You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Evidence for homeopathy’ category.

Two recent and related papers, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and Homeopathy (the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy, the UK’s professional organisation of medically qualified homeopaths), have reconstructed the analysis carried out by the authors of The Lancet’s much vaunted 2005 meta-analysis, on the back of which the journal triumphantly editorialised “the end of homeopathy”, and have placed on record the fact that the study was hugely flawed and in some instances just plain incorrect.

These papers emphatically underline the position this blog has taken from the outset — that the underlying data does not support the assertion that homeopathy is no more than placebo. The jury is still out, and those that claim otherwise are misrepresenting their personal opinion as proven scientific fact when it’s nothing of the kind.

Read the rest of this entry »

I learned something from running this blog. And that’s that it takes up a phenomenal amount of time and energy.

It got to the stage a few months ago when the extent to which it was impinging on the rest of life was unacceptable: disputing differences in perspective, for all the need for better public debate on the subject of homeopathy, isn’t quite up there with First Life. (Not to mention that the blog seemed to be doing perfectly well without me.) So having gone socks away for a bit, this business of the time and the energy brought me very conveniently round to the subject of this post.

Read the rest of this entry »

I didn’t write this article. It’s from the website Suppressed Science. I’m posting it here in the interests of raising public awareness of this increasingly common and rather unpleasant condition. We’re already aware of its non-self-limiting nature — sufferers have clearly demonstrated their incapacity to limit its effects to themselves — and so far there’s no evidence of it being curable.

It should not be confused with scepticaemia, the condition of having doubt in the blood. Scepticaemia is essentially healthy. DD Scientismic fascistitis.

Contributions from other homeopaths on candidates for genus epidemicus remedies are welcome.

Read the rest of this entry »

A lot of hot air has been expended on homeopathy’s apparent inability to “prove” itself in clinical trials. Many people, many of whom call themselves scientists, seem only to need this fact, plus the therapy’s apparent implausibility, to jump to the conclusion the whole thing is nonsense on stilts, and work themselves up into lathers of righteous indignation about the fact that it continues to be practiced. I’ve gone into this a couple of times in the comments to posts on this blog, but this question really does deserve detailed examination, because the issue is not at all as simple as it might seem.

The presupposition of clinical trials is that there is a stable, locally active cause that is only active in the treatment group, irrespective of blinding and the circumstances of the trial or any changed clinical context as a result of the trial. In plain English, this means that the whole basis of clinical trials is predicated on the assumption that the bulk of the treatment effect resides in the physical substance that’s being trialed. It’s a localist hypothesis, proceeding — in homeopathy’s case — from the following logic:

Read the rest of this entry »

While musing on the nature of evidence, and what is or is not considered ‘evidence’ in all the various contexts evidence is used, I came across this excellent rapid response in the BMJ back in 2004 by Clifford Miller, “a practising English lawyer, graduate in physics and a sometime examining lecturer on law, standards and ethics (particularly, the law of evidence) to Masters student technologists at the Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine”.

He writes, in the context of the imputed association between MMR vaccination and the onset of autistic states, on “The Unreliability of Scientific Papers as Evidence”:

“Reliable evidence is that which is authentic, accurate and complete. In short, scientific evidence is incomplete if used for purposes outside the strict confines of science because it fails to take account of evidence of lay witnesses of the facts and is hence only applicable to the narrow and specific confines of scientific enquiry and not the broader ones found in other fields of human endeavour.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been taking a closer look at what Ben Goldacre regards as ‘good science’, given that he makes such grandiose and sweeping claims about the respective quality of research into both homeopathy and pharmaceutical interventions in both his recent Guardian article, What’s wrong with homeopathy? and the accompanying comment piece in The Lancet, Benefits and Risks of Homeopathy.

In the Guardian, he claims:

I look about 12, and I’m only a few years out of medical school. This is all good fun, but my adamant stance, that I absolutely lack any authority, is key: because this is not about one man’s opinion, and there is nothing even slightly technical or complicated about the evidence on homeopathy, or indeed anything, when it is clearly explained.

