Why we need a public consultation on complementary therapies

brilliant!andrew,you should write a book about logical fallacies;you are very versatile at using them.

Thanks Ed old chum- I'll leave the versatile logical book writing to you. Nice to see how you open a debate on the matter- no doubt more anon.

Let's look to the scientific evidence and rational facts rather than
Kow Tow to uncensored spin and biased reports from people who appear to
have unrestricted and unreviewed access to the media.

Oh Ed whilst I hold you in unconditional love I disagree with you- All I know I learnt from you and your publications, old friend. x

The Swizz Homeopathy Report was written by someone from one of the few private universities in Germany which controversially specialises in teaching medical students various forms of quackery, particularly the occult approach of anthroposophy.

I have read the report (Have you Dr Sikorski?) It is quite obviously worthless from the start as it assumes its conclusions - that homeopathy has been successful for 200 years and that the 'vital force' exists even if it cannot be measured.

Much of the report is an attempt to subvert standards of evidence so that anecdotes and cases from homeopaths can act as evidence for effectiveness. Just as Dr Sikorski does above, we are asked to believe that this superstitious therapy works just because we can find lots of people who believe in it.

The Swizz Report is nothing by special pleading. What a massive distraction from the problems with the NHS at the moment. For a more comprehensive and unbiased recent assessment of homeopathy, the House of Commons Science and Technology Evidence Check on Homeopathy would be a much better place to start and render Sikorski's appeal for a public consultation redundant.

Andy Lewis- what a whizz- how come he's not a politician, professor or clinician, wheezing his closed minded diatribe and bigotry, not giving a care to what people find beneficial- despite his invective I will continue to prescribe SSRI's, Thanks dear 'other healthcare professional'.

Like it or not, denialists/skeptics, this is the future.....
Global Traditional Medicine Market to Reach US$114 Billion by 2015, According to a New Report Published by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.
January 10, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/10/prweb9087888.DTL#ixzz1jBYjhKde

http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebalternative_medicine/homeopathy_chinese/prweb9087888.htm

Wow, the "medical fundamentalists" (aka "the deniers") keep a steel-trap closed mind to homeopathy, while an increasing number of governmental reports show efficacy and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy. The Swiss govt is a tad neutral and look what they found...and their report show a similar substantial cost-savings as did a report from The Netherlands. And now, a new report from Brazil has found similarly substantial cost-savings (and health benefits!): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22226314

So the country with the Hadron Collider and precision watch engineering has analysed the data, science and literature and decided to include homeopathy on their compulsory national health insurance? AND there are people who don't like this and think they know better? Well my opinion the world is flat is equally valid to their opinion. Thank goodness for free speech and democracy!

I'm not sure why this argument has focussed on homeopathy specifically, it is about CAM in general. So the first issue is to decide what is CAM. Until recently Medical Herbalists would have been CAM, now they are (or soon will be) HPC regulated - CAM or not? The constant medical argument of no RCT has been expounded above and it is a flawed argument as pointed out. EBM is more than RCT. Placebo will be the next cry - well if you look at some of the well established headache medications they are only 10% to 40% above placebo effective with side effects. If it can be shown that patients benefit from a health input (CAM) and accurate records are kept (problem here for NHS ) of outcomes, then eventaully there will be an accurate measure of economic health benefits. However whilst the likes of Dr Ernst continue to exist there will be no change or true investigation, just opinions - and as a recent report hightlghted people often have strong opinions despite ignorance on a subject

I also believe that the vast majority of patients are capable of taking accurate and honest information and making their own decsions.

I wonder if any of the homeopathy supporters would like to respond to my central point that the Swizz report was written by someone with a massive vested interest in ensuring their was a large demand for homeopathically trained doctors?

Would Dr Sikorski or others like to explain how this report can be considered neutral in such circumstances?

In February 2010 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that:
"The NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA."

http://privatehealthservice.co.uk

Andy Andy Andy...You make it sound like ONE person wrote this report and that this one person could write whatever he wants...and you KNOW that this is not true. Further, you ignore the fact that there is quantitative data about cost-effectiveness showing a significant savings from care provided by a homeopathic MD, as compared with conventional MDs AND MDs who utilize other CAM treatments.

It is strange, very strange, that you do not give any analysis or critique of that infamous report from your country's Science and Technology Committee, a report that has been thoroughly discredited. By the way, of the 13 members on this committee, how many members voted for this report? Wasn't it THREE?

