New evidence for homeopathy
November 3, 2008Two new studies conclude that a review which claimed that homeopathy is just a placebo, published in The Lancet, was seriously flawed.
George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University comments: 'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.'
The background to the ongoing debate is as follows:
In August 2005, The Lancet published an editorial entitled 'The End of Homeopathy', prompted by a review comparing clinical trials of homeopathy with trials of conventional medicine. The claim that homeopathic medicines are just placebo was based on 6 clinical trials of conventional medicine and 8 studies of homeopathy but did not reveal the identity of these trials. The review was criticised for its opacity as it gave no indication of which trials were analysed and the various assumptions made about the data.
Sufficient detail to enable a reconstruction was eventually published and two recently published scientific papers based on such a reconstruction challenge the Lancet review, showing that:
-- Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.
-- The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions; if homeopathy works for some of these but not others the result changes, implying that it is not placebo.
-- The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless.
-- Doubts remain about the opaque, unpublished criteria used in the review, including the definition of 'higher quality'.
The Lancet review, led by Prof Matthias Egger of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Berne, started with 110 matched clinical trials of homeopathy and conventional medicine, reduced these to 'higher quality trials' and then to 8 and 6 respectively 'larger higher quality trials'. Based on these 14 studies the review concluded that there is 'weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions'.
There are a limited number of homeopathic studies so it is quite possible to interpret these data selectively and unfavourably, which is what appears to have been done in the Lancet paper. If we assume that homeopathy does not work for just one condition (Arnica for post-exercise muscle stiffness), or alter the definition of 'larger trial', the results are positive. The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless: the original 110 trials were matched, but matching was lost after they were reduced to 8 and 6. But the quality of homeopathic trials was better than conventional trials.
This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy. An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.
Prof Egger has declined to comment on these findings.
Reference: Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.015
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy 2008. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.008.
Source: National Center for Homeopathy
Nov 01, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
And, even if they did, I would be surprised even more if the Homeopathy crowd believed it. More like a no-win situation.
Like faith healing and witchcraft, you just cannot disprove this stuff in a way that will convince those that are unconvinceable.
If they would proof a homeopathic substance is functional, scientifically proven with a blindfolded method with control groups, then somebody would "encapsulate" this substance and suddenly this so called homeopathy would be allopathy.
Homeopathy exists until proven.
If you 'dilute' something to the extent that there cannot possibly be even one molecule of the 'active' substance present how can it be anything other than placebo?? This kind of garbage shouldn't make it onto the pages of physorg.
@Mercury_01 - if water has a memory then tap water should be the most potent homeopathic remedy available...
With regard to the "dilution to extinction" argument, its an easy target, but most homeopaths dont use quite this level of dilution, and the technique is not that different to mainstream "weakened" flu jabs.
Did anyone see the article in new scientist showing how vanishingly diluted salts (Li , Na , Ca ) caused a spike in the thermal capacity of ice, at three different and characteristic temperatures? this is physical chemistry showing an effect at zero dilution. This proves there is something to be investigated.
Can science rise to the challenge of offering a fair test for this potentially hugely beneficial technology?
On this evidence, clearly not..., well not yet anyway.
Old data, fairly re-examined IS new evidence.
I say that no subject should be a taboo to a scientist, and there are useful lessons to be learned from this endeavour, even if only on matters of correct procedure. Clearly there are vested interests in proving homeopathy does not work, it is only individuals, not mega-corporations who will benefit. For this reason it is our job, as commenters, to keep a line of interest open, and to not self-censor.
Science is a process to explain observations. Why do so many 'scientists' avoid tough challenges?
Think there are any "lessons to be learned" from revisiting the subject of whether or not the Earth is Flat...or how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?
The brain controls the body and there is ample evidence that perception of quality medicine alone can have observable and quantifiable effects. Therefore there is NO study on homeopathy that can be done that will NOT show some evidence that it works, no matter how minute.
I have to disagree. You could test on animals. They have no perception of medicine.
...or does the Homeopathy treatments only work on Humans?
...or are animals people too?
OMFG Here they come! Save me from the PETA ahhhhh!!!
Same for all other medical trials, no?
What is unpalatable to me is arrogance, which pervades the culture of pathological skepticism that is the calling card of modern scientism. This is an egotistical subversion of science which self righteously beats dissent over the head with palpable disregard for actual empirical evidence because "it feels so untrue" to the reductionist tautology, which is the new sacred f!@#ing cow of the prevailing culture amongst scientists.
It is very easy to dismiss Homeopathy, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from patient trials particularly where the patient self-assesses the improvement in their condition. Furthermore, Homeopathy is not a simple "compound "X" treats condition "Y"" type of system, it is more akin to medical psychoanalysis, many chronic conditions are the results of many factors, and H asserts that these can be unravelled by a skilled practitioner. I say good luck to them, someone at least is trying to understand a very complex problem.
the method of applying a treatment that aims to exacerbate the symptoms seems quite reasonable and logical to me, if you are out-of-balance, then a push in the "wrong" direction will force you to correct, rather than giving you a crutch to lean on.
on the dilution argument, there is clearly some new physics going on here, and the inorganic chemists are offering some usefully unexplained but clear instances of it, please see:
http://www.newsci...int.html
http://technology...e/dn3817
thank again
I believe that the true Heisenberg uncertainty relationship is in the spiritual perception.
I would say:
Spiritual perception intensity (SPI) of a certain spiritual event is conversely proportional with rational measurement efforts (RME) of the intensity of that spiritual event.
In Heisenberg's terms:
SPI x RME < some constant
I admit it is weak, but to me it explains things like placebo, suggestion, spiritual experiences and the fact we have no grip on it.
Remember that if as a scientist you look at the impulse or position of a particle then you are not the particle.
If as a scientist you look at the "induced" water then you are not that water.
If as a patient you look at homeopathy, you drink the water and become part of the system.
If you were the particle maybe you could be aware of both your position and impulse.
Also remember that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is weird and nobody complains about that... or not so much.
---
So do garbage cans.
Marjon: "Same for all other medical trials, no?"
No. The first time angioplasty saved my life, the second time surgical cancer removal saved my life. PERCEPTION couldn't 've resolved those two cases. Perception as an all powerful cure is a New Age pile of BS.