Should homeopathy be used more on the NHS?

It might prove cheaper and more effective.

Admin wrote:It might prove cheaper and more effective.

Is enough of it proved?

honestguv wrote:

Admin wrote:It might prove cheaper and more effective.

Is enough of it proved?

some very famous cases claim to have cured cancer without the harmful chemicals and radiation.

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:

Is enough of it proved?

some very famous cases claim to have cured cancer without the harmful chemicals and radiation.

can't imagine that surely everyone would be doing it and the papers would be telling everyone.

honestguv wrote:

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:

Is enough of it proved?

some very famous cases claim to have cured cancer without the harmful chemicals and radiation.

can't imagine that surely everyone would be doing it and the papers would be telling everyone.

chemo doesn't cure anything the same with radiation but it does make a lot of money.

check out doctor lorraine day and other cures for cancer it is quite interesting.

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:

can't imagine that surely everyone would be doing it and the papers would be telling everyone.

chemo doesn't cure anything the same with radiation but it does make a lot of money.

check out doctor lorraine day and other cures for cancer it is quite interesting.

that's amazing how come it didn't hit the news?

honestguv wrote:

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:

can't imagine that surely everyone would be doing it and the papers would be telling everyone.

chemo doesn't cure anything the same with radiation but it does make a lot of money.

check out doctor lorraine day and other cures for cancer it is quite interesting.

that's amazing how come it didn't hit the news?

because home cures don't make anyone and money and they actually work, check out dr burzynski in america, the FDA has tried to stop him using his cures for cancer, now why would they do that.

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:

can't imagine that surely everyone would be doing it and the papers would be telling everyone.

chemo doesn't cure anything the same with radiation but it does make a lot of money.

check out doctor lorraine day and other cures for cancer it is quite interesting.

that's amazing how come it didn't hit the news?

because home cures don't make anyone and money and they actually work, check out dr burzynski in america, the FDA has tried to stop him using his cures for cancer, now why would they do that.

Just looked at some of it, they took him to court to stop him using his cure, what was all that about? just watching a video on it.

Admin wrote:

Admin wrote:

because home cures don't make anyone and money and they actually work, check out dr burzynski in america, the FDA has tried to stop him using his cures for cancer, now why would they do that.

Just looked at some of it, they took him to court to stop him using his cure, what was all that about? just watching a video on it.

there must be more too it that that surely?

honestguv wrote:

Admin wrote:

Admin wrote:

because home cures don't make anyone and money and they actually work, check out dr burzynski in america, the FDA has tried to stop him using his cures for cancer, now why would they do that.

Just looked at some of it, they took him to court to stop him using his cure, what was all that about? just watching a video on it.

there must be more too it that that surely?

type his name in I am watching a movie clip now, it seems he has cured cancers the other doctors would not touch.

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:


there must be more too it that that surely?

type his name in I am watching a movie clip now, it seems he has cured cancers the other doctors would not touch.

that is crazy why stop himwhen he has cured serious cases? what can they be thinking.

honestguv wrote:

Admin wrote:

honestguv wrote:


there must be more too it that that surely?

type his name in I am watching a movie clip now, it seems he has cured cancers the other doctors would not touch.

that is crazy why stop himwhen he has cured serious cases? what can they be thinking.

I don't know, I've just listened to were they tried toi steal his patents that they claimed never worked, how under handed is that.

If they can prove homeopathy works it would come under the umbrella of all other real medicine. Unfortunately all large scale studies the greatest effect is the same as placebo.

InsanityX wrote:If they can prove homeopathy works it would come under the umbrella of all other real medicine. Unfortunately all large scale studies the greatest effect is the same as placebo.

I have read about some amazing cures by homeopathy though I do not know if they are repeatable or just flukes, they would most certainly have to be proven before being approved.

There are people who claim things but people naturally go into remission or get better. Every study I have ever seen shows that the recover rates of homeopathy patients is no better than by doing nothing or using placebo's. Personally I don't think its fair to spend tax payer money on something that has never been proved to work.

InsanityX wrote:There are people who claim things but people naturally go into remission or get better. Every study I have ever seen shows that the recover rates of homeopathy patients is no better than by doing nothing or using placebo's. Personally I don't think its fair to spend tax payer money on something that has never been proved to work.

Don't you think all modern medicines have their roots, pardon the pun, in homeopathy?

But if it isn't properly tested then we will never know and there are far more things wasted by using tax payers money in my opinion .

All conventional medicine has been proved to work. Homeopathy has regularly been disproved by every scientific test. They day they can prove it works is the day that it stops being called alternative medicine and becomes just medicine. The wrong thing to do is just give it to people without testing it and just see what happens. Its not like doctors or anyone else just doesn't want it to work. If it was shown to help people they would use it.

InsanityX wrote:All conventional medicine has been proved to work. Homeopathy has regularly been disproved by every scientific test. They day they can prove it works is the day that it stops being called alternative medicine and becomes just medicine. The wrong thing to do is just give it to people without testing it and just see what happens. Its not like doctors or anyone else just doesn't want it to work. If it was shown to help people they would use it.

absolutely nothing should be given without testing, that goes without saying but isn't modern medicines just a chemical reconstruction of what was learnt by plant lore.

Sure, but medicines have been shown to work and refined. Meanwhile homeopathy has no means of testing and stops people seeking out real medicine that can genuinely help them.

This is quoted from the NHS Homeopathy page:

"There is no professional statutory regulation of homeopathic practitioners in the UK. This means that anyone can practise as a homeopath, even if they have no or limited formal training or experience."

I don't think there is a good reason to pay untrained inexperienced people to use an unverified treatment effort with the tax payers money.

InsanityX wrote:Sure, but medicines have been shown to work and refined. Meanwhile homeopathy has no means of testing and stops people seeking out real medicine that can genuinely help them.

This is quoted from the NHS Homeopathy page:

"There is no professional statutory regulation of homeopathic practitioners in the UK. This means that anyone can practise as a homeopath, even if they have no or limited formal training or experience."

I don't think there is a good reason to pay untrained inexperienced people to use an unverified treatment effort with the tax payers money.

I agree but if they were tested and regulated they might become a useful supplement.

honestguv wrote:
I agree but if they were tested and regulated they might become a useful supplement.

Exactly. If they test different homeopathic treatments and find a couple that work I see no problem. I do however see a problem spending tax money on something that nobody has check or has failed any scientific test.

InsanityX wrote:

honestguv wrote:
I agree but if they were tested and regulated they might become a useful supplement.

Exactly. If they test different homeopathic treatments and find a couple that work I see no problem. I do however see a problem spending tax money on something that nobody has check or has failed any scientific test.

I agree and by test obviously proven to work time and time again and be safe.

Admin wrote:

InsanityX wrote:

Exactly. If they test different homeopathic treatments and find a couple that work I see no problem. I do however see a problem spending tax money on something that nobody has check or has failed any scientific test.

I agree and by test obviously proven to work time and time again and be safe.

not sure srushing plants up is a step forward though.