NHS rethinking homeopathy

[Asolepius]

Here is what I said to the NHS Direct site:

Please explain why the section on homeopathy does not state that: 1. Randomised controlled trials using individualised treatments have not shown any efficacy. 2. The latest meta-analyses of high quality studies (eg Shang et al, The Lancet, August 2005) also show no effects distinguishable from placebo. 3. The claimed mechanism of action has been repeatedly tested under controlled conditions and has not been demonstrated. This section of NHS Direct is misleading and dangerous, encouraging patients to choose unproven and fraudulent practices instead of therapies for which evidence exists. Please note that I am a freelance medical writer and I intend to publish your reply.

This is their reply, just received:

Regarding your recent comments to NHS Direct New Media about our encyclopaedia entry on homeopathy. Your comments were passed to our Clinical Director and he has asked me to inform you that the encyclopaedia entry about homeopathy has now been removed from the website. The topic is currently being reviewed, during which process your comments will be taken into consideration and the updated version will go back onto the website as soon as possible.

Now folks, just go through NHS Direct and do the same thing for any other woo you come across. Happy hunting!

 

[Ririon]

Congratulations! (And now I know what NHS is, too...)

 

[CFLarsen]

Good work!

 

[a_unique_person]

Give yourself a pat on the back.

 

[ysabella]

Hooray! Good work!!

 

[Mojo]

Excellent!

 

[Zep]

Great! Now have a shot at the equivalent body in Karachi...

 

[Rolfe]

I do think this is important. The reason the NHS has the attitude it does, is because of constant lobbying by homoeopathy enthusiasts. So they think there's a great demand out there, and have this weird idea they ought to cater for it. (Try catering for the demand for hip replacements, I say.)If they get a lot of feedback from rational people who object to this promotion of quackery, and specifically to the waste of scarce NHS resources which could be better spent on said hip replacements, then they're bound to take notice.Rolfe.

 

[moopet]

I emailed a similar query to Boots The Chemist a couple of weeks ago, but apparently they're right and I'm wrong. It doesn't always work :/

 

[Blue Bubble]

Now's a good time to generate opposition to the whole homeopathy within the NHS issue. Headlines on this morning's Times (I think it was the Times):

"Hospitals to close wards because of NHS cash crisis".

Heck, how much would be saved if instead they'd close these 5 frigging homeopathy hospitals (or at least rescind the decision to refurbish the one in London) ?

 

[Dragon]

Never one to see a bandwagon go past without jumping aboard - I've just sent this to NHS Direct

In the Pregnancy and Childbirth section of the website you have a page on complementary therapies. The entry for Homeopathy states –
“Homoeopathy uses minute doses of the same substance that causes an illness to treat it.” This is not true. The claim of homeopathy is that a substance which causes the same symptoms as a disease can be used as a cure. Homeopaths call this the ‘Law of Similars’.
You also state that “Homeopathy is particularly useful for conditions where there is a hormonal imbalance, such as pregnancy-related migraine.” Are there any clinical studies showing that homeopathy is effective for such conditions?
If not then why is the NHS giving homeopathy an endorsement like this on its website? I suspect that you have just accepted what homeopaths have told you and not examined the matter further.

The relevant page on NHS Direct
is here.

 

[Darat]

Lets not get our hopes up too much until we see the new entry... but it is good news that they are at least reviewing it.

 

[richardm]

I emailed a similar query to Boots The Chemist a couple of weeks ago, but apparently they're right and I'm wrong. It doesn't always work :/

True. Still, Boots is a private company who can pretty much please themselves, whereas the NHS is (in theory) accountable to us, so it's not unreasonable for them to have to justify the way their spending their money. Our money.

If we could see the NHS step back from offering and endorsing homeopathy it would also prevent the woos using the NHS as a justification as well - "if the NHS offer it it must work!" The fact that they're willing to redraft pages (to add "possibly" and "thought to" rather than remove them I suspect) is promising.

 

[Rolfe]

Homeopathy states –
“Homoeopathy uses minute doses of the same substance that causes an illness to treat it.” This is not true. The claim of homeopathy is that a substance which causes the same symptoms as a disease can be used as a cure. Homeopaths call this the ‘Law of Similars’.
You also state that “Homeopathy is particularly useful for conditions where there is a hormonal imbalance, such as pregnancy-related migraine.” Are there any clinical studies showing that homeopathy is effective for such conditions?

