January 25, 2011 6. U

I find your audacity and denialism to be absolutely astounding.

Hello all – let’s step back a little. I know it might be difficult when you disagree strongly with someone, but be polite. Not only are you winding each other up with your remarks, you are putting off others from joining this debate.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: what you said was that this was the figure for THIMEROSAL vaccine injury. The facts do not support this, or indeed any payments specifically related to THIMEROSAL (which is primarily asserted to be a cause of autism, but without any credible supporting evidence).

You accuse me of denialism, when all I did was to point out that your source did not say what the crank websites told you it did. And not for he first time, I think.

Try checking the original sources before repeating claims made on crank websites.

avatar

chrisb1

Ok, I made a mistake, but then I am only human.

I wrongly typo’d Thimerosol injury but what I actually meant was “Vaccine Injury”, and the amount of compensation which has been paid out: just over $2 billion. I didn’t mention “autism”…….you did. There is no denying that this has been the case, and whatever the ingredients of the vaccines were or have been.

You should have been a hairdresser Guy, as you are very good at splitting hairs.

Please refrain from derogatory remarks by referring to what you consider to be “crank” websites, and as Patrick has highlighted (be polite) he said. You’re only being inflammatory.

My later sources are not crank websites, and more or less “tallies” with the original information, but even so-called “crank” websites report on the facts of the matter. Unless you read them you will never know, and obviously you have not.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: There is no possible doubt that websites like AoA, whale.to, Natural News, Mercola, VIN and so on are crank websites. They uncritically promote abject nonsense because of an ideological opposition to evidence-based medicine. That is a wholly irrational agenda. The way to fix evidence-based medicine is through better evidence (as advocated by Ben Goldacre and others), but by substituting evidence-free quackery.

The $2bn /2,500 figure is the total since 1988, a period of a quarter of a century, an average of around 100 cases per year. These include, for example, anaphylaxis due to gelatin in MMR. That’s in the context of 400,000 cases of measles per year pre-vaccination, with a death rate of 3 per 1,000 cases and a higher rate of other long-term effects. The rate of long-term complications from measles/MMR vaccination is less than one per million, around four orders of magnitude less than the risks of the disease.

As with so many anti-vaccination and pro-quackery arguments, it is a case of presenting the largest figure people can find and ignoring anything that puts it into context, especially the scale of the problem it solved.

avatar

wavechange

Patrick – I have a vague recollection that the topics of politics, religion, sex and homeopathy are best avoided when civilised behaviour is expected. :-)

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, if Bolen said that rain is wet I would demand a corroborating source. His agenda is to destroy someone he considers a mortal enemy if his favoured quackery.

avatar

chrisb1

Very amusing Guy…………
“Chris, if Bolen said that rain is wet I would demand a corroborating source. His agenda is to destroy someone he considers a mortal enemy if his favored quackery”.

and your agenda is? to discount the facts and judge without any investigation. Not the hallmark of a scientist who is supposed to exercise a high degree of objectivity, rather than the bias and subjectivity that you post on so well.
Do you know anything about Tim Bolen? Of course not.

In addition, the websites you claim to be “crank”, are in fact websites and news sites that publish truthful information rarely published in the Mainstream media. You would know this if you had taken the time to read any of them.
Given all the money that Big Pharma spends on advertising………………………….. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
………………………………….it is hardly surprising that every big media story that covers health issues accepts the claims of the drug industry without question, and anyone who dares to question conventional wisdom about pharmaceuticals will be labeled a crank and an eccentric. All respected expert medical opinion that gains a fair hearing in the mainstream media has been fully vetted and approved by the medical establishment and the drug companies, and no serious opposition to the pharmaceutical approach to treating health problems is allowed………………………..
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2011/12/30/big-pharma-and-the-drugging-of-the-world-following-the-trail-of-the-many-tentacled-octopus/

There are many who support the view of anti-vaccination Guy, but not for the sake of being so, because of the mass harm from many medical vaccinations.

“When your child is diagnosed with autism, you want answers.You want to know what might have caused your family’s world to be turned upside down. Plans for childhood forever altered, dreams rearranged and priorities permanently shifted”……………………………..
Vaccine Controversy: A PubMed Compilation : 15 to start with…………………
http://www.regardingcaroline.com/pubmed.html

So when you refer to “pro-quackery” you are being flippant, irresponsible and totally insensitive to the outcome of many medical vaccinations.

I hope you are proud of yourself for supporting such neglect and wanton ignorance.

avatar

Guy Chapman

And here is Peter Fisher, the Queen’s homeopath, denouncing the MMR -autism link as “complete nonsense” and “cearly not true”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUHW7ETz354 (start at 1:04:20)

Amusing to hear a homeopath commenting on public suspicion of “mechanistic, industry-backed medicine” – a perception of medicine that is largely caused by his fellow quacks talking up the difference between medicine and natural woo!

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Quackery is a real and serious problem. Why do you think Which? conducted this survey of pharmacists? People want to be able to trust pharmacists not to promote quack remedies, and Which? found them doing just that. There is nothing flippant or irresponsible about addressing quackery.

And you keep asserting that crank websites provide truthful information. They don’t. As with the reports of the King case, the news reports say that NCAHF produced witnesses who lacked credibility, the crank websites say the court found Barrett lacked credibility, which is not what the court found.

The site you promote re autism, regardingcaroline, is a perfect example. It cherry-picks through the literature to make the case that autism was caused by vaccination, but of all the claimed adverse events form vaccination, autism is probably the most thoroughly investigated – and all of that investigation has shown no link.

There is no scientific evidence that vaccination causes autism. It really is that simple. The purported link is partly the understandable application of the post-hoc fallacy (ignoring the fact that in most cases the autistic behaviour is actually identifiable pre-hoc), and partly a deliberate fabrication by the antivaccination lobby who will do anything to stop the march of vaccination.

There’s plenty of evidence of genetic causes of autism, and ample evidence that autistic behaviour is exhibited from birth, but no evidence of a causal link with vaccines.

So any site that argues vaccines cause autism, is not providing information, it’s providing polemic and a wilful disregard for the facts.

And in fact if you check the history of science journalism from the early part of the 20th Century on, you find a succession of these ideologically-motivated campaigns – although each appears to be a single-issue campaign they share common features (libertarianism) and in many cases common individuals (such as S Fred Singer). The manufactured doubt over the scientific consensus on tobacco causing cancer, smoke stack sulphur causing acid rain, CFCs causing ozone depletion, human activity causing global warming, all use much the same playbook as the anti-vaccinationists, using the normal scientific statement of the uncertainty of the result to assert that there is still room for a conclusion which runs counter to all the available scientific evidence.

In short, you have been hoodwinked.

avatar

chrisb1

Patrick.
I try and adhere to a sense of calm and rationality, so if I have mentioned anything that is untoward or overly critical or personally offensive then I apologize.

avatar

Robin

So what of the other strand of the survey, the fact 17 of 20 pharmacists did not advise the researcher to see a doctor when they were told the symptom was a persistent cough?
It is even more worrying that this happened during a health promotion campaign on this subject.

Pharmacies can be very busy places and pharmacists are only human so pressure of work could explain some but 85% seems extreme.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Robin: Yes, tangential, but an excellent point.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
So you think that Quacks hate Stephen Barrett? Not really no; I am sure he is a very nice individual, and probably has a very pleasing personality and demeanor, but he has a fixation with anything considered to be “Alternative”. You would think as a former Psychiatrist he would be able to diagnose and treat his own condition, but alas hasn’t happened as of yet.

Your article from scienceblogs headed: RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE and subtitled…………
“A nonsensical attack on Stephen Barrett”………………….

