Network promotes complementary care
3:51pm Tuesday 7th February 2012 in Latest News
THE fight to get NHS Swindon to fund complementary and alternative therapy in the town is not over yet.
Last month, a meeting was held by Swindon Local Involvement Network (LINk) to discuss the NHS Swindon policy on funding these treatments. The local PCT deems complementary therapies as ‘low priority’ in its policy.
Last year, a small discussion group met with NHS Swindon to discuss the policy and in a letter from Dr Ayo Oyinloye, consultant in public health medicine, it was stated that they would explore commissioning homeopathy services.
However, the subject has remained low priority and after the network’s meeting at the end of January, which was attended by more than 85 people, a motion was passed and has been forwarded by chairman Derek Benfield to Dr Jose Ortega at NHS Swindon.
It says: “This public meeting of Swindon residents calls upon NHS Swindon to immediately review its policy on commissioning complementary and alternative therapy for the next financial year to ensure the needs of people for these forms of treatment are met. Furthermore we request NHS Swindon meets with local people to hear their voice and requests for complementary and alternative therapies for particular conditions and clinical pathways.”
The current policy for NHS Swindon says it will only fund interventions that are supported by evidence that demonstrates their clinical and cost effectiveness.
Complementary medicine is a title used to refer to a diverse group of health-related therapies and disciplines that are not considered to be a part of mainstream medical care.
For more information, visit www.swindonlink.org.
Comments(22)
Hmmmf
says...
4:27pm Tue 7 Feb 12
mickeymouse
says...
4:47pm Tue 7 Feb 12
itsamess
says...
8:19pm Tue 7 Feb 12
The only hurdle to get over at GWH is space to build the new cancer unit.
Just another number
says...
8:54pm Tue 7 Feb 12
It was only when I'd submitted to that, and it didn't work, that they agreed to do an MRI and discovered that I had a serious injury that they'd failed to treat it appropriately for over 18 months.
Needless to say, I've not a great fan of alternative quackery. It might just make the hypochondriacs and worried well feel a bit better, but when it means someone doesn't get the real treatment they need, it's just wrong.
Robfm
says...
9:00am Wed 8 Feb 12
About time the Adver did another follow up on Robbie Davis, it seems an appeal to the PM, Justin Tomlinson and the Department of Health has fallen on deaf ears.
karyse
says...
5:10pm Thu 9 Feb 12
If you wish to have the scientific facts and a full explanation of why we are seeking this change, speak up and I will be more than happy to meet with you and give you the information you obviously are lacking. If you lack the courage to do that, may I suggest you confine your comments to a subject you might actually know about.
Robfm
says...
5:20pm Thu 9 Feb 12
itsamess
says...
5:47pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Acleron
says...
5:55pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The wiki article on homeopathy is attacked with language very similar to yours, but when evidence is requested all that is mentioned in support of the modality is anecdote, uncontrolled trials, appeals to authority, the argument ad populum and the argument from antiquity. In short, just about everything except evidence. Critics of these modalities often exhibit more knowledge of each modality then the practitioners.
Robfm
says...
6:03pm Thu 9 Feb 12
karyse
says...
7:36pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Acleron
says...
1:07am Sat 11 Feb 12
That report is written by alt-meds. Look at it closely and you will find that the evidence is not there. It is a list of uncontrolled trials etc etc, just as I had already indicated. A report that concludes anything is completely outweighed by high quality controlled studies. The highest quality meta-studies are those of Shang et al and Linde et al. Neither could find a significant difference between placebo and the homeopathic preparation.
Just another number
says...
2:28pm Sat 11 Feb 12
As I said before, it may help the worried well but then so will any placebo. It's really of no use to those genuinely in need of real treatment and public funds should not be wasted on it.
karyse
says...
11:48am Sun 12 Feb 12
As for "Alt -Meds" You are having a laugh aren't you? The thirteen authors, who include university professors and top scientists, all studied as medical doctors who amongst their subsequent qualifications include neurosurgery, physics, maths, sociology, psychiatry, scientific research, psycotherapy, electrical engineering, biomedical technology. Their names, addresses and phone numbers are in the book so may I suggest you contact them with your concerns and publish their replies. And while you are at it, why not publish your own medical qualifications so that we can all compare whose opinion to accept?
