Ending Research On Homeopathy.

[BillyJoe]

This is from Bob Parks' "What's New" column:

HOMEOPATHY: IT DOESN'T WORK. BUT DIDN'T WE ALREADY KNOW THAT?

A study at the University of Berne, reported in Lancet, compared
110 trials each of homeopathy and conventional medicine and found
benefits attributed to homeopathy were merely placebo effects.
The editors of Lancet called for an end to further investment in
research on homeopathy, and for doctors to be honest with their
patients about homeopathy's lack of benefits.

I know we've done this to death, but I also think that the general view has been to keep an open mind whenever further evidence (or should that be in quotation marks?) is presented. Is it time to close the book on homeopathy?

BillyJoe.

 

[Mojo]

There was good coverage of this story in yesterday's Grauniad as well. I'm a bit worried about the comments about acupuncture on that page though.

Acupuncture is thought to be among the best researched and most effective of complementary therapies. Hundreds of studies in recent decades have produced strong evidence that it works for some conditions.

While there does seem to be at least some evidence, it can hardly be described as "strong" because of the difficulty of adequately blinding the tests.

 

[Asolepius]

There was good coverage of this story in yesterday's Grauniad as well. I'm a bit worried about the comments about acupuncture on that page though. While there does seem to be at least some evidence, it can hardly be described as "strong" because of the difficulty of adequately blinding the tests.

You are right, this statement about acupunture is very misleading. Yes, there are loads of positive studies, but there is one telling factor. The further east you go, the more positive they get. Chinese traditional medicine journals never publish any negative studies. This is old hat by now but worth repeating. Frankly, I think that the only really solid evidence for acupuncture is for nausea and vomiting, where the wrist point is the only one needed. But doctors have known for generations that stimulating this point, even just by finger pressure, can stop post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Piercing the skin is not necessary. The rest of the effects in other conditions are non-specific.

 

[Darat]

200 years and no further on then the first spells? I think it indicates that it is unlikely to be an area that will result in any significant breakthroughs.

Or to put it another way there has never been one piece of evidence that supports the "theory" that is meant to underlie homeopathic remedies, that is despite them being used for 200 years. 200 years and not one piece of evidence to support a theory?

 

[clarsct]

This is from Bob Parks' "What's New" column:

I know we've done this to death, but I also think that the general view has been to keep an open mind whenever further evidence (or should that be in quotation marks?) is presented. Is it time to close the book on homeopathy?

BillyJoe.

Yes.

When an idea does not provide a SINGLE useful item in 200 years, then it is time to close the book.

Just like we don't research philogiston(sp), either.

 

[Rolfe]

I also think that the general view has been to keep an open mind whenever further evidence (or should that be in quotation marks?) is presented. Is it time to close the book on homeopathy?

I think the source of the quote (The Lancet) is important. The general public believing in homoeopathy and paying for it isn't such a huge concern to me, always assuming that people have enough sense to access real medical care when they really need it. My gripe is the position of homoeopathy within real medicine. Doctors practising homoeopathy, the Faculty of Homoeopathy, homoeopathic hospitals and so on. This is in my opinion intolerable in what is supposed to be an evidence-based profession. And it spills over into my own profession, as homoeopathic vets fight off challenges to the legitimacy of their practices by pointing out that homoeopathy is an accepted part of human medicine therefore it must be respectable. (Then in turn the medics have to grind their teeth listening to the medical proponents gloating that of course it can't be placebo, look, vets use it on animals, so it must be a real effect!)

I've always believed that the first step to marginalising homoeopathy must be for the medical and veterinary professions to bite the bullet and expunge it from acceptable practice within the professions. I hope this might be the first brick in the wall.

Why should the medical profession continue to "keep an open mind" on every half-baked theory that hasn't had a shred of solid evidence to support it in 200 years, and continue to condone its practice within the professional fold? Just one reason....

Rolfe.

PS. I don't suppose anyone has access to the Lancet paper and editorial? I went through all the palaver of registering, only for them to demand large sums of money which frankly stick in my gullet.

 

[Asolepius]

Re: Re: Ending Research On Homeopathy.

PS. I don't suppose anyone has access to the Lancet paper and editorial? I went through all the palaver of registering, only for them to demand large sums of money which frankly stick in my gullet.

I found I could access the editorial free, but not the full text of the Shang et al paper. A friend has sent me the whole lot as PDF, but I will be violating copyright if I disseminate it publicly. But maybe single copies for `private study'? PM me and I may be able to send you a copy, if it is OK with The Lancet's terms.

 

[Asolepius]

I just received a news release from The Lancet, calling on the govnt and NICE to appraise homeopathy. This of course is in the light of the Shang et al paper. They have also released an open letter to Sir Michael Rawlins, copied to Patricia Hewitt, pointing out that public money is spent on homeopathy, in the absence of any evidence. I can't find either on www.thelancet.com, but as they came from the press office they are public domain so PM me if you want a PDF.

