zeno

You should see the stuff they actually put in their preparations (except that there none of it left by the final dilution!): A full list of woo sold by a UK manufacturer, Helios, can be found here.

Homeopathic ‘placebo’: much more effective than conventional medicine’s placebo Allen Roses, of GSK told a scientific meeting in London that the "vast majority of drugs only work in 30 or 50% of people." It was reported on the front page of the Independent newspaper on 8 December . http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;327/7428/1366 BMJ Clinical Evidence says only somewhere between 26-34% of 2,500 commonly used treatments have some proven benefit. The Bristol study [bristol Homeopathic Hospital] concluded 70%+ of patients reported some improvement with homeopathic treatment. The Berlin study came up with similar percentages and concluded that patients using homeopathy had better outcomes than patients using conventional medicine. Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital’s ongoing audits of patient response return similar percentages. It’s worth emphasising that while controls might be absent in these studies, the patient cohorts tend to have a high percentage (80%+) of chronic complaints of which an equally high percentage (80%+) have failed to respond to conventional treatment. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, in which the placebo effect is likely to be considerably stronger than in homeopathy, then it’s reasonable to suggest that these are patients who are not particularly susceptible to placebo response. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, then it’s reasonable to suggest that for these patients, homeopathy proved to be the more effective option.†SOURCE: http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com Nancy Do you really need me to explain the difference between a 'customer satisfaction survey' and proper scientific research? The Bristol and Glasgow 'research' was just that (as was the recent Northern Ireland 'research'): customer satisfaction surveys. Why do you think that this kind of market research is in any way adequate for deciding how to treat people with serious medical conditions? I don't suppose you're interested in independent, unbiased analyses that show that there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever over placebo for any homeopathic preparation? Thought not. But in case any one else is interested in the truth, just search through The Cochrane Collaboration:

Research in Homeopathy http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/future%20homoeopathy.htm http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/advanceshomoeopathy.htm http://www.homeobioengg.com/marticles.htm Nancy Yet again, these have nothing to do with the subject. The first says very little, the second tells us all about the advances of conventional medicine and the third doesn't work.

Nancy Can you please say things in your own words rather than trying to let someone else speak for you, particular if they are completely spurious? Anyway, what's the articles you gave got to do with the inadequacy of anecdotes, particularly when we are talking about life or death matters?

Please give examples of doctors preventing (or even trying to prevent) discussion of homeopathy. http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/beware-of-anti-homeopathy-journalists-and-bloggers-they-may-be-sponsored-by-drug-companies/ anti-homeopathy paid by drug companies Did you even bother to read this article you cited? Didn't think so. Its title is There are two things wrong with your assertions: 1. You were claiming that doctors were trying to prevent discussion of homeopathy 2. That doctors reject criticism of their rejection of homeopathy. Can you confirm that this is a fair summary of what you said? If so, what has what journalists and bloggers got to do with it? Please answer in your own words, rather than just linking to what a biased pro-quack journalist has said.

From that article: There is no doubt that everything should always be transparent (and that applies to AltMed as well), but you have failed to prove that all doctors are 'lackies of the drug companies'. Even if some are corrupt, this does not support your 'theory' that conventional medicine is like a religion. This is a diversion anyway.

Well...yes! Boots, et al just want to make money. Homeopaths say that their preparations are individualised and that it takes a long time (no kidding!) to understand the customer and their physical, mental and spiritual attributes that they somehow then take (after looking them up in a book) to come up with a 'remedy' specific to that person. So buying a preparation without this 'consultation', can't really work, can it, and any preparation bought from the chemist shouldn't work for most people. However, I doubt people buying them over the counter (OTC) have any greatly different results form those paying a homoeopath vast amounts for a consultation. People buying them OTC have an expectation that it will work and hey presto! they feel a bit better! Just the same placebo effect as when they visit a real homeopath! No surprises there, then. Homeopathic preparations do not work any better than placebo. It should be noted that, despite the claimed individualised nature of the preparations, many homeopaths, including Nancy, offer online consultations (http://www.sitagita.com/youth_counsellor.asp?ExpID=235).

Yes, Nancy, new medicines are being continually created as new knowledge and understanding is found through experiments and results. Yes, new medicines are tested in vitro, in vivo (in much more than just rats) and, yes, on people with the condition the medicine is aimed to help. Compare and contrast this with homeopathic preparations: some 'prover' or other takes a bit of the 'remedy' and dreams about it and writes down a list of 'feelings' they think it invokes. This then gets used by homeopaths to match up with their customers to come up with the right preparation. No testing; no impartiality; no integrity; no idea. If you want, I can provide a link to the kind of nonsense a 'prover' comes up with that'll show everyone here just how nonsensical these provings are? No. You are confusing this with the fact that better treatments are found, unlike homeopathy, where preparations found do not change in the light of new knowledge or understanding. Very few. And that's the strength of conventional medicines: we keep making them better. You are falling into an appeal to tradition fallacy. See above. If you had read and understood what I said in my long post about science, you'll discover that continually refining knowledge is one of the strengths of science, not one of its weaknesses. It is homeopathy that is stuck in the past, unwilling and unable to change its dogma, with one dogmatic, cult leader at its head: Hahnemann and no one willing or able to question his nonsense. Nancy, the only evidence you have supplied are anecdotes: fallible stories told by those far too close to be unbiased. That just will not do when people's health is concerned. As I said above, I can say much more about homeopathy - not so much for you (because I'm not sure you will listen) - but for the others here who might like to know exactly what it is and what homeopaths claim about it.

