Homeopathy doesn't work - Lancet

[LTC8K6]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

The Lancet says the time for more studies is over and doctors should be bold and honest with patients about homeopathy's "lack of benefit".

It's about time.

Of course there's this:

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

 

[The Don]

.....and yet whichever spineless b@5tard they put on the radio to talk about the study point blank refused to say that homoeopathy was useless. He kept going on about the relationship with the practitioner may have some effect.

This in turn enabled some clown from the homoeopathy establishment to come on and trot out the old canard of "it works on animals".

There was some challenge from the presenter but quite frankly the damage was already done

 

[CFLarsen]

A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo.
Source

Rrrrrrrrrrright. But she goes on:

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."
Source

BUWAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

Sure, lady. Let's hear a better method of determining whether homeopathy - or anything - works or not.

 

[EHocking]

.....and yet whichever spineless b@5tard they put on the radio to talk about the study point blank refused to say that homoeopathy was useless. He kept going on about the relationship with the practitioner may have some effect.

This in turn enabled some clown from the homoeopathy establishment to come on and trot out the old canard of "it works on animals".

There was some challenge from the presenter but quite frankly the damage was already done

WHile this may be true, the editor of Lancet was on at least 3 of the terrestrial channel's news on Frid/Sat and stated emphatically that homeopathy was bunk, that it did NOT work on animals and, most importantly I thinks, that the NHS should not be seen to be supporting homeopathy in any of their services or hospitals.

Even though, as you say, there were a number of supporters given time on TV, bleating about anecdotes of "people I know" having success with homeopathy, I was surprised (and delighted), that all the news readers took the lead from Lancet and were mostly dismissive of the proponents.

 

[Zep]

The standard response I have seen from homeopaths so far has been the "DBPC tests are unsuitable for testing homeopathy...waffle waffle...individualisation...blather blather...big pharma". The correct response is "Oh yes it is testable in DBPC tests! It's just that you are either too ignorant to understand what that means, or you are too scared to let anyone try it. Unlike big pharma."

 

[Psiload]

"Dr." Leela fires back...

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?p=62685#post62685

The intention seems to be a global onslaught against homeopathy!

 

[Bronze Dog]

The intention seems to be a global onslaught against homeopathy!

Sounds a lot like people complaining about cops cracking down on bad drivers. If you follow the rules of the road, you have nothing to worry about.

If homeopaths followed the rules of science, they'd have nothing to worry about... except maybe finding jobs once they find their product doesn't work, so that they can be productive members of society, rather than a drain on our tax money.

 

[chocolatepossum]

I've been watching the Guardian letters page since the Lancet report, and it's been full of letters from Homeopaths and others, defending Homeopathy. Most of them involve the claim that double blind testing is unsuited to Homeopathy, or that Homeopathy has been proved in many other experiments to have an effect above placebo. My favourite argument was in there today:

Physics teaches us that reality and our observation of it cannot be separated. The corollary - that any attempt at such separation can essentially destroy the "reality" under observation - is precisely what is perpetrated during blinded trials of homeopathy. Consequently, the double blind placebo-controlled trial, as applied to homeopathy and CAM, is the scientific equivalent of Nelson putting a telescope to his blind eye.

Which fully merits a


Somebody also referred to blinded trials which were carried out on rats at the university of Leipzig, and which showed Homeopathy having an effect above placebo. Anyone know anything about these?


Nobody's written in from a sceptical position yet, perhaps I shall have a go myself...

 

[NeilC]

" the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

Christ on a bike! What are you supposed to do about beliefs like that? It's the logical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I'm not listening".

Either the tablets have an effect or they don't.

"Physics teaches us that reality and our observation of it cannot be separated."

So there really is no point in looking at anything then?

As you say CP - they then switch decks and start quoting some DB trial that supports them.

You should definately write it in.

 

[Rolfe]

I know at least one forum member has sent an excellent reply to that lot. Will be interesting to see if it gets published.

Rolfe.

 

[Dr. MAS]

The trial were conducted by non-homeopaths without following the proper protocol hence we reject this report.

 

[Jeff Corey]

What proper protocol? Any brain damaged person can dilute and shake those solutions according to Hannehmann. And you can call yourself Dr. after two weeks in Pakistan.
I can legally call myself Doctor of Homeopathy.
In fact, you must address me as Doctor Corey, D. H.

 

[Rolfe]

The trial were conducted by non-homeopaths without following the proper protocol hence we reject this report.

Which trial are you talking about? What was it about the protocol that was not "proper"?

MAS, it is clear from this post of yours that not only have you not read the paper in the Lancet, you have no idea whatsoever what it says or what it is about.

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The trial were conducted by non-homeopaths without following the proper protocol hence we reject this report.

MAS, the funny taste you have in your mouth is your foot. Perhaps you should put a small slip on top of you computer screen saying:

"REMEMBER to think before you post on the JREF, otherwise they will make you look like a fool"

Now, if you took the trouble to actually READ the Lancet article (or at least the bbc article about it), you would have noticed that this was not a single trial. It was an analysis of 110 trials made over some time, by homeopaths and others.

AND, if you were to give just a little thought to your own words, above, you will notice that you say the protocol is wrong. Now this is a fair opinion IF you know what a correct protocol is. Do you know what the right protocol for testing homeopathy is, MAS?

If yes, do enlighten us.

Hans

 

[Complexity]

The trial were conducted by non-homeopaths without following the proper protocol hence we reject this report.

You wouldn't know a "proper protocol" if it fell on you.

You'll reject everything that doesn't fit into the ignorant/fraudulent worldview that you pretend to hold.

You're a waste of space.

 

[Complexity]

MAS could have a second career as a bartender.

He can water-down drinks.
He can shake things up.
His conversation would drive people to drink.