………………….is written by no other than “Orac: The Nipple-ripper”……….an alias for David Gorski MD.
“Orac” is basically short for “Oracle” from which his Internet username is taken, and means: Oracle – “a person, a priest or a prophet, believed to be infallible”.

On Gorskis website, he states that he: “is a “surgical oncologist” specializing in breast cancer and an Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine based at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute.”
BUT, there is absolutely no recognized medical specialty known as “surgical oncologist.” It is a made up term.
So there we are: an infallible priest of the Mainstream fraternity, who unlike his medical colleagues spends a vast amount of time bashing other scientists, who have better things to do with their time.

Logical fallacy? not really Guy, although this term is easily applied to you. You do love coming up with these terms and red herrings. Here’s another: tangential. I wonder how many people use this word in everyday life? or even know what it means if they did?

avatar

Robin

Am I correct that you are now making a personal attack on David Gorski? I just want to be clear.

I struggle to follow what it is you are trying to say. From the info. you posted Gorski is a surgeon, he works in a cancer institute, and specialises in surgery for breast cancer. Saying he is a surgical oncologist is true and accurate. Why is this an issue – your post makes it seem like some form of accusation?

Please do a little research on the term logical fallacy, it isn’t something Guy made up. Even if he did, what is your point? It is a very good descriptive term.

Tangential? Prior to this post it was on this page in three places- I used it earlier as well. Without doing a detailed frequency analysis against other Which conversations I can’t be sure if this is significant or not :-) . Is having a reasonable vocabulary a problem?

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: The evidence is against you (but you’ll be used to that of course). Chiropractors, in particular, have run a sustained hate campaign against him.

I know who writes “Respectful Insolence”, Orac is the name of a character from Blake’s 7. David is a big fan of sci-fi. He’s also an associate professor of surgery and a research oncologist, and unlike the average quack he is scrupulous about distinguishing opinion from fact, identifying sources, and defining the limits of his competence to comment authoritatively.

I really don’t care if you don’t believe in the existence of surgical oncology, you’ve repeatedly shown that what you believe in has no real connection with reality. Anyone who cares can google “surgical oncology” and will find out that, yes, there definitely is such a specialty.

What is quite amusing, though, is that having castigated skeptics for not addressing faults in medicine and science, you now castigate David Gorski for doing exactly that.

avatar

chrisb1

If you had read my post Robin you would understand that I was not making a personal attack on David Gorski, but just wrote about him in reply to Guys post as a source of information concerning Stephen Barrett: not a very good one it turns out.

Unlike his medical colleagues, Gorski seems to have a made it a personal vendetta against anything described as “alternative”, and whether it is evidenced-based or not.
RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE is a Mainstream site, so much of the information contained therein is biased and bigoted for the most part.

Yes I am aware of the phrase “Logical Fallacy” Robin, and something leveled at me which is not applicable or relevant.

Guy,
“having castigated skeptics for not addressing faults in medicine and science, you now castigate David Gorski for doing exactly that”…………………Gorski mostly levels his sights at alternatives or anything non-mainstream does he not?, unlike Ben Goldacre who is able to see the wood for the trees.

If the evidence is against me Guy, I suggest you read my final post on vaccinations again; that is if you have read it at all, or even bothered to visit the links I provided. In the time it took for you to reply, there was insufficient time for you to have read but just one perhaps?

That says it all really doesn’t it.

avatar

Robin

I obviously did read it or I wouldn’t have asked for clarification. Can you clarify what your issue is with the term surgical oncologist please? You raised it as an issue and I genuinely don’t understand your point. If we are to have a reasoned debate we need to understand each other.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: you were indeed making a personal attack, but your inability to recognise fallacious arguments as such is already clear, which is why Robin pointed it out. You might not have /meant/ it as such, but a personal attack is what it was. Fortunately, knowing David, he will laugh it off.

I have read your comments on vaccinations. They are characteristically erroneous. You do not seem to be able to understand your errors, so it’s not a surprise you keep repeating them.

Vaccines (immunisations generally) provably prevent millions of deaths and serious injuries annually. In return, yes, they cause a few hundreds, and medical science is working hard to improve this. It is tragic and nobody likes it, but vaccines are a huge net benefit to mankind, and even the Queen’s homeopath says the idea MMR causes autism is completely wrong.

avatar

chrisb1

Your opinion on vaccinations is noted Guy, but that is only an opinion and does not square with the evidence I have provided, and no you did not have the time to read my links, unless you are a speed-reader.
There are many Doctors who would agree with me and disagree with you.
My alleged “personal attack” on Dr Gorski was a comment about his activities, although I will admit that my description of him as “Orac the nipple-ripper” was being flippant rather than an “attack”.
The semantics is largely irrelevant.

I will also admit I was wrong about the term “surgical oncologist” so will be more careful in the future.
Is having a reasonable vocabulary a problem? No not really, but it is as adequate as anyone elses.
It would be of interest to know how many people use the word “Tangential” in everyday English: not often I wager.

Further, I did not say that the MMR vaccination causes autism, and neither did Andrew Wakefield: only a possible link requiring further investigation.

avatar

Robin

Off topic onto vaccination again but your comment really shouldn’t go unchallenged. If I understand correctly you believe vaccination is harmful, and not overall beneficial?

If so you are accusing governments, medical charities, doctors and nurses all around the world of being complicit in deliberate harm to billions of people.

I really hope I have misunderstood you.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, I use words like tangential all the time. I read Tolkein aged ten and was educated at a thousand year old school. I have also sung in Latin, French, German, Italian, Hebrew and Church Slavonic, and read reasonably widely on the history of science, specialising in Robert Hooke. I own the five volumes of Gunther on Hooke which were previously owned by Margaret ‘Espinasse, his first modern biographer. I think my vocabulary is adequate.

So to vaccinations. You again display the SCAM advocate’s characteristic misrepresentation of scientific consensus as “just an opinion”. Do you understand the word “provably”? It is my view, based on the evidence I have read and the reviews of that evidence in the literature, that vaccines provably save millions of lives annually.

[This comment has been edited for breaking our commenting guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

avatar

Guy Chapman

Bugrit millennium hand an’ shrimp. My iThing “corrected” “merda bubula”.

avatar

Robin

Good job it wasn’t a Newton! I had the pleasure of playing with one of them and it was hilarious. Good in other ways but not so good at handwriting recognition. The joys of technology.

avatar

Guy Chapman

I recently threw away my old Newton. We evaluated it for a competitive intelligence tool (for comparing sutures, as it happens) but went with Psion instead as they were half the price and faster.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Checking the figures, the WHO reckons immunisation saves 3 million lives annually and many more serious and permanent harms. There are four deadly preventable diseases that have the potential, if immunisation can be made universal, to save another 1-1.5 million children under 5 every year. The four are measles, hib, pertussis and neonatal tetanus. The polio eradication programme has saved an estimated 5 million lives already. Three of the vaccine-preventable killers are subject of outbreaks for the first time in a couple of generations, due to the actions of anti-vaccination cranks.

There are many parallels between the abuse of science by antivaxers and the techniques used by the tobacco industry over the last half century and more. There are also in my view parallels between the way big tobacco has targeted the developing world to rebuild sales lost to an increasingly well-informed Western public and Big Herba’s move into the self-same markets.

avatar

chrisb1

Yes, I am accusing governments, medical charities, doctors and nurses all around the World of being “unwittingly complicit” (not deliberately complicit) in causing harm to millions (not billions) of people.
I am one of them for your information, and know of many throughout my lifetime who suffered neurological and other damage by vaccinations.

Andrew Wakefield has stated his concern for the quiet and large minority who are damaged by vaccines, but are discarded and or neglected in the interests of the majority. The lack of admission to this is because of vested interests and political bias.