As for cost, please don't forget everyone pays for the NHS through their tax and NI. Why should only a certain section gain the benefit of what we all pay for.
Just another number
says...
12:26pm Sun 12 Feb 12
Public funds should only be spent on treatments that are proven to be effective. If someone wants to believe in some alternative then they are, as always, free to waste their own money seeking those treatments themselves.
Acleron
says...
2:56pm Sun 12 Feb 12
"Processes that are purely regulatory and/or involve the transmission of energetic information and cannot yet be ascertained by contemporary physical measuring methods are also being
considered."
No true scientist would ever write such gibberish.
Shang has been heavily complained about, and guess by who, of course it is the homeopaths. Shang did something that was absolutely rigorous, trials were selected on the basis of their quality, not the outcome. This is in direct opposition to the method used by homeopaths who only accept those trials which are positive to homeopathy. Shang found that low quality uncontrolled trials were often positive to homeopathy but as the quality of the trial increased, the effect for homeopathy disappeared.
So how did the homeopaths critique this paper. Well, they picked the trials positive to homeopathy and said 'Look it does work'. To make that clear, they employed the very same cherry picking technique that Shang carefully avoided. By the way, Linde showed the same effect but while homeopaths were co-authors, used weasel words to avoid the conclusion pointed to by the data ie that homeopathy didn't work. Later in the absence of those non-scientists, he admitted that Shang was quite correct. I have no idea why Shang didn't make it into whichever (there are several) Cochrane report, but if it was on the totally unscientific grumblings of homeopaths it would be a scandal.
We have high quality studies showing homeopathy is no better than placebo, which is exactly what is expected when the treatment consists of water, alcohol or milk sugar. If you want to convince people you should produce high quality double blind controlled trials that conclusively prove the worth of the modality. You've had over 200 years to do this, why haven't any been done? I might add at this point, I would find any further clinical trials to be very unethical, the case is closed, homeopathy doesn't work.
The treatments available under the NHS must be evidence based. I know there are aspects of NHS treatments that are not, but that is no reason to add more modalities that have been shown to be only as good as placebo.
karyse
says...
4:00pm Sun 12 Feb 12
........... ?
And just for the record, you are the one who is cherry-picking.
If we are talking about evidence based medicine perhaps you should take a look at the list of supposedly eveidenced medicine on the MHRA website that have had to be withdrawn after being heavily prescribed, some for years, when they were found to be harmful. Avandia was linked to 83000 deaths in Europe before it was finally withdrawn. That is just one example. What about Vioxx and Seroxat. There are fifty more on the list and it grows and grows. Adverse drug reactions cost the NHS £2bnn in 2008. How's that for a waste of public funds? You also seem to have conveniently forgotten, so let me remind you again, Homeopathy has been available on the NHS since inception in 1948 and is still available in approx 30% of the country, so why should residents in Swindon be discriminated against? If you want to take drugs, that is your choice. Go ahead! And please have the courtesy for other's to choose as well. We are paying as much as you or anyone else so we are entitled to choose what we know to be appropriate for us.
Just another number
says...
4:30pm Sun 12 Feb 12
So we should all give up on conventional medicine because occasionally something is found to have unexpected side effects. You pointedly fail to make any mention of the very effective and useful medicines that save lives every single day. Do tell, what manner of snake oil shall we use to replace all of those? You also pointedly fail to mention the numerous people who have tried alternatives and found them to be completely ineffective.
If your child had leukemia, what would you rather that child be treated with, conventional treatment that gives a good chance of remission, or an alternative that gives little more success than doing nothing?
Public funds should not be wasted on treatments that cannot be proven to be effective. It's a shame that in some 30% of the country money that could be spent on proven treatments is being wasted whilst at the same time people who are in need NHS care are being denied treatment or being put on lengthy waiting lists or ending up in postcode lotteries because of a lack of funds.
Rant all you please. If any of the alternatives worked they would have long since become accepted as common conventional treatments. There is no conspiracy, no us and them scenario, there's only what works and can be proven and what does not work and cannot be proven.
karyse
says...
7:44pm Mon 20 Feb 12
You wittger on about placebo. This remains a process as little understood by most people as Homeopathy at this point in time. Lots of theories, little proof. In your ling "There is no evidence base" to prove placebo. No trials to constantly produce the same result. No one seems to be able to define the exact process. In your world then it cannot exist. So here we have a conundrum. Placebo and Homeopathy in the same category - we know it works but the exact process eludes us. How very amusing and intriguing, don't you think?