I'd be even more militant than that. Yes, the central claim of homoeopathy is like cures like, so anyone claiming that same cures same (isopathy) describes homoeopathy is clearly ignorant of the subject right from the get-go.

However, the rest of it makes me even crosser. There are no "minute doses" of anything at all in the vast majority of homoeopathic remedies. This statement gives the practice unjustified legitimacy by falsely pretending that there is indeed some material substance present in the treatment. They need to be called on that even more strongly.

Then, never mind asking them about controlled studies, we know there aren't any, so I'd say that and point out how unsurprising it is that there's no proof that content-free sugar pills have any effect on these conditions.

Where did you say to go to express these opinions, again?

Rolfe.

 

[bridgy]

The fact that they're willing to redraft pages (to add "possibly" and "thought to" rather than remove them I suspect) is promising.

With this in mind, I note that in their section on complimentary therapies they claim:

They can also be beneficial in supporting orthodox treatments for more serious conditions such as:

some forms of cancer,
anxiety and panic attacks,
asthma,
chronic fatigue syndrome,
depression,
arthritis,
eczema,
migraine,
irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and
cystitis.

No "possibly" or "thought to" there, just a confident sounding "can".

 

[bridgy]

Sorry, should have added the link to the relevant page:

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.aspx?articleId=482&sectionId=2715

 

[Darat]

Thanks for the link I hadn't realised how biased that site was. Under "Complementary Medicine - Introduction"

Red by me!
...snip....

Complementary therapies are usually used together with modern western medicine, or when traditional treatments have been unsuccessful. They should not be used instead of advice from your GP or specialist, but rather as an extra aid.

...snip...

There is only one "medicine" there is no such thing as "western" medicine!

And the second phrase really gives the impression that "they" may be able to cure or treat diseases that "western medicine" can't!

(ETA)
It gets worse under the section called "How it works" what we actually get is a description! This whole section is wrote from a viewpoint that these therapies actually do work.

i.e.

...snip...

Aromatherapy uses plant oils (known as essential oils) to improve emotional and physical problems. Essential oils are extracted from all parts of the plant and distilled to become concentrated. They can be bought over-the-counter and claim to have one or more of the following properties:-sedative, calming, stimulating, anti-depressant, anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic, antiseptic, analgesic (pain relief), and decongestant.

Ok one little claim is sneaked in but just before a load of very "scientific" sounding words.

So apparently Aromatherapy *works* by using essential oils to "improve" physical problems!!! I need some essential oils to calm me down!

 

[richardm]

Hmm, yes, although the "Disadvantages" section is quite pragmatic:

It is difficult to assess how well many complementary therapies actually work, as there is little clinical evidence available.


Some experts believe that complementary therapies such as homeopathy and herbal medicines do not affect the natural course of an illness, but are beneficial in some way due to the patient’s belief that they will work (the placebo affect).


Another theory is that many diseases have natural cycles when the symptoms are better or worse, and these ups and down may not have anything to do with intervention by complementary therapies.


Some people believe that complementary therapy practitioners are more able to improve the mood or spirit of their patients, because they have more time to spend treating them. This may also contribute to the success rates of some complementary therapies.

 

[Dragon]

I'd be even more militant than that. Yes, the central claim of homoeopathy is like cures like, so anyone claiming that same cures same (isopathy) describes homoeopathy is clearly ignorant of the subject right from the get-go.

However, the rest of it makes me even crosser. There are no "minute doses" of anything at all in the vast majority of homoeopathic remedies. This statement gives the practice unjustified legitimacy by falsely pretending that there is indeed some material substance present in the treatment. They need to be called on that even more strongly.

Then, never mind asking them about controlled studies, we know there aren't any, so I'd say that and point out how unsurprising it is that there's no proof that content-free sugar pills have any effect on these conditions.

Where did you say to go to express these opinions, again?

Rolfe.

I thought about giving them both barrels but decided to keep it short and sweet. I can still use all the other facts about the idiocy involved in homeopathy depending on the reply I get.

I used this page.

 

[Asolepius]

I'm really impressed by all this action you folks are taking - we can make a bit of difference if we work together. Good point about the homeopathic hospitals. I am hoping that qestions may be asked in Parliament about these soon. Yes, it's our money the NHS is spending and they are accountable to us. We are rightly angry. Keep it going - better to come from lots of us than just a few.