Homeopathy works - fact. As long as you don't use science to prove it.

[Admin]

There's a debate on the Times Higher Education site regarding homeopathy (http://www.ukskeptics.com/homeopathy.php) here: Times (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402505)

As always the comments that follow the article are usually the best read. O0

Scientific randomised controlled trials show that homeopathy doesn't work. Hardly surprising when there's no ingredients in them.

Of course, with homeopathy and the mindset that goes with it, things are never that simple.

You see. Homeopathy works. All you need to do is abandon scientific methods and reasoning and find a new way of looking at it!

Simple really. :cheesy:

Just call scientists the "new fundamentalists" and call for a "paradigm shift" (how original) and the crazy belief system that is homeopathy all becomes reality.

[JJM]

I think this is a relevant post:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=156

I wish I could remember, and credit, the person who observed that "the best mis-information has a kernel of truth."

[vbloke]

"you can't test homeopathy!"

Do you make claims that you can cure people?

"yes"

Then it can be tested.

"but these papers show it has an effect"

So a minute ago you said you can't test homeopathy, now you say you can? Furthermore, every paper you cite has been examined by impartial referees and almost all in their own conclusions, state that the controls were not tight and further research needs to be done to verify the findings.

"but the referees are paid shills of big pharma"

And you deny that you don't have a vested interest in homeopathy, to show that it 'works'?

"but my friend took arnica 100C for this condition and got better"

Anecdotes are part and parcel of observer bias and the placebo effect, they can't be trusted - you need to conduct properly controlled scientific tests.

"you can't test homeopathy!"

ad nauseum......

[JJM]

vbloke, nice parody.

[vbloke]

vbloke, nice parody.
I wish it were...

[dalriada]

Excellent Parody Vbloke. I can't help thinking that some of the posts following that Times Higher Article were created by some kind of random woo-quote generator, for example:


What is particularly disappointing is that a so-called Professor of Complementary Medicines is so stuck in the contemporary conventional scientific framework when it comes to evaluating CAM. CAM presents exciting frontiers to be explored, new understandings of how human beings function and a paradigm shift in the way we think about health, disease and treating it. Sitting in an ivory tower analysing research papers from a conventional framework will not prevent a new understanding from taking its place but it is probably slowing it down.

That is a classic of its genre. Posted more in sadness than anger, slight sneer at a person with a real job and then it's straight into a full on attack on "the conventional scientific framework" amid claims of "New frontiers" and "paradigm shifts" all of which surely would be happening if it wasn't for those pesky "ivory tower" people actually doing research and insisting on facts.

If people who don't believe in God don't go to church, mosque or temple ,by the same token, I think that people who don't believe in medicine shouldn't go to hospitals. This would have a marvellous effect on waiting lists and ultimately have an equally fine effect on the gene pool.

It's win-win all the way! O0

[puzzlebobble]

@vbloke

A few other of my favourites:

The problem is that you are too close-minded to understand!

If it's all placebo how come it works on my dog?

Being asked for evidence again and again is getting rather repetitive; why don't you prove it doesn't work!

Thinking that by saying that "there are lots of things which science doesn't know" they are attacking the scientific method.

Use of the word 'rational' as a derogatory term.

[bindeweede]

vbloke, nice parody.

And as a qualified homeopath, if my memory is correct, vbloke is better qualified to write a parody than most.

[puzzlebobble]

@bindeweed

"And as a qualified homeopath"

BSc or MSc?

aaaaaaaah!?!

[bindeweede]

@bindeweed

"And as a qualified homeopath"

BSc or MSc?

aaaaaaaah!?!

Somewhere, vbloke described the homeopathic training course he went on - typical that I can't find it. But I do seem to remember that he said no medical knowledge was required or training given on the course. I don't think it was to degree level, but as it is unregulated, anyone can set themselves up anyway.

I'm thinking of setting myself up as a homeopathic crystal-healing feng-shuiist - you dangle crystals that aren't there, and shake em about, but just a tiny little bit. Worth a try!

Oh. Forgot to add - you also develop the ability to take money from the gullible. Makes sense to me.

[puzzlebobble]

Bindeweede, it doesn't surprise me at all (that no medical knowledge is needed not that vbloke went on one of the courses)

My mother was a homoeopath. I know exactly how it works. Essentially there's a big book of things. You have to ask about all manner of irrelevant things like sleeping habits, what sort of taste they have in their mouth, what sort of food they eat etc. Almost all of which is not logically related to what they've come to you to see you about.

Then you look up all their answers in the big book and different remedies, like Nux Vom, Arnica etc, are given a score for each of the things they've told you. Then at the end you just tot up the scores and the little sugar pills with the highest score win. It's quite handy for them because they get to say they're being holistic, rather than requiring any medical knowledge to enable directed questioning, and of course because the remedies are tailor made to that particular patient, rather than disease specific, they can ignore some of the negative studies.

When we got our first home computer there was a computer program which you just clicked on all the "symptoms" and it gave the scores. No skill involved and it took about 5 minutes; I did a few to help her when I was 11!

Oh, and I got to help making up the pills too. Big bags of sugar pills poured into paper chutes to fill little brown bottles. Then a drop of liquid from the stock and a good shake. There was no way any of it got to the bottom. Of course I soon realised that didn't matter.;)

and just remembered. When I used to get given them for a headache or such like but it didn't get better the answer was that homoeopathic remedies often made things get worse before they got better!:cheesy:

It's actually quite clever the hoops they jump through in order to square a circle.

[Mojo]

Oh, and I got to help making up the pills too. Big bags of sugar pills poured into paper chutes to fill little brown bottles. Then a drop of liquid from the stock and a good shake. There was no way any of it got to the bottom. Of course I soon realised that didn't matter.
Of course not - you only need to get it on one of them and "grafting" will take care of the rest.

[Mojo]

If it's all placebo how come it works on my dog?
How come the dog doesn't tell you that it feels better?

[puzzlebobble]

How come the dog doesn't tell you that it feels better?

That's ridiculous; don't be so silly. If the dog could talk he would know he was getting a remedy and my argument would be stupid. Duh!

[MischiefMonkey]

How come the dog doesn't tell you that it feels better?

Because the poor innocent b'stard who should have owners who know better doesn't feel better?


Sorry, dogs + homeopathy = Very angry MischiefMonkey.

A 'pet' hate if you'll excuse the pun. I'm currently arguing against an anti-vax pro-homeopathic 'person' on a Crestie forum. She/he/it is extolling the virtue of Pat Mckay, who thinks that Vaccines cause AIDS, vaccines don't work (so how come vaccines have eradicated Small Pox and nearly eradicated Polio - GLOBALLY) and homeopathy offers a treatment for parvo - try telling the imbecile, nosode-giving owner of those poor Bull Terriers in Kent who died from Parvo earlier this year. Six out of seven died, puppies and Dam dying a horrible death, only the stud survived.

/deep breath

[Mojo]

That's ridiculous; don't be so silly. If the dog could talk he would know he was getting a remedy and my argument would be stupid. Duh!


So who is judging whether the dog is better?

[Graham Lappin]

So who is judging whether the dog is better?

Simple - when asked, how do you feel, the dog said "rough"

The old ones are the best! ;D

[seren]

Get your coat, Bunny, I've phoned for a taxi already. ::)

I've just been chatting rather half-heartedly online with people who believe in homeopathy. It's beginning to drive me potty. How's this for a reason: it must work, because they sell it in Walmart.

