Diluted credibility: homeopathy = placebo
The Lancet, the respected UK-based medical journal, has published its conclusions about homoeopathy after examining findings from 110 homoeopathy trials and as many trials of conventional medicine. "There was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions - this finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects."
The study's lead author and statistical analyst Matthias Egger of Switzerland's University of Berne wrote "We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible, but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis."
In its editorial, The Lancet urged doctors to tell their patients about the absurd dilutions on which homoeopathy lays its claims (the weaker the solution the more effective the medicine is claimed to be), and the lack of benefits of taking homeopathic medicines. The editorial also recommends that doctors take more time to connect with patients rather than just prescribing and forgetting.
Reuters News Agency reports that the 200-year old system of alternative medicine has been showing increased sales. In Britain alone, sales of homeopathic medicines have grown by a third in the past five years to £32 million pounds in 2004.
Blink
del.icio.us
Furl
Google
Homoeopathy is more than placebo
I know for a fact that homoeopathy works. I always rely on homoeopathic medicines when I become ill. There are a number of studies which show that homoeopathic medicines are efficacious. To understand how homoeopathy works is indeed a challenge to scientists, but this does not mean that epidemiological studies such as the one referred to above are the last word. And what, pray, does the IHEU has to do with disproving homoeopathy? Is the IHEU being secretly funded by the pharmaceutical industry?
How Can This Work
From what I understand homeopathic 'drugs'are so dilute, that they can't even be detected. How can something in such small doses possibly work. From what I understand homeopaths say the "spirit or essence" of the substance remains.
I agree IHEU doesn't have anything to do with this, unless the IHEU thinks that homeopaths are propagating a delibrate fraud. I personally think homeopathy is a fraud. I just don't see how this can work. has there been any double blind studies?
Double Blind studies - homoeopathy
The double blind method is taken for granted in homoeopathic studies. In fact, homoeopaths were the first to use double blind trials. Double blind trials are mentioned in homoeopathic literature dating back at least to the 1920's, as far as I know; perhaps homoeopaths used them even earlier.
Selecting a homoeopathic remedy is not easy for a person not trained in homoeopathy. In homoeopathy, it is not just the clinical symptoms of the disease which are taken into account, but also a number of criteria which a practitioner of convential medicine would find irrelavant to the case - such as mental symptoms, moods, dreams etc.
You will find some information about this here:
http://www.positivehealth.com/PERMIT/Articles/Homoeopathy/fraser49.htm
For that very reason, many of the studies conducted by people not trained as homoeopaths are bound to show that homoeopathy is not efficacious, because in these studies homoeopathic remedies are being used in the same way as conventional medicines. Patients having the same clinical condition, say asthma, may be treated in homoeopathy with different remedies, depending on the concomittants peculiar to the patient. When the principles of homoeopathy are correctly applied, there are a number of trials which do show that homoeopathics medicines are more effective than placebo:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471
http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/res_references1.html
http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/Homoeopathy-Research.htm
For the same reason, studies reported exclusively by homoeopaths (as opposed to doctors not trained in homoeopathy) always show that homoeopathic remedies work. This is not because those carrying out these studies are lying, but because the remedies are being used correctly by homoeopaths.
In my opinion, the clinical evidence for homoeopathy is very much there. I use homoeopathic medicines whenever I become ill. I am aware fully aware that the homoepathic dilutions contradict known laws of chemistry. But in my opinion, that only means that the mechanism by which homoeopathy works is a challenge for scientists to explain. It is no good trying to wish away the clinical evidence, and thereby label all homoeopaths as fraudsters.
I would encourage posters to try these medicines themselves for common illnesses. It takes some time to get into the principles of homoeopathy, but I know of many people who have got rid of long standing ailments by using homoeopathic medicines. However, I must warn you that I do not recommend substituting homoeopathy for any convential medication which you may be dependent on. Homoeopathy is regarded as complementary medicine even by its practitioners, and most homoeopaths will recomend that you tell your GP that you are taking homoeopathic remedies in addition to your conventional medication.
