Homeopathy

[fakedlunch]

I think the error is in your reading of the study. I read both and my copy of the 1997 Lancet has two editorial comments about the meta-analysis by Linde et al. Moreover, I came away from reading Linde et al with the understanding that they found no significance in homeopathic remedies over placebo but remained hopeful that further study would be more revealing. It would seem that, in 2005, it is.

SkinWalker, appreciate your criticism, thank you.

Well, I tend to think that there is some mild "quote-mining" involved in your analysis as well . Because what Linde et al are saying, as I understand them, is that after trying to eliminate all possible biases, the result still came out positive for homoeopathy actually having an effect above placebo. One of the authors is restating this in a comment in a subsequent issue:

"The meta-analysis showed overwhelming evidence of benefit from homoeopathy over a wide range of conditions, an effect that is over twice the benefit of placebo therapy." (Patterson C, 1998)

The effect may be milder compared to the strong response to allopathic medicines, but there aer no side effects in involved (it is a safer therapy), and also it is in the nature of any holistic medicine by definition, to produce a more harmonious change in the organism's totality, not a
dramatic effect on a particular part of it at the expense of all the rest of the body as is often the case with allopathic medicines.

IMHO, the Bayesian approach is really the source of the problem, isn't it? Is it necessary, that is the question that we need to face. Truth or paradigm - what do you prefer?

References
Paterson C. (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. The Lancet 351 (9099), 365-366

 

[SkinWalker]

Well, I tend to think that there is some mild "quote-mining" involved in your analysis as well .

Perhaps. But quite unitentionally and with the purpose of demonstrating that even Linde et al didn't side completely with the homeopathic hypothesis.

One of the authors is restating this in a comment in a subsequent issue:

"The meta-analysis showed overwhelming evidence of benefit from homoeopathy over a wide range of conditions, an effect that is over twice the benefit of placebo therapy." (Patterson C, 1998)

Sorry, but I think I missed the credit of the Linde et al paper where Charlotte Patterson is one of the authors. Perhaps you have Patterson's letter confused with Linde and Jonas on pp 367-368.

But I think it's important to note that there were nine comments in that issue of Lancet regarding Linde et al. In the interest of quote-mining, here are some more:

1. "I feel that all the data in Linde's report should be carefully checked, since his group's prejudice in favour of homoeopathy is obvious, and will be largely used by homoeopathic drug companies." (Page 365, Marcel-Francis Kahn).
   .
2. "Surely the argument must be for further research to be urgently undertaken because there is too much at stake to deride the evidence, too much evidence for it yet to be ignored, but not enough to decide one way or the other. Ultimately it may be found that homoeopathy does not have an effect above placebo, but progressing physicists' hypotheses and additional evidence in favour of homoeopathy would lead science to uncharted territory,[...]" (Page 366, Aaron K Vallance and Kim A Jobst).
   .
3. "One should keep in mind that the publication of scientific work has two aims. First, the publication credits the work of the researcher and second, even more importantly, it should provide a sound basis for future research in the same field.
   
   Because a simple table with the primary results of the contributing trials has not been included, even the simplest additional questions the reader might have (and that might be investigated with the aid of a pocket calculator) cannot be addressed." (Pages 366-367, A Koch).
   .
4. "The commentaries (Vandenbroucke 1997; Langman 1997) on the meta-analysis by Klaus Linde and co-workers3 are a clear-cut example of circularity. It is claimed that results supporting the activity of homoeopathic dilutions are “impossible” and must stem from “unknown and unidentifiable sources of bias” because plain common sense tells us that plain water and high dilutions are the same thing. Thus the latter cannot possibly produce any effect." (Page 367, J Benveniste).
   .
5. "We do not share the enthusiasm about the data reflected in the comments by Charlotte Paterson and Aaron Vallance and Kim Jobst. The evidence is not overwhelming, and has not (yet?) been shown to be independently reproducible." (Pages 367-368, Klaus Linde and Wayne B Jonas).
   .
6. "The commentaries (Vandenbroucke 1997; Langman 1997) accompanying Klaus Linde and colleagues' meta-analysis3 list reasons why the results are not to be believed. This approach seems paradoxical. [...] Neither of us are enthusiasts of homoeopathy but an aftertaste remains: are not double standards being used here?" (Page 368, Martin Bobak and Anna Donald)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Benveniste, Bobak and Donald. I think the commentaries they criticized raised some very important points. One of them being the fact that of the studies included in the meta-analysis of Linde et al, the largest and most strictly controlled of them produced results negative to the homeopathic hypothesis (Langman 1997). I found this statement profound as well: "[a] randomised trial of “solvent only” versus “infinite dilutions” is a game of chance between two placebos (Vandenbroucke 1997)."

and also it is in the nature of any holistic medicine by definition, to produce a more harmonious change in the organism's totality, not a
dramatic effect on a particular part of it at the expense of all the rest of the body as is often the case with allopathic medicines.