We could chat indefinitely about the pros and cons of vaccination, but the: “damage caused by vaccinations means the complete destruction of a child, of an individual. Those kids can’t speak. They’re complete idiots, imbeciles. Often, they are spastically paralyzed, and frequently, they also suffer from muscular cramps… Sometimes whole families are destroyed.”—Dr Buchwald MD

“There is little or no objective research into the possible adverse effects of vaccines. There has never been a study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. The only explanation for this is bias and political pressure.”–Philip Incao MD

For example.
HPV VACCINE VAERS REPORTS AS OF AUG’ 2012.

Disabled: 894.
Deaths: 119.
Did not recover: 5477
Life Threatening: 517.
Emergency Room: 9889.
Hospitalized: 2781.
Extended Hospital Stay: 221
Serious: 3723.
Adverse events: 27,023.

and that is just ONE vaccine.

Basically, you are saying that this is the trade-off and the accepted casualty rate, in the interests of the majority, who you say DO benefit.

Well to me, and people like me, this is NOT acceptable/ethical, despite your defense of the efficacy of any vaccination programme.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: VAERS reports only show a temporal association, not a proven consequence. I don’t bnlame you for falling for the post-hoc fallacy as the anti-vaccination cranks actively promote it.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive surveillance program administered jointly by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
VAERS is intended to track adverse events associated with vaccines. VAERS collects and analyzes information from reports of adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of US licensed vaccines.

and as I have stated previously: “There is little or no objective research into the possible adverse effects of vaccines. There has never been a study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. The only explanation for this is bias and political pressure.”–Philip Incao MD

Thank you.

avatar

Guy Chapman

And the facts: As of 1 September 2009, there were 44 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine, traced to 27 actual deaths, not one of which was attributable to the HPV vaccine. Some cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) are also reported, but again there is no evidence suggesting that Gardasil causes or raises the risk of GBS. The main complication traceable to Gardasil is fainting, so providers are advised to keep patients seated or lying for 15 minutes after vaccination.

The deaths attributable to HPV-induced cancers run at 15,000 per year in the US alone.

Over 100,000,000 women worldwide have been vaccinated against HPV. No evidence has emerged of any significant risk sufficient to cause concern.

Amazingly, the anti-vaccine cranks have misused the post-hoc fallacy to assert that HPV is a dangerous vaccine. It is not. It is a safe vaccine against a dangerous virus that kills tens of thousands of women every year in a particularly unpleasant way.

avatar

Robin

I don’t know if you can speak, but you can certainly type, and be quite eloquent, if in my opinion, often misguided. You often cite sweeping statements as “fact”. This comment refers again to your standards of evidence, not the specific issues of vaccination.

Your ability to hold a debate such as this doesn’t seem to fit with the bold sweeping statement about vaccine damaged people you quote i.e.

“We could chat indefinitely about the pros and cons of vaccination, but the: “damage caused by vaccinations means the complete destruction of a child, of an individual. Those kids can’t speak. They’re complete idiots, imbeciles. Often, they are spastically paralyzed, and frequently, they also suffer from muscular cramps… Sometimes whole families are destroyed.”—Dr Buchwald MD”

I do accept vaccination is not perfect, but is has saved far more lives than it has harmed. That’s no comfort to those harmed, but if vaccination wasn’t an option, many more would be dead or disabled as a result.

Do nothing or try and improve vaccination, and eradicate the causes of as many communicable diseases as possible?

I’ll stop on vaccination, I have tried to avoid it until now, and I don’t want to be guilty of keeping this off topic.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: VAERS is a reporting system for any adverse health event that follows (temporally) a vaccination. The vast majority of significant incidents, including all the deaths reported after HPV vaccination in the US, turn out not to be anything to do with the vaccine itself.

There is an enormous amount of research about both potential and actual adverse events. There are extensive tests before approval and extensive surveillance after approval. Rare events are hard to predict in trials so this is regarded as necessary and prudent.

Scaremongering from anti-vaccinationists notwithstanding, vaccines are very safe and provably protect against serious diseases.

Anti-vaccinationists have existed since the invention of vaccines. Their arguments have changed over time, the conditions they claim are caused by vaccinations have changed, the only constant is that it’s always about the vaccines.

avatar

chrisb1

My final word on medical vaccinations…………………

What doctors drowning in denialism………………………
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

………………refuse to accept is that, today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again. http://www.nvic.org/Forms/Cry-For-Vaccine-Freedom-Wall.aspx

That pattern of regression into poor health http://www.nvic.org/reportreaction.aspx
that universal experience of suffering after use of a pharmaceutical product that has a long, well documented history of risks………………………….
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2138&page=34
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9814&page=1
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html

and failures……………………………………….
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187861
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/11/1458.full

…………………………………………..is why the public conversation about health and vaccination in the 21st century must and will continue. It will continue until doctors, who are pushing more and more vaccines on children and adults already more highly vaccinated and sicker than ever, come up with a much better explanation than it’s “bad genes,” “better diagnosing” or all “a coincidence.”.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: What a pity you decided to waste your final word repeating yet another load of counter-factual vaccine denialist claptrap.

Nobody in medicine is in “denial” about the risks or failures of vaccination (free clue: those papers discussing exactly that in the literature). Nobody significant in medicine is in denial about the benefits either. The consensus is that the best outcome is to eliminate the disease so that vaccination becomes redundant. Unfortunately, anti vaccination propaganda is slowing that process.

avatar

Robin

I am glad the off topic vaccination issue is drawing to a close, but again I feel I can’t let one
of your comments go unchallenged You state many things as fact without supporting evidence on many subjects.

“refuse to accept is that, today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again.

Everyone would include me then, correct? I don’t know anyone damaged by vaccination, no one in my family knows anyone, I have never met anyone socially or through employment who has told me they or anyone they know has been damaged by vaccines.

On the contrary my family does/did know people damaged by diseases that can be prevented by vaccination, such as polio, measles and whooping cough.

If you make an assertion based on “everyone” it only takes one example to disprove it.

This is another example of how you view “evidence” compared to most people, i.e. a lot less rigourously.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Robin: The claim people are “sicker than ever” is also nonsense – I am not the only one to point out that anti-vaccinaiton tropes only work because people are no longer familiar with the consequences of these vaccine-preventable diseases, and if people are more likely to have a chronic disease in their lifetime it’s only because previously people generally used to die before they set in. We live longer than ever before in human history.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Fascinating bit of news today. Apparently the Society of Homeopaths want registration with professional standards body so have come out against a planned demonstration against ASA’s use of science-based criteria for advertising claims by H:MC21 (Homeopathy: Medicine from the 19thCentury).

SoH are the ones who said there is no evidence homeopathy can prevent or cure malaria, but did nothing about its members who claimed otherwise. If they get registered it looks like we’ll have the slightly surreal situation where pharmacists will sit somewhere between the non-compliant advertisers and Homeopathy’s self-appointed professional body, and where said body will have to discipline any homeopath found making the same recommendations as Which? Found pharmacists making!

This could be quite surreal!

avatar

Robin

That is a very strange and, in a sense wonderfully ironic, scenario, but in the world of regulation things can be convoluted.