 

[athon]

It's a tough question. According to my personal, philosophical view of science, I don't think that any official body should ever declare a field closed to study. Hell, if somebody wants to research the balance of humours in relation to health, I wouldn't think it appropriate to say they shouldn't.

That said, with limited funding available for fields of research, universities and government funded groups should definitely have a priority of who gets those funds, determined by a mix of how likely results can be obtained and how useful those results might be to society.

If private laboratories wish to continue researching homeopathy, I say go for it. I don't see the value, but then my speculative imagination wonders 'what if'; what if somebody one day looks at homeopathy in a slightly different way and finds something unique. Again, not likely, but I don't like the idea of ever limiting any sort of research, regardless of how little has been demonstrated.

Athon

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Ending Research On Homeopathy.

I found I could access the editorial free, but not the full text of the Shang et al paper. A friend has sent me the whole lot as PDF, but I will be violating copyright if I disseminate it publicly. But maybe single copies for `private study'? PM me and I may be able to send you a copy, if it is OK with The Lancet's terms.

Let's just say that I wasn't exactly short of copies of the full-text articles after I asked, and I'm pretty sure anyone who wanted a copy would be able to panhandle one.

There's quite a fertile trade in exchanging pdfs of papers people are interested in, and I suspect that so long as enough institutional and other subscribers pay up, the journals by and large condone it as they used to condone paper photocopies circulating.

Rolfe.

PS. I have legit access to a few journals myself

 

[Soapy Sam]

I did not read the previous post. I know nothing of intellectual property piracy. And yes, Bill, it really is a legit version of XP.

Asolepius- You have twice recently referred to the wrist pulse pressure point as having been long known to doctors as a control for nausea; could you point this non-medic at a potted history, or links to discussion / research on this matter?

 

[Asolepius]

Asolepius- You have twice recently referred to the wrist pulse pressure point as having been long known to doctors as a control for nausea; could you point this non-medic at a potted history, or links to discussion / research on this matter?

Well here is am caught out as I was quoting hearsay! Having worked in clinical science for 30 years, but not being a medic myself, I have heard about this from a few doctors. It's quite well known among anaesthetists apparently - they use it in the recovery room when patients come round, and commonly start retching. But my son is a med student and has just done his elective in anaesthetics, so I'll get him to ask around for source data.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Thanks. I've heard of it myself, but only anecdotally. Seems like the sort of thing someone would have got a PhD out of at some point.

 

[nullsession]

After the announcement that the previously mentioned study found no greater benefit than placebo for over 200 tests on homeopathic "remedies", I started a dialogue on my website with a friend over the concept that "like cures like", which is the claim that homeopaths assert without evidence. This topic led to some very good discussion with students in my astronomy class over pseudoscience.

I haven't had much luck getting comments back from anyone on the thread of homeopathy on my site (http://www.nullsession.net/nullsession), beyond the comments from my friend from who happens to be an astrologer. I want to get some good healthy debate on pseudoscience, and how supporting such mystical endeavors and popularizing it in the media may in fact be a disservice to society. And, maybe to encourage some actual critical thinking and skepticism. I'm afraid that when you disagree with an astrologer, there is no way to have a real debate on such a topic though! You are called closed-minded, and ignorant, and they quote how "facts obscure the truth." Ha!

After doing some reasearch, and reading Robert Parks' article in The Skeptical Inquirer at http://www.csicop.org, it amazes me that people are so easily hoodwinked! The fact that some "tincture" diluted by 20X is really only 10EE-20 of the original strength is clearly obscured by the fact that homeopaths quote the dilution as 20x, and the uninformed will infer that is 1/20th strength.

Did you know that 10EE20 is 100 million trillion? That is how many gallons of water fill all the oceans on Earth! (Talk about being deluded!)

 

[Bronze Dog]

Those poor, diluted fools.

If we lived in the land of Perfect, as depicted in those Walgreens commercials, we'd have unlimited resources for scientific investigation. But we don't. If a person wants to privately fund some homeopathy research with his own money, well, it's his to throw away.

But I don't want to see a single cent of taxpayer money spent on homeopathy until it shows promise of any sort by passing a DBT.

 

[nullsession]

I did spend $12.99 on an allergy solution. I am running my own quasi-scientific study, alternating the days I squirt homeopathic water up my nose with days I squirt regular water up my nose. So far, no difference in the effects.

 

[Mojo]

I want to get some good healthy debate on pseudoscience, and how supporting such mystical endeavors and popularizing it in the media may in fact be a disservice to society.

Good luck!

And, maybe to encourage some actual critical thinking and skepticism.

Once again, good luck!

I'm afraid that when you disagree with an astrologer, there is no way to have a real debate on such a topic though!

Yup.

You are called closed-minded, and ignorant, and they quote how "facts obscure the truth."