Really? Its in "the nature?" What study did that bit of specific information come from? Or is this just the esoteric rhetoric of the holistic medicine crowd, used to explain the lack of apparent response to homeopathic medicine. And let us not forget that we are discussing homeopathy specifically, and not holistic health as a whole. The latter has many facets, some are completly groundless (Rieki & echinacea), others show promise (acupuncture).



References

Paterson C. et al(1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials: correspondance. The Lancet 351 (9099), 365-368

Vandenbroucke, J.P. (1997) Homoeopathy trials: going nowhere, Lancet 350(9081), 824

Langman, M.J.S. (1997) Homoeopathy trials: reason for good ones but are they warranted?, Lancet 350(9081), 825

 

[fakedlunch]

Sorry, but I think I missed the credit of the Linde et al paper where Charlotte Patterson is one of the authors. Perhaps you have Patterson's letter confused with Linde and Jonas on pp 367-368.

my apologies, you are right re: Paterson C.
I got confused with PubMed mentioning that it was an 'author reply'.
Also all the other comments either were inaccessible via PubMed, or were linked to the sampe comment by the notoriuos Charlotte Paterson , so can't comment on those

 

[fakedlunch]

Yet another article, - a review -
recommended to all interested in the question 'Does homoeopathy work?', and looking for scientific proofs (but not explanation, please).

"A critical overview of homeopathy"
Wayne B. Jonas, MD; Ted J. Kaptchuk, OMD; and Klaus Linde, MD
http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf

The cool and objective tone of the paper will definitely benefit the over-heated atmosphere in this forum (and neighboring forums, too, actually).

BTW, disclaimer: i am not a homeopath, nor have i ever been treated with homeopathic methods. i do not really trust the idea that a 'sugar pill' will heal me. nor i am inclined to trust a 'medical system' created by a 19th century Western European after just a few observations. call me open-minded.

 

[phlogistician]

Mr. phlogistician probably thinks that he is being scientific referring to BBC news .

The second link discussed the publication of an article in 'The Lancet', which I don't subscribe to. It is however, a reputable medical journal. The BBC are also quite reputable. What was your point? How one discovers information? You have a problem with a reputable soyurce citing another?

Well, I would not trust your opinions, since they are apparently biased by mainstream knowledge.

At least it's knowledge, and not belief.

Why wouldn't you believe at least something like <a href="http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm">this</a> information?

I do believe what they say;

"There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome
measure,"

ie, homeopathy is ineffective, by their own admission.

 

[phlogistician]

Your right.My bad!! We could all go and 'look it up', but then what would be the point in belong to this 'community'? If i am an idiot in your eyes, a genius such as yourself should have no prob's in explaining...im sure youd be able to explain far better than any

i could do.

Put your ego down and pick a book up, please.

Are you saying that staying wantonly ignorant is what you bring to this 'community'? So more educated people can waste their time explaining things to you?

Well, I'm not your teacher,. and that's not why I come here. I come here to debunk woo-woos.

 

[phlogistician]

....hahhh. kno your reply would be such. you are verypredictable mon capiTAN

no. what i MEAN isss. what IS....IS it? whatactually is it meaning? medical science dont know sos i thought i'd ask you seeing you seem t know itall.

Duendy, we were discussing the 'placebo effect', not cause of that effect. But, yet again, you draw the debate off on a tangent in a petty attempt to score points.

See duendy, we don't understand the cause of gravity exactly, does that mean you don't understand the effect? ;-)

 

[duendy]

Duendy, we were discussing the 'placebo effect', not cause of that effect. But, yet again, you draw the debate off on a tangent in a petty attempt to score points.

me::::i am not here to score points as such but to dis-comfort you materialistists from your smugness........

See duendy, we don't understand the cause of gravity exactly, does that mean you don't understand the effect? ;-)

which is? breakin one's neck if not watchin what one is doing?

whati am revealing is how materialists (i have stopped complimenting you'll wit te term 'skeptics' now and will here on in refer t you'll as materialists. see other thread for explanation) throwaway their derogatory term 'placebo' without really understanding what it ACTUALLY MEANS. as neither does medical science..!!!!!!!!!

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, we're talking about homeopathy, not discussing the placebo effect. It's it not a derogatory term, either.

Homeopathy has been proven to be ineffective. Proven. I know this erodes a comforting mystery, and brings you closer to reality, but that's the truth of it.