I have to admit I don’t know how pharmacists are regulated. This discussion starts with the information that membership of the RPS is voluntary. It might be useful to know who, if anyone can take action against a pharmacist who acts unethically in a criminal manner etc. I have just realised I should have know this a lot earlier in this debate, there is always more to learn! If there is a regulatory authority, what is their response to the findings if the Which? survey?

avatar

Robin

Chris, for the purpose of clarity let me explain. Your post accused someone of making up the term surgical oncologist, you made (or maybe just repeated?) incorrect assumptions about the origin of the name Orac, you later used the words ” you do love with coming up with these terms”. I interpreted that as suggesting Guy invented the term. I did say I was struggling to understand your meaning to hopefully put the reason for my question in context. Your reply has made it clear you didn’t mean to suggest Guy invented the term, and I hope you realise now why I read it that way. I am sure I don’t always make my points crystal clear, but it is important we strive to do so. Even when we understand each others points there is obviously still a gulf between our interpretation of the evidence – if we can minimise that gulf by clearer communication it can only be to the good.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
indeed quackery is a real and serious problem, but that depends on what you mean by quackery and to whom or what do you level that accusation.
Predictably, in short, and for you and people like you, it means anything that is not Mainstream. So in your opinion, and if you allow yourself to be honest with yourself, anything outside of Mainstream is therefore quackery, and despite the studies and scientific evidence to the contrary.
A very narrow-minded viewpoint.

WHICH conducted this survey of Pharmacists to assess the advice given out of Pharmacists, not to examine the efficacy or otherwise of Homeopathy. Any critique should therefore be centered around any Pharmacists and not the remedy.

WHICH have merely taken the stance as laid down by the RPS and no other source as if the RPS’s advice and recommendations are the only source of reliable and accurate information

This point…..
“There is nothing flippant or irresponsible about addressing quackery”: is absolutely true, and where I would endorse that recommendation, but this depends entirely on what exactly is construed as quackery. Thousands if not millions of believe that Homeopathy is not quackery and because of its use as a remedy in addressing their ailments, unless of course all of these users are prone to be gullible and allow the placebo effect to dominate: a condescending and patronizing viewpoint.

What you identify as “crank” websites do actually provide truthful information, although I must admit that some of them are prone to sensationalism, and if you had bothered to read/study any of them this would substantiate my point; but your mindset will not allow you to do so because you
have determine a priori what they are and how they operate and the information that they contain.
Not a very intelligent or impartial approach I must say.
I also understand why this is the case, because this would greatly undermine your “belief system” and challenge your preconceived notions and ideas about health and disease.

Splitting hairs again……………..
“And you keep asserting that crank websites provide truthful information. They don’t. As with the reports of the King case, the news reports say that NCAHF produced witnesses who lacked credibility, the crank websites say the court found Barrett lacked credibility, which is not what the court found”.

The end result was the same though Guy, and something you are in denial of: Barrett and his associate were found to be biased with no credibility by the Court, not least of which was the fact that Barrett had been out of medicine for so long, he did not know what he was talking about.
FACT: Barrett has lost almost ALL of the court cases he has brought against any alternative therapy because of this, and not because of the lack of efficacy of the therapy.

If there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine, then that would be fine of course, but Caroline was reporting an association or possible link; the studies that have found there not be a causal association were slanted studies designed to fail, where there are at least 5 independent studies in 5 separate countries that have provided identical findings to that of Andrew Wakefield.
I refer to an earlier post of mine where there has been no studies to compare those who are vaccinated and those that were not, so pray tell how we can eliminate the possible causal effect unless any serious studies are conducted.
It is not in the interest of the vaccine manufacturers to discover any link, because this would make them liable to offer financial compensation in damages if proven, whilst having a devastating effect on their profits.
You haven’t learnt anything if you haven’t yet realised that money is the name of the game here. I f you really believe that vaccine manufacturers have the sole interests of humanity at heart, and that their income is only secondary to disease-prevention then you are deluded.

I would agree with you here………………
“There is no scientific evidence that vaccination causes autism”, but you omitted “as yet”.

Let me remind you, the anti-vaccination lobby exists because of the overwhelming and common experience and consensus of those who have experienced their children suffering from various kinds of damage shortly after vaccinations, when prior to this the children were of normal development.

It really is that simple. The purported link is partly the understandable application of the post-hoc fallacy (ignoring the fact that in most cases the autistic behaviour is actually identifiable pre-hoc), and partly a deliberate fabrication by the antivaccination lobby who will do anything to stop the march of vaccination.

Strange how the incidence of autism has grown incrementally with the increasing use of vaccines though isn’t it? Coincidental perhaps?
The main reason why anyone talks about vaccines and autism is that some parents have noticed changes in children shortly after the children were vaccinated. Their kids seemed to be developing normally, then suddenly stopped interacting with people and lost language abilities — a condition called “regressive” autism.
Scientists often hedge about saying whether their findings prove or disprove anything. That’s because the scientific method proceeds by constantly modifying theories rather than accumulating “proofs.”
“Until scientists can prove exactly what causes autism, it’s difficult to definitively disprove anything”…………….Lee Sanders, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine,

Whatever else, autism rates continue to rise, and unless the medical community discover the actual cause, any correlation between vaccines and autism cannot and should be discounted.

Hoodwinked? who me? no…………………..just open-minded, which some here are most definitely not.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, you are the polar opposite of open-minded, because you reject out of hand any claim made with the basis of credible scientific evidence but accept without question the claims of people with an obvious agenda, just because you are sympathetic towards the agenda.

In respect of vaccines, you have been had. The antivaxers pretend that every single VAERS report is a provable damaging effect of a vaccine, but they are wrong. And not accidentally wrong, since it is trivially easy to find out the truth. The HPV figures to 2009 demonstrate this perfectly. 44 fatality VAERS reports track to 29 actual deaths, not one of which was actually attributable to the vaccine.

VAERS is deliberately conservative, in a way you assert the medical establishment is not. It tracks any adverse health event which occurs after a vaccine is given. These are then analysed for patterns and where there is anything prompting concern the cases are investigated in detail. That’s how they know that the HPV vaccine doesn’t kill, though it may cause fainting.

HPV vaccine preventable cancers kill 15,000 women every year in the US alone. That’s a nasty, drawn out, painful death. Even if the worst case estimates were true, it would still be good odds. But the worst case estimates aren’t true because they are not honest.

Same applies to the “vaccine-autism link”. All the evidence points to it not being vaccines. The causes appear to be genetic, and onset appears to be well before the vaccine schedule. If some link is found at some point in the future, it will only account for a tiny handful of cases of diagnosed autism because almost all cases right now can be established before the vaccines. These vaccines prevent thousands of deaths of children every year. You are ignoring the benefit, ignoring the death toll from preventable disease before vaccines, in order to promote a hypothetical risk which is looking less and less likely with time.

Nor is the antivaccine story consistent, except in that it’s always the vaccines. They claimed it was thiomersal, but after thiomersal was removed there was no change in autism diagnosis rates. Another ad-hoc hypothesis was generated, and the chelation cranks carried on their trade regardless. It is hard to express how wrong it is to subject a child to chelation therapy when there is absolutely no credible evidence that their condition has any root in heavy metal toxicity. Provoked testing is an invalid and exploitative practice.

Yet people will do these bizarre and harmful things to their children based on the claims of people whose reputation rests on rejecting anything that can be scientifically proven, if it runs counter to their preconceived ideas. And scientists are supposedly the closed-minded ones. Go figure.

And your agenda is pretty obvious when one examines your defence of Wakefield. His work was fraudulent, clearly so, yet you still apparently believe it and disbelieve the scientific consensus.

There is nothing anybody can do to make you less angry about the application of the scientific consensus, if you refuse to accept it for what it is. There’s a lot of history in agenda-driven denial of scientific consensus: the tobacco industry, the chemical industry over CFCs, the power industry over acid rain and global climate change. They were all, like you, unshakeably convinced that they alone bore the truth, but they were all wrong, and increasingly obviously so.

