Good news friends. The tide is starting to turn… Homeopathy is starting to defend itself in earnest against biased attacks in the medical literature and media in general.
A press release by the Faculty of Homeopathy today shows that the ‘conclusions’ of a paper in the Lancet entitled ‘The End of Homeopathy’ have been called into serious doubt. As Dr Peter Fisher puts it: they cast ‘serious doubts on the review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy’ No space for the detail but here are the references:
Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.015
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy 2008. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.008.
More amusing and therefore much more appealing to me was an amazing article in the New York Times (you might need to register to read it but free registration to the NYT is not a bad idea) citing a study that shows half of US doctors prescribe 'placebos', but they are not really placebos like homeopathy (please pronounce with a sneering tone) because they have active ingredients that are known to have adverse effects. Thus I conclude that from the point of view of Scientism it is better to prescribe a placebo that may well cause harm to a patient than to give patients homeopathic (have you perfected that sneer yet?) medicines that nobody accuses of having side effects. And if you have any doubts about the sheer scale of adverse effects that orthodox drugs can produce just read this recent article. It is clearly better to give a medicine that can have a bad effect than one that can’t have any effect. That way at least the doctors that prescribe them don’t look stupid. Primum non nocere (‘First do no harm’) said Hippocrates but what did he know? Or for that matter what did any of the Greek philosophers know? They can go and jump in the River of Elitism as far as Scientism and The Dumbed Down Society are concerned. We have the ‘philosophy’ of Naïve Realism to explain everything these days. And we have journalists like Ben Goldacre (medical doctor) and Simon Singh (not a doctor) to jeer at anyone who subscribes to inane concepts such as holism, vitalism and whole person medicine. And if they are not considered sufficiently qualified there is always the greatest exponent of Scientism on the planet (besides the magician, James Randi) Professor Richard Dawkins to call upon to prove that homeopathy is nonsense. After thousands of years of unsuccessful efforts, this man has finally disproved the existence of God so what chance has homeopathy got against him? We, homeopaths lie vanquished in the gutter next to God licking our wounds. What can we possible say except that at least we are in good company?
And never, never forget the main message of this post: Medical doctors retain the inalienable right to prescribe placebos as long as those placebos can be shown unequivocally to have an effect on patients. Whether that effect is positive or negative seems to be besides the point!
Showing posts with label Homeopathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homeopathy. Show all posts
Monday, November 03, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Homeopathy on Trial: The Debate and The Letter
On Monday night, the 20th October 2008, I will attend a debate at University College London at 7.00 pm. The motion is: 'This House believes homeopathy should not be available on the NHS’ The debate is free and open to all and this is how you get there.
Speaking against the motion: Dr Peter Fisher - doctor, specialist physician,chief consultant at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and homeopathic physician to the Royal Family.
Speaking for the motion: Simon Singh - author, journalist and TV producer
But fear not for the intrepid Singh! It is he who has home ground advantage for UCL is the spiritual home (okay really sorry to use that word to describe disciples of Scientism - but you know what I mean) of four of the authors of a famous/notorious letter attacking the provision of homeopathy on the NHS, Professor David Colquhoun, Professor Lewis Wolpert, Professor Michael Baum and Professor Peter Dawson.
I have referred to this letter before in these pages and accused it of trying to thwart the wishes of Britain's GPs. Homeopathy is only available on the NHS if your GP refers you to an NHS homeopathic clinic. But Coquhoun, Wolpert, Baum, Ernst and co. (see below) did not address this letter to GPs; they wrote to Patient Care Trusts (PCTs) essentially appealing to them to prevent GPs in their areas from sending patients to NHS hospitals. Although some would describe such an action as patronising and condescending to GPs, they were quite successful with some PCTs banning GPs from referring patients for homeopathy! GPs are quite at liberty to send patients for all sorts of unproved orthodox interventions of course. Anyone reading these notes knows that huge swathes of conventional medicine are far from being evidence based. I've used a pie from the BMJ's Handbook of Clinical Medicine many times to illustrate this.
Their letter was an open one so I thought it opportune to re-publish it here and annotate it.
As a physician myself, I wholeheartedly concur with this opening statement. We need to have a way of accurately assessing whether a treatment is proven or unproven. May I suggest this immaculately constructed diagram that appears in the British Medical Journal’s Handbook of Clinical Evidence as a guide to making such assessments.
