Sigh ... here we go again

[Blue Bubble]

Today's edition of The Times, in the Body and Soul Section, yet-another-friggin-advertisement-article for homeo-bloody-opathy.

>:(

[Mojo]

I see Toby Murcott's still doing his "what's the evidence" panel. This time saying that there's not really any good evidence that homoeopathic remedies are any better than placebo, but then trying desperately to say something positive:
As with all medical interventions, the drug is only part of the treatment. The practitioner might suggest lifestyle changes.What's this got to do with evidence for the effectiveness of homoeopathy?
...the placebo effect appears to be strong in migraine. Nikki Shepherd said she had faith in homoeopathy and it worked for her.He's very keen on the placebo effect as a means of treatments working. In a column on 23rd October 2004 he answered the question, "is it just placebo" with "possibly but this does not mean it doesn't work". ::)


I wish I'd found out he was the "science adviser" on You Are What You Eat before I bothered to buy his book... ::)

[Admin]

Actually, this issue could be tuned into a short explanatory article.

Instead of comparing their treatment to a placebo (necessary because all interventions can result in placebo effects) they compare them to doing nothing.

Take an untreated group and compare them to, say, those treated with homeopathy and when it's found that those treated with homeopathy respond better than those who get no treatment they conclude it works.

All they're really doing is invoking placebo effects but concluding that the remedy has worked.

[Mojo]

Instead of comparing their treatment to a placebo (necessary because all interventions can result in placebo effects) they compare them to doing nothing.

Take an untreated group and compare them to, say, those treated with homeopathy and when it's found that those treated with homeopathy respond better than those who get no treatment they conclude it works.

Then there were some German trials we discussed over at the JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42366) where they seemed to be taking a slightly different approach: testing homoeopathy against not very effective "conventional" treatments, in unblinded trials, for conditions that are prone to false reporting and suggestion, for patients who have themselves decided whether they want homoeopathy or the "conventional" treatment. Again, the homoeopathic consultation invokes more of a placebo effect than just being prescribed a pill or whatever...

[Mojo]

Instead of comparing their treatment to a placebo (necessary because all interventions can result in placebo effects) they compare them to doing nothing.

Or as in the proposed Bristol asthma trial, comparing standard treatment to standard treatment plus homoeopathy. Again, the extra intervention will invoke the placebo effect.