The old argument ad Walmartium.

Where do you even start when someone presents that as a "sensible" argument? Man alive.

But really it's the homeopaths that come out guns blazing in comments sections of articles like the one John linked to that get my goat. How can they be allowed to dominate the debate like that? We should have a UK Skeptics Comments Section Rapid Response Squad.

[Graham Lappin]

Did you listen to the latest sceptics guide to the Universe podcast? There was a quote "I don't care if it is a scam, so long as it works". The world is full of the cerebrally-challenged and there is not a lot we can do about it.

One more dog joke and then I'll stop (promise)

My dog's got no dictionary
How does he spell - awful

The cerebrally-challenged won't get it. >:D>:D

[Mongrel]

Oi, less of the dog jokes....small, furry and tasty ;)

[MischiefMonkey]

Oi, less of the dog jokes....small, furry and tasty ;)

You can eat mine if you want>:-) They have the devil in them tonight. I got accidentally bit when the 'bite my ar$e' game moved onto the sofa>:-)

Small, hairless - so no plucking - and lean.

Is there a homeopathic cure for being a pair of utter demons? I know it is a self limiting 'disorder' (also known as typical behaviour for their breed at their young ages). I know that that they only had a short afternoon walk because the Chimney Sweep was here. (They need three good walks a day) I know my socially retarded Hansel found a strange, sooty man with a huge vacuum cleaner in the house stressful. Maybe if I give them homeopathy or 'flower remedies' for a year or so it'll cure them. Nothing to do with them becoming adults of course. Nor the on-going training and Han's planned and controlled socialisation.

I could give a homeopathic or Bach remedy tonight and see a fairly rapid improvement. It won't be because they are tuckered out after using all three stories of the house and my good dog as an agility course for the last three hours. It won't be because it is late and they have to tire soon (please!!!). And my good dog telling them off means nothing, nor does me shoving their bums off the sofa. Mere coincidence. Obviously, it will be the magic water/brandy that fixes them.

As the conversation seems to have moved to dogs (not entirely my fault for a change:-[) I've observed that most dog homeopathy seems to fall into two areas. Vaccination and skin problems. I've never come across a single person to treat pyro with homeopathy, nor cancer, nor hypothyroidism, nor PRA, nor dry-eye, nor HD, nor bloat - the list could go on for pages.

With vaccination - the 'herd' immunity is pretty good. Most dogs are regularly vaccinated, and there is some good evidence that after the puppy jabs and first booster, a three year vaccination protocol could be adopted for Parvo and distemper (Lepto is different). As such, the annual vaxers, three year vaxers and titre test then vax if need be'ers are maintaining a herd immunity that the homeopathic/un-vaccinated dogs benefit from. Apart from isolated Parvo outbreaks and the nasty - but usually non-fatal - Lepto, most unvaccinated dogs are not at risk because the herd immunity is high. For the skeptic, the responsible owner who vaccinates the dog get the credit for this - the evidence supports the argument. For the homeopath, magic water gets the credit despite evidence to the contrary.

With skin conditions I only have my experience and a couple of studies I'll reference if insisted on. Skin problems in dogs have many causes, and often unknown in the end. My Glen of Imaal boy is allergic to fleas. So he (and the others) gets 'nasty' chemical treatments. My Chinese Crested bitch has horrendous skin issues - her allergy panel came back clear on everything tested. But sometimes, with no treatment at all, her skin clears up. Had I tried a homeopathic remedy (I believe 'graphite' is the skin treatment of choice for the homeopath) and she cleared up, perhaps I'd have believed. But to see dramatic improvement with no discernible reason shows how the connecton between magic water and a 'cure' can be made. Even though it is nothing more than coincidence.

BTW, in the time it took to write this post, the naughty dogs have settled down and are now sleeping. No homeopathic remedy nor equally redicuous Flower remedy.

Sorry Mongrel, Buffy and Hansel are off the menu.

[Mongrel]

S'Ok - all that running around makes the meat tough O0


My Chinese Crested bitch has horrendous skin issues - her allergy panel came back clear on everything tested. But sometimes, with no treatment at all, her skin clears up. Had I tried a homeopathic remedy (I believe 'graphite' is the skin treatment of choice for the homeopath) and she cleared up, perhaps I'd have believed. But to see dramatic improvement with no discernible reason shows how the connecton between magic water and a 'cure' can be made. Even though it is nothing more than coincidence.

If it were a human I'd stab at eczema (Standard I an not a Doctor) and that's just the sort of thing that Quacks love treating. It's cyclic, you'll only see the practitioner when it's bad, so inevitably the attack is close to peaking. If you get the chance "Snake Oil Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Snake-Oil-Science-Complementary-Alternative/dp/0195313682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215127002&sr=8-1)" explains it very well

[MischiefMonkey]

S'Ok - all that running around makes the meat tough O0



If it were a human I'd stab at eczema (Standard I an not a Doctor) and that's just the sort of thing that Quacks love treating. It's cyclic, you'll only see the practitioner when it's bad, so inevitably the attack is close to peaking. If you get the chance "Snake Oil Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Snake-Oil-Science-Complementary-Alternative/dp/0195313682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215127002&sr=8-1)" explains it very well

Thanks Mogrel. Might buy that book. We are actually currently treating her as though she had human eczema - physically preventing scratching and lots of emollients - which seems to be helping. At her 'peaks' even conventional vets like to 'treat' her - but unless the skin is infected it is useless. What a field day a quack vet would have.

[Mongrel]

Have you thought about a coat or something for her? Helps keep the potential damage from scratching down.

[MischiefMonkey]

Have you thought about a coat or something for her? Helps keep the potential damage from scratching down.

That's part of what I meant by 'physically preventing scratching':smiley: - as well as keeping her nails trimmed and occationally physically restraining her.

She has the dearest little pyjamas:smiley:

[vbloke]

Found it!

A List of Scientifically Controlled Double Blind Studies which have Conclusively Demonstrated the Efficacy of Homeopathy (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Scientifically_Controlled_Double_Blind_Stu dies_which_have_Conclusively_Demonstrated_the_Effi cacy_of_Homeopathy)

[filippo lippi]

You can see it coming for miles, but it's still glorious

[puzzlebobble]

@Mojo

Originally Posted by puzzlebobble
"That's ridiculous; don't be so silly. If the dog could talk he would know he was getting a remedy and my argument would be stupid. Duh!"

Mojo: "So who is judging whether the dog is better?"

You do know I was joking don't you?

[Mojo]

I thought it was likely, but I responded partly for the benefit of any lurkers.

It's a point frequently raised by homoeopaths. They never seem to be able to explain why the few double-blinded trials of homoeopathy in animals have failed to show these effects.

If you want an example of an animal improving in the eyes of the owner see this case report from the website of the British Veterinary Voodoo Society: http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/case4.html

[Mojo]

Incidentally, are you the same puzzlebobble who was recently accused of being Ben Goldacre by a poster on CiF?

[puzzlebobble]

Incidentally, are you the same puzzlebobble who was recently accused of being Ben Goldacre by a poster on CiF?