The idea that because science can’t disprove something, it should be assumed to be true and action taken which brings easily quantifiable and significant risks, rather than action which introduces small and hypothetical risks, is simply not rational.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
I believe I am as open-minded as anyone, but you you are placing words in my mouth that I have never said or uttered. I absolutely do not reject out of hand any claim made with the basis of credible scientific evidence at all, in fact I do accept Mainstream (credible?) or any other evidence if as a result of that evidence a particular therapy or treatment modality is demonstrated to work.

I am dubious/skeptical of many mainstream scientific trials and studies, because of bias and to which Ben Goladacre has alluded to, such as “ghost writers” and only publishing those studies that are shown to be favorable to a drugs outcome whilst disregarding the rest which are not. When will you ever realize that profit is the name of the game and health comes in a not very close second.
Just one example is the use of Nutritional Medicine or Orthomolecular Medicine which has been proven to be effective against disease but discounted by Mainstream through bias. The therapeutic use of Nutraceuticals and Vitamin D3 would be a case in point.

The only agenda I have is: “does it work and is it effective”, although people do not generally suffer from a drug-deficiency over a nutritional deficiency.

No Guy, I am open-minded enough to realize a possible link between vaccination and autism: I have an open mind on the issue, as did Andrew Wakefield when he suggested a “possible link” requiring further investigation into the causes of “regressive autism” which occurred coincidentally after vaccinations.

You may believe what you wish, as I have the right to believe what I wish re’ any health modality, but what I object to quite strongly is the gradual erosion of my health-freedoms by vested interests, that do not agree with millions of people who wish to pursue that avenue of therapy.

You are clutching at straws now, so I would give up while you are still behind.

HPV vaccine may and probably is very effective against cancer, but you are missing the point: and that POINT is: the legacy for many who are damaged by vaccines; the forgotten minority in favor of the majority. This is not acceptable and never will be.

One more point though is that Vaccination is NOT Immunization, so I would advise you to read the book with the same title by Tim O’Shea (2013 edition) and supported by the relevant science.
There is only one kind of immunity and that is natural immunity which is achieved by battling the infectious diseases itself. Vaccination is merely the artificial triggering of temporary responses to manmade pathogens. Vaccines also do not provide long-term immunity: only temporary at best.

Have a nice day.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: OK, so you only reject out of hand the scientific consensus view in respect of anything discussed here to date, where it conflicts with your ideology. I concede that does leave you agreeing with the science where convenient. So you reject the strong consensus that vaccines prevent serious and fatal disease, you reject the strong consensus that they do not cause autism, but you selectively accept the fact that immunity is not always permanent and that there can be rare side effects.

The result of course is even more biased than if you rejected all the science. And that, unfortunately, is a consequence of the undermining of science by vested interests in he last few decades, leading to a popular belief that science is just an opinion rather than the truth, which is that science represents the best way we have of understanding the universe.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy, you say……………..
“I only reject out of hand the scientific consensus view in respect of anything discussed here to date, where it conflicts with your ideology”.

I didn’t say that. You are just playing on words and meanings now which doesn’t amount to much.
I actually agree with the science if it is proven to work, and work effectively, and wherever it is sourced: remember, I mentioned: “According to the US government’s Office of Technology Assessment (US OTA) — only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice are supported by controlled clinical studies. That’s it — just 10-20 percent”!

So much of Medical practice is based on faith and hope. Take the case of SSRI’s, which are said to work on the theory of “correcting chemical imbalances”. The efficacy of SSRIs in mild or moderate cases of depression has been disputed.[3][4][5]………………………..
^ a b c Jay C. Fournier, MA; Robert J. DeRubeis, PhD; Steven D. Hollon, PhD; Sona Dimidjian, PhD; Jay D. Amsterdam, MD; Richard C. Shelton, MD; Jan Fawcett, MD (January 2010). “Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity”. The Journal of the American Medical Association 303 (1): 47–53. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1943. PMID 20051569.
^ a b Kramer, Peter (7 Sept 2011). “In Defense of Antidepressants”. The New York Times. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
^ a b Ronald Pies, MD (April 2010). “Antidepressants Work, Sort of-Our System of Care Does Not”. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 30 (2): 101–104. PMID 20520282. Text “doi:10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181d52dea” ignored (help)

A Duke University study recently discovered that exercise (yes exercise) is equally if not more effective at combating depression than Prozac. So why take a poison when you can exercise your way out of depression.

So all in all the scientific support for medical procedures is lacking in 80% of cases and procedures. So this is what you refer to as “science”?

Yes, the truth is that science is our best way forward in understanding the Universe, but unfortunately this is not the case with “Medical Science”.

Here’s another whopper……………
If Medicine relies on science then why the following?…………………………..

As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.

PMID: 15630849 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?ordinalpos=1&itool=Entrez
System2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Incidentally, your comment in being open-minded enough to recognise a possible link between vaccines and autism? It rings hollow. Science was open-minded enough to consider the possibility of a link, so it investigated very carefully and not only found none but found strong disco firming evidence. Then you cite websites to support your claim to open-minded view which start from the premise that there is a link,quote-mine the sources, and conclude, hey presto, that there’s a link. Even though the sources conclude there isn’t.

Which, to wrestle it back more or less on topic, is precisely how homeopaths go about the pretence of scientific support for homeopathy. Which may well Elaine why homeopathy and anti vaccination activism are so often associated, since both employ similarly relentless disregard for the obvious.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
‘there is a comprehension issue here: you refer to selected studies that disproved a possible link between vaccinations and autism, but I referred to studies that suggested there is a possible link and corroborated Andrew Wakefields findings.
Therefore the findings are inconclusive, and until such time as this link can be actually proven or not, then that “possible link” should not be discounted. This is the way that science works does it not?

No I did not support my claim to an open minded view, which began with the premise that there is an actual link, unless you think that WebMD is a biased website?

As I have said before and will repeat again: whatever the science is or not for Homeopathy, this is about as conclusive and on a par with the “science” purported to support much of the practice of Medical procedures.
The problem with Mainstream is that it begins any investigations with the premise that it is right and cannot be wrong, and this is the dominating influence that permeates our society, and why WHICH sought the advice of the RPS when investigating Pharmacists advice on something they know very little to nothing about.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Here is a neutral summary of current evidence.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/

Wakefield is not “vindicated”, even if there were a provable link he would not be “vindicated” because his work was unethical and fraudulent. His claimed strongest evidence was a test asserted to find traces of the virus strain of measles in the intestinal tissues of autistic children. The tests were done by a lab in which he had a financial stake, and they turn out to have been incompetent. The full text of Bustin’s demonstration of why these results were not as Wakefield claims is here (open access) http://www.intechopen.com/books/recent-advances-in-autism-spectrum-disorders-volume-i/why-there-is-no-link-between-measles-virus-and-autism

Anything Andrew Wakefield was right about, as it may subsequently transpire, albeit improbably, will be by accident. His tests were wrong, his methods were wrong, his motives were wrong. These are the reasons he was struck off, not his conclusions.

avatar

Robin

“The problem with Mainstream is that it begins any investigations with the premise that it is right and cannot be wrong, ”

Incredible. I assume you mean mainstream homeopathy as it’s stuck to its unproven rituals and delusions despite all the evidence?

Your statement has no relevance to the scientific method whatsoever, and yet again is just utterly wrong, indeed it is the exact opposite of the reality.

There is no evidence that the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle. There is a considerable body of evidence to support the view this is not true . Despite that I could be persuaded if some really, really compelling evidence turned up, but on the balance of probabilities it is incredibly unlikely. Now replace “the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle” with “homeopathy works”.

In a series of experiments physicists found data suggesting that neutrinos were travelling faster than light. Rather than be closed minded and assume they couldn’t be wrong, they made their data available for others to review. This made the news around the world. They acted in an open unprejudiced way. A rational explanation was found. An awful lot of science is testing your own work, study design and results seeking flaws, inconsistencies and other possible explanations.