Like I said, I understand the term 'placebo', even if I don't know how it works. Seems you are incapable of separating the two issues!

 

[duendy]

Duendy, we're talking about homeopathy, not discussing the placebo effect. It's it not a derogatory term, either.

me:::so you say. but you materialists use the term 'placebo' s a way of saying....what then? exlain wht you mean when you use that term?

Homeopathy has been proven to be ineffective. Proven. I know this erodes a comforting mystery, and brings you closer to reality, but that's the truth of it.

me:::but this is just YOUR opinion surely. where in this thread have you proven this 100%

Like I said, I understand the term 'placebo', even if I don't know how it works. Seems you are incapable of separating the two issues!

how can you understand it if you dont know how it works....?

 

[fakedlunch]

Homeopathy has been proven to be ineffective. Proven. I know this erodes a comforting mystery, and brings you closer to reality, but that's the truth of it.

Come on, people, how come are you so sure???

"Is the Homeopathic Remedy More Effective than
Placebo?
Four comprehensive, independent systematic reviews
or meta-analyses have examined the question of whether
homeopathic therapies behave like placebo in randomized,
placebo-controlled trials. These have comprehensively
searched for all clinical trials and have used standard
methods for quality evaluation and analysis of clinical
trials. These reviews have found that, overall, the quality of
clinical research in homeopathy is low. When only highquality
studies have been selected for analysis (such as those
with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size, and
other methodologic criteria that limit bias), a surprising
number show positive results. For example, Kleijnen and
colleagues (28) did a detailed quality evaluation of 60 homeopathic
clinical trials and concluded that they “would
be ready to accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible.” "
[bolding mine. - F.-l.]
(Jonas et al. A Critical Overview of Homeopathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:393-399.) see at http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf

 

[phlogistician]

Look, if homeopathy were effective, there's a simple test. Anyone who drinks water should never get ill!

It's simple. As there is a finite amount of water on the planet, and homeopathy relies on dilution, that finite amount of water, over time, will have been exposed to pretty much every 'remedy' known to homeopaths, and diluted in the oceans.

It evaporates, precipitates, we drink it, and we should therefore never get ill.

But we do? Why? Why does the contact and dilution not cure all our ills, by merely drinking regular water? By what mechanism is the memory of the cure lost?

So, please let us know, how some water prepared on dilution one way, is allegedly more efficatious that water prepared another!

Oh, and the linked .pdf? Quite simply a biased article in a biased journal, that has been proven false by more recent clinical trials.

 

[fakedlunch]

Oh, and the linked .pdf? Quite simply a biased article in a biased journal, that has been proven false by more recent clinical trials.

Ha-ha , alright, bro. I can see that even Jesus Christ or Albert Einstein or Galileo (you choose) would not break the opinions that you've got in your head just because you've got 'em.

So what power do I have?

If I understand you correctly, according to you an unbiased research is the one that proves that homoeopathy does not work. Maybe you should double-check your views on scientific truth.

Just to remind you, something that you do not believe exists will still exist if it already does, not depending on your invaluable opinions.

 

[fakedlunch]

Look, if homeopathy were effective, there's a simple test. Anyone who drinks water should never get ill!

Why does the contact and dilution not cure all our ills, by merely drinking regular water? By what mechanism is the memory of the cure lost?

So, please let us know, how some water prepared on dilution one way, is allegedly more efficatious that water prepared another!

Well, this just says that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) A homoeopathic dilution is not just a dilution. It is a potentized dilution.

2) The way of its action is not chemical. There are different theories about its possible mechanism, for example the water memory theory.

3) Even if there were no theories yet, the fact that it seems to be working is already sufficient. If you want more articles, I can easily come up with them. But

4) You won't believe anything like that, unless you experience it yourself, right? So next time when you happen to be sick with something, go and try it. I gotta do it myself, actually.

So good luck in your reality quest for truth, man!

 

[phlogistician]

Well, this just says that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) A homoeopathic dilution is not just a dilution. It is a potentized dilution.

OK, how is a 'solution' (I hate using the term, because a solution of a substance should actually contain the substance!) become 'potentised'? Because despite having read various methods for making remedies, while thet are referred to as being 'potentised', apart from the claim that more dilution means more potency, their isn't actually an action in the preparation that 'potentises' the product.

2) The way of its action is not chemical. There are different theories about its possible mechanism, for example the water memory theory.

From that very web site;

"World-class biochemists and othes versed in the science of photochemistry understand that water stores "photons" or "packets" of energy. These are basically the same types of "photons" which we see on Star Trek which destroy other spaceships."

Uh huh. A very scientific 'Star Trek' reference! Of course, what they miss, is that photons are packets of _moving_ energy, so quite how they are trapped in water is not mentioned,....

