Share:
Twitter homeopathy shitstorm started at the technician cash register
The Twitter comments on homeopathy have sparked a massive shitstorm in the Techniker Krankenkasse (TK), which, despite apology and attempt of enlightenment so far has no end. Due to the justification for the assumption of costs for homeopathic remedies, many people obviously felt additionally provoked in addition and the social media team of TK probably had their hands full answering the numerous comments.
The use of homeopathy is still divided by ghosts. Although many people use homeopathic remedies, their effects remain questionable and critics see only an effect on placebo level. Nevertheless, some health insurance companies take over the costs of homeopathic remedies, such as the Techniker Krankenkasse. Critical inquiries should definitely be allowed here. Answering such a request via Twitter has now given the TK a massive shitstorm.
The Techniker health insurance company is currently experiencing a violent shitstorm due to a tweet on homeopathy. (Image: Maren Winter / fotolia.com) Question on the effectiveness of homeopathy
The question which a user addressed to TK on Twitter seems not only justified, but a well-founded answer would also be desired by many advocates of homeopathy. "Dear @Techniker, can you call me as insured clean, scientific studies that prove the effectiveness of homeopathy?" Asked the user Oliver S. (@IlloSZ). The answer followed promptly: "Dear @ IlloSZ, can you give us clean, scientific studies that prove the ineffectiveness of homeopathy?" A rather unobjective answer followed by numerous comments. The harmless ones were: "Who cares about your Twitter account?" Or "I am so excited that @Techniker answers tweets at one o'clock at night. But sometimes it would be better to sleep over it. "
Inaccurate tweet causes annoyance
Many users, however, went much further in their critique and made it clear that studies on efficacy are usually presented. "@Techniker must be proven effectiveness, not the other way around. Their demand is scientifically not allowed ", so the clear statement of a Twitter user. The TK made a mistake and explained, "Our tweet was unreal and we are sorry. But we can not undo it. "Another response was:" The tweet tonight was very unhappy. We are working on the mistake, but only because of a bug no one flies out with us. "However, the critics with such answers hardly soothe.
Explanatory attempts lead to more annoyance
Also the declaration of the TK, that with the assumption of costs for the homeopathy only the wishes of the insured ones are taken into account and it to the "legal order (belong) to promote / offer special forms of therapy", caused further strong criticism. "@Techniker not effective sugar globules are so paid because the members want it? I want glasses to be paid! ", So one of the comments. "There are glasses in the TK only in homeopathic doses," replies another user. The criticism of the attempts to justify the TK aims primarily in the direction that money is paid for an ineffective treatment method, while others - demonstrably meaningful measures - are not paid. It has also been frequently pointed out that many insured persons do not pay their membership fees in order to finance homoeopathic funds for other insured persons.
Scientific investigations are ongoing
The efforts of the TK for a scientific review of the topic in a joint study with the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin met most Twitter users also with ridicule and annoyance. Here money is wasted and there are already enough investigations, so the criticism to the message that the TK since March 2013 with the Charité in Berlin on a scientific study work, the results of which are expected in 2018. Most Twitter users seem to know the outcome of the study, even without going into the topic. Here it becomes clear once more how hardened the fronts between the proponents and opponents of homeopathy meanwhile are.
Cost coverage is critically evaluated by many
Why the TC takes over the costs for homeopathy and for other services such as glasses no corresponding cost assumption, remains unclear even after the TK statement. Many users make it clear that they have no problem with homeopathy, as long as the users have to bear the costs themselves. However, they consider the assumption of costs to be critical, since the effect is not above the placebo effect. However, the placebo effect can demonstrably help and especially in diseases for which no other treatment is known, there is little objection to the use of homeopathic remedies. They are relatively inexpensive and the hope for improvement - even if only based on the placebo effect - can significantly improve the disease process. Perhaps in medicine, therefore, more should generally be done with the placebo effect, especially as this, according to recent studies also shows its effect, if affected people know that they are taking a placebo. (Fp)