Consider the headline making claims made for cold fusion. But unlike your assertion, the people making that claim was subjected to incredible scrutiny and shown to be incorrect. Science is not a love in, it is competitive. Competition to get funding, competition to the get the best co-workers. This means that is is far from a cosy, smug self-serving club as you so often suggest. There is debate, there is argument, there is ultimately data and evidence. There is ultimately consensus. Homeopaths, in contrast, start with consensus and try to fit the data to suit their view.

avatar

Robin

“and why WHICH sought the advice of the RPS when investigating Pharmacists advice on something they know very little to nothing about.”

Now that you have probably alienated all the pharmacist (possible exception of those who believe in homeopathy)…

Having studied for a minimum of three years a wide array of subjects including human physiology, biochemistry and pharmokinetics, you don’t think they can grasp the principle of diluting not very much in a lot of water until nothing is left, within a very short space of time?

I can’t speak for Which? But I will be as bold as to suggest that they were investigating what answers pharmacists would give in a given set of circumstances. They had a hypothesis to test, by asking the RPS in what professional way their membership would be expected to respond to that set of circumstances. Someone with a cough lasting for weeks should not be seeking the advice of a sugar or water sales person but a medically qualified expert.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Cold fusion and homeopathy have a fair bit in common (though they differ in that cold fusion might contain the germ of something scientifically useful; my friend Séamus thought so at the time, anyway, and he is a staggeringly clever man (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/health/abouttheschool/people/page8114.html).

avatar

Robin

Yes I was trying to point out that when something that isn’t related to homeopathy makes claims to have broken the current laws of physics, it is subjected to the exact same process of scrutiny and critique. There is no conspiracy against alternatives to medicine, they simply have’t produced good quality evidence. Science is open to new ideas, but only accepts them when they can be supported by evidence.

Was it Richard Dawkins who said keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?

avatar

Guy Chapman

Robin: It was Carl Sagan I believe,

avatar

Guy Chapman

Robin: The problem with debates with homeopaths is that they become circular. Early in the discussion it was pointed out that the idea that mainstream has idées fixes while homeopathy is “open-minded” is an exact reversal of the truth. Examples such as peptic ulcers and h. pylori show that medicine is as willing as any other field of scientific inquiry to discard a wrong idea.

Homeopathy has no mechanism for self-correction, while the mechanism for self-correction is what distinguishes science from its precursor, natural philosophy.

The idea that science and medicine are closed-minded rests entirely on the fact that it uses evidence so does not necessarily support ideological agendas. Honestly testing the MMR-autism link and finding no significant confirming evidence, and strong disconfirming evidence, is somehow not “open-minded” because it did not put the conclusion first.

When science investigates homeopathy, creationism and so on it is not “open-minded” because it does not give parity of esteem to religious dogma and scientific discovery. To us, the reason is obvious and is what defines science. To them it is bias, because they perceive their bias as neutrality.

avatar

Robin

True, I am getting the feeling that I am trapped on a journey along a mobius strip of disinformation, obsfurcation and dare I say it, branching tangentially into areas unrelated to the topic, that is of the homeopathic supporters making.

I think the “cult” or religion of homeopathy as you describe it, is a problem. If we tolerate unsubstantiated ideas and allow people to be treated with it here it gives an undue credibility to the concepts. Even if the most well meaning homeopaths would agree it should not be used to treat serious conditions, or even to the extent of being used in only self-limiting conditions with little risk of harm, others would continue to abuse the thin veil of credibility this creates to do greater harm.

I am sure you will be aware of this one, others may not be and this certainly suggests that homeopaths are carrying out unregulated, unethical trials in Africa to test homeopathy as a primary treatment for HIV infection. It is difficult to image how deaths cannot result from such behaviour.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2013/05/bbc-devon-promotes-dangerously-deluded-hiv-homeopaths-in-africa.html

I can only speculate that if the law would allow it they might do the same in the UK.

Carl Sagan came out with some sage words, as well as being a very capable and inspiring communicator.

avatar

Guy Chapman

I can’t remember where I read it, but there was a comment recently about the “health freedom” movement and how they basically want to be allowed to behave as “big pharma” would behave if there were no regulation. I think that is scarily accurate.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
for your information the “health freedom movement” just ask that they are allowed to pursue any established health-treatment modality of their choice, and not allow the suppression or erosion of that choice, by opposing vested interests, which is occurring more and more frequently.

This has nothing to do with not permitting the regulation of alternative therapies, and the choice that health-freedom brings about, which most of us would agree would be a necessity in the prevention of fraud.

I suggest you read this at least twice..

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: That is, of course, abject nonsense. What they argue for is a laissez-faire approach to their bogus claims, and free access to victims without any tiresome regulatory interference. Though of course they are adamant that no such freedom should apply to evidence-based medicine, because allowing medicine to make fraudulent claims as well would not be a level playing field.

Health freedom is entirely about the freedom of quacks to prey on the sick. It’s not about freedom of choice for the consumer because the consumer already has freedom of choice, it is about making sure that any attempt to ensure properly informed choice (for example by pointing out that magic water can’t cure disease, or that cracking your neck may leave you paralysed or dead) is as difficult as possible.

avatar

chrisb1

It is most definitely not abject nonsense Guy. What precisely do you know about us? Very little I wager.
The Health-Freedom Movement is working to help promote natural and sustainable healthcare through the use of ‘good science and good law’.
Please read this very carefully…………….
http://www.anh-europe.org/files/100617-SustainableHealthcare_White-Paper.pdf

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: your naivety is touching. Do you really think the”alliance for natural health” are an honest broker in this? When it is in the direct financial interests of its members to minimise the intrusion of the reality-based community on their commercial operations? They behave exactly as “big pharma” would if we (unwisely) allowed them to.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
my naivety may be touching, but your prejudice and bias is rather predictable.
The ANH are a non-profit organisation.

Your interpretation and understanding of the ANH is erroneous.

They are entirely funded by voluntary donations, and not the mouthpiece of the supplement industry or any other vested interest.
You have gotten your facts wrong.

Please do a little more research before pronouncing judgement on an organisation that you obviously know little if anything about.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy, you say………..
“Wakefield is not “vindicated”, even if there were a provable link he would not be “vindicated” because his work was unethical and fraudulent. His claimed strongest evidence was a test asserted to find traces of the virus strain of measles in the intestinal tissues of autistic children. The tests were done by a lab in which he had a financial stake, and they turn out to have been incompetent”

In response…………
“The important thing to say is that back in 1996 — 1997 I was made aware of children developing autism, regressive autism, following exposure in many cases to the measles mumps rubella vaccine. Such was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles containing vaccines before they were put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since”.

“It is a very, very sad time when the mainstream is constrained, first by example by the head of HHS, saying do not give the other side of this debate equal air time. Do not give it consideration. They actually said this, and so it will not be covered, the other side will not be covered and then, on the other hand, just carrying the public relations message forward of the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry and saying, for example, that the mercury-autism debate is over when 74 percent plus of the studies that have been published support a link. That is the facts of the matter, that is the science behind it, and yet the public is being told that the science is in, it’s all over, there’s no problem, not to worry. No. The public have been deceived time and again, so it is a blessing that we have an alternative media that doesn’t need to pander to its sponsors”.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
“Wakefield is not vindicated”: is true at this moment in time, but I suggest you read this to obtain the real facts of the matter…………………………
http://www.drwakefieldjusticefund.org/sites/drwakefieldjusticefund.org/files/Wakefield_Demand_Letter_11-10-11-1.pdf

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, your defence of Wakefield is touching but utterly misguided (and I did know that when you said your “last word” it would not be unless it stood unchallenged in all its counterfactual glory!).