This is a fine article by Dr Sikorski that draws attention to the threat to democracy and liberty reprented by the authoritarian position of homeopathy's detractors.

You can only get NHS homeopathy if your GP prescribes it or refers you to an NHS clinic. But this is not good enough for homeopathy's detractors and deniers whose attitude to the general public can be summarised by the statement: 'WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU!'

Their anti-homeopathic compaign has been rejected by two successive governments (and we know that the Queen uses homeopathy) but still they bleat on with the same mantras.

.Dr Sikorski makes it perfectly clear that a substantial minority of people in the UK want homoeopathy on the NHS. Two governments have realised this and thankfully remembered governments are meant to be for, of and by the people - rather than being beholden to the arrogance of the disciples of scientism.

.I am amazed that commentators here still refer to that S&T report. The facts about it are simple: ALL it's recommendations were REJECTED by the Government and the previous Government made it pretty clear that it did not support its recommendations either.

By their actions shall ye know them. I declare Andy Lewis to be 100% neutral....................not- and naturally he is trying his best to pick away at any imaginary loose thread he can find. He owes it to himself, his 'compadres' and his supporters and we should applaud him for his Sisyphean efforts. The garment, meanwhile, remains intact. Or should that be 'the emperor wears no clothes'- d'oh- of which there wouldn't be imaginary threads to pull at in any case?!
(Sisyphus was the dude tasked by the gods with rolling a boulder up a hill only for it to roll on back down again for him to continue on and on, ineffectually rolling uphill for eternity). Well done Andy- go,go,go!!!
The actions of grateful homeopathically treated patients over the last 2 centuries speak louder than words. They just come back for more when they need it- or they go to conventional medicine, or they live their lives in health, independent of the need for any medical intervention. Now ain't that a thing????? Any skin off anyone's nose- or thread off anyone's garment there?

Thank you Andrew. Sensible stuff.
Do conventional medications increase the sum total of human wellbeing and happiness ?
Of course they do. Enormously.
The European Commission estimated in 2008 that adverse drug reactions kill 197,000 citizens annually, at a cost of 79 billion euros.
Do homeopathic remedies increase the sum total of human wellbeing and happiness ?
The evidence suggests so. Sceptical GPs see it happening all the time.
Occasionally we may be reminded by critics that a patient, somewhere, sometime, died while receiving homeopathic treatment.
Mountains are made of it.
Andy Lewis is correct that authorship influences content.
We are endlessly reminded of the negative attitude of the 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology report . No one mentions their November 2000 report which was positive by comparison. Different authors.
Choose your authors , or your source, depending on your mind set.
We will never have a realistic discussion on this issue until the sum total of human happiness and well being is agreed to be more important than the often fragile self esteem of the participants.

None of us are neutral in this discussion. Without declared interest it is impossible to truly consider any submission.
My own feeling for what it is worth is that all we can say about homeopathy, unlike some other CAM, is that at least the only harm it does in the main is financial. If the NHS is to fund any CAM then it needs to be subjected to the same value for money considerations that all conventional interventions should be in the current climate. This includes an independant QUALY type assesment.

Yes indeed Dr Mansfield. Let's start off by assessing the value for money that the NHS gets for its £232 million investment (sic) in SSRI anti-depressants which a major meta-analysis concluded are only of some use in severe depression and no better than placebo in mild and moderate depression (ie the types that GPs tend to treat without referral to a psychiatrist. After that we can look at a whole swathe of expensive 'conventional' NHS interventions that lack the sort of evidence being called for in these comments.
PS: The annual bill for NHS homeopathic prescriptions is £10 million. So if the main issue is 'financial' as you mention, then let us start by scrutinising the really big NHS investments for the requisite evidence before attacking NHS homeopathy .

Sorry I forgot to give the 'evidence' for my seemingly outrageous comment about SSRIs. This is the meta-analysis to which I referred.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045
Where is the ONGOING debate about THIS? Why aren't there organisations (like the NIghtingale and the pathetic 10:23) dedicated to dealing with THIS horrendous waste of money? The fact that they don't exist holds up a mirror to just how nasty, disingenuous and obviously biased the exclusive ONGOING attack on NHS homeopathy really is. We must be thankful that so far democracy and liberty have prevailed stood firm against relentless attack.

Would any of the very serious defenders of homeopathy here like to state whether they believe homeopathic twiglets have a specific therapeutic effect?

http://qako.me/u6ncRF

You can buy homeopathic twiglets from Ainsworths pharmacy - Prince Charles' favourite, I believe.