This will enable us to categorize any form of medical intervention in terms of how well it has been proven. I feel confident that learned physicians such as yourselves will agree that assessing any intervention ‘alternative’ or ‘orthodox’ needs just such an objective assessment of its proven efficacy.
Fellow physicians, I do not think it becoming of us to focus on or attack any one form of intervention in isolation as this may invite criticisms of inherent bias. It is incumbent upon us to agree on standards of proven efficacy and then objectively rate each intervention. The BMJ’s pie cited above, could be used until the appearance of a better objective methodology of assessment. May I respectfully suggest that our opinions (necessarily subjective) of what is ‘implausible’ are somewhat less important than objective assessment.
I absolutely agree that adverse effects of any medical intervention are a major concern for us all. Thus surely any form of treatment that is included in the repertoire of NHS doctors should not only be given its rightful place in the pie diagram but also be included in another diagram constructed to show all documented risks and side effects. In this way physicians and patients will be able to make accurate efficacy versus risk assessments on any treatment in any condition. Obviously the same criteria should be used objectively for all forms of interventions otherwise we risk being seen as biased in favour of treatments that we subjectively consider ‘plausible’.
I agree that funds should only be automatically available for treatments based on ‘solid evidence’. I take it that you would agree that only the sector of the BMJ’s pie representing the 13% of orthodox interventions that have been proved to be beneficial, qualify for automatic funding by the NHS. It is vital that funding for anything lying outside this segment be decided by objective assessment on a level playing field and not ‘plausibility’ which is highly subjective. Some may suggest that the medically uneducated general public should have a say about which – if any – of the treatments (both orthodox and alternative that do not have ‘solid evidence’ behind them) should be funded by their taxes. This would be consistent with the current zeitgeist where the people are promised ‘choice’ in their lives. So perhaps we could have a ‘People’s Choice’ segment of the pie representing funding. Or perhaps the power of decision should always remain with physicians who are better qualified to speak about the health and taxes of the people than they are themselves.
May I also respectfully suggest that the term ‘spiritual support’ is unbecoming of gentlemen of your standing in the medico-scientific community, has none of Popper’s falsifiability and therefore should be considered somewhat less than scientific. Therefore it is my humble opinion that it should not be used in discussions of this kind. Even if (in a bad case scenario for medical science), ‘spiritual support’ was shown to be evidence based medicine, surely we physicians are at least as capable of administering it as uneducated ‘alternative’ or ‘complementary’ practitioners?
Gentlemen physicians, I could not agree more that these matters are not trivial. But may I respectfully request more respect for our colleagues on the coalface of primary medical care – our NHS general practitioners. I accept that until we have constructed a new pie showing which treatments not in the crucial 13% segment of the BMJ pie, should be funded for various reasons such as patient demand (however irrational that can be at times) we leave such decisions to our hardworking GPs and not to non-medically qualified people in administration who may not find it easy to make objective assessments about complicated but profound medical issues. In addition our noblest efforts on behalf of the public risk being seen as patronizing and condescending by our tireless GPs who will soon be consulting on weekends.
Primum non nocere.
Your colleague,
Dr Brian Kaplan
Finally for the record, these are the doctors that signed the open letter to Patient Care Trusts (PCTs - which comprise mainly non-medical people) in order to persuaded them to thwart GPs in their areas from referring patients to NHS homeopathic physicians.
Speaking against the motion: Dr Peter Fisher - doctor, specialist physician,chief consultant at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and homeopathic physician to the Royal Family.
Speaking for the motion: Simon Singh - author, journalist and TV producer
But fear not for the intrepid Singh! It is he who has home ground advantage for UCL is the spiritual home (okay really sorry to use that word to describe disciples of Scientism - but you know what I mean) of four of the authors of a famous/notorious letter attacking the provision of homeopathy on the NHS, Professor David Colquhoun, Professor Lewis Wolpert, Professor Michael Baum and Professor Peter Dawson.
I have referred to this letter before in these pages and accused it of trying to thwart the wishes of Britain's GPs. Homeopathy is only available on the NHS if your GP refers you to an NHS homeopathic clinic. But Coquhoun, Wolpert, Baum, Ernst and co. (see below) did not address this letter to GPs; they wrote to Patient Care Trusts (PCTs) essentially appealing to them to prevent GPs in their areas from sending patients to NHS hospitals. Although some would describe such an action as patronising and condescending to GPs, they were quite successful with some PCTs banning GPs from referring patients for homeopathy! GPs are quite at liberty to send patients for all sorts of unproved orthodox interventions of course. Anyone reading these notes knows that huge swathes of conventional medicine are far from being evidence based. I've used a pie from the BMJ's Handbook of Clinical Medicine many times to illustrate this.
