exactly! mind you, its the same here as in Switzerland. Its an add on for the more expensive packages ... basic cover won't get you anything but ... the basics ... .
yes - thats the key. I find my eyes just glaze over with a lot of this stuff. I know that some traditional remedies ARE effective, and this has been documented ... but a lot of "complimentary medicine" is basically pandering to hypochondria from what I have seen.
The difference is we know those risks, and discuss them with the patients. They can make the decision. Statistically, people do much better with chemotherapy in most cases than not. However that doesn't mean everyone, and we tell people that. A drug that improve survival from 50 - 70% is a good drug, even through 30% still do poorly. If a patient doesn't want the 30% chance of no cure, we won't make them improve their chances of cure from 50 - 70%, its their choice. The difference is that with homeopathy, nobody has any clue whatsoever what the chances are. It doesn't actually do anything by any metric, and there is no evidence to show that in a large group, taking it yields any improved outcome compared to doing nothing. Patients cannot make an informed decision with homeo, because there is no information to be informed with. I would support homeopaths if they were honest about the evidence for their craft, but they are not.
Cass - one of the best places to look for evidence, and forgive me if you already know this, is the "cochrane collaboration". This is an EBP site (evidence based practice). It is set up to do systematic reviews of research http://www.cochrane.org/ And, despite what some might want to claim it DOES include "alternate" or "complimentary" medicines. The link above is the "public" face of the database and there is a "scientific" face that is accessible through public libraries and health centres. If you even need something checked I have access
Just wanted to make the comment that there is no magical wall between conventional medical therapies and homeopathy. Nor is there any arbitrary category of treatments deemed 'conventional' with no room to change. It's this simple: if homeopathy worked, it would be adopted by and become conventional medicine. As there is no evidence, it will not. Plenty of herbal and vitamin preparations are used by conventional medicine. Why?, because there is some evidence that they work. Those that have none, are not.
Like Ginger for nausea - many are now recommending it to pregnant women. However you have to warn them not to have too much and I am unsure of why - whether they are afraid the kids will come out with red hair.................
See the headline this weekend? Child death probed after Italian parents rely on homeopathy Yeah, why on earth do skeptics get irked by people who push homeopathy? Just can't figure it out....
this is why - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0"]That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E - YouTube[/ame]
Classic!! Wonderful stuff!! This is also great http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UJ_qGZ24k&feature=related Homoeopathy to prevent malaria??? Yeah Suuuuuure!
Way, way more people die from prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs. How many times have you blogged about that? Or do you just focus on isolated incidences?
And if more people relied on homoeopathy for anything but "feel good claptrap" more WOULD die from it
Since we're using (*)(*)(*)(*)ty maths prescription drugs and over the counter drugs save more lives than homeopathy and thus 100% proves that modern medicine is superior.
Let's imagine we were living in the middle ages. What would a health insurance company do at that time? That insurer would have to cover bloodletting and other inadequate treatments, because that's what medicine was at the time and that's what patients expect. In fact, that's a sound business model, because ill patients are more likely to die quickly when they use bad medicine, which makes cost more predictable than today, where we're far more adept at keeping seriously ill or injured patients alive. Being a good insurer is a statistician's job. All that matters for the insurance company is that they gain more in insurance premiums than they have to pay to their insured clients. They have to predict risks. It doesn't matter what's being insured. In the case of health insurance, insurers usually try to attract young and healthy clients and avoid old and unhealthy ones to keep costs down.
However, if the treatments that the insurers are paying out on don't work then the clients will have to seek out further treatment (not all of these clients are going to die). This means that the insurer will ultimately have to pay refunds more often.
That's true, but if they come to the conclusion that covering alternative medicine increases profits despite additional costs and higher premiums, they will do so. All I'm saying is that insurers are bad arbiters for what's an effective treatment or not. Nature is the only arbiter that matters for patients and nature is studied through science, not insurance company profits.
That's right, so all these little "overdose" sit-ins by skeptics just shows their ignorance because Homeopaths have said since the beginning that homeopathy doesn't cause side-effects or overdoses -- unlike pharmaceuticals, which have killed millions since its inception. Deaths by reactions from Homeopathy: 0 Deaths by reactions from Pharmaceuticals: Millions
That parallels this: Actual physical effects from homeopathy: 0 Actual physical effects from Pharmaceuticals: Billions
Because health insurance companies are not about getting clients better but $elling more in$urance. They have found that "alternate" or "complimentary" medicines sell to the young with disposable incomes who do not really want to be covered by things like wound care products - or more importantly anti-embolism stockings - something of proven value in stopping major and even life threatening complications of our daily lives. Go into any health insurer and ask "If I burnt my leg would you cover the cost of the dressings?" and the answer would be "No" and yet there is a WEALTH of research supporting products like "Acticoat" In other words they want someone like "Eddie" from Absolutely Fabulous as a client - NOT Eddies mother!