[slackline]

Trust in science is best gained by open discourse, and there is more than a touch of condescension to this kind of debate that is not productive for either scientists or the general public.

Amen to that. Especially when you talk about banning something that you're simultaneously stating is harmless.

There's not really been much talk of banning.  A search of this thread (which the forum search allows since its specific to the subset of the forum you're viewing) shows...

Word	Count
ban	1
banned	5
banning	3

What there has been talk of (from myself and Sloper at least) is the need for sound evidence to support the claims that those producing and selling these products make as to their efficacy.

I'm not in favour of banning anything (as a general stance) but I am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments' and the support that they receive from the state.

[petejh]

NB - The author of the above quote you pasted made a rather ungracious typo as I suspect they are referring to Carl Sagan and not "Carl Ho Chi MinSaigon"

I think he's one of those physics tribute acts.

[Johnny Brown]

People pay a lot of money for it, and that to me is a harm

People use it instead of going to a proper doctor, that is a harm..

Folk pay a lot more for things that are far more harmful, to others and themselves. I'm not convinced there are large numbers using this exclusively and before seeking conventional cures. I think the vast majority have tried conventional cures and had them fail/ been fobbed off.  If they are predisposed to this kind of thing they'll only seek out something similar where the resultant cure is far more likely to actually have an active ingredient which may be either potentially harmful or difficult/ expensive to obtain. As I've said above, adding a bit of labour to water is a harmless way of creating a potentially stronger placebo. (ah... maybe thats why Sloper hates it)

Belief in it degrades our collective intellectual standards, that is a harm.

No more than religion. I wouldn't like to live in anywhere in the world where religion is prevented or controlled, nor do I want our country taking a step in that direction. The 'harm' espoused on the 10:23 site is equally weak supposition. Scientifis condescension expresses it perfectly - 'if you can't understand this doesn't work we'll damn well stop you trying it'.

Compare homeopathy with creationism, there's very little / no evidence for creationism / ID and the same arguments that you advance are used by the creationists to argue for teaching it as science.

I've no beef with the science of homeopathy being taught, what better way to understand how ludicrous it is?

There's not really been much talk of banning. 

I am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments'

Call it shorthand. The OP is trying to prevent Boots from selling it, same thing.

[slackline]

There's not really been much talk of banning. 

I am in favour of requiring the claims made to be evidenced and until that time preventing the sale of the 'treatments'

Call it shorthand. The OP is trying to prevent Boots from selling it, same thing.

Not sure if you've read it but their Open Letter explains why it shouldn't be sold until they've been proven to work and is quite reasonable (IMO), ties in with the points being made about understanding the science (which not everyone is going to be inclined to do)...

An Open Letter to Alliance Boots

The Boots brand is synonymous with health care in the United Kingdom. Your website speaks proudly about your role as a health care provider and your commitment to deliver exceptional patient care. For many people, you are their first resource for medical advice; and their chosen dispensary for prescription and non-prescription medicines. The British public trusts Boots.

However, in evidence given recently to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, you admitted that you do not believe homeopathy to be efficacious. Despite this, homeopathic products are offered for sale in Boots pharmacies – many of them bearing the trusted Boots brand.

Not only is this two-hundred-year-old pseudo-therapy implausible, it is scientifically absurd. The purported mechanisms of action fly in the face of our understanding of chemistry, physics, pharmacology and physiology. As you are aware, the best and most rigorous scientific research concludes that homeopathy offers no therapeutic effect beyond placebo, but you continue to sell these products regardless because "customers believe they work". Is this the standard you set for yourselves?

The majority of people do not have the time or inclination to check whether the scientific literature supports the claims of efficacy made by products such as homeopathy. We trust brands such as Boots to check the facts for us, to provide sound medical advice that is in our interest and supply only those products with a demonstrable medical benefit.

We don't expect to find products on the shelf at our local pharmacy which do not work.

Not only are these products ineffective, they can also be dangerous. Patients may delay seeking proper medical assistance because they believe homeopathy can treat their condition. Until recently, the Boots website even went so far as to tell patients that "after taking a homeopathic medicine your symptoms may become slightly worse," and that this is "a sign that the body's natural energies have started to counteract the illness". Advice such as this directly encourages patients to wait before seeking real medical attention, even when their condition deteriorates.