I said that I didn't see what the IHEU had to do with this. I am an atheist, and regard myself as a humanist. I am sympathetic to the views of the IHEU, and I am considering becoming a member. I don't think the IHEU should lump together religion and alternative medicine. Because the difference is that the latter can be subject to test and trials, whereas religion is a belief system involving entities whose existence cannot be proved or disproved.
Thank you for your comment.
Thank you for your comment. At the risk of repeating myself, IHEU is interested in homeopathy, as a popular delusion, because its members include the leading rationalist organizations. The placebo effect is powerful and has a rational basis. The Lancet study covered in this article reviewed over 100 trials (I don't know whether they included the trials that you mention) and seems to be further evidence that homeopathy is no more than a placebo.
--
IHEU Website Administrator
Lancet study
You seem to have made up your mind on the matter, and refuse admit any point of view which differs from your set opinion. The Lancet study was a so called meta-analysis of previous studies. The authors of the article in the Lancet did not carry out a single study themselves, but made a statistical study of previously published material. I pointed out in my previous post why some clinical trials may show that homoeopathy is not effective, so there is as such nothing new in the findings of the Lancet article you refer to. You will find many refutations of the Lancet article on the web. One of them is at this link:
http://www.hpathy.com/research/bhatia-lancet-homeopathy.asp
The Lancet study is a meta-analysis
The Lancet study is a meta-analysis of previous studies. What's wrong with that? It's a useful and widely-accepted approach to assess the value of previous work and attempt to arrive at a consensus, and it's especially valuable where there are strong opinions on each side of the argument.
With all due respect, I am open to evidence-based argument on this subject. (I could have suppressed your comments if I were as biased as you suppose.) But it's not scientific to start from a position and then seek evidence to confirm it! Are you open to the possibility that your perception of the effectiveness of homeopathy in your own case is only the placebo effect?
For a totally skeptical (but amusing and scientific) view of homeopathy, see http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html - one good point to come out of this is that at least homeopathy doesn't have the unwanted side-effects of many conventional, evidence-based medicines!
--
IHEU Website Administrator
Meta-analyses and biases
My position on homoeopathy is the very opposite of what you would like it be. I have evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathy, both from my own experience of more than 15 years, and the experience and testimonies of many other people, among these several qualified medical doctors and microbiologists. According to one source (BMJ 1999;319:1115-1118) about 1000 doctors in the UK (and about 10,000 in France and Germany) prescribe homoeopathic medicines. Some practices even have web pages on which they offer homoeopathic treatment as an option. I am reluctant to post links to these without their permission, but if you do a Google search for "Homoeopathy NHS", you should be able to find a few such practices in the UK. Are we to infer that these doctors are charlatans with mercenary-minds, or that they are deceiving themselves and others as well?
In my first post I listed a number of references for clinical trials which show that homoeopathic dilutions are effective. You disregard all these (have you even bothered to read a single one of them?), and throw back a non-scientific article (which I have seen before) about homoeopathy in the USA. As for the meta-analysis you use to support your position, I sent you a link in my second post which refutes the conclusions of the study, giving reasons for why the study was deficient. I shall use this opportunity to provide you with yet another critical comment about the meta-analysis in question. The reference is in The Lancet 2005; 366:2081-2082. The authors of this comment also criticize the journal for taking a position in the debate on the basis of a flawed study. (You will also note that the authors of this critical letter are not sympathetically disposed towards the practice of homoeopathy, and so you can rule out any possible bias in favour of homoeopathy.)
I never said there was anything wrong with meta-analyses per se. There are other meta-analyses which show that homoeopathy cannot be attributed to placebo effects. See for instance, The Lancet 1997; 350:834-843. (This study is all the more interesting because the authors seem to start with aim of disproving homoeopathy - nothing wrong with that from a scientific point of view. But at least you can rule out any bias in favour of homoeopathy on the part of the authors.)
Rationalists vs. popular delusions
Thank you for your comment. IHEU's members include the leading rationalist organizations: hence our interest in popular delusions. Where (rationally, please) is the evidence that homeopathy is more than the (admittedly powerful) placebo effect?
--
IHEU Website Administrator