Yes, I took that as a compliment. Sadly it's not true :'(

[Pebble]

There is more to this than I had appreciated. In the responses to the original article one finds this:

Dana Ullman, MPH 26 June, 2008
It seems that skeptics of homeopathy define "double-blind" as closing BOTH of their eyes. It is astonishing how unscientific their attitude is towards homeopathy, and yet, they have the chutzpah (and the ignorance) to "defend science."
Below are just some of the meta-analyses that have shown a statistically significant effect from homeopathic medicines over placebo:
(1) Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323. This review of research assessed 105 trials, 81 of them positive [1]. The authors concluded: “Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”, “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”, and "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definite conclusions".
(2) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.
(3) Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.
(4) Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633. (Ironically, this review of research that shows benefit from homeopathic medicines was co-authored by Darth Vader himself (Dr. E. Ernst)
(5) Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.
Of additional interest is this newer trial that was conducted at the University of Vienna and published in the leading pulmonary medicine journal in the world...and in the treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (the #4 reason that people in the U.S. die today!) -- Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005.


Now allowing for the usual excesses of the Woo one finds that the first reference is not a meta analysis but a description of a large number of studies of very variable quality - but some good and positive! The fifth and sixth are again not a meta analysis. The second & third I cannot locate.

So there is one meta analysis I can definately find: Barnes J, J Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 25: 628.

This finds 6 RCT of post operative ileus, of variable size and quality. The only properly double blind multicentre trial of substantial size is negative. Three of the positive trials have not been published (submitted to peer review). So although there are positive RCT's the balance of evidence should not be regarded as favourable.

Taylor et al BMJ 2000; 321 471.

Assesses the impact of homeopathy versus placebo in allergicrhinitis. Single centre study (Northwick Park) in 51 patients. The claimed end points are Nasal inspiratory flow and symptoms using a visual analogue scale. The actual primary end point is never stated in the methods, and the power calculations are based on the visual analogue scale - which did not diffir between the treatment groups.
Intriguingly the Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow rates improved from by + 22.3 +/- 4.1 (homeopathy) versus +2.5 +/- 2.3 (placebo). This was then presented as the main finding. This is not good science, since there had been no previous evidence of this effect. But it certainly raises the possibility of an effect and prospective studies are rquired.

Finally. Frass et al Chest 2005; 127: 936. In a single centre study of 110 patients in ITU on ventillators with COPD found that the time to extubation (2.88+/0 1.2 days -H; 6.12+/- 3.13 days -P) was significantly different, as was the length of stay in ITU. The blinding was excellent and the groups comparable.

So there are quality studies showing that however ridiculous one may feel Homeopathy is in principle - it is not proven that it does not work, and there are areas where a possible demonstrable effect has been shown.

[puzzlebobble]

Interesting last reference Pebble.

I've only had time to have a quick look at it and have to go out but I have to say at first glance it seems well conducted.

Did you have time to have a look at the references in the discussion where they give for being able to detect a substance even if diluted below avagadro's constant? I'll have a look tomorrow.

Of course by chance some studies will be positive even if there isn't a true treatment effect. It'd be nice if the study had been repeated (it's from 2005) or if they'd shown a dose effect.

did you see David coulquhoun's comment:

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/635

Maybe I'm being a muppet but it doesn't seem to have been cited much given it's in Chest, which I think is a good journal.

[Pebble]

Did you have time to have a look at the references in the discussion where they give for being able to detect a substance even if diluted below avagadro's constant? I'll have a look tomorrow.

Of course by chance some studies will be positive even if there isn't a true treatment effect. It'd be nice if the study had been repeated (it's from 2005) or if they'd shown a dose effect.

did you see David coulquhoun's comment:

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/635




I haven't gone through the references yet, but will have a look. This trial is by no means evidence that homeopathy works, but is still interesting. The magnitude of potential effect was not based on a prior evidence base that allowed any power calculations that I can see. The rational is all over the place, the investigators were clearly biased (see their response to coulquhoun') etc. But that is true of much that has been subsequently been proven. This study however, does two things. First it makes a nonsense of any claims that homeopathy cannot be evaluated scientifically. Second, it shows what the CAM community need to do to be taken seriously. This study needs repeating. If the magnitude of effect is consistently demonstrated by several groups then a properly powered multi-centre, DBRCT can be undertaken. If (a really big if) this shows a consistent effect, then a serious rethink about the possible mechanism of action of 'holy water' becomes an issue.
I am not holding my breath, since the logic seems fatally flawed from the outset, but at least those who are believers have here the opportunity of moving from religious adherence to hypothesis testing.

As for being quoted; probably of little interest to most physicians, and most CAM articles would not be in Medline journals

[seren]

My god we've got a UKS army on CiF as well? I shall look out for you all...

[Pebble]

Ok a brief look:

First the Lancet article is quite interesting: again not real evidence since the demonstrated efficacy is apparently generic rather than specific, but shows the amount of evidence people have gone to the trouble of generating:

Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials
Klaus Linde (javascript:void(0);), Nicola Clausius (javascript:void(0);), Gilbert Ramirez (javascript:void(0);), Dieter Melchart (javascript:void(0);), et al (javascript:void(0);). The Lancet (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=28154&TS=1215290647&clientId=64829&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD). London: Sep 20, 1997 (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=28154&pcid=663683&SrchMode=3&aid=2). Vol. 350, Iss. 9081; pg. 834, 10 pgs

Abstract (Summary)
BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

The claims on solute aggregate look some what suspicious (not an area of expertise of mine ) the technique used seems highly vulnerable to error, subsequent reference suggests effects not reproducible, but again using an unreliable technique.

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b105399j&JournalCode=CC#

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b207135e&JournalCode=CC

The Thermoluminesence article seems more robust, but would be happy from comments from someone who knows the field:

http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf

[puzzlebobble]

I'm don't happen to like the Lancet as a journal. I get the distinct impression that they care far too much about gaining publicity and I lived with a junior editor for a while who gave the same impression.

As regards the paper, meta-analysis depend very much on how they select the trials to include.

I think that the biggest flaw is in the selection of trials. They include trials which are either randomised or double blind


have an explicit statement that there was random assignment to treatment and placebo groups, or that the trial involved double-blind conditions for participants, therapists, and outcome evaluators, making unbiased treatment allocation likely

This means that the placebo effect would have ben in operation in some studies whilst the patients weren't randomised to treatment or control group in others. They also include "abstract, thesis, conference proceeding, unpublished report, book section, or monograph" as well as journal articles. I'd be very hesitant to include these as I'd want a full paper to analyse.

There is also a clear publication bias on the forest plot. Compensating for this bias is difficult and above my level of statistics but when they do it their result is almost NS. Perhaps they undercompensated but as they do not eliminate placebo effect by blinding all the studies then we'd probably expect a positive meta-analysis anyway.


Although it is declared the research was partly funded by "Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung foundation" which from their website (not mentioned in the journal) is A Foundation for the Promotion and Support of Complementary Medicine.

As regards the thermoluminecense paper, it's not my area either but a couple of things caused my ears to twitch. They say "all traces of solute have disappeared" but if you dilute stuff it doesn't disappear, rather the chances of their being any of it in any particular volume diminish. How do they not know that there was not randomly some of the lithium in the tested sample? They do say "These findings did prove to be reproducible in the
course of many different identical experiments" but how many and I'd have been much happier with some statistics. Also can it really be beyond the chemists to test the solution for lithium after the the thermoluminescense parts of the experiment?