The facts of the matter are precisely as I stated them. There is no credible evidence of a causal link between vaccines in general and thimerosal or MMR in particular, and autism. There is strong disconfirming evidence in the shape of genetic identifiers and behavioural markers that clearly predate vaccination. Of course Wakefield believes he’s right and argues his case passionately. He has failed to carry scientific consensus and his arguments are significantly weakened by the fact that his research contained elements that were unethical, incompetent and embodied concealed conflicts of interest.

Imagine what the antivaxers would do if they found evidence of that kind of malfeasance in the science supporting a vaccine. Imagine what they would do if someone active in the development of vaccines was struck off after publishing fraudulent research based on unethical tests funded by the industry. That’s what Wakefield did, yet he gets a free pass because his result is what they want to hear, and they don’t want to hear the much more complex truth.

It doesn’t help that many antivaxers are cranks of the worst kind. Attacks by the misleadingly named Australian Vaccination Network on the parents of a girl who died of pertussis are just one example. They live in an echo chamber, constantly stating and re-stating their own opinions until they become convinced that they are facts and that the failure of real life to support those opinions is evidence of some vast conspiracy. They are medicine’s Truthers.

To exploit normal scientific humility as giving support to a conclusion which has not been supported by any of the large and careful studies conducted into this precise issue is wilful blindness. It is a massive distraction from what should be done, which is an open (i.e. scientific) investigation of the actual causes.

“I demand you prove that this is 100% not the case, and until you do I will assert that it is the case despite the fact that you may have reached 99.99% certainty it is not” is the antivax position.

“What is the case, to the best of our understanding?” is the science position, and it naturally weights its efforts according to their probability.

You do not seem to be able to understand the essential difference between the two. The problem is your end.

CDC does not have a vested interest in any particular outcome. It investigated “morgellons” at the cost of several millions of dollars despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone that it was delusional parasitosis.

Right now autism looks like a genetic disorder and a trigger in early gestation seems likely, from my reading of the literature. The science is not settled. The lack of involvement of vaccines pretty much is. The rise in autism is explained by wider diagnosis, the vaccine hypothesis is contra-indicated by the lack of any statistical correlation between vaccination rates, use of thimerosal or any other relevant factor. Demanding greater certainty is fine, asserting the least likely explanation because of the lack of certainty, is not.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
your post which begins thus:”your defense of Wakefield is touching”…………..is answered here………….if you care to read it thoroughly……………….
http://www.drwakefieldjusticefund.org/sites/drwakefieldjusticefund.org/files/Wakefield_Demand_Letter_11-10-11-1.pdf

and……”Right now autism looks like a genetic disorder, and a trigger in early gestation seems likely”……………..but pure conjecture on your part.

Then how do you explain the rapid rise in cases of autism in recent decades, if solely due to “genetic causes”?…………have our genes somehow deteriorated to that extent? a bit like the nonsense with the BRAC1 gene being responsible for breast cancer, when in fact the causes are through iodine and Vitamin D3 deficiencies, both of which favorably regulate our genetic expression.

In 1993 Ghent and Eskin (2) published a landmark paper on the treatment of severe fibrocystic disease of the breast with iodine supplements. This paper was the result of more than 30 years of marvelous research by Dr. Bernard. A. Eskin of the Medical College of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. First in animals and then in humans he proved fibrocystic disease of the breast is the result of low dietary iodine. He has shown also that this can go on to develop into breast cancer.(2-8) I feel Dr. Eskin’s research represents a major step toward conquering breast cancer and likely other cancers.
2. Ghent,W.R., Eskin,B.A., Low,D.A., Hill, L.P.. Iodine replacement in fibrocystic disease of the breast. Can J Surg 1993; 36:453-460.
3. Ghent,W.R., Eskin, B.A.. Iodine deficiency breast syndrome. In: Medeiros-Neto G, Gaitan E, editors. Frontiers in Thyroidology, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress, 1985. New York: Plenum, 1986: 1021-1026.
4. Eskin,B.A., Grotkowski,C.E., Connolly,C.P., Ghent,W.R.. Different tissue responses for iodine and iodide in rat thyroid and mammary glands. Biol Trace Element Res 1995; 49:9-19.
5. Eskin,B.A.. Iodine metabolism and breast cancer. Trans NY Acad Sci 1970; 32:911-947.
6. Eskin,B.A.. Iodine and breast cancer. Biol Trace Element Res 1983; 5:399-412.
7. Eskin,B.A.. Dietary iodine and cancer risk. Lancet 1976; 8:807-808.
8. Eskin,B.A., Krouse,T.B., Modhera,P.R., Mitchell,M.A.. Etiology of mammary gland pathophysiology induced by iodine deficiency. In: Medeiros-Neto G, Gaitan E, editors. Frontiers in thyroidology, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress. New York: Plenum, 1986: 1027-1031.

There is of course much more supporting evidence than this if you research this thoroughly.
Not that you will of course.

Mainstream and its advocates always play the “genetic and viral causes” if there is no seemingly rational medical explanation, when in fact there is.

You are not going to convince me otherwise, unless you can provide tangible irrefutable proof to the contrary.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, the problem with you is that you apply radically different standards of evidence to things you want to hear and things you don’t want to hear.

You desperately wan to believe that Wakefield, antivaxers generally, homeopathy and all manner of other crank ideas are true, because the alternative is accepting he great tragedy of science: the laying of a beautiful hypothesis by ugly fact.

To quote Neil Degrasse Tyson, the thing about science is that it goes on being true whether you believe it or not.

avatar

Robin

This is a new low
“a bit like the nonsense with the BRAC1 gene being responsible for breast cancer,”

If anyone took this opinion seriously, and I really hope no one would, you would be undermining one of the significant advances in our understanding of breast cancer. By all means state your case but please bear in mind that lives are at risk and your views are extreme, in regard to this matter.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Robin: Denial is not just a river in Egypt…

avatar

Robin

And a bit like some arguments rivers generally flow down hill to the lowest point, I fear that may not have been reached.

If anyone had any doubts about how believers in SCAM might cause harm they should be gone by now.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
“Chris, the problem with you is that you apply radically different standards of evidence to things you want to hear and things you don’t want to hear”.

Is your erroneous interpretation of what I have stated. I have also commented that I accept much of Mainstream Medicine, which does of course provide invaluable services, whilst simultaneously accepting the evidence of my own experience, and that of thousands upon thousands of others who have received real benefit from those health-modalities outside of Mainstream.
On the other hand, my adversaries in this debate accept Mainstream, although occasionally admitting to its imperfections, but dismiss out of hand anything that smacks of being alternative and refer to this as “quackery”: a rather condescending stance and unscientific in the extreme.

You also have an uncanny ability to explain away my position on health by misinterpreting and misrepresenting most all things I have said: twisting the content and meaning of my posts to suit and fit in with your own agendas. So for example…………
I have never sought to justify or believe that the ideas of Wakefield or the antivaxxers, homeopathy or anything else you care to mention is true, just for the sake of being true: now that would be correctly interpreted as religion/faith, and blind dogma, but I have done sufficient research to know that while some of this is true, others (such as Wakefield), there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he may be innocent of the charges brought against him, and as outlined in the legal letter addressed to the BMJ, Fiona Godlee, and Brian Deer, from his Attorneys. I provided the link to this in full, and which you have all conveniently ignored.

