Homeopathy is 'rubbish', says chief medical officer

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by hawkiye So you pretend to know what I have done... Sigh!
The summary doesn't say its a summery and doesn't even list the abstract or journals etc. like a said NO SOURCES!

And gee how convenient the academic cultists don't publish their journals on line for the pubic to see unless you are in their club... Sigh again.

And I don't "believe" anything I draw conclusions based on verifiable facts and evidence along with real world experience not cult worship of some supposed authority figures who can't even source their claims...


I really do not know how to respond .....
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726 - 732, 27 August 2005
Summary

How do you miss the word SUMMARY in big red letters?


And still no verifiable sources!


OMG the journal IS the source. That IS source material .... I really am speechless. Don't act like you have the first clue about research if you think giving you a MEDICAL JOURNAL is not providing a source. I have almost limitless patience and you are quickly exhausting it. I work with psychotic patients all day long and never lose my patience at all, ever. Congratulations.


If no one can access the journal it is not a source its a joke. The link simply links to the same article with no way of verifying anything in the article. the link to the journal list a bunch of links including this one all are summaries with no way to verify anything wow what a great source of evidence...
It's worthless yet you are here acting all smug that we are not taking your word for it...Sigh

edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You are completely clueless. Anyone can access it. You simply need a subscription, that is how EVERY journal works. How do you think they stay in business? If you are a college student you can most likely access it for free using your student account. The journal is there, no one has to take my word for it. You simply wish to remain ignorant. I gave you the abstract so you can see what the study says without paying for it. You are welcome to pay for it and get right into it (although without a course in Research and statistics you may not understand much). Live ignorant, or not, your choice. I can't make you choose knowledge.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD,Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD,Linda Nartey MD,Peter Jüni MD,Stephan Dörig,Jonathan AC Sterne PhD,Daniel Pewsner MD,Prof Matthias Egger MD
The Lancet - 27 August 2005 ( Vol. 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726-732 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2
edit on 27-1-2013 by alkali because: edited for completeness



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You are completely clueless. Anyone can access it. You simply need a subscription, that is how EVERY journal works. How do you think they stay in business? If you are a college student you can most likely access it for free using your student account. The journal is there, no one has to take my word for it. You simply wish to remain ignorant. I gave you the abstract so you can see what the study says without paying for it. You are welcome to pay for it and get right into it (although without a course in Research and statistics you may not understand much). Live ignorant, or not, your choice. I can't make you choose knowledge.


Can you have a discussion without calling someone clueless or delusional because they point out your fallacies?

Oh so were all supposed to buy a subscription so we can verify your claim? Oh ok...sigh.

Sorry I am not contributing to a academic cultist journal. They get paid to do these studies to bolster some market for some drug company they don't need subscription money they just do this to keep people in the dark and out of their club so they can keep the gravy train rolling...

You made the claim and posted the article that no one can access and then called us all clueless...Sigh! Either post the verifiable data or stuff a sock in it!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD,Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD,Linda Nartey MD,Peter Jüni MD,Stephan Dörig,Jonathan AC Sterne PhD,Daniel Pewsner MD,Prof Matthias Egger MD
The Lancet - 27 August 2005 ( Vol. 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726-732 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2
edit on 27-1-2013 by alkali because: edited for completeness


That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...

Interesting enough it does say the homeopathy works as does allopathy but both could be due to placebo as I said in an earlier post.


Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible
explanation for positive findings of placebo-controlled
trials of both homoeopathy and allopathy (conventional
medicine).8,9

edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


And with that, I will end my discourse with you. Impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational zealot.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...


I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hawkiye
 


And with that, I will end my discourse with you. Impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational zealot.


Too funny you get your ass handed to you and all you can do is name call...
Your article says homeopathy works but they then just give an biased opinion with no evidence that it all must be placebo even though they say the same thing about allopathy. Again I would like to see what drug company funded this study...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD,Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD,Linda Nartey MD,Peter Jüni MD,Stephan Dörig,Jonathan AC Sterne PhD,Daniel Pewsner MD,Prof Matthias Egger MD
The Lancet - 27 August 2005 ( Vol. 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726-732 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2
edit on 27-1-2013 by alkali because: edited for completeness


That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...

Interesting enough it does say the homeopathy works as does allopathy but both could be due to placebo as I said in an earlier post.


Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible
explanation for positive findings of placebo-controlled
trials of both homoeopathy and allopathy (conventional
medicine).8,9

edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Actually it says homeopathy is consistent with placebo effects, and allopathy is not.

We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible,31 but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo controlled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis. By contrast, with identical methods, we found that the benefits of conventional medicine are unlikely to be explained by unspecific effects.


The information is all right there for you. But it will take time and effort to find the truth. So which is it? Do you want the truth simply given to you, as I did. Or do you want the sources to sift through and see for yourself? Seems like you are finding any excuse possible to cling to your old beliefs. Sorry, truth takes time and effort if you want to see the sources for yourself.
edit on 27-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by alkali

Originally posted by hawkiye
That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...