[puzzlebobble]

ps. there must have been larger and better conducted meta-analysis since that one was published in 1997.

[Pebble]

ps. there must have been larger and better conducted meta-analysis since that one was published in 1997.

There are: the best from the journal you don't like - but perhaps this article will not require the same level of skeptical scrutiny:

Shang A (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Shang%20A%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Huwiler-Müntener K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Huwiler-M%C3%BCntener%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Nartey L (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Nartey%20L%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Jüni P (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22J%C3%BCni%20P%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Dörig S (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22D%C3%B6rig%20S%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Sterne JA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sterne%20JA%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Pewsner D (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Pewsner%20D%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Egger M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Egger%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
BACKGROUND: Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias. METHODS: Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models. FINDINGS: 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0.58 (0.39-0.85) for conventional medicine (six trials). INTERPRETATION: Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects



Finding metanalysis that either support or refute homeopathy is not difficult. But one can easily argue that varying the inclusion criteria until one gets the right answer is a problem.




The original 1997 report identifies 26 high quality studies that it claims still show a significant positive benefit. So far I have tracked down 6 of these. By todays standards these are rather poor quality studies - only one based on previous trials demonstrating an apparent effect in allergic asthma - unfortunately though positive this was a very underpowered trial, and thus the effect demonstrated was far in excess of that predicted from the previous two trials - which is not an acceptable level of proof from a scientific stand point. Of the others 3 were negative (and not well designed) 2 were positive (also had problems) - but so far all were fully blinded with adequate randomisation.



The point I am trying to get at is that the usual platitudes do not apply. There have been a substantial number of double blind randomised trials, that are large enough to deserve attention. More than half of these are positive. Where it all falls down is the lack of consistency and reproducibility. The studies are rarely based on proper analysis of the magnitude of likely effect from previous trials in the same condition. The consequence of this is that meta-analysis as a tool is difficult to justify given the rather random nature of the trials, interventions and outcomes.


The problem thus is that those who believe in homeopathy claim that there are trials 'proving' that it works and that we are biased rejecting out of hand all evidence. We insist on vastly more rigorous standards of proof from them than from orthodox technologies. I suspect that only by identifying the best trials and showing what would be required for us to accept that a real (empirically shown) effect is present can we begin to negotiate instead of deriding each other.

[Pebble]

ps if they didn't include unpublished work, they would be accused of allowing publication bias to affect their result. This is not unusual in meta-analysis.

[Pebble]

Sorry forgot to include reference above: Lancet 2005; 366: 726

[puzzlebobble]

ps if they didn't include unpublished work, they would be accused of allowing publication bias to affect their result. This is not unusual in meta-analysis.

good point. My rudimentary knowledge of Meta-analysis suggests that there are two types. One in which the results from the publication are analysed and one where the original data is obtained and pooled. In the case where much of the research is only published as abstracts or in lectures I'd suggest that they should try to get the original data, even if pooling it is tricky.


The point I am trying to get at is that the usual platitudes do not apply. There have been a substantial number of double blind randomised trials, that are large enough to deserve attention. More than half of these are positive. Where it all falls down is the lack of consistency and reproducibility. The studies are rarely based on proper analysis of the magnitude of likely effect from previous trials in the same condition. The consequence of this is that meta-analysis as a tool is difficult to justify given the rather random nature of the trials, interventions and outcomes.

But as on balance there is not currently good evidence of efficacy, there is no plausible mechanism and there are very plausible risks from homoeopathy (eg. practitioners claiming the ability to treat AIDS, discouraging people from seeking medical help and spreading disinformation on vaccines etc.) should they not stop practicing till the evidence becomes clear? They should only be able to 'prescribe' homoeopathic medications as part of clinical trials.

[Pebble]

But as on balance there is not currently good evidence of efficacy, there is no plausible mechanism and there are very plausible risks from homoeopathy (eg. practitioners claiming the ability to treat AIDS, discouraging people from seeking medical help and spreading disinformation on vaccines etc.) should they not stop practicing till the evidence becomes clear? They should only be able to 'prescribe' homoeopathic medications as part of clinical trials.

Absolutely. However, proponents will argue that no one would fund the research unless they see the need to do so. Quality clinical trials are very expensive. It is only because crack pots insist on peddling this nonsense that we are even prepared to consider clinical trials. They would argue that they are leading the way and that us laggards will only follow when the evidence is irrefutable - since we control the funding, they are left with no choice but to goad us into exploring the validity or otherwise of what they already know from their own experience too be true.

[puzzlebobble]

I wonder what the size of the homoeopathy market is though. They charge about £50 per hour and there is also the companies supplying the medications. I'd guess the sum turnover is rather large.

And there's always Charlie boy and the profits from his shortbread.

I don't think the royal college of homoeopaths would actually want to o any large definitive trials. They could do one without too much difficulty. They could just tell all of the their members to recruit for a study, then ask them to prescribe a remedy and instead of giving the medication to the patient themselves they could fax the prescription to the royal college of homoeopaths who would send the real stuff or placebo (randomly) by next day delivery. At certain time points later they could send out questionnaires to find out if they got better.

Get each of the homoeopaths to recruit 25 patients and you'd have a huge study.

Of course if it was negative then it wouldn't prove that some medications don't work for certain conditions but it would force them to improve their evidence base. And they could claim that some of the homoeopaths weren't as well trained as they should be.

I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't be forced to do this, perhaps by threatening to bring homoeopathic medications under the same regulation as drugs.

[Pebble]

They could do one without too much difficulty. They could just tell all of the their members to recruit for a study, then ask them to prescribe a remedy and instead of giving the medication to the patient themselves they could fax the prescription to the royal college of homoeopaths who would send the real stuff or placebo (randomly) by next day delivery. At certain time points later they could send out questionnaires to find out if they got better.

Get each of the homoeopaths to recruit 25 patients and you'd have a huge study.

Not a good trial design: You need to fully standardize the treatment and assessment approach, then you need monitors to ensure the information has been gathered correctly, and independent evaluation of each subjective end point, this is aside of assessing all available evidence for the chosen intervention and assessments plus the statistical anlaysis of potential outcomes and safety committee etc.



I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't be forced to do this, perhaps by threatening to bring homoeopathic medications under the same regulation as drugs.

One good reason is cost. I am presently involved in one multicentre trial for the evaluation of diagnostic techniques. 500 patients in 14 countries. Cost £3.5 million. that is not even a treatment trial.

[Mongrel]

One good reason is cost. I am presently involved in one multicentre trial for the evaluation of diagnostic techniques. 500 patients in 14 countries. Cost &#163;3.5 million. that is not even a treatment trial.

And?

Alt med, worldwide, is a multi billion dollar operation. If they knew their product worked they'd have trialled it, let other repeat the trials and still be raking in the cash.

Alt med is not poor but rather than put their money towards proving efficacy they funnel it towards PR and, on occasion buy statesmen, but then have the audacity to complain about 'Big Pharma' and that they're the poor underdog. I'm not saying pharmaceutical companies are pure as the driven snow but they design tests, publish them and open themselves up to all that entails. Even the latest OTC (over the counter) cold or hayfever remedy has to go through the process, why should they be exempt?