No they are not, Nancy. Yes, there are hierarchies, but that's where your analogy fails. Please provide evidence that all doctors are 'lackeys' of the drug companies and please compare that to homeopaths being lackeys of companies like Boiron. This is a very silly assertion: please give a reason why you think this. Again, an unfounded allegation. If you mean doctors generally ignore the quack nonsense that is homeopathy and crystal healing, then I agree. But they also ignore possession by a demon as nonsense, so I don't see what you hope to achieve by your assertion. Please also provide details of punishment meted out to heretics. Doctors don't offer 'salvation', whatever that means. Vaccines unequivocally offer protection to society and individuals and has saved countless lives. It is the quacks who, not understanding the biology and science of vaccines, have spread fear and distrust about vaccines, causing many children to unnecessarily suffer from diseases like measles. Just what 'hell and brimstone' are you talking about? I have no idea what you mean. Please give examples of doctors preventing (or even trying to prevent) discussion of homeopathy. Belief systems? Didn't you read and understand what I said earlier about what science was? Let me say it again: the ONLY evidence that homeopathy works is from homeopaths with a vested interest in it working and their customers who generally know even less about medical conditions than their homeopaths. This is ANECDOTAL evidence only and is not considered reliable by those who have far higher standards of concern, integrity and care for their patients. I suspect you still don't understand why anecdotes are just not enough when it comes to people's health and I'd be glad to explain it for you in more detail. No doctors don't. What 'observations of reality'? Doctors do not hold political power. In what way do you think they do? Utter nonsense. Of course some patients are misdiagnosed and some patients die (doctors are only human and do, occasionally make mistakes), but real doctors treat real, life threatening conditions and the fate of all of us is to die. Homeopaths on the other hand, treat self-limiting, non-serious conditions - if indeed they even exist - and the experience of a 'consultation' with a customer will make the customer feel a bit better, so it's no wonder that their customers think it works. However, when something serious arises (heart attack, diabetes, cancer), they need to see a proper doctor, not one that sells sugar pills. It is when the customers of homeopaths are led to believe that homeopaths can successfully treat serious medical conditions that it gets dangerous. Nancy, if you want to progress the discussion, you'll need to learn to provide some kind of back up for your assertions. Just saying them and repeating them does not make them true and you will influence no one with that style.

No, Nancy. Homeopathy is not science because it fails several key tests. The main one it fails is prediction. Homeopathy can not make a single prediction that can be tested. Did you read and understand what I said in my earlier post about science and prediction?

Proper doctors are ones who have passed a basic biology exam and had the patience, perseverance and ability to have passed an accredited degree in conventional medicine and who is registered with the General Medical Council and licensed to practice medicine.

RCTs in general are difficult - but not impossible - for surgery. However, it is still the gold standard and we should do everything we can to apply RCTs and double-blind RCTs wherever possible. With acupuncture, researchers are very close to devising a true sham acupuncture that blinds both the patient and practitioner and there is no good reason why this should not be applied to acupuncture. The paper you sent me (thanks!) is interesting and highlights the factors that may affect sham acupuncture. The authors spend 280 words (over 10%) of the paper telling us about the story of the Emperor's New Clothes! Why they thought that was necessary or helped is anyone's guess! They give six physiological effects that they think might influence any sham acupuncture placebo effect. They attempt to give reasons for these, but they are not all convincing: showing that these have some physiological effect does not mean that it is critical in acupuncture. However, it looks like a good contribution to the debate and highlights the factors that need to be investigated, but does not mean (as I suspect was intended and I note the conflict of interest of the lead researcher) that acupuncture cannot or should not be subject to blinded RCTs: scientists should continue to look for a solution that allows the various effects to be evaluated to find out whether or not acupuncture or sham acupuncture does, indeed, have a significant effect. Given that other paper I came across on the same site, which discusses various sham acupuncture techniques, I am hopeful that ways will be found. As I think I've said before, given the claims being made, I'm surprised any good trials have shown - at best - a minor benefit (which could have other explanations). As they don't really like to say in quality journals, more research is needed!

Yes, Wakefield and the media have a lot to answer for! We are still suffering from this and we are still waiting for proof of any link between MMR and Autism. Wakefield has been thoroughly discredited, particularly for his unethical behaviour in respect of the children he used in his research - Wakefield was being paid by a lawyer representing the parents of children who were trying to prove a link and they were not, as Wakefiled claimed, just chosen at random. He also didn't have approval of the ethics committee as he claimed. Ten out of the 13 authors withdrew their name from that part of the the Lancet article that claimed there was a link.

Absolutely. Unfortunately. They are wasting valuable resources on questionable treatments. I suspect many of them really do think that what they do can cure all ills, but the evidence says they have been misled. Quite, but I really wouldn't hold my breath that acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, crystal healing or any other woo is likely to result in a Nobel prize any time soon! Where they come from is years of careful scientific research, conducted by those with knowledge and experience, not by someone who'd struggle to pass O-level biology and certainly wouldn't pass final year medical school.