There are some really interesting posts on this thread illustrating one of the main points that Dawkins raised in his documentary. The point that I believe Dawkins tries to raise (but fails due to his arrogance) is that alternative therapies are called such due to the lack of scientific evidence that supports them and that as a result it is scandalous that the NHS fund these whilst at the same time making deicsions through NICE not to license or openly prescribe medicines or treatments that have proven clinical efficacy based on cost (there have been recent high profile examples of this with alzheimers and cancer treatment. He does however skirt around the point that any alternative therapy may be useful purely through placebo. Homeopathy (for which there is no proven efficacy - I'm sure some of you will dispute this) does possibly have a place in the NHS but what it doesnt need is its own hospital costing millions of pounds, the money could be better spent whilst not taking away the opportunity for people who want homeopathy to have access to it. On the religion and alternative therapies issue Dawkins hasd a very good point about people ignoring reason or being frighteningly willing to suspend their disbelief in order to have faith or beleive in something. Dawkins however is himself guilty of the crimes he accuses society of. Dawkins dismisses agnostics and positions himself as a devout atheist. A true scientist would remain agnostic as there is no available evidence for or against the existence of a god/creator; and a similar stance can be taken on the issue of alternative therapies so lets not all get angry with each other for believing in something else. Reiki, homeopathy, resonance treatment... the list goes, on might work for people but the evidence suggests it does so because we want it to and not for any medical or scientific reason so lets spend the money allocated for medical treatment on that and not on unproven alternative therapies - we have to prioritise.