I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.


I did and I am not impressed just more articles in academic cultist journals most people do not have access to much less even know exist funded by drug companies to commission studies that find their products favorable and any other possible remedy as worthless. You're welcome to take them as authoritative if you like despite the fact that they contribute to making doctors and conventional medicine the number 3 cause of death. However I do not worship in that cult...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
 



Actually it says homeopathy is consistent with placebo effects, and allopathy is not.

We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible,31 but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo controlled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis. By contrast, with identical methods, we found that the benefits of conventional medicine are unlikely to be explained by unspecific effects.


The information is all right there for you. But it will take time and effort to find the truth. So which is it? Do you want the truth simply given to you, as I did. Or do you want the sources to sift through and see for yourself? Seems like you are finding any excuse possible to cling to your old beliefs. Sorry, truth takes time and effort if you want to see the sources for yourself.
edit on 27-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


Which contradicts what they said which I quoted previously. I prefer to verify truth myself but there is nothing to verify here. As I said the whole article is a joke and worthless. Sorry you find it so difficult that someone does not bow like you to the false authority of the orthodox scientific cultist who are mainly just well paid drug pushers for the Big pharmaceutical companies.

edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by alkali
I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.


I did and I am not impressed just more articles in academic cultist journals most people do not have access to much less even know exist funded by drug companies to commission studies that find their products favorable and any other possible remedy as worthless. You're welcome to take them as authoritative if you like despite the fact that they contribute to making doctors and conventional medicine the number 3 cause of death. However I do not worship in that cult...

Did you? The study was funded by the Complementary Medicine Evaluation Program of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health which had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the writing of the report.

There were no drug companies involved.

What specifically do you disagree with in the article? Also, where do you find peer-reviewed studies to support your beliefs that homeopathy is effective?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by alkali

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by alkali
I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.


I did and I am not impressed just more articles in academic cultist journals most people do not have access to much less even know exist funded by drug companies to commission studies that find their products favorable and any other possible remedy as worthless. You're welcome to take them as authoritative if you like despite the fact that they contribute to making doctors and conventional medicine the number 3 cause of death. However I do not worship in that cult...

Did you? The study was funded by the Complementary Medicine Evaluation Program of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health which had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the writing of the report.

There were no drug companies involved.

What specifically do you disagree with in the article? Also, where do you find peer-reviewed studies to support your beliefs that homeopathy is effective?



Here is there motivation since they have socialized medicine they did not want to pay for these therapies and Like all governments they are in the pockets of big corps and in this case big pharma who I am sure lobbied for this study.


According to the PEK Report,[1] results of the evaluation were inconclusive, and in June 2005, the five complementary therapies under evaluation - anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine (more precisely, traditional Chinese herbal therapy) - were removed from the list of services covered by the compulsory health insurance scheme (KLV).



The terms-of-reference for the PEK study stated that the results of the study would determine which complementary medicines, if any, would continue to be supported by the national insurance program in Switzerland. However, before the study was completed and the final draft report reviewed by the international Review Board, the government announced that it would withdraw support for all complementary approaches to medicine.[5]
Considerable uproar followed, including protests from many scientists involved in the study (including the scientific director of the program) about political interference in the scientific process:[5]
"The international review board of PEK has publicly protested at political interference in the scientific process."[6]
"There is a consensus among the review board members that the final PEK process deviated from what would have been expected by conventional standards."[7]
[edit]ECH evaluation of PEK report
According to the European Committee for Homeopathy's evaluation of the PEK report,[8] the results were, for the government, surprisingly positive towards complementary medicines. According to the ECH evaluation:
The PEK study showed that the quality of homeopathic care was superior to that of conventional care. This difference could not be explained by the seriousness of the illnesses, because homeopathic doctors saw even more seriously and chronically ill people. (Page 2)
Whereas the authors of the overall PEK report drew the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy, the authors of the meta-analysis came to a different conclusion. This seems rather odd, because both groups of authors based their conclusions on the same extensive literature search and predefined inclusion criteria. (Page 4)
The Swiss Association of Homeopathic Doctors (SVHÄ) highly criticizes the PEK report and asserts that the study has serious flaws. (Page 5)
The meta-analysis was conducted at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM) of the Bern University, under the direction of Prof. Dr Matthias Egger. The ISPM did not include any expert from the field of homeopathy. It was not before January 2005 that homeopathic experts were allowed to peruse the meta-analysis. ISPM Director Prof Egger repeatedly has pronounced his conviction that homeopathy cannot be effective because its working mechanism is implausible. This does not seem to be a particularly unbiased position. (Page 6)
Although homeopathy and other CAM therapies proved to be cost-effective and may save millions of Swiss Francs on the health budget, the Swiss government decided to exclude all CAM therapies from the compulsory health insurance scheme as from 30 June 2005. (Page 6)
A conference scheduled for April 2005 to present and discuss the results of the PEK was cancelled because the National Health Office suppressed the publication of the study data. (Page 7)
Some collaborators were coerced into deleting all PEK related data from their computers. (Page 7)
A final meeting of the international Review Board (of 6 professors from Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and the UK responsible for the scientific quality of the PEK) to be held in June 2005 for a final assessment of the project, was cancelled. (Page 7)
A recommendation in the report's final draft to keep homeopathy, anthroposophical medicine and herbal medicine in the compulsory health insurance scheme was deleted in the final publication. (Page 7)