OIf we truly understood the process of placebo, we would need neither allopathic nor Homeopathy. We would use mind control to repair our bodies. A coming attraction for the human race with Homeopathy pointing the way?
If you wish to understand the reaction between the body and the human energy field and the reaction of drugs on the human energy field may I suggest you do some research on Epigenetics before you voice another opinion.
Homeopathy is used and respected worldwide by 100Million people in India and a further 100 million accross Europe in countires which include France, Germany, Italy, Spain,Sweden, Belgium. It is also extremely polular in the countries of the southern hemisphere - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Brazil.
Are you aware that it has been used by the Royal family in this country since Prince Alber introduced it to Queen Victoria? Our present Queen is the patron of the London Homeopathic Hospital and also of Ainsworth's the Homeopathic Pharmacy since 1982. Would you seriously suggest that if there was anything unsafe or unscientific or in any way dodgy, these establishments would enjoy such privilege? Princess Diana was another royal who came to use Homeopathy.
Of course Homeopathy does not work for everyone but then nether does allopathy. Studies have shown that Homeopathy works for 80% of patients - refer the Northern Ireland Report. You might consider 83000 deaths from Avandia an "occassional unexpected side effect" and brush aside £2billion spent by the NHS on adverse drug reactions but consider that 6.5% of hospital patients are admitted as a result of the drugs they were prescribed. What about their pain and suffering and that of their families.
The NHS is for EVERYONE, paid for by EVERYONE. The NHS constitution acknowledges that everyone has a legal, ethical & moral right to choose what they put into their own bodies. I think it is time you observed the same democratic principle.
Just another number
says...
8:40pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Billions of people believe in some God or Gods, should the NHS fund prayer, shamanism, and ritual as well? Where shall the line be drawn. If someone believes putting aluminium foil on their head protects them from mobile phone radiation, should the NHS fund their aluminium foil? If it's found that giving a depressed person money to buy happiness sometimes cures depression, should the NHS give out a limitless supply of money to all depressed people?
And how can we forget alternative treatments like Leatrile from apricot kernals, coffee enemas, chicken pox lollipops, mega-doses of vitamins, willard water, and many other 'miracles' that just ended up being dangerous, ineffective, or deadly. Are you aware of the US Supreme Court ruling on Leatrile? You should be, it was a landmark case that set the stage for how alternatives are dealt with in the US. The NHS could learn from their example.
If people want to take chances with their health by choosing to put their faith in alternatives then let them waste their own money and accept the liability themselves. Leave the NHS to provide real medical care.
Acleron
says...
12:33am Tue 21 Feb 12
Karyse mentions energy fields and this comes up frequently on homeopath web sites along with quantum etc. Nobody has ever detected anything except the known four forces of nature which are fields. So energy field is just a made up term to impress customers.
Then we received the wisdom that because many people use it, it must work. The human race has believed many irrationalities, another one where the high priests of homeopathy use every trick of the trade to keep the business going is hardly surprising. The delusion is shown when high quality evidence proves the lack of effectiveness, good evidence trumps poor logic every time.
Then that other piece of excruciating logic, other drugs don't work therefore homeopathy works.
Perhaps Karyse would like to know who found that some prescribed drugs don't work, I can give you a clue, it wasn't homeopaths. It was doctors and researchers applying the same high level statistics and procedures that show homeopathy doesn't work.
Homeopathy fails at all levels and should be discarded along with bleeding and applying dung to wounds.
Modern science has found why certain drugs work and others don't. In general they work by affecting biochemical pathways in the cells. These pathways are usually exquisitely controlled at very close range. Administering drugs is usually a gross effect and affects mechanisms other than the target, hence toxicity. The toxicity is measured as a risk and compared to the benefit, hence the risk-benefit ratio. Homeopathy may have no risk, although that ignores delaying real treament but as it has been proven to have no effect, it is useless.
AnotherNumber is correct, and his phrase bears repeating.
Leave the NHS to provide real medical care.
A.Baron-Cohen says...
4:21pm Tue 7 Feb 12
The NHS priority is to save lives, not to fund complementary therapies.
This is a shocking, obscene.