Their letter was an open one so I thought it opportune to re-publish it here and annotate it.
We are a group of physicians and scientists who are concerned about ways in which unproven or disproved treatments are being encouraged for general use in the NHS. We would ask you to review practices in your own trust, and to join us in representing our concerns to the Department of Health because we want patients to benefit from the best treatments available.
As a physician myself, I wholeheartedly concur with this opening statement. We need to have a way of accurately assessing whether a treatment is proven or unproven. May I suggest this immaculately constructed diagram that appears in the British Medical Journal’s Handbook of Clinical Evidence as a guide to making such assessments.
This will enable us to categorize any form of medical intervention in terms of how well it has been proven. I feel confident that learned physicians such as yourselves will agree that assessing any intervention ‘alternative’ or ‘orthodox’ needs just such an objective assessment of its proven efficacy.
There are two particular developments to which we would like to draw your attention. First, there is now overt promotion of homeopathy in parts of the NHS (including the NHS Direct website). It is an implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness. Despite this, a recently-published patient guide, promoting use of homeopathy without making the lack of proven efficacy clear to patients, is being made available through government funding. Further suggestions about benefits of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma have been made in the ‘Smallwood Report’ and in another publication by the Department of Health designed to give primary care groups “a basic source of reference on complementary and alternative therapies.” A Cochrane review of all relevant studies, however, failed to confirm any benefits for asthma treatment.
Fellow physicians, I do not think it becoming of us to focus on or attack any one form of intervention in isolation as this may invite criticisms of inherent bias. It is incumbent upon us to agree on standards of proven efficacy and then objectively rate each intervention. The BMJ’s pie cited above, could be used until the appearance of a better objective methodology of assessment. May I respectfully suggest that our opinions (necessarily subjective) of what is ‘implausible’ are somewhat less important than objective assessment.
Secondly, as you may know, there has been a concerted campaign to promote complementary and alternative medicine as a component of healthcare provision. Treatments covered by this definition include some which have not been tested as pharmaceutical products, but which are known to cause adverse effects, and others that have no demonstrable benefits. While medical practice must remain open to new discoveries for which there is convincing evidence, including any branded as ‘alternative’, it would be highly irresponsible to embrace any medicine as though it were a matter of principle.
I absolutely agree that adverse effects of any medical intervention are a major concern for us all. Thus surely any form of treatment that is included in the repertoire of NHS doctors should not only be given its rightful place in the pie diagram but also be included in another diagram constructed to show all documented risks and side effects. In this way physicians and patients will be able to make accurate efficacy versus risk assessments on any treatment in any condition. Obviously the same criteria should be used objectively for all forms of interventions otherwise we risk being seen as biased in favour of treatments that we subjectively consider ‘plausible’.
At a time when the NHS is under intense pressure, patients, the public and the NHS are best served by using the available funds for treatments that are based on solid evidence. Furthermore, as someone in a position of accountability for resource distribution, you will be familiar with just how publicly emotive the decisions concerning which therapies to provide under the NHS can be; our ability to explain and justify to patients the selection of treatments, and to account for expenditure on them more widely, is compromised if we abandon our reference to evidence. We are sensitive to the needs of patients for complementary care to enhance well-being and for spiritual support to deal with the fear of death at a time of critical illness, all of which can be supported through services already available within the NHS without resorting to false claims.
I agree that funds should only be automatically available for treatments based on ‘solid evidence’. I take it that you would agree that only the sector of the BMJ’s pie representing the 13% of orthodox interventions that have been proved to be beneficial, qualify for automatic funding by the NHS. It is vital that funding for anything lying outside this segment be decided by objective assessment on a level playing field and not ‘plausibility’ which is highly subjective. Some may suggest that the medically uneducated general public should have a say about which – if any – of the treatments (both orthodox and alternative that do not have ‘solid evidence’ behind them) should be funded by their taxes. This would be consistent with the current zeitgeist where the people are promised ‘choice’ in their lives. So perhaps we could have a ‘People’s Choice’ segment of the pie representing funding. Or perhaps the power of decision should always remain with physicians who are better qualified to speak about the health and taxes of the people than they are themselves.