He then goes on at great length, much of it speculative, to give his reasons for why just about all homeopathic research is meaningless nonsense full of nothing but bias and conventional medical research is robust.

But thanks to a rapid response on the BMJ’s website, we learn the following from John Stone:

Read the rest of this entry »

So now we have another prominent ‘scientist’ joining the chorus. Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific advisor, speaking to MPs on the innovation, universities and skills select committee about his role, laid into sections of the media (for their “campaigns” against GM foods and the MMR vaccine) and the Department of Health over its decision to allow homeopathic remedies to be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the public body that licenses drugs.

“How can you have homeopathic medicines labelled by a department which is driven by science?” said King. “There is not one jot of evidence supporting the notion that homeopathic medicines are of any assistance whatsoever.”

(Reports in the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail)

Make no mistake, this “not one jot of evidence” is nothing more than a mantra which those continually repeating it seem to hope will eventually become accepted as some sort of “truth” merely through repetition. In no sense does it bear any relation to the actual state of the evidence base for homeopathy. It is, quite simply, a lie.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is the second paragraph from Ben Goldacre’s recent comment piece Benefits and risks of homeopathy in The Lancet’s November 17 edition.

During the cholera epidemic in the 19th century, death rates at the London Homoeopathic Hospital were three times lower than those at the Middlesex Hospital. (6) The reason for homoeopathy’s success in this epidemic is even more interesting than the placebo effect. At the time, nobody could treat cholera, and while medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homoeopaths’ treatments were at least inert.

(6) Hempel S. The medical detective. London, UK: Granta Books, 2006

Notice how Goldacre doesn’t give us the actual figures. (And this is The Lancet, not the Guardian.) Neither does he clarify that his reasoning is speculation, not established fact. The actual mortality percentages would allow readers to make some kind of sensible judgement about his conjecture that medical treatments exacerbated mortality while homeopathic treatment equated to no treatment at all.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is the first paragraph from Ben Goldacre’s recent comment piece Benefits and risks of homeopathy in The Lancet‘s November 17 edition.

Five large meta-analyses of homoeopathy trials have been done. All have had the same result: after excluding methodologically inadequate trials and accounting for publication bias, homoeopathy produced no statistically significant benefit over placebo. 1–5

(1) Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 316–23.
(2) Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review on the effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of data from homoeopathic medicine trials. Brussels, Belgium: Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group. Report to the European Commission. 1996: 195–210.
(3) Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Alter Complement Med 1998; 4: 371–88.
(4) Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33
(5) Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726–32

Note that Goldacre omits the Linde et al meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 1997 (6) from his listed studies.

Below are comments and conclusions from each of these studies. Remember, Goldacre is saying that they each support his assertion that homeopathy has no statistically significant benefit over placebo.

Read the rest of this entry »

OK. Enough is enough. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, but when they start claiming their opinions are ‘scientific’, write comments in learned journals quoting published papers in support of their arguments which don’t actually support their arguments at all, misrepresent statistics and generally twist things so far around their little fingers it defies belief, then if you’re a scientist, a homeopath, both or neither, it’s time to put the record straight.

Dr Ben Goldacre, junior doctor and journalist for the UK Guardian, has been adopting a high profile of late. His attacks on alternative therapies, and homeopathy in particular, have reached such a fever pitch it resembles more of a witch-hunt than a scientific debate. Of course all spindoctors know that if you repeat something often enough, sooner or later people start to believe it, whether it’s true or not. Goldacre’s writings, featuring a persuasive mix of jocular sarcasm, apparent scientific plausibility and fearmongering, would have you believe there’s now scientific consensus from unanimous evidence proving that homeopathy is no more than placebo. It’s one thing to publish that in the popular press, another entirely when it appears in The Lancet.

There is, in fact, no factual basis for these assertions. The evidence Goldacre cites doesn’t back up his claims and the ‘science’ he claims to champion is little more than opinion and spin. Of course I don’t expect you to believe me just because I said so, or even because I include citations (1) of papers published in peer reviewed journals in my footnotes. I’m not even asking you to believe me. I’m asking you to look at the actual scientific proof itself, and to do so with a thorough and critical eye.

Read the rest of this entry »