[puzzlebobble]

Not a good trial design: You need to fully standardize the treatment and assessment approach

Really; could it not be an equivalent of an intention to treat analysis? The result could be something really simple like asking the patients to score how much better they felt on a visual scale. If the result was positive then it would show homoeopathy works (in making people feel an improvement). If there was no significant benefit then people would know that it was not on average likely to be worth going and seeing any random homoeopath about any particular thing if they were going because they wanted to feel better (ignoring the placebo effect). And if they complained that the result didn't show a positive result because only some homoeopaths know what they are doing then it implies that some of the others are causing harm (Assuming adequate power): this would force them to develop the evidence on what method/medications work for what.



and safety committee etc

Do you really think that an ethics committee would require a safety committee for a trial comparing homoeopathy to placebo? You could exclude serious medical conditions if they were worried.


One good reason is cost.

But if they kept the trial really simple then the costs would be much lower. The only independent involvement would need to be the people controlling the (un)blinding and randomisation. Each homoeopath could cover their own costs. The royal society of homoeopaths could cover their own.

Of course there are problems with this trial; there might be improvements which are not reflected in the the patients feeling of well-being, homoeopathy might only be effective for certain conditions and the study is too weakly powered to show them and as I already mentioned only some homoeopaths might know what they are doing. But all trials are a balance between a perfect design and the practicalities and a long as it is honestly reported I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't think the current evidence for homoeopathy suggests that the £3.5 million or so to do a really good study couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

[Mongrel]

I don't think the current evidence for homoeopathy suggests that the &#163;3.5 million or so to do a really good study couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

In my eyes it would, if it could have the authority to say "It doesn't work, there's no plausible reason why it should work and there's no reason to keep it in stores or allow homeopaths to practice (barring some astounding evidence otherwise)".

Three and a half mil for that would be cheap O0

[bindeweede]

In my eyes it would, if it could have the authority to say "It doesn't work, there's no plausible reason why it should work and there's no reason to keep it in stores or allow homeopaths to practice (barring some astounding evidence otherwise)".

Three and a half mil for that would be cheap O0

I've tried to find out how much an MRI scanner costs. A year ago it was about &#163;750,000, according to this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/6704925.stm

With inflation, I guess &#163;3.5M would buy 4 scanners. Would that not be money better spent? I do understand your view on homeopathy, and agree, but there is so much stuff from Ernst and others.....why not spend the money on something that REALLY does have some benefit?

[puzzlebobble]

The other problem with standardising treatment and assessment as you suggest is that I believe the majority of homoeopaths practice "classical homoeopathy'. They reject the idea that any one treatment is specific for any particular disease or visa versa because they take a 'holistic' approach. This means that the majority of the consultation is taken up with asking about their personality, sleeping habits etc. rather than things directly relevant to the condition. As a result, for example, someone with cold like symptoms might be likely to get echinachia but if their quite grumpy then could be given Nux Vom instead.

This very handily allows them to disregard any negative evidence unless the approach was holistic. I don't think they would even accept that there was only one thing that they were treating, but would rather say that they were treating the whole person. Therefore the outcome measured would have to be sufficiently woolly too.

If you were going to design a WOo I don't think you could do much better. Maybe that Hahneman chap was having a laugh.

[bindeweede]

If you were going to design a WOo I don't think you could do much better. Maybe that Hahneman chap was having a laugh.

From what I have read, Hahnemann was doing less harm than the contemporary medics. He was doing nothing, whereas the conventional doctors of the time were doing more harm than good.

[Mongrel]

The other problem with standardising treatment and assessment as you suggest is that I believe the majority of homoeopaths practice "classical homoeopathy'. They reject the idea that any one treatment is specific for any particular disease or visa versa because they take a 'holistic' approach. This means that the majority of the consultation is taken up with asking about their personality, sleeping habits etc. rather than things directly relevant to the condition. As a result, for example, someone with cold like symptoms might be likely to get echinachia but if their quite grumpy then could be given Nux Vom instead.

This very handily allows them to disregard any negative evidence unless the approach was holistic. I don't think they would even accept that there was only one thing that they were treating, but would rather say that they were treating the whole person. Therefore the outcome measured would have to be sufficiently woolly too.

If you were going to design a WOo I don't think you could do much better. Maybe that Hahneman chap was having a laugh.

But you can go with a two pronged attack;

1) Recruit for a clinical trial, standardised symptoms\disease, you already have the cure rate and prognosis for EBM (Evidence Based Medicine). Volunteers see a homeopathic practitioner for a session and get prescribed <remedy>. Script gets taken to local homeopathic pharmacy to be filled BUT group A (chosen randomly of course) gets the remedy and group B gets plain lactose tabs. At end of the trial period compare Group A, B and then compare that to EBM.

2) Ask a homeopathic practitioner to distinguish between a bottle of standard sugar pills and bottle of homeopathic pills ( see Proving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Provings)).

[Mojo]

Finally. Frass et al Chest 2005; 127: 936. In a single centre study of 110 patients in ITU on ventillators with COPD found that the time to extubation (2.88+/0 1.2 days -H; 6.12+/- 3.13 days -P) was significantly different, as was the length of stay in ITU. The blinding was excellent and the groups comparable.
Or maybe not: you might like to check out the discussion of this on respectful Insolence (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php).

[Mojo]

ps. there must have been larger and better conducted meta-analysis since that one was published in 1997.
There was a second analysis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391656) of the same data published by substantially the same authors in 1999, looking more closely at study quality. They found that better quality studies showed less positive results, and said that their 1997 analysis "at least overstated the effects of homeopathic treatment". For some reason homoeopaths never seem to cite this one.

Linde and Jonas had a letter published in The Lancet in 2005 (in the wake of the Shang et al. paper) in which they wrote, "our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven".

[Mojo]

There is more to this than I had appreciated. In the responses to the original article one finds this:

Dana Ullman, MPH 26 June, 2008

...[snip...

So there are quality studies showing that however ridiculous one may feel Homeopathy is in principle - it is not proven that it does not work, and there are areas where a possible demonstrable effect has been shown.
These are the same half dozen or so papers that Ullman (and others) cites over and over again, and which have been repeatedly shot down. See, for example, discussions on the JREF forum.

[Pebble]

These are the same half dozen or so papers that Ullman (and others) cites over and over again, and which have been repeatedly shot down. See, for example, discussions on the JREF forum.

Have read the critique posted above, points are reasonable, but the same points could be made about many trials we rely on throughout medicine. As noted in the more recent Lancet metanalysis, homeopathic trials are generally better constructed than matched standard trials. So they should be, they are not backed by sound experimental logic.

Nevertheless the real criticism is that they fail to follow through positive results, with a series similarly designed trials, followed by properly constructed large multi-center trials. The standard set of proving trials actually cost closer to £20m to undertake (I was simply providing an example above).

The reason I keep harping on about this is that the fact that scientific community cannot accept homeopathy as it is logically flawed, has not stopped a single person from believing in it. A truly unbiased approach requires that if something can be shown empirically to be effective, then the logic or mechanism of action can be determined at a later date. Most of the progress in genetics has actually been made by abandoning the hypothesis led approach and using genome wide screening with statistical fixes to determine what is real and what is not, only then beginning to understand why the observed genes have anything to do with the condition being studied. It is therefore more honest for us to be transparent and state what the hurdles are that need to be overcome before acceptance, rather that simply calling them a bunch of nuts repeatedly.