May I also respectfully suggest that the term ‘spiritual support’ is unbecoming of gentlemen of your standing in the medico-scientific community, has none of Popper’s falsifiability and therefore should be considered somewhat less than scientific. Therefore it is my humble opinion that it should not be used in discussions of this kind. Even if (in a bad case scenario for medical science), ‘spiritual support’ was shown to be evidence based medicine, surely we physicians are at least as capable of administering it as uneducated ‘alternative’ or ‘complementary’ practitioners?
These are not trivial matters. We urge you to take an early opportunity to review practice in your own trust with a view to ensuring that patients do not receive misleading information about the effectiveness of alternative medicines. We would also ask you to write to the Department of Health requesting evidence-based information for trusts and for patients with respect to alternative medicine.
Gentlemen physicians, I could not agree more that these matters are not trivial. But may I respectfully request more respect for our colleagues on the coalface of primary medical care – our NHS general practitioners. I accept that until we have constructed a new pie showing which treatments not in the crucial 13% segment of the BMJ pie, should be funded for various reasons such as patient demand (however irrational that can be at times) we leave such decisions to our hardworking GPs and not to non-medically qualified people in administration who may not find it easy to make objective assessments about complicated but profound medical issues. In addition our noblest efforts on behalf of the public risk being seen as patronizing and condescending by our tireless GPs who will soon be consulting on weekends.
Primum non nocere.
Your colleague,
Dr Brian Kaplan
Finally for the record, these are the doctors that signed the open letter to Patient Care Trusts (PCTs - which comprise mainly non-medical people) in order to persuaded them to thwart GPs in their areas from referring patients to NHS homeopathic physicians.
Yours sincerely
* Professor Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery, University College London
* Professor Frances Ashcroft FRS, University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford
* Professor Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Queen Mary, London
* Professor Gustav Born FRS, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, Kings College London
* Professor Sir James Black FRS, Kings College London
* Professor David Colquhoun FRS, University College London
* Professor Peter Dawson. Clinical Director of Imaging, University College London
* Professor Edzard Ernst, Peninsula Medical School, Exeter
* Professor John Garrow, Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition, London
* Professor Sir Keith Peters FRS, President, The Academy of Medical Sciences
* Mr Leslie Rose, Consultant Clinical Scientist
* Professor Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester
* Professor Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS. University College London
Monday, March 03, 2008
Placebos, self-induced healing, Homeopathy and Anti-depressants
Placebos, self-induced healing, Homeopathy and Anti-depressants
Declaration of Interest: I am a medical doctor who has used homeopathic medicine for over 25 years and believe that homeopathy has a clinical effect independent of the placebo effect.
As the world of psychiatric medicine squirms uncomfortably with the publication of a significant meta-analysis showing that anti-depressants are unlikely to work better than placebo, it is perhaps time to consider the profound implications of this study. We are not simply talking about a single drug that has been found not to work, we are talking about an industry that gratefully accepts an estimated £380 million pounds of tax payers’ money through the NHS per year in the UK alone. This is an amount that makes the highly contraversial cost of NHS homeopathy look exceedingly trivial.
£380 million a year for drugs that ‘don’t work’? Well that is not quite true. The study did not show that the anti-depressants don’t help the people that take them; it showed that that people taking anti-depressants did not do any better than people who thought they were taking drugs for depression and in this there is a world of difference. Stated simply: Patients taking anti-depressants and patients taking dummy tablets both felt better.
To me it is clear that both sets of patients got better for one simple reason. They both thought that the drugs would to them good. Why did they think this? Because in the consultation with the doctor or psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs they were convinced that the pills would help them. This was made possible by the fact that the doctors prescribing the anti-depressants were convinced that they would help their patients and this conviction was passed on to the patients resulting in the so-called ‘placebo effect’. I don’t like the term ‘placebo effect’ which feels contemptuous and patronising to patients. It is fairer to say that these patients healed themselves because they had confidence in their medication. I don’t believe that they were conned at all. Their doctors believed the drugs would work and certainly were not ‘conning’ anyone. If there is any con here it can only be that the doctors were conned somewhere along the line – whether this be by over-enthusiastic advertising by Big Pharma, or that Big Pharma failed to publish unfavourable data. The drugs and placebo would not have had such a good clinical effect if doctors knew they were giving physiologically ineffective placebos to their patients. Inauthentic doctoring has a bad smell easily detected by patients and tends to be anti-therapeutic. Thus the big question is why did so many depressed patients feel better on placebo or ineffective medications?