en.wikipedia.org...

Also the study itself cites several homeopathy trials. Again I do not worship at the cult of academia I am not impressed with peer reviewed studies motivated by politics and money. I Look at evidence and results. homeopathy woks on a quantum physics level and gets results. results are damn hard to argue with! A lot of the history of orthodox science is a history of finding out it was wrong... It was usually the rebels who went against orthodoxy that moved science forward against great opposition.

edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I certainly can't disagree with the findings OP.
Homeopathy is the "emperor's new clothes" of the natural medicine world.

For the poster above who says it works on a quantum level, oh please. You're deluding yourself.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I wouldn’t say homeopathy is a realistic alternative to conventional medicine but I also wouldn’t go as far as calling it “Rubbish”. Lots of medications that we use today have their origins in what we would now call homeopathy or alternative therapy.

At university as part of a Nursing degree I spends some time sitting in lectures about homeopathy or as we liked to call it “alternative therapies”. It is recognised that most of it comes down to a placebo effect, however some therapies such as meditation and reflexology do have some positive effects on patients.

I know that in NHS Scotland there is even a specialist alternative therapies nurse and reflexologists have been used.

I think it’s important to realise that it won’t work for everyone, but if it works for you then go for it just don’t rely on homeopathy in isolation form more convention medical intervention.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Ok, so say it's all placebo effect if that's what you want. Homeopathy is still an indictment of modern western medicine. The fact that a phenomenon such as the placebo effect even exists suggests that these people with all those initials after their names probably don't have as many answers for us as they'd like us to think they do.

Thought directly influencing physiological processes. That's really what the placebo effect is, and it demonstrates that the mind can indeed be inexplicably more powerful than the body; or more specifically, the chemical reactions within the body that establishment medicine seems primarily concerned with. This is a dangerous concept, especially when it threatens those with vested economic and/or political interests.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a DO once told me all MD's do is "cut and drug"

he isn't wrong



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Well, as long as nobody is prevented from using that medicine for one's own health, it doesn't matter what anybody's opinion is.

Sure if the official opinion is that it is rubbish, insurance may not cover the costs and also state may prevent a person from making the choice of care for others like family members, espcially children. But that is the downside of a system of medicine whose basis for working is completely ouside the currently accepted paradigm.

Since experiments in healthcare are not repeatable, it is not surpising to see those who are heavily vested in the current paradigm pronouncing it a sham. Homoepathy has been under attack right from its inception. Potentisation (progressive dilution increasing the effectiveness of the medicine) was something Hahneman discovered by accident, from empirical study. Despite all this it survived because it is effective, especially in instances where the conventional medicine failed. It is its efficacy which will keep it alive, not officialdom accepting it.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I was under the assumption that homeopathy was about taking a tiny bit of a substance to trigger the body to heal.
Or taking a tiny bit of a substance to build your immune system.

I must be completely wrong and will take the time to go and reread exactly how it's supposed to work.

Maybe I'm thinking about vaccines, because that's how they say they're supposed to work.
By my logic, if a vaccine works, so does homeopathy



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Homeopathic medicine is “rubbish” and is nothing more than a placebo, England’s chief medical officer has claimed.


Professor Dame Sally Davies said she was “perpetually surprised” homeopathy was provided on the NHS, and branded homeopaths “peddlers.” Giving evidence to the Commons Science and Technology committee, she also expressed fears about the prescription of homeopathic remedies to treat malaria and other illnesses.

‘I’m very concerned when homeopathic practitioners try to peddle this way of life to prevent malaria or other infectious disease,” she said.

“I am perpetually surprised that homeopathy is available on the NHS.” Dame Sally, who is England’s most senior doctor, concluded by remarking that homeopathy “is rubbish”.

The Telegraph


A 2010 Science and Technology Committee agreed that Homeopathy was no more effective than a placebo, while a UK Lancet study also came to the conclusion that homeopathy was no more effective than the standard sugar pill given as a placebo in clinical trials.

Of course, the established medical community isn't entirely unbiased in this matter.


edit on 27-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



i wonder if she has a conflict of interest?

or has been offered the role of "consultant" after she leaves her present position by you know who?





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join