|
U-Know! Forum » Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Feb 03, 2010, 12:55
Feb 03, 2010, 12:55
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Do licensed doctors prescribe it, or is it merely available to people as a choice? It's mostly done as people's choice, sold privately. The NHS does spend £4million a year on homeopathy, though. handofdave wrote: I don't see a problem with marketing the stuff as long as there is full disclosure that clinical trials disprove the efficacy of the stuff. I think that's precisely the point being made! People are sold tablets in a pharmacy that say on the front they treat specific medical conditions, even though there is no evidence they work. If people want to buy their homoeopathic pills or their rosaries, fine. But a medical pharmacy should be more scientific, it should surely only sell stuff that works, and not sell stuff that claims to work when the evidence shows it doesn't.
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Feb 03, 2010, 13:46
Feb 03, 2010, 13:22
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: That said, if Boots withdraw homeopathy, or at least put it outside of the medicines section where it belongs, I dare say some people would want to do protests against other places. Have you been in Boots store recently? The Homeopathy, Aromatherapy et al stuff (displayed together) IS shelved away from other medicines! Got its own little section, near hot water bottles and the like. That stuff doesn't even get close to the constipation syrup and nit combs, which are usually next to be positioned near the pharmacy counter. That website says Homeopathy stuff is placed near proper medicines. That is a lie, or maybe they just guessed. x
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 03, 2010, 13:30
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: I don't misunderstand the placebo effect. Sorry, i didn't mean to cast aspersions. I just took your comment that it was beyond placebo because it had 'real, physical differences' as an implication that placebo does not. Squid Tempest wrote: It might be possible for that to be attributable to a placebo, but the odds against it would be stacked high. Placebo includes a range of reactions. That people can be diagnosed with terminal cancer and conquer it with prayer to Allah doesn't necessarily prove the god of Islam is working. Squid Tempest wrote: And don't place so much faith in "extensive trials". These have a habit of only "proving" what the person running the trial wants to prove. Which is why we have to look at all the trials. And in randomised, controlled and double-blind trials, homeopathy's consisitently come up as no better than placebo. Squid Tempest wrote: I intend to retain an open mind until I've seen some pretty conclusive proof for myself one way or the other. Proving a negative is tough, though. A lot of seeds might not germinate, it doesn't necessarily mean the whole packet is sterile - the 50th one you plant could sprout. It depends on how many non-results you need before you think 'this isn't going to work' A study in the Lancet took 110 homeopathic studies from the Cochrane Library, and found there was no evidence of it working. Squid Tempest wrote: That friend was very convincing about it though - it turned her health around, in an obvious and quantifiable fashion. Very difficult evidence for me to deny. I'm really pleased for your friend, and for you and everyone around her, that she's better. We cannot deny she got better; we cannot be sure from a single result that the homeopathic element was responsible. I'm willing to bet some people in her state can be cured by asking the Blessed Virgin. What we need to do is get a number of people in the state and subject them to double-blind trials, or at least compile the results of a large number of people who used the same treatment. Squid Tempest wrote: If it was purely a placebo, why didn't conventional medicine provide a placebo effect? For my friend it was the conventional medicine that had no effect, and for whom homeopathic remedies actually worked. Sorry to say it again, but that doesn't defy placebo. As Ben Goldacre explains: "The placebo response is about far more than the pills – it is about the cultural meaning of a treatment, our expectation, and more. So we know that four sugar pills a day will clear up ulcers quicker than two sugar pills, we know that a saltwater injection is a more effective treatment for pain than a sugar pill, we know that green sugar pills are more effective for anxiety than red, and we know that brand packaging on painkillers increases pain relief."
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Feb 03, 2010, 16:31
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: If it was purely a placebo, why didn't conventional medicine provide a placebo effect? For my friend it was the conventional medicine that had no effect, and for whom homeopathic remedies actually worked. Sorry to say it again, but that doesn't defy placebo. As Ben Goldacre explains: "The placebo response is about far more than the pills – it is about the cultural meaning of a treatment, our expectation, and more. So we know that four sugar pills a day will clear up ulcers quicker than two sugar pills, we know that a saltwater injection is a more effective treatment for pain than a sugar pill, we know that green sugar pills are more effective for anxiety than red, and we know that brand packaging on painkillers increases pain relief." Yeah, I understand that. What I meant was, given that she trusted conventional medicine, and her doctor, why didn't that have a placebo effect?
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Feb 03, 2010, 20:29
|
||
|
"As I Said to Handofdave, disapproving of pharmacists selling ineffectual pills does not imply blanket approval of prescribed medicines or the pharmaceutical industry. There are certainly loads of dangerous prescribed medicines around, lots of fake needs generated by Big Pharma. But that's a completely separate issue." ...yeah and one WORTH getting your knickers in a twist about. 8)
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Feb 03, 2010, 21:37
|
||
|
I need to lie down after reading all of this thread faaaaaaaaackin' 'ell ;-/
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited Feb 03, 2010, 22:25
Feb 03, 2010, 22:07
|
||
|
"...lots of fake needs generated by Big Pharma" Could you clarify using the word 'fake'? Are you implying that there are cases with the big pharma companies where FDA and MHRA approved medicines and production processes may not have actually gone through any clinical trials, regulatory or validation? If so, be interested in examples. Or do you mean that pharma manufacturers influence the medical industry beyond simply supplying on demand? 8)
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited Feb 03, 2010, 22:30
Feb 03, 2010, 22:29
|
||
|
Your new avatar looks like you've taken too many 'uncomplementary' medicines mon brave. 8)
|
|||
|
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Feb 03, 2010, 22:50
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: Your new avatar looks like you've taken too many 'uncomplementary' medicines mon brave. 8) Heh! Heh! ...and they were all legal! ;-o
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Feb 04, 2010, 04:55
|
||
|
I think where the debate is turning is on whether a pharmacy should be able to market alternatives under the same roof as pharmacology products that are sanctioned by the medical establishment. Again, if the shelves and packaging carry disclaimers, all legal challenges are null. People spend their money on all sorts of frivolous junk... homeopathic remedies may not work for everyone but at least the harm is contained in the form of the consumer wasting a few dollars on an ineffective, but harmless bottle of water. I think that's less a concern than say, marketing 'buzz' products that contain ephedrine and so forth that kids get cranked up on... red bull, that sort of crap... homeopathic believers are going to be more likely to be seeking relaxation and be listening to their body more. Is it snake oil? Paradoxically, it seems that some people respond positively to snake oil, at least in terms of preventative medicine... the mechanism being a physiological state of belief that healing is taking place, which can be as powerful, and even more effective combined with clinically proven medicines. I think we agree, really, on the main point here, I just might be granting Boots a bit more leeway, and the consumer a bit more freedom to get their bottles of water from a licensed source, if their faith remains unbroken by the disclaimers. If there ARE no disclaimers in place, ya got a case... that would pose a clear issue.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