Robin, your comment…………..
“a new low”.
“a bit like the nonsense with the BRAC1 gene being responsible for breast cancer,”

What you seem to be blissfully unaware of is that it is NOT your genes that dictate your health, but rather the “expression” of your genes. You have the ability to easily turn genes on and off with your lifestyle and emotional state. One clear example of this is vitamin D, which literally regulates the expression of one out of every 10 of your genes. Even yours.
Even women who have mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which is said to increase the risk of breast cancer to 80 percent, can make positive lifestyle changes that may lower their risk significantly. For instance, omega-3 fats like those in krill oil have been found to influence these genes in a positive way.
While women with BRCA defects have a 45-65 percent increased risk of breast cancer, only about TWO PERCENT of diagnosed breast cancers are caused by BRCA faults/mutations. So this genetic defect is nowhere close to being a primary cause of breast cancer, and where amputation in acting as a prophylactic, is considered by many to be rather extreme and superfluous.

I can provide the science if you wish, but then you probably wouldn’t believe it if I did.

avatar

Robin

If you want to debate breast cancer I suggest you find an appropriate forum. Where I am sure you will encounter some robust discussion of your views.

You regularly go off topic so far and in so many different directions you distract from the subject in hand.

For anyone seeking further information on Breast Cancer can I recommend the Cancer Research UK website, which has high quality, scientifically validated information.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: The difference between genes and gene expression is a nicety which is rather more detailed than this debate allows for. Wikipedia has a good description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1

Note especialy: “Certain variations of the BRCA1 gene lead to an increased risk for breast cancer as part of a hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome. Researchers have identified hundreds of mutations in the BRCA1 gene, many of which are associated with an increased risk of cancer.”

So, BRCA1 (or specifically a mutation in BRCA1) is diagnostic of susceptibility to breast cancer. Rather like loosening the wheel nuts on your car: it doesn’t mean you will crash inevitably on any given journey but it increases the probability of crashing and the probability rises closer to 100% the longer you leave it.

So to quackery. We don’t dismiss quack cures because they are not mainstream, it is the other way around: they are not mainstream because they are quack cures. Homeopathy is not mainstream because it lacks any plausible scientific basis and all observations are consistent with the null hypothesis. Chiropractic is not mainstream because it performs no better than any other form of manipulation therapy, is consistently more expensive, contains pseudoscientific concepts and anti-vaccination proselytising, and has a small but significant risk of stroke induced by evidentially unsupportable manipulations of the neck. Acupuncture is on the fringes but likely to eb rejected in the end due to a convergence of the evidence away from any specific effect – the jury is still out but the defendant should pack his toothbrush.

Science is a process, not an opinion. Most supplements, some complementary and all alternative medicine are based on opinion, not science. Science is the process by which you suggest an idea and it is honestly tested, pseudoscience is the process by which you suggest an idea and then deliberately set out to find confirming evidence. Science does not care whose the idea is, only whether it stands up to the normal process of testing.

This seems to be clear to most of us. What am I failing to explain, given that you still don’t seem to understand this?

Hello everyone, we’ve published a new Conversation, rounding up some of your comments about this topic: http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/your-view-do-pharmacists-and-homeopathy-mix/

avatar

elyss

“…everyone’s entitled to their opinion.”

No, they’re not. Not if those opinions are clearly and demonstrably wrong.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Seen on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zatonski/status/340825730520866816/photo/1

Quite.

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
not Mr Ernst again?
You’ll have to do better than that.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: LOL! And homeopathy does better than Prof. Ernst? I think not!

avatar

dw

There’s plenty of evidence that homeopathy “works” — through the placebo effect.

avatar

chrisb1

So you admit that it “works” then dw?

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris, in the other thread I thought we’d reached agreement that it’s a delusion and were only debating whether it’s a harmless or harmful one?

avatar

chrisb1

Guy,
I am not a Homeopath, but any agreement we have made is minimal at best.

If Homeopathy is a delusion, then it is a delusion that has stood the test of time (200 years or so).
Perhaps it would be more constructive if we had some contributors who had received the benefit or otherwise of Homeopathy, and if they thought it was a delusion.

For your information…………………………….

Legislation on homeopathic medicines is now harmonized across the EU. Homeopathic remedies are now officially a category of drug, and are controlled by the very same Directive as pharmacological drugs (licensed medicinal products).

May 2012: Homeopathy has been vindicated by the Swiss Government’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report. This has now been published in full—Swiss Government finds homeopathy effective and cost efficient.
The results of the Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report on homeopathy were published in English at the end of last year. Entitled ‘Homeopathy in Healthcare’, and edited by Dr Gudrun Bornhöft and Prof. Peter Matthiessen, it is part of the Swiss Government’s 1998 ‘Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme’ (PEK). This was set up to evaluate homeopathy and other complementary an alternative medicine (CAM) therapies for their ‘efficacy, appropriateness and cost effectiveness’.

The HTA report fully vindicates homeopathy after the massive furore and much comment in 2005, on completion of the PEK study. The PEK report (summary only, in English), produced 2 years before the planned completion of the HTA report, included results of the much smaller quantitative sub-study of the homeopathy project, which had evaluated experimental trials. Despite the fact that the homeopathy reviews indicated: ‘effectiveness likely’—the top category on a 3-tier scale, and studies on a particular indication (upper respiratory tract infections/allergy) indicated ‘probable effectiveness’, the overall conclusion of the sub study was that the evidence had demonstrated ‘no significant difference to placebo’ for homeopathic treatment (Shang et al, 2005). A Lancet editorial followed, declaring ‘The end of homeopathy’, and skeptics (such as we have witnessed here) went into overdrive with scathing attacks on homeopathy, which, in the UK, led to the farcical Science and Technology Sub-Committee’s so-called: ‘Evidence Check: Homeopathy’ sessions.

The much more comprehensive HTA is an established scientific procedure that not only examines efficacy, but also examines ‘real-world effectiveness’, appropriateness, safety and economy. In contrast to the subsidiary sub-study result, which was considered ‘of little relevance for the political decision’, the HTA found that ‘the individual CAM interventions, especially homeopathy, were effective, under Swiss conditions safe and, as far as could be judged from the trial situation, also cost efficient’.

The TRUTH About Homeopathy – Dispelling the MYTHS that Surround It!……………………
http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/homeopathy-articles/96-the-truth-about-homeopathy-dispelling-the-myths-that-surround-it

But of course all of this will be rejected by all you lovely Mainstreamers who reject ANYTHING remotely entitled or considered to be “alternative”.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Chris: Who to believe? The chief scientific advisor to the government, the chief medical officer, the donsensus of systematic reviews, NHS choices and the House of Commons science and technology committee? Or a homeopathy propaganda website running a campaign that even th eSociety of Homeopaths doesn’t support?

Tough call. Not.

Now if you were to cite one credible scientific evidenc supporting the doctrines of homeopathy that might be different, but first it would hav to exist, and right now I am pretty confident it does not.

avatar

Guy Chapman

Apologies for typos, blame Apple.

avatar

Robin

Chris:
“If Homeopathy is a delusion, then it is a delusion that has stood the test of time (200 years or so)”

Well we can agree on that.

avatar

wavechange

I have just spotted a brief update on advice from pharmacies, in the September issue of Which? magazine.

The General Pharmaceutical Council and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society have met with Which? and high street pharmacy representatives to discuss the findings of Which? and various actions will be taken to improve advice from pharmacies. I hope you told them that we don’t want any more talk of homeopathy, Joanna. :-)

I have recently seen advertising from the NHS recommending that we make use of pharmacists and not pester GPs.

Back to top

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked

Tired of typing your name and email? Why not register.

Register or Log in

Browse by Category

Consumer Rights

742 Conversations

9039 Participants

25814 Comments

Energy & Home

617 Conversations

6813 Participants

23252 Comments

Money

797 Conversations

5808 Participants

14996 Comments

Technology

754 Conversations

7143 Participants

18472 Comments

Transport & Travel

587 Conversations

4629 Participants

13094 Comments