Why Homeopathy is getting more and more popular?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

That would be wrong. It's barely 5%.

Let me then show you 4th research study showing homeopathy superior than placebo

Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea, repeated in Nepal

In a replication of a trial carried out in Nicaragua in 1994, 116 Nepalese children aged 6 months to 5 years suffering from diarrhoea were given an individualised homoeopathic medicine or placebo. Treatment by homoeopathy showed a significant improvement in the condition in comparison to placebo.

Jacobs J., Jimenez M., Malthouse S., Chapman E., Crothers D., Masuk M., Jonas W.B., Acute Childhood Diarrhoea- A Replication.,
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6, 2000, 131-139.

 

[stereologist]

The issue is not putting up 4 studies or 5. You seem to have no idea what is going on when it comes to stats. Not surprising.

From Snake Oil Science

When you come right down to it, no experiment is beyond criticism, and most published research is wrong. So how can we decide which studies are credible? We now have published guidelines such as the 22 item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials, but Bausell offers some simpler criteria that can rule out the worst offenders:

* Subjects are randomly assigned to a CAM therapy or a credible placebo
* At least 50 subjects per group
* Less than 25% dropout rate
* Publication in a high-quality, prestigious, peer-reviewed journal

Using this simple 4-item checklist, he reviewed all the CAM studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association from 2000–2007. 14 met the criteria, and all were negative. When he expanded his search to include the Annals of Internal Medicine and Archives of Internal Medicine, he ended up with 22 studies, only one of which was positive (exactly what you would expect from the 5% rule if none of them worked).

It's tough finding real studies to support your claim isn't it?

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

It's tough finding real studies to support your claim isn't it?

No, it's entirely easy to find real studies supporting homeopathy. Studies in support of homeopathy have been published in top line journals such as American Journal of Paedretics, British Medical Journal, Lancet, etc

Links & studies published in journals: results better than placebo (5th)

"Homeopathic Treatment of Migraines: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study of 60 Cases,"

Bruno Brigo, and G. Serpelloni, Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, March 1991, 1,2:98-106).

In Italy, a study was conducted on the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment on migraine, with 60 patients who were chosen randomly and participated in the double-blind study. Patients filled in a questionnaire on the frequency, intensity and the characteristics of the headache

They were given homeopathic medicine, a single dosage of the 30th centesimal potency, which was repeated four times in total with two week intervals. Eight medicines were chosen and therapists were allowed to give any of the two medicines to each patient. While only 17% of placebo-treated patients felt relief from migraine, an impressive 93% of patients who were given homeopathic medicine had good results.

 

[(Q)]

No, it's entirely easy to find real studies supporting homeopathy.

How many doctors of homeopathy go to real doctors when they're sick?

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Yeah true we go to our collegues who are themselves homeopath physicians and some conventional physicians.

And many of conventional physicians visit homeopath physicians for them and their families.

In some western countries they may have problems with homeopathy. In India it is integrated in national health policy by Govt of India. Here you will find homeopathy department as well as conventional medicine deptt in same hospitals, in allmost all govt hospitals and many private hospitals

 

[stereologist]

Malik is wrong. Homeopathy barely makes the 5% of false positives.

Studies that did not find homeopathy to be better than placebo.

Straumsheim P, Borchgrevink C, Mowinckel P, et al. Homeopathic treatment of migraine: a double blind, placebo controlled trial of 68 patients. Br Homeopath J . 2000;89:4–7.

Whitmarsh TE, Coleston-Shields DM, Steiner TJ. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homeopathic prophylaxis of migraine. Cephalgia . 1997;17:600–604.

 

[stereologist]

If the Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy is such a top notch journal, then why is it so hard to find online?

 

[stereologist]

Looking for this journal I did find:

Jonas et al, A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials, in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine , 2001

Methods

In a systematic review, we compared the quality of clinical-trial research in homeopathy to a sample of research on conventional therapies using a validated and system-neutral approach. All clinical trials on homeopathic treatments with parallel treatment groups published between 1945–1995 in English were selected. All were evaluated with an established set of 33 validity criteria previously validated on a broad range of health interventions across differing medical systems. Criteria covered statistical conclusion, internal, construct and external validity. Reliability of criteria application is greater than 0.95.

Results

59 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 79% were from peer-reviewed journals, 29% used a placebo control, 51% used random assignment, and 86% failed to consider potentially confounding variables. The main validity problems were in measurement where 96% did not report the proportion of subjects screened, and 64% did not report attrition rate. 17% of subjects dropped out in studies where this was reported. There was practically no replication of or overlap in the conditions studied and most studies were relatively small and done at a single-site. Compared to research on conventional therapies the overall quality of studies in homeopathy was worse and only slightly improved in more recent years.

No surprises there.

 

[stereologist]

Once again Malik is wrong.

Shang et al, Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy, Lancet 2005

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. ... 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.

The full abstract can be found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589?dopt=Abstract

 

[stereologist]

Malik, make sure that you don't include Nieber's claims.

A pharmacologist at the University of Leipzig in Germany has admitted errors in a study claiming that a form of homeopathy worked. The errors, described in a university statement, include missing control experiments and an incomplete statistical analysis.