We call upon Boots to withdraw all homeopathic products from your shelves. You should not be involved in the sale of ineffective products, because your customers trust you to do what is right for their health. Surely you agree that your commitment to excellent patient care is better served by supplying only those products whose claims can be substantiated by rigorous scientific research? Or do you really believe that Boots should be in the business of selling placebos to the sick and the injured?

The support lent by Boots to this quack therapy contributes directly to its acceptance as a valid medical treatment by the British public, acceptance it does not warrant and support it does not deserve. Please do the right thing, and remove this bogus therapy from your shelves.

Yours sincerely,

[Sloper]

JB there is no science in hompeopathy.

If people want to discuss placebo, hop it works within social constructs, ie a placebo may work in the west but not in china and vice versa and how belief structures interact with reality and evidence then fine.  This is called psychology and theology amongst other things.

I think Sl puts it well with the open letter to boots.

When you look at the correlation between people who believe in homeopathy and don't get their kids vaccinated I would be suprised if the correlation wasn't strong; so their beliefs are putting their kids at risk and via lowering he herd immunity putting everyone else at risk.

I am feeling a bit better now, thanks for all that guidebook wafting.

[Johnny Brown]

Not sure if you've read it

Of course I've read it. Do you think I'd get this far on this thread without investigating the OP?

I think the campaign is misguided. What a shock, a shop motivated by profit, stocking things that sell. There is a huge continuum of medicines from the proven to the unproven. Singling out Homeopathy is not going to make it or other unproven treatments go away.

JB there is no science in hompeopathy.

Jesus man that was my fucking point.

[Sloper]

sorry, this flu is damaging my capacity to interpet finer nuances.

[hairich]

slopes get well soon.as for the rest of you looking at the length and time of your posts are you all unemployed scientists

[slackline]

Not sure if you've read it

Of course I've read it. Do you think I'd get this far on this thread without investigating the OP?

Wasn't even attempting to patronise you there JB.

I think the campaign is misguided. What a shock, a shop motivated by profit, stocking things that sell. There is a huge continuum of medicines from the proven to the unproven. Singling out Homeopathy is not going to make it or other unproven treatments go away.

Yes there, is, but you have to start somewhere, you're alternative unproven medicine would be climbers handcream?

In terms of scale, climbers are a relatively small proportion of the population and unless your GCW having dry hands isn't a serious medical condition. 

I'd hazard a guess that there are more people who believe homoeopathic remedies work and follow the advice on the Boots site and delay seeing trained medical doctors.  At the very least this "advice" should be retracted as its just plain wrong.

This makes for interesting reading.  Its the transcript from House of Commons / Boots  that is mentioned in the 1023 open letter, Mr Wilson is rather good at not answering direct questions.  Q38 and Q39 show that the Boots representative skirts around the issue of profiting from selling nothingness and seems to have no qualms about doing so, nice ethics there!  Q47 and Q48 (and their responses) show that the licensing that homoeopathic tablets do have often were given without any evidence!

Yet to find the one with the MHRA though I'm sure that will make for even more interesting reading.

as for the rest of you looking at the length and time of your posts are you all unemployed scientists

Its been "writing week" this week 

[Sloper]

q 159 was particularly interesting

[nik at work]

So you want to ban people from selling water because idiots will buy it despite a complete lack of science to back up it's claims of positive effect?

So should we then ban alcohol and tobacco (cigars), after all idiots still buy them despite a huge body of SCIENCE to back up there negative effects?

Any thoughts Sloper my wine quaffing, cigar chuffing chum?

Of course I am comparing apples and oranges but just making the point that there are perhaps other (bigger?) fish to fry....

Anyway carry on.

[GCW]

In terms of scale, climbers are a relatively small proportion of the population and unless your GCW having dry hands isn't a serious medical condition. 

Uh?

So should we then ban alcohol and tobacco (cigars), after all idiots still buy them despite a huge body of SCIENCE to back up there negative effects?

What arguments are there for not banning tobacco?  Other than it's people's right to do what they want, and tobacco companies need to pay their dividends to their shareholders?

[nik at work]

I think that's exactly my point, and you could equally say what are the arguments for not banning drinking.

They could do a mass overdose of Special Brew outside Booze Busters, only that actually would cause them some harm...

[Sloper]

Let me finish my whisky with out of date tamilflu chaser and get back to you.

The argument for not banning cigars is that smoking them allows me to upset veggie tree hugging wankers, particularly when I explain that I won't smoke Cuban cigars because they're manufactured by communists.