The answer is surely in the body-mind connection which holistic practitioners have been ‘going on’ about for decades, if not centuries. There is art in medicine and this art is in the consultation. The findings of this study show just how clinically powerful the consultation can be – even in the long term.
In the light of this, let us revisit the controversy surrounding patients receiving homeopathic medicine on the NHS. As I have stated the amount of money this costs the tax payer is trivial compared to the costs of the anti-depressants apparently now shown to be no better than placebo but such financial considerations are not my main point. Homeopathic medicine has been attacked by a group of doctors who say that it should not be funded by the NHS because although it clearly helps patients, it performs no better than placebo. I disagree with this as stated clearly in my declaration of interest at the start of this essay. However let me pretend for a moment that these expert doctors are correct and that homeopathic doctors are only getting results because of their bedside manner and the belief of both them and their patients that homeopathy has a clinical effect. The idea that homeopathy is a ‘con’ is ridiculous if you at least accept that homeopathic doctors believe that their medicines have a clinical effect – a necessary condition to provide an atmosphere of authenticity in the consulting room which is essential for getting results through ‘suggestion’.
If we compare homeopathy to these anti-depressants (again as viewed by those who believe that homeopathy only works through suggestion) we see two groups of patients both getting better due to the ‘placebo effect’ or self-induced healing. However the homeopathic patients apparently received placebo while the other group definitely receive drugs that act on the chemistry of the brain. Yet it is only the prescribers of the non-chemical so-called placebos who are being told that they should not be allowed to treat patients on the NHS. This is clearly a travesty.
As stated above, I believe that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect but I say this to those who ridicule it because they believe it is ‘no better than placebo’: Homeopathy is not a ‘con’ because the thousands of medically qualified doctors practising it do believe that it is clinically effective and would not get results or bother to spend many years studying it if they did not believe in its clinically efficacity. I believe my patients get better because homeopathic medication works. To those who think that is only because I believe this that my patients get better I would say the following: How do you suggest that doctors get their patients better by getting them to believe that their health will improve? Prof. Ernst, one of homeopathy’s most vociferous detractors has stated:
If certain practitioners such as homeopaths are good at maximising placebo effects, why not learn how to do it? Why not maximise placebo effects when prescribing genuinely effective treatments? If we start systematically investigating how to achieve this, we are likely to rediscover the value of good bedside manners, good therapeutic relationships and of seeing patients as whole individuals.Then patients might no longer feel the need to consult homeopaths in the first place.
I find this statement incredible and naive. When will this ‘systematic investigation’ begin? And much more importantly – why try to prevent patients getting this sort of healing before doctors are educated in some sort of new paradigm of medicine at which he vaguely hints. I find it deeply disturbing that Ernst and his colleagues would choose to attack homeopathy instead of working very hard indeed on this ‘systematic investigation’ in search of what they clearly believe is the healing power of the homeopathic consultation alone and then finding a way of teaching doctors to utilise it. Until then would it not be more logical to avoid attacking homeopathic doctors and campaigning against NHS homeopathy? When a new paradigm of medicine emerges and patients are helped to heal themselves by some new system of applying mind-body medicine, that would be a logical time for them (if not me) to revisit the necessity of homeopathy. Attacks on homeopathic medicine before that time can be considered hypocritical, disingenuous and clearly not in the interest of any patients whatsoever.
Declaration of Interest: I am a medical doctor who has used homeopathic medicine for over 25 years and believe that homeopathy has a clinical effect independent of the placebo effect.
As the world of psychiatric medicine squirms uncomfortably with the publication of a significant meta-analysis showing that anti-depressants are unlikely to work better than placebo, it is perhaps time to consider the profound implications of this study. We are not simply talking about a single drug that has been found not to work, we are talking about an industry that gratefully accepts an estimated £380 million pounds of tax payers’ money through the NHS per year in the UK alone. This is an amount that makes the highly contraversial cost of NHS homeopathy look exceedingly trivial.
£380 million a year for drugs that ‘don’t work’? Well that is not quite true. The study did not show that the anti-depressants don’t help the people that take them; it showed that that people taking anti-depressants did not do any better than people who thought they were taking drugs for depression and in this there is a world of difference. Stated simply: Patients taking anti-depressants and patients taking dummy tablets both felt better.