Karen Nieber was the lead author on a study that claimed that a homeopathic dilution of the drug atropine could relax cramps of gut muscles in rats (K. Nieber et al. Biologische Medizin 32–37; February 2004). Before the work was published, it won a homeopathy research prize.

Nieber says that she has since retracted the paper and plans to pay back her share of the euro dollar10,000 (US$11,900) prize. The university began investigating the work after other researchers pointed out suspected flaws.

 

[stereologist]

Another failure of the trials:

Linde et al, The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture, International J of Epidemiology, 2001

Conclusion Trials of complementary therapies often have relevant methodological weaknesses. The type of weaknesses varies considerably across interventions.

KEY MESSAGES

* Aspects of the methodological quality of 207 randomized trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines, and acupuncture were reviewed.
* The majority of trials had important shortcomings; major problems were the reporting of allocation concealment and the reporting and handling of drop-outs and withdrawals.
* The extent of specific quality problems differed considerably between the different areas.
* Larger trials published more recently in journals listed in Medline and in English language had better methodological quality.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah true we go to our collegues who are themselves homeopath physicians and some conventional physicians.

And many of conventional physicians visit homeopath physicians for them and their families.

In some western countries they may have problems with homeopathy. In India it is integrated in national health policy by Govt of India. Here you will find homeopathy department as well as conventional medicine deptt in same hospitals, in allmost all govt hospitals and many private hospitals

I thought you said "real studies" are easy to find. That isn't a study, it is just your assertion.

 

[John99]

Yeah true we go to our collegues who are themselves homeopath physicians and some conventional physicians.

And many of conventional physicians visit homeopath physicians for them and their families.

In some western countries they may have problems with homeopathy. In India it is integrated in national health policy by Govt of India. Here you will find homeopathy department as well as conventional medicine deptt in same hospitals, in allmost all govt hospitals and many private hospitals

i cant help but wonder what makes people choose these kinds of names. you use nancy mailk, but why?

i have to say also that everyone knows about homeopathy and also copying some of you text into google and some word for word links come up. you are supposed to give credit for that.

 

[stereologist]

I never did find the Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy website.

 

[kmguru]

How many doctors of homeopathy go to real doctors when they're sick?

Probably ALL.

BTW, I was told that in Germany, only a real doctor can practice Homeopathy. Thus if he or she feels placebo is indicated, that can be prescribed using homeopathy.

 

[stereologist]

I can see a real doctor using the claim of homeopathy as a means of prescribing a placebo. I would think that a doctor giving a placebo without stating that it is a placebo to be committing a fraud. But by saying this is a homeopathic treatment they are using what some might call legalese to get by the legal issue of duping the patient.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Studies that did not find homeopathy to be better than placebo.

Links & studies published in journals: results better than placebo (6th)

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.

editorial that was published in the BMJ concurrent with reference #5: "Taylor et al tested this placebo hypothesis in a randomised controlled trial in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients in both groups reported similar subjective improvement, but those in the homeoapthic group had singificantly grater improvements in objective measurements of nasal airflow than did the placebo group. The authors believe that when these results are taken together with the findings of THREE similar previous trials, it may be time to confront the conclusion that homeopathy and placebo differ."

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Once again Malik is wrong.

Shang et al, Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy, Lancet 2005

Links & studies published in journals: results better than placebo (7th)

Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

Klaus Linde, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez, Dieter Melchart, et al.
The Lancet. London: Sep 20, 1997. Vol. 350, Iss. 9081; pg. 834, 10 pgs

This study, conducted by Dr. Wayne Jonas, head of the Office of Alternative medicine, and Dr. Klaus Linde, concluded that when the evidence of the 89 studies of homeopathy judged to be of good quality was pooled, homeopathy was 2.45 times more effective than placebo

 

[stereologist]

Links & studies published in journals: results better than placebo (7th)

Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

Klaus Linde, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez, Dieter Melchart, et al.
The Lancet. London: Sep 20, 1997. Vol. 350, Iss. 9081; pg. 834, 10 pgs

This study, conducted by Dr. Wayne Jonas, head of the Office of Alternative medicine, and Dr. Klaus Linde, concluded that when the evidence of the 89 studies of homeopathy judged to be of good quality was pooled, homeopathy was 2.45 times more effective than placebo

I saw this study and this is a misrepresentation of that study. It does not say that homeopathy was 2.45 times more effective than placebo.

I don't believe you lied. I believe that you are not capable of understanding what the authors wrote.

The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

This is the interpretation of their findings. It should be clear to anyone that it appears that although homeopathy did not match up with what was expected from a placebo, it does not appear that homeopathy works.

You have provided a study that shows that homeopathy does not work.
Thank you very much.

 

[stereologist]

From Malik:

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.

From the article:

Both groups reported improvement in symptoms, with patients taking homoeopathy reporting more improvement in all but one of the centres, which had more patients with aggravations. On average no significant difference between the groups was seen on visual analogue scale scores.

Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo.

The commentary at the BMJ on this article makes a reference to the Linde article:

A meta-analysis based on all the controlled trials identified by a systematic search showed a modest effect of homoeopathy over placebo.

They go on to say:

Because of the relatively small number of patients studied, neither the positive nor the negative result of the current study would shift this estimate significantly. To move the scientific debate forward, homoeopathic research needs trials with the power to detect or effectively refute the moderate effects suggested by the meta-analysis.