NHS Homeo Hospitals (UK) - More than RLHH
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:30 pm
Hi Robin,
I think this is far from a 'knee jerk reason' and much wider than RLHH.........
Apologies to others if you feel I have already said this several
times already - and maybe you missed my postings re the Observer
article etc - but this is not about the RLHH per se - that's just the
most visible aspect of what's going (imho) the fact is that PCT's ARE
withdrawing funding up and down the UK - not just funding for the
RLHH but funding for ALL NHS homeopathy - since it's been 'proven'
not to be any better than placebo (flawed Shang meta-analysis) there
is an identifiable orchestrated campaign to get it removed from the
health care options. So the RLHH 'campaign' such as it is - mostly
my email and the e-petition and whoever has passed it on - plus
whatever Peter F is doing his end (and yes limitations there) - is
about keeping homeopathy on the table as a viable option. My
question is this - if homeopathy 'does not work' and should be taken
off the NHS - what are the risks of practitioners still being able
to practice when the regulations supposed to be in the pipeline - UK
or EU take your choice arrive? Regulate a therapy that has already
been 'proven' not to work????
So I am seeing the issue as the much bigger and more impt issue of
homeopathy in the UK and later maybe the US (since Codex is ramping
up again and coming this way). Of course we also now have the
possibility of a division of Codex looking at 'anything which
produces a physiological effect' being classified as Px only - so we
are damned if we do work and damned if we don't.....
Seems to me the situation in the UK supported by the public has
worked for 150 years and should be left as it is until such a time as
there is some stability either way.
I am in pre-prod of a documentary on homeopathy right now so can't
get too involved on a daily basis - but that's the way it looks from
here.....
ATB Carol
I think this is far from a 'knee jerk reason' and much wider than RLHH.........
Apologies to others if you feel I have already said this several
times already - and maybe you missed my postings re the Observer
article etc - but this is not about the RLHH per se - that's just the
most visible aspect of what's going (imho) the fact is that PCT's ARE
withdrawing funding up and down the UK - not just funding for the
RLHH but funding for ALL NHS homeopathy - since it's been 'proven'
not to be any better than placebo (flawed Shang meta-analysis) there
is an identifiable orchestrated campaign to get it removed from the
health care options. So the RLHH 'campaign' such as it is - mostly
my email and the e-petition and whoever has passed it on - plus
whatever Peter F is doing his end (and yes limitations there) - is
about keeping homeopathy on the table as a viable option. My
question is this - if homeopathy 'does not work' and should be taken
off the NHS - what are the risks of practitioners still being able
to practice when the regulations supposed to be in the pipeline - UK
or EU take your choice arrive? Regulate a therapy that has already
been 'proven' not to work????
So I am seeing the issue as the much bigger and more impt issue of
homeopathy in the UK and later maybe the US (since Codex is ramping
up again and coming this way). Of course we also now have the
possibility of a division of Codex looking at 'anything which
produces a physiological effect' being classified as Px only - so we
are damned if we do work and damned if we don't.....
Seems to me the situation in the UK supported by the public has
worked for 150 years and should be left as it is until such a time as
there is some stability either way.
I am in pre-prod of a documentary on homeopathy right now so can't
get too involved on a daily basis - but that's the way it looks from
here.....
ATB Carol