To me it is clear that both sets of patients got better for one simple reason. They both thought that the drugs would to them good. Why did they think this? Because in the consultation with the doctor or psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs they were convinced that the pills would help them. This was made possible by the fact that the doctors prescribing the anti-depressants were convinced that they would help their patients and this conviction was passed on to the patients resulting in the so-called ‘placebo effect’. I don’t like the term ‘placebo effect’ which feels contemptuous and patronising to patients. It is fairer to say that these patients healed themselves because they had confidence in their medication. I don’t believe that they were conned at all. Their doctors believed the drugs would work and certainly were not ‘conning’ anyone. If there is any con here it can only be that the doctors were conned somewhere along the line – whether this be by over-enthusiastic advertising by Big Pharma, or that Big Pharma failed to publish unfavourable data. The drugs and placebo would not have had such a good clinical effect if doctors knew they were giving physiologically ineffective placebos to their patients. Inauthentic doctoring has a bad smell easily detected by patients and tends to be anti-therapeutic. Thus the big question is why did so many depressed patients feel better on placebo or ineffective medications?
The answer is surely in the body-mind connection which holistic practitioners have been ‘going on’ about for decades, if not centuries. There is art in medicine and this art is in the consultation. The findings of this study show just how clinically powerful the consultation can be – even in the long term.
In the light of this, let us revisit the controversy surrounding patients receiving homeopathic medicine on the NHS. As I have stated the amount of money this costs the tax payer is trivial compared to the costs of the anti-depressants apparently now shown to be no better than placebo but such financial considerations are not my main point. Homeopathic medicine has been attacked by a group of doctors who say that it should not be funded by the NHS because although it clearly helps patients, it performs no better than placebo. I disagree with this as stated clearly in my declaration of interest at the start of this essay. However let me pretend for a moment that these expert doctors are correct and that homeopathic doctors are only getting results because of their bedside manner and the belief of both them and their patients that homeopathy has a clinical effect. The idea that homeopathy is a ‘con’ is ridiculous if you at least accept that homeopathic doctors believe that their medicines have a clinical effect – a necessary condition to provide an atmosphere of authenticity in the consulting room which is essential for getting results through ‘suggestion’.
If we compare homeopathy to these anti-depressants (again as viewed by those who believe that homeopathy only works through suggestion) we see two groups of patients both getting better due to the ‘placebo effect’ or self-induced healing. However the homeopathic patients apparently received placebo while the other group definitely receive drugs that act on the chemistry of the brain. Yet it is only the prescribers of the non-chemical so-called placebos who are being told that they should not be allowed to treat patients on the NHS. This is clearly a travesty.
As stated above, I believe that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect but I say this to those who ridicule it because they believe it is ‘no better than placebo’: Homeopathy is not a ‘con’ because the thousands of medically qualified doctors practising it do believe that it is clinically effective and would not get results or bother to spend many years studying it if they did not believe in its clinically efficacity. I believe my patients get better because homeopathic medication works. To those who think that is only because I believe this that my patients get better I would say the following: How do you suggest that doctors get their patients better by getting them to believe that their health will improve? Prof. Ernst, one of homeopathy’s most vociferous detractors has stated:
If certain practitioners such as homeopaths are good at maximising placebo effects, why not learn how to do it? Why not maximise placebo effects when prescribing genuinely effective treatments? If we start systematically investigating how to achieve this, we are likely to rediscover the value of good bedside manners, good therapeutic relationships and of seeing patients as whole individuals.Then patients might no longer feel the need to consult homeopaths in the first place.
I find this statement incredible and naive. When will this ‘systematic investigation’ begin? And much more importantly – why try to prevent patients getting this sort of healing before doctors are educated in some sort of new paradigm of medicine at which he vaguely hints. I find it deeply disturbing that Ernst and his colleagues would choose to attack homeopathy instead of working very hard indeed on this ‘systematic investigation’ in search of what they clearly believe is the healing power of the homeopathic consultation alone and then finding a way of teaching doctors to utilise it. Until then would it not be more logical to avoid attacking homeopathic doctors and campaigning against NHS homeopathy? When a new paradigm of medicine emerges and patients are helped to heal themselves by some new system of applying mind-body medicine, that would be a logical time for them (if not me) to revisit the necessity of homeopathy. Attacks on homeopathic medicine before that time can be considered hypocritical, disingenuous and clearly not in the interest of any patients whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