[Houdini]

I'm astonished you would limit your smoking pleasure w/ such arbitrary pish.


I've enjoyed many a cigar, some of them Cuban - and know them to be fine (in their own minging way)

(Maybe you should start One For The Smokers?)

[slackline]

So should we then ban alcohol and tobacco (cigars), after all idiots still buy them despite a huge body of SCIENCE to back up there negative effects?

Alcohol and tobacco are not marketed with claims that they can cure medical conditions (as is the case with homeopathic concoctions) , in fact they include warnings about the adverse effects they can have.

Also both alcohol and tobacco have active ingredients in them, again unlike homeopathic concoctions.


If homeopaths want to sell water and people want to buy it then let them, but don't do so under the guise of medicinal products that will cure ailments and medical conditions (various points throughout the thread explaining why this is bad).

Note also that the Commons report linked above indicates that Boots seem keen for the UK to follow in France's footsteps where 1/4 of all prescriptions are for homeopathic tinctures (Q52 and the response from Ben Goldacre is particularly relevant as to why this is a bad thing).

[Stu Littlefair]

Wow, this thread got a bit personal at times didn't it?

All this talk of banning stuff is a bit extreme, but I have some sympathy with people who think it's wrong that homeopathic remedies are sold as medicines despite evidence against them having an effect. To me it's a simple case of mis-selling; like telling me my car will do a thousand miles to the gallon.

I don't see any reason to ban or restrict sales, but I also don't see why the trade description act couldn't be beefed up concerning the labelling on homeopathic 'remedies'.

[slackline]

Transcript of Minister of Health being interviewed by the House of Commons committee into Homeopathy (not read it yet).

[dave]

To me it's a simple case of mis-selling; like telling me my car will do a thousand miles to the gallon.

Exactly right. On the other hand homeopaths would probably do a cracking range of driving ales.

[SA Chris]

I don't see any reason to ban or restrict sales, but I also don't see why the trade description act couldn't be beefed up concerning the labelling on homeopathic 'remedies'.

Thus neutralising any placebo effect. A label saying "warning this will not help you in the slightest" isn't going to help your state of mind much.

maybe do the same with hundreds of vitamins that get flogged to all and sundry "warning the net result of taking this regularly will be having slighlty more expensive urine".

[slackline]

maybe do the same with hundreds of vitamins that get flogged to all and sundry "warning the net result of taking this regularly will be having slighlty more expensive urine".

 

[Stu Littlefair]

I don't see any reason to ban or restrict sales, but I also don't see why the trade description act couldn't be beefed up concerning the labelling on homeopathic 'remedies'.

Thus neutralising any placebo effect. A label saying "warning this will not help you in the slightest" isn't going to help your state of mind much.

response a) that may be, but you have to balance the potential gains and losses. Unlike yourself and JB, I fear there are consequences to silently accepting a treatment which has been repeatedly shown to be no better than placebo. Perhaps that's not so clear; my position is that if you don't challenge the "it worked for me" arguments then you weaken society's respect for properly collected evidence. This has consequences, across the board. Government schemes which continue at vast expense, after studies show they had no effect. People denying the Earth is warming despite reams of data showing otherwise. Children not being vaccinated and the resurgence of various illnesses. There's a societal cost to "being on the fence" on this issue, which must be balanced against the beneficial effects of allowing people to buy placebos for many ailments, including some that are very poorly covered by conventional medicine. I'm not sure where that balance should lie, but I think it's ill considered to think an acceptance of homeopathy is harmless

response b) it might not affect the placebo effect quite as much as you think. This is a small study, with no control, so approach with caution. Nevertheless, it shows that it's at least possible that the placebo effect still works if the patient knows they are taking a placebo. We are masters of self-delusion, you and I.

[Johnny Brown]

I've no beef with the labelling being beefed up. I think this stuff appeals most to those who are suspicious of science anyway.

I'm not sure what to make of the french situation, where 1 in 4 prescriptions are for a homeopathic remedy. On the face of it it could be worryingly backward, or impressively progressive. Without chatting to a french doctor its hard to know. To avoid writing off the entire french medical profession I'm assuming the latter - enlightened use of placebo as regular treatment.

[Stu Littlefair]

Yeah - I wonder what the french health service pays for the homeopathic stuff they prescribe? Can't cost more than Evian...

[SA Chris]

Good Devil's Avocado skills there Stu.