Homeopathy 'as effective' as standard care for ezcema

Complete b******s.

Let me know when you want me to set up a non-randomised non-blinded uncontrolled trial demonstrating the benefits of homeopathy in treating gunshot wounds and multiple fractures.

Initially, this would involve lining a bunch of these money-grubbing charlatans up at the top of a cliff and then shooting them.

Strange that the patients noticed no difference, huh? How long are members of our profession going to be taken in by this voodoo science and witchdoctor mumbo jumbo. I despair! I mean, 118, hardly Doll and Hill is it !!??

The original paper is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCS-4MNRMYH-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F2008&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236746%232008%23999839998%23683255%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6746&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=12&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fc8a94b1382041f7ebc454ed854f0a68

I notice that there is no placebo control group (although there is a placebo test group). If I was being cynical, which indeed I am, I would suggest that it would be a matter of relative ease to find a way of measuring eczema which wouldn't show much of a difference between treatment and placebo, run a trial with no placebo control, and when the conventional (active control) and homeopathic (placebo test) groups don't separate, declare that homeopathy is equally as good as conventional medicine.

A placebo control group would test for this possibility, and there's really no excuse for not including one in this kind of trial. It didn't mention if it was blinded, either: the physician's scores may be from a blinded independent physician or the doctor/homeopath administering the test products. In the latter case, the results are subject to heavy bias.

I also notice that the trial was not randomised, which could potentially introduce a further placebo effect since all homeopathy patients would know they were getting a treatment they had chosen and believed would work. Furthermore there are (table 1) significant differences between the two groups which probably translate into lifestyle differences, which would then affect the groups differently, introducing uncontrolled- and tested-for confounding factors. It also causes a problem because it's clear from table 2 that the eczema was significantly more severe in the homeopathic group at baseline. As far as I'm concerned, all of the above combined renders the two groups incomparable, and so like Gimpy I can't trust the results of this study to say anything more than 'eczema clears up'.

My second favourite bit of this paper was the bit that said eczema symptoms [were] assessed by the child (or parent) on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10?, and then cited a paper, as if this was a concept that required further explanation. My favourite bit was the p<0.01 result from table 1 which showed that uneducated people were more likely to ask for homeopathy. I also liked the sentence 'after adjustment the trends became significantly different favouring conventional treatment (p = 0.030)'. There were no relevant differences between the two treatment groups. However, eczema signs/symptoms as assessed by the doctors improved more under homoeopathic than conventional treatment. That's some pretty poor discussion.

Honestly, this isn't a very good paper. And even if it was, it's an attempt to prove a null hypothesis, so you'd need a lot of other similar studies before this result was interesting.

Well, now isn't that interesting. You say you want to see science that supports homeopathy, but whenever science does appear it is immediately rubbished. I fear we are not dealing with open (genuinely scientific) minds when large sections of the conventional medical establishment is concerned. This is a pity. But at least there are only 3 replies!

"You say you want to see science that supports homeopathy, but whenever science does appear it is immediately rubbished."

I think a large part of that might be because the studies that support homeopathy invariably ARE rubbish and the ones that aren't, don't support it. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect if homeopathy simply doesn't work. And given that homeopathy relies on exploiting a property of water which has never been demonstrated or explained to allow zero molecules of a harmful substance to treat disturbances in a vital force which does not, as far as we know, exist, I think I know what the most reasonable explanation is.

I shudder to think what state medicine would be in if we just uncritically accepted any old nonsense anyone wrote a paper about.

Steve Scrutton didn't you say "Conventional medicine is dangerous. Its drugs are killing more and more people every year. Conventional drugs are something to avoid - at all costs."

I am not inclined to listen with respect to the opinion of a man who believes that malaria, yellow fever, typhoid and many others can be prevented by homeopathy.

Andrew. I wonder if you have ever taken a serious look at the 'science' that reputedly underpins conventional drugs? Those who seek to attack the science behind homeopathy really should begin to examine the Big Pharma driven and paid for science that has allowed drug after drug on to the market, to the detriment of the health of millions (and yes, Gimpy, the death of of thousands).

If the treatment favoured by 'scientific' medicine is examined, generation by generation, the treatment favoured yesterday is discounted, discredited and often accepted as being dangerous. I know of no good reason to suppose that the conventional treatment of today will be considered any different by the practitioners of tomorrow.

Homeopathic remedies used by Hahnemann, 200 plus years ago are still being used, successfully and safely, today.

I read what has been said here with interest. First may I say that much is said about the 'placebo' effect when tests are carried out on homeopathy. This may indeed be a contributory factor in any treatment, including surely allopathy where patients believe that their allopathic treatment will benefit their health.

Secondly I think that science has a way to go before it understands the principles upon which homeopathy is based. Modern physics is currently exploring the properties of matter which exist on sub atomic scales. viz. CERN. On this scale and beyond it is more appropriate to be considering energy and not matter, or molecules. Molecules were, and still are, a convenient model upon which to consider the physical world but somewhat antequated when one is trying to explain recently discovered science.

So whether homeopathic remedies contain molecules or not is irrelevant when we consider that it is an ENERGETIC science, and that this is how homeopathy proves to work, through real life experiences. One day, I'm sure, science will be able to explain the workings of homeopathy and then those who now deride it will have nowhere to go.

Strange that there isn't a homeopathic contraceptive or anaesthetic isn't it? Odd how all this crap is ever used to treat is the same list of subjective experiences such as lethargy, back pain, tiredness and so forth. If there was evidence for this nonsense, we would have it by now. The only "therapy" is the cozy chit chat for over an hour at the start: "Good morning Emperor, here are your new clothes."

Now if the words in the headline had been swapped round to read:- "Standard treatment 'as effective' as homeopathy for ezcema" we would rightly have been given the impression that standard treatment is unsatisfactory.

Steve,

It is of no surprise that conventional drugs are more dangerous than homeopathy. This is because homeopathy has no effect whatsoever, and therefore is totally safe at the cost of being totally ineffective. Any bioactive substance has side effects and therefore poses a risk. Homeopaths claim homeopathy is an exception to this rule, but that's absurd -- the rule is almost a tautology.

Peter,

The placebo effect does indeed affect "allopathic" drugs. That's why real scientific studies include a placebo control group. This way the placebo effect can be taken into account in the analysis -- as can the Hawthorne effect, and a range of other interesting but annoying artefacts.

You claim science will one day explain homeopathy: for homeopathy to be true, most physics and all chemistry would have to be quite impressively wrong. Until someone proves homeopathy works at all (which they won't because it doesn't), science will simply ignore it. Or, of course, you can copy out some equations, indulge in obtuse sophistry and call it science like Lionel Milgrom does.

Whenever a patient presents with a nasty sword cut or spear wound I always ask if the weapon is available? If it is, I immediately apply a honey poultace to the weapon. After several days of treatment the patient usually either gets better or dies horribly from sepsis.

I reckon treating the weapon is as good as treating the patient. P is also taken for olfaction of course. P= 100 ml or thereabouts.

I don't however hold with this 'magic water' nonsense!