Homeopathy Defended

MD defends homeopathy on the National Health Service in the UK. Dr Brian Kaplan a doctor who has studied homeopathic medicine for many years points out why Science and Technology Committee's report on homeopathy was flawed and misleading. In advocating the withdrawal of funding for NHS, the committee is practising double standards because huge swathes of conventional medicine is far from being evidence based. (http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp) The MPs also selectively quote Health Minister Mike O'Brien to imply that he has misgivings about homeopathy whereas the truth is that he stated uncategorically that it would be 'illiberal' to withdraw funding for homeopathy on the NHS. EBM should not be used as a blunt instrument to attack homeopathy exclusively.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Homeopathy Dr Kaplan
• House of Commons
• Homeopathic medicine
• Edzard Ernst
• Mike O'Brien
• Health Minister
• Double Standards
• EBM
• Evidence-based medicine
• placebo
• NHS homeopathy

[darkfunkychimp]

Hm. Very convincing, reasonable sounding arguments. Patient satisfaction rates are fantastic.

There's just one thing...

IT IS WATER. A little thing called atomic theory came about after homeopathy was born. Molecules exist. And there very simply aren't any of active ingredients in homeopathic 'medicines'. There isn't anything else to it: it's water. And we are not paying 'professionals' millions of pounds to give people water.

[ProvocativeDoctor]

@darkfunkychimp So "IT IS WATER" only is it? If you can prove that statement you would have to be able to tell me with absolute certainty that you know what the smallest divisible unit of the universe is. You have as much chance of doing that as explaining to me how the universe continues to infinity. What is true of the macrocosm is true of the microcosm and much of life remains mystererious - even since The Enlightenment, atomic theory, and the BBC bias and against homeopathy.

[ExposeHomeopathy]

@ProvocativeDoctor In answer to your question about whether I am qualified to judge the decisions of medically qualified doctors. When it comes to homeopathy, yes I am.

I would say better than you because I understand about rigorous trials, the scientific method.

It seems ironic, sad (and dare I say selfish?!) that you benefit from all manner of inventions and findings from science and medicine but you'll dish out these magic potions without grazing your conscience.

[ProvocativeDoctor]

@ ExposeHomeopathy: Yes, by all means stop cowering and you are welcome to use my clips of my video in yours. By the way I don't feel margnialised at all. This Government supported NHS homeopathy and so did the last one. As far as I am concerned that makes my political views on this MAINSTREAM. And of course it's about politics when a Parliamentary Committee recommends cutting funding for NHS homepathy. Fortunately their recommendations were treated with the contempt they fully deserved.

[pianoplayeruk]

@markgg1

We should use any form of treatment so long as there is reasonable evidence to show that it works.

Whilst on the subject, many conventional mainstream drugs don't actually work, often have terrible side effects and are very expensive to buy - yet are available as forms of treatment and are sold as 'safe.'

The traditional pharmacological fraternity have a lot to answer to, yet continue with both BMA and government support.

Homeopathy is about healing.

Pharmacology is about money

[pianoplayeruk]

@darkfunkychimp

Stop thinking in three dimensions and start thinking in four.

Then all will be revealed...

[dgiddens8]

"The U.S. EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at 0.010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic." Mathmatically this is equivalent an 8X homeopathic potency to (0.00000001 parts of arsenic to water). EPA seems to think arsenic at this dilution is not just water.

[iamundergrace]

so if homeopathy = placebo....

[ProvocativeDoctor]

@fomoran No, I only delete comments with obscenities. I even publish comments that are ungrammatical but I don't publish offensive, nasty and obscene comments. The internet is infested with boneheaded activistis and they can comment here - but not with obscene remarks.

[fomoran]

@ProvocativeDoctor, That comment is hilarious given that you got rid of a comment of someone using Ad hom attacks.

[ProvocativeDoctor]

@fomoran Unfortunately the internet is full of boneheaded 'activists' who love smearing other people's ideas with obscene, ugly and nasty comments that have no relevance whatsoever to the subject being discussed.

[fomoran]

@ProvocativeDoctor maybe deleting the replies to posts no longer here would be the way to go, it is rather confusing.