On water memory from another homeopathy web site (http://www.healthynewage.com/what-is-homeopathy.htm);

"resulting solutions or "potentised medicines," as they are called, may be physically altered to a point where its normal subatomic structure and the telltale electromagnetic signature of that structure has actually been changed. "

So, what are the 'tell tale signs'? They claim to know what the 'signs' are, but somehow, have never managed to demostrate their existence!

3) Even if there were no theories yet, the fact that it seems to be working is already sufficient. If you want more articles, I can easily come up with them. But

Theries abound. But they are based on speculation. There is a dearth of data, however. It's data I want, not more theorising.

4) You won't believe anything like that, unless you experience it yourself, right? So next time when you happen to be sick with something, go and try it. I gotta do it myself, actually.

So good luck in your reality quest for truth, man!

I'm not saying homeopathinc remedies don't occasionally work. They sometimes do, due to the placebo effect. Wake up, and pay attention! And no, I won't believe it's anything other than that, while clinical trials are telling me exactly that.

Apart from anecdote, what do you actually have on the efficacy of these remedies? Because your own source admitted there was no effect shown in their own trials!

 

[fakedlunch]

OK, how is a 'solution' (I hate using the term, because a solution of a substance should actually contain the substance!) become 'potentised'? Because despite having read various methods for making remedies, while thet are referred to as being 'potentised', apart from the claim that more dilution means more potency, their isn't actually an action in the preparation that 'potentises' the product.

Ok, let's not call a solution, let's call it a dilution.
From what I know, potentization happens by means of systematic "succussions" following after each dilution.
I agree just knocking or "vigorously shaking" a tube does not sound as a highly advanced methodology (i've never seen it done myself, though) but who knows? Why not admit that it may work?

From that very web site:

Can't comment on water memory yet, lack physics knowledge.
Have you seen Masaru Emoto's "Hidden Message in the Water" though? I found it rather impressive.

Apart from anecdote, what do you actually have on the efficacy of these remedies? Because your own source admitted there was no effect shown in their own trials!

Ok, It is hard to continue the discussion because there is something going wrong with our references. My source admitted that there is an effect. What source are you talking about?

 

[phlogistician]

Ok, let's not call a solution, let's call it a dilution.
From what I know, potentization happens by means of systematic "succussions" following after each dilution.
I agree just knocking or "vigorously shaking" a tube does not sound as a highly advanced methodology (i've never seen it done myself, though) but who knows? Why not admit that it may work?

I've kept an open mind, which is why I've spent time reading about the subject. Nothing I've read is compelling however. The open minded folks who have spent time perfroming clinical trials have drawn blanks too.

Shaking is hardly a precise method, and once the dilution level means that a 'dilution' does not contain a a single molecule of the ingredient, how does this work further? Allegedly, some 'electro magnetic' imprint is then passed on from water to water, by shaking. We should be able to detect this, but we can't. It supposedly has a biochemical property which our body reacts to, but we cannot detect any chemical agent in the resultant fluid. Medical studies show the 'dilutions' to be no more effective than placebos.

Can't comment on water memory yet, lack physics knowledge.
Have you seen Masaru Emoto's "Hidden Message in the Water" though? I found it rather impressive.

Ah, well, I studied physics at University, and worked at a Uni physics dept for four years afterwards. So I recognise pseudo science and techno babble when it's used in such contexts as homeopathy.

Ok, It is hard to continue the discussion because there is something going wrong with our references. My source admitted that there is an effect. What source are you talking about?

You also linked to http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm

which stated;

"There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome
measure."

and tried to rescue itself with
"A statistically significant improvement in general health score in both
homeopathy groups (p < 0.05) on the SF-36 after 1 year was found."

well, the body can fix a lot of stuff itself, given a year, and given the stress the subjects had been under prior to this test, it's hardly surpising they would report feeling better a year later.

 

[nameless]

If anyone has an extra $500. I will be happy to make them an aluminum-foil head-mounted device (hat) that will keep out extraterrestial mind control rays.. And if you act NOW, I'll throw in a copper bracelet and a pair of 'Health Magnets' for your shoes! The deal of a lifetime!
Supplies are limited.
Operators are standing by.

 

[Zephyr]

Excuse the thread zombification, but I thought some might want to know that Leipzig has retracted the mentioned article.

Google's (not so great) translation from German
Randi.org's comment

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Studies in support of homeopathy published in journals

vhan.nl/documents/ScientificReportECHNov04.pdf
ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7
homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2007/10/22/scientific-research-and-homeopathy/
modernhomoeopathy.com/research_and_homeopathy.htm