[Admin]

A truly unbiased approach requires that if something can be shown empirically to be effective, then the logic or mechanism of action can be determined at a later date.[.....] It is therefore more honest for us to be transparent and state what the hurdles are that need to be overcome before acceptance, rather that simply calling them a bunch of nuts repeatedly.

How many times does it have to be tested and how many hurdles need to be overcome before it's accepted that homeopathy just doesn't work?

The theory is absolutely bonkers! It doesn't just fail on one level but on many. It contradicts the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and would require several paradigm shifts in scientific understanding - and the acceptance of the reality of sympathetic magic - for it to be plausible even just in theory.

There'll always be noise in the data. Keep testing this stuff and there will always be results that hint at an effect here and there but which are never replicated. That's to do with the nature of testing though and not some real effect of homeopathy. Even if there was an effect there but the effect size is so small that it's virtually undetectable then what use is it anyway?

IMO, it's just pure folly to go on and on testing this crap as it just doesn't work; and the laws of nature are not going to change any time soon to make things any different.


The reason I keep harping on about this is that the fact that scientific community cannot accept homeopathy as it is logically flawed, has not stopped a single person from believing in it.

That's true. People don't make decisions to use medicines based upon the scientific understanding of it; they do so for many other reasons.

Perhaps we ought to look more closely at those reasons and if we want to persuade people that this stuff doesn't work then we need a different approach. Just saying "it doesn't work", well, doesn't work!

[Graham Lappin]

Most of the progress in genetics has actually been made by abandoning the hypothesis led approach and using genome wide screening with statistical fixes to determine what is real and what is not, only then beginning to understand why the observed genes have anything to do with the condition being studied.

But such studies are based upon a feasible hypothesis. Homeopathy has no known basis at all and so is this really comparing the same things?

[Pebble]

But such studies are based upon a feasible hypothesis. Homeopathy has no known basis at all and so is this really comparing the same things?


Certainly not. But it does illustrate the point that the way we have done things is not necessarily the way for the future. When one first explains the concepts behind genome wide searches to classically trained scientists, they reject out of hand the whole premise. Agree absolutely, that the logic is sound, just takes a little longer to expalin/get ones head around.

[Pebble]

How many times does it have to be tested and how many hurdles need to be overcome before it's accepted that homeopathy just doesn't work?

I suppose I see the job as half done. It is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't work. So we rely on asking if a hypothesis is sensible, and is the observed effect big enough to warrant pursuing. In terms of homeopathy, we could have refused to do any trials, as it is nonsense, but we have. Unfortunately, these trials have been small in general, and for many reasons we have allowed many 'positive' trials to be published. It seems a little late to me to put the genie back in the bottle. This reminds me of the vitamin trials in heart disease, that ultimately showed what a waste of time vitamin therapies were for patients.

One way out is to state that the minimum requirement for accepting an effect as real, when the logical basis is not apparent is the presence of at least 3 DBRCTs from different centers/investigators, showing a consistent level of benefit in the same condition/set of symptoms. Followed by a confirmatory multicentre of sufficient size to confirm or refute the level of benefit shown in the initial trials. Then one needs to get this level of proof accepted by international organisations. Not sure how to go about that bit.




Perhaps we ought to look more closely at those reasons and if we want to persuade people that this stuff doesn't work then we need a different approach. Just saying "it doesn't work", well, doesn't work!

Agreed any ideas?

[Mojo]

That's true. People don't make decisions to use medicines based upon the scientific understanding of it; they do so for many other reasons.

Perhaps we ought to look more closely at those reasons and if we want to persuade people that this stuff doesn't work then we need a different approach. Just saying "it doesn't work", well, doesn't work!


I find that (at least in people who don't have a particular investment in it) simply explaining what homoeopathy actually is and how it is claimed that it works can be enough - many people think it's just some sort of herbal medicine, and when you explain the dilutions, and 'like cured like' etc they realise how ludicrous it is. The main problem with this approach tends to be getting them to believe any of it. I tend to get the words, "that can't be right" coming back at me...

The 'true believers' are another matter, of course.

[puzzlebobble]

I suppose I see the job as half done. It is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't work.

But it's not up to us to prove it doesn't work but for them to prove it does work. And despite all the trials no reasonable person would read the evidence and say it had been shown to work. At most you could say some of the trials have been positive but this could be through chance or poor design.

If they had any ethics they'd stop their practice until they did know what works.

[Croydon Bob]

I find that (at least in people who don't have a particular investment in it) simply explaining what homoeopathy actually is and how it is claimed that it works can be enough - many people think it's just some sort of herbal medicine, and when you explain the dilutions, and 'like cured like' etc they realise how ludicrous it is. The main problem with this approach tends to be getting them to believe any of it. I tend to get the words, "that can't be right" coming back at me...

Yes. Absolutely.

I've also experienced users of homeopathy telling me that I'm wrong, lying or exaggerating when I explain how it "works". As you say, many people think it's just some sort of herbal medicine.

Much of the job would be done just by shining a bright light on them and getting homeopaths to explain what they do and how they think it cures people.

[Matt]

Hey lets start a rumour the Reiki and Homeopathy when used together cause negative quantum interactions which can lead to Chronic Lyme Disease (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/05/fake_diseases_part_deuxchronic.php) or Morgellons Syndrome (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/why_am_i_here_too_bother_you_o.php).

[Mojo]

Let's start a rumour that rather than investigating proving symptoms using, as they tend to imply (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=homeopathy+onion+proving&btnG=Search&meta=), the crude material, they actually carry out provings at 30C when there is absolutely none of the substance present. Oh, hang on, that's what they actually do...

[Pebble]

Yes. Absolutely.

I've also experienced users of homeopathy telling me that I'm wrong, lying or exaggerating when I explain how it "works". As you say, many people think it's just some sort of herbal medicine.

Much of the job would be done just by shining a bright light on them and getting homeopaths to explain what they do and how they think it cures people.

Given that most people believe there is a being that knows all and is yet so offended if any individual fiddles with their genitals, he/she will condem them to eternal suffering, I cannot see that believeing that the spirit of the original substance persists beyond dilution would worry them

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Homeopathy cures where Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Homeopathy: Micro Doses Mega Results

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Homeopathy is a system of medicine that treats diseased individuals on the basis of using medicinal substances capable of producing similar changes in the health of a person as that of the diseased person. The term Homoeopathy is derived from the Greek words - homoios, meaning similar, and pathos, mean suffering. Homoeopathy is based on the principle - like cures like. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, himself an allopathic doctor (M.D.). Homeopathy was established it in the late 18th and early 19th century by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. He realised his own school of medicine (allopathy) wasnt helping the patients and spent years researching on homeopathy.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Anecdotes are part and parcel of observer bias and the placebo effect, they can't be trusted - you need to conduct properly controlled scientific tests.

"you can't test homeopathy!"

ad nauseum......

Placebo si equally there in allopathy

[Admin]

Homeopathy cures where Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails.


Homeopathy: Micro Doses Mega Results

And you can back those assertions up with evidence can you?

If so, let's see it. O0

[Admin]

Homeopathy is a system of medicine that treats diseased individuals on the basis of using medicinal substances capable of producing similar changes in the health of a person as that of the diseased person. The term Homoeopathy is derived from the Greek words - homoios, meaning similar, and pathos, mean suffering. Homoeopathy is based on the principle - like cures like. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, himself an allopathic doctor (M.D.). Homeopathy was established it in the late 18th and early 19th century by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. He realised his own school of medicine (allopathy) wasnt helping the patients and spent years researching on homeopathy.

Homeopathy: http://www.ukskeptics.com/homeopathy.php

We do actually know what it is, the theories behind it, and why it doesn't work.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I'm don't happen to like the Lancet as a journal. I get the distinct impression that they care far too much about gaining publicity and I lived with a junior editor for a while who gave the same impression.



Why would you not like Lancet just because it published in favour of homeopathy or you not being in a team of Lancet now

[Admin]

Why would you not like Lancet just because it published in favour of homeopathy

That's not what he said.

[bindeweede]

I wonder why Dr Malik was banned from the Randi forum.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3525891

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

That's true. People don't make decisions to use medicines based upon the scientific understanding of it; they do so for many other reasons.

Let me tell you why peope make decision in favour of homeopathy.

The patient goes to a doctor who according to him is competent
in curing him. The patient goes to a doctor only if the last time when he visited the same doctor, the doctor was able to cure him. If a patient is visiting a doctor for the first time, he goes to the doctor on basis of reputation/word of mouth. If a doctor has a good name in the society, more patients will visit him.



Perhaps we ought to look more closely at those reasons and if we want to persuade people that this stuff doesn't work then we need a different approach. Just saying "it doesn't work", well, doesn't work!

As long as homeopathic medicine keeps on curing people, there will always be ardent believers for homeopathy. And in dismissing this bottom-line, modern medicine only fuels the supporters of homeopathy.

[dalriada]

I wonder why she's come along to this forum, when it seems that she's already had more rationality than she can handle over at The Museum of Hoaxes (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/683/) ?

I wonder why she has this need to believe she's a doctor and not a salesgirl for snakeoil?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pebble http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=40765#post40765)
The reason I keep harping on about this is that the fact that scientific community cannot accept homeopathy as it is logically flawed, has not stopped a single person from believing in it.


Majority of the patients who goes to visit a homeopathic physician for their health problems even does not know what is lancet, what is double blind, etc. They simply go to them because they have been benefited from homeopathy. However loud you (MODERN MEDICINE) shout, no one listens to your false propoganda against homeopathy, except scientific community. It is due to this only that in the last decade homeopathy have surpassed all other complementary and alternative treatments to reach as second largest mode of treatment in world.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Have read the critique posted above, points are reasonable, but the same points could be made about many trials we rely on throughout medicine. As noted in the more recent Lancet metanalysis, homeopathic trials are generally better constructed than matched standard trials. So they should be, they are not backed by sound experimental logic.

Nevertheless the real criticism is that they fail to follow through positive results, with a series similarly designed trials, followed by properly constructed large multi-center trials. The standard set of proving trials actually cost closer to £20m to undertake (I was simply providing an example above).

The reason I keep harping on about this is that the fact that scientific community cannot accept homeopathy as it is logically flawed, has not stopped a single person from believing in it. A truly unbiased approach requires that if something can be shown empirically to be effective, then the logic or mechanism of action can be determined at a later date. Most of the progress in genetics has actually been made by abandoning the hypothesis led approach and using genome wide screening with statistical fixes to determine what is real and what is not, only then beginning to understand why the observed genes have anything to do with the condition being studied. It is therefore more honest for us to be transparent and state what the hurdles are that need to be overcome before acceptance, rather that simply calling them a bunch of nuts repeatedly.

Homeopathy is an emperical science

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Have read the critique posted above, points are reasonable, but the same points could be made about many trials we rely on throughout medicine. As noted in the more recent Lancet metanalysis, homeopathic trials are generally better constructed than matched standard trials. So they should be, they are not backed by sound experimental logic.

Nevertheless the real criticism is that they fail to follow through positive results, with a series similarly designed trials, followed by properly constructed large multi-center trials. The standard set of proving trials actually cost closer to £20m to undertake (I was simply providing an example above).

The reason I keep harping on about this is that the fact that scientific community cannot accept homeopathy as it is logically flawed, has not stopped a single person from believing in it. A truly unbiased approach requires that if something can be shown empirically to be effective, then the logic or mechanism of action can be determined at a later date. Most of the progress in genetics has actually been made by abandoning the hypothesis led approach and using genome wide screening with statistical fixes to determine what is real and what is not, only then beginning to understand why the observed genes have anything to do with the condition being studied. It is therefore more honest for us to be transparent and state what the hurdles are that need to be overcome before acceptance, rather that simply calling them a bunch of nuts repeatedly.

Homeopathy should not be dismissed because we can not explain in very precise terms the possible mechanism of action of this system of medicine . In allopathy, Lithium carbonate was and is prescribed to psychiatric patients the world over ,it is effective yet for years no one knew its mechanism of action,and still it was being prescribed, millions benefitted. Its only recently that we all understood how it works. For homeopathy too, all we need is extensive research using all the modern tools available and a multidisciplinary research team (source: Ida Mukherjee)

[dalriada]

Nancy, you are not a physician.
You have no medical qualifications.
You are not qualified to provide medical advice to anyone.

You apear to have spent a considerable amount of time trolling around on internet forums relentlessly advertising your exploitative little business and stroking your own ego. This adds the sin of tediousness to your crimes against humanity.

Run along... :cheesy:

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

But it's not up to us to prove it doesn't work but for them to prove it does work. And despite all the trials no reasonable person would read the evidence and say it had been shown to work. At most you could say some of the trials have been positive but this could be through chance or poor design.

If they had any ethics they'd stop their practice until they did know what works.

I would rather go by the famous statement of Oliver Heaviside when he confronted the Cambridge mathematicians with his new "Calculus" that converted differential equations to algebraic equations and solved them effortlessly. He had only consistent results but no proofs, and he famously told them," I cannot refuse a delicious dinner just because I do not understand the process of digestion". It is true that Heavisde Caculus was later called Laplace Transforms, but Heaviside had his day. I am interested only in the results of Homoeopathy. The mechanism may be understood some day, when science advances sufficiently, and medicine is free from the clutches of multinational pharmaceutical and insurance cmpanies.( words of Dr. MPC)

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Hey lets start a rumour the Reiki and Homeopathy when used together cause negative quantum interactions which can lead to Chronic Lyme Disease (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/05/fake_diseases_part_deuxchronic.php) or Morgellons Syndrome (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/why_am_i_here_too_bother_you_o.php).

Shame on you

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Let's start a rumour that rather than investigating proving symptoms using, as they tend to imply (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=homeopathy+onion+proving&btnG=Search&meta=), the crude material, they actually carry out provings at 30C when there is absolutely none of the substance present. Oh, hang on, that's what they actually do...

Truth wll eventually win at last

[dalriada]

Does the relentless speed of Ms Malik's postings rather suggest that she's doing a rather shocking amount of cut 'n' pasting...?

Shame on you Nancy!

Are you trying to fool us into thinking those little sugar pills have given you such hyper-brisk typing skills?

;D

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Nancy, you are not a physician.
You have no medical qualifications.
You are not qualified to provide medical advice to anyone.

You apear to have spent a considerable amount of time trolling around on internet forums relentlessly advertising your exploitative little business and stroking your own ego. This adds the sin of tediousness to your crimes against humanity.

Run along... :cheesy:

Regular full time medical training for a minimum period of 5 1/2 years (BHMS) is absolutely necessary for becoming qualified to practice homeopathy in India as it gives a complete understanding not only about the structure and functioning of the human body but also a thorough understanding of the homeopathic philosophy and its practical utilization while treating diseased persons. And to do M.D. in homeopathy further, you have to spend three more years after BHMS

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Does the relentless speed of Ms Malik's postings rather suggest that she's doing a rather shocking amount of cut 'n' pasting...?

Shame on you Nancy!

Are you trying to fool us into thinking those little sugar pills have given you such hyper-brisk typing skills?

;D

Cut and paste is from my words on internet and my laptop. Does it still bothers you.

[Admin]

Right, I've put a stop to "doctor" Malik's nonsense.

She's obviously a troll/spammer and offering nothing in the way of useful input.

I'll leave the postings in place as an example of the sort of idiocy proponents of homeopathy come out with.

[dalriada]

Pretty much everything about you offends me Nancy.

Particularly your line in anti-vaccination propaganda, especially given The child mortality rate in India (http://in.news.yahoo.com/indiabroadcast/20080123/r_t_ibn_hl/thl-child-mortality-rate-highest-in-indi-275e0e3.html)

I have been privileged to meet some truly wonderful Indian Doctors, real doctors, who have devoted their lives to improving the health of women and children in that country. You on the other hand are a pretentious little fraud a disgrace to your country and no credit to womanhood in general.

Edited to add. Good she's gone.
Thankyou John. Waaaaay too much evil spamming there.

[Graham Lappin]

Truth wll eventually win at last

Well you got that right.

Nancy - does it not bother you that for homeopathy to work we would have to re-write much of our scientific understanding. Simple basic laws of chemical interaction and molecular structure would be all shown to be inadequate. If the evidence showed it, then that is exactly what scientists would do - that's the way science works. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and what evidence there is (if any at all) is incredibly weak. Do you not have at least some sense of incredulity about this?


Lithium carbonate was and is prescribed to psychiatric patients the world over ,it is effective yet for years no one knew its mechanism of action,and still it was being prescribed, millions benefitted. Its only recently that we all understood how it works. .

The mechanism of Li is still being researched, as it happens. But at least one can postulate possible mechanism - Li and the Na pump, for example. In fact the evidence for Li having an effect on the Na pump is not that good - but this is exactly the point. Make a hypothesis - test it and then form a theory based on the evidence. With homeopathy, you cannot even take the first step.


The mechanism may be understood some day, when science advances sufficiently, and medicine is free from the clutches of multinational pharmaceutical and insurance cmpanies.( words of Dr. MPC)

You only "know" that it will be proven one day because you have made up your mind despite all the evidence to the contrary. This illustrates my point. If some mechanism is shown to explain homeopathy, then providing the evidence is good than I will accept it. You however, just somehow "know" and that's that. Throw in a bit of conspiracy and your job is done.

[puzzlebobble]

unbelievably deluded.

[vbloke]

"Dr" Nancy is typical of the homeopathetics I've come across during my studies.

I was almost thrown off my course for asking questions!

They utterly fall into all 26 of the biases I posted about earlier (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=41225). It's amazing to watch people actually bias themselves into a mindset of believing nonsense. I'll probably have to write something up at some point about it.

Well, since "Dr" Nancy feels she can use the title, "Dr" vbloke is now open for business...

I can "cure" anything, as long as you don't ask me to prove that I can...

[seren]

I love puzzlebobble. Played it religiously at University. Inbetween studying, of
course...


Which leads me on to this:


However loud you (MODERN MEDICINE) shout, no one listens to your false propoganda against homeopathy, except scientific community.

*stands* I am a humanities graduate, I know virtually nothing about science, and I listened to MODERN MEDICINE. I denounce homeopathy and all who sail in her. So nuh. My Hindi's pretty poor, but I know "chor" and I know "jooth" when I see 'em. Challo jao. :tongue:

[puzzlebobble]

Where?

The college bar? ;)

[puzzlebobble]

it's only single player but....

www.ventoline.com/frozenbubble/bustamove640.html

[Matt]

I wonder why Dr Malik was banned from the Randi forum.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3525891

The usual...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109252

[seren]

Where?

The college bar?

Yes. County.


(I hope you know what that means, otherwise it's going to look weird)

[puzzlebobble]

Yes. County.


(I hope you know what that means, otherwise it's going to look weird)

in south wales?

(i hope that makes sense)

[seren]

I live in South Wales now, but I went to Uni in the north west. Of England, I mean. You mean you had puzzlebobble here too? And I went all that way! ;D

[Mojo]

However loud you (MODERN MEDICINE) shout, no one listens to your false propoganda against homeopathy, except scientific community. It is due to this only that in the last decade homeopathy have surpassed all other complementary and alternative treatments to reach as second largest mode of treatment in world.

These homoeopaths should at least try to keep their stories straight:

GPs shun homeopathy as prescriptions halve (http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=35&storycode=4120112&c=2)


GP prescriptions for homeopathy have almost halved in two years, placing huge question marks over future provision of the controversial treatment.

...

But Dr Tim Robinson, a GP who provides a local homeopathic service in Dorset, said the huge drop reflected an orchestrated ‘hate campaign’ against homeopathy that had been led by Professor Ernst.

‘Patients are not asking for it because of what has been written in the press and this also reflects the disillusionment of medical homeopaths with the system and cuts in funding from PCTs,’ he said.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Mojo
Let's start a rumour that rather than investigating proving symptoms using, as they tend to imply, the crude material, they actually carry out provings at 30C when there is absolutely none of the substance present. Oh, hang on, that's what they actually do...
Truth wll eventually win at last
Er, Nancy, that's what Hahnemann actually recommended in The Organon. See Aphorisms 128-129 (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/38.html#128).

Haven't you read it?

[bindeweede]

I see that Dr Nancy has turned up on the "Think Humanism" site.


Critics, time and again, have stated that in the highly dilute state, there can be no medicinal activity left. Let us make it clear, that the manufacture of Homoeopathic medicines is not just a process of dilution, but a process of dilution with potentization at each step along the way. Potentization involves strong vibrations being imparted to the medicinal liquid, whereby medicine releases energy into the diluent liquid and the diluent liquid then carries the energy which later on gets imparted to the patient.

As further proof, spectrophotometry analysis of high potencies show distinct differences from a plain non-Homoeopathic solution. Recently, the Bio-Medical Instrumentation Department of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), in Mumbai, have created an instrument called Medical Analyser, which is able to show distinct effects of Homoeopathic remedies even in the higher potencies, and though the instrument is in its early days, it has also been able to identify the remedy in some tests. We of the Homoeopathic fraternity, look forward to participating in further studies with the Medical Analyser, in collaboration with BARC.
I quite liked this. I hope "Lifelinking" does not mind.


Oh Dr Nancy
Is it your fancy
To convert the folk at TH
To your views?

Oh Dr Nancy
There is a chancy
That you may end up
A singin the blues

For we are a bunch of sceptics
And if our bits were septic
We would seek out a proper doctor
Not come to you!http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=640&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=180