Homeopathy and alternative medicine discussion

[Tengu]

If shes so good, she should be taking it to the specialists in cancer treatment who would be delighted to have something so successful.

Its not like shes profiting by it, after all.

Skin cancer is a nasty disorder (I should know, my mother had it; now you know why Im so careful to cover up) and keeping secrets is nothing short of crimminal.

 

[Prophecy]

Exactly what I said. But she's very protective of it and says it would be abused if it was told to others. I don't get that part of it myself.

She admits herself that she is lucky not to have caused anyone any harm through side effects. Then there are legal issues etc etc.

 

[Jodie]

Can I recommend Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh's latest book "Trick or Treatment"
which looks at the evidence for a variety of complementary or alternative remedies?

The book also points out that for much of its history 'conventional' medicine was getting
it wrong - bloodletting, nearly always a bad idea and has probably killed a fair few
people off.

The ritual behind homeopathy is good at maximising the meaning response, or placebo.
But western medicine consists of a goodly component of placebo too - Ben Goldacre
writes amusingly on this (and many other topics) at http://www.badscience.net
in particular the placebo section at: http://www.badscience.net/category/placebo/

I have to say I think the jury is not out on homeopathy any more - it's placebo but as Ben
says "All bow before the might of the placebo effect it is the coolest strangest thing
in medicine": http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/a...t-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/

He mentions Daniel Moerman... anthropologist... Native American ethnobotany database.

 

