Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

NHMRC declares homeopathy as unethical

Discussion in 'Australia' started by NewsBot, Apr 20, 2011.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    The Australian Doctor are reporting:

    NHMRC declares: homeopathy 'not efficacious'
  2. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    Would love to read the whole story Admin????????????????
  3. hkpod

    hkpod Active Member

    NHMRC declares: homeopathy ‘not efficacious’ 20-Apr-2011

    Paul Smith

    Health insurers will be under pressure to pull the plug on funding quack remedies, with Australia’s leading medical research council expected to declare homeopathy unethical.

    A draft public statement on homeopathy has been drawn up by the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is now running an internal consultation.

    According to the confidential documents obtained by Australian Doctor, the draft says: “NHMRC’s position is that it is unethical for health practitioners to treat patients using homeopathy, for the reason that homeopathy – as a medicine or procedure – has been shown not to be efficacious.”

    It adds: “There is sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that homeopathy is no more efficacious than placebo. Homeopathy, while not harmful in its own right, may pose a risk to patients if safe and efficacious conventional treatments are rejected or delayed in favour of homeopathic treatments.”

    If the public statement is formally adopted by the council, the major health insurers – Medibank Private, HCF, NIB and MBF – will have to justify why it is using taxpayers’ money to fund “unethical” homeopathic treatments.

    All four insurers, which receive a substantial portion of the $3 billion annual private health insurance rebates paid by the Commonwealth, offer their members funding for homeopathy. MBF also pays for iridology and reflexology.

    Australian Bureau of Statistic figures from 2006 suggest there are more than 200 practising homeopaths, although homeopathic treatments are also offered by many alternative health practitioners.

    The NHMRC’s consultation follows concerns about homeopaths selling so-called homeopathic vaccinations as well as claiming to treat patients with serious conditions. According to the documents given to Australian Doctor, the NHMRC is basing its statement on the findings of a UK House of Commons science and technology committee report called Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy.

    The report, published last year, said the homeopathic claims that its substances can treat symptoms were “theoretically weak”. It said claims that “ultra dilutions” can maintain an “imprint of substances” – again a key principle of homeopathy - was “scientifically implausible”.
  4. DAVOhorn

    DAVOhorn Well-Known Member

    Dear All,

    I do not understand why so many health insurers provide rebates for many of the complimentary therapies that have little or no evidence as to the efficacy of that therapy.

    Am i naive in thinking that the health insurers researcha therapy before they offer rebates, or is the rebate customer led.:butcher:

    I am fit and healthy and get bugger all back from my insurer. So describe a symptom to a comp therapist who says i can t/t to help cure your symptoms etc etc.

    trouble is is when they do get ill with something many of the funds have gone on comp therapies so less in the pot for a real t/t.

    Comp therapies are a massive industry with a lot of clout and there is little that you can do within the legal system to deal with them.

  5. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    Whilst looking through the BUPA website the other day to see how one could become a registered provider, I saw that BUPA will no longer register any more physiotherapists as providers. However, if you are a homeopath, "walk right in".

    So it is possible to see a homeopath privately and have cover from the insurer but seeing a physio may mean that your treatment is not covered.

    That is chicken oriental!

  6. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    Hi Robin,
    Just out of curiosity, where did you get that information from, here is a cut and paste from the BUPA website, unless l have gone astray on my search, l cant see what you are talking about?

    l would be curios to know why if it is true that they aren't taking any more, it would certainly ruffle a few feathers

    "Applicants must be registered with the Physiotherapists Registration Board..."
  7. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I suspect there is some confusion between BUPA (UK) and BUPA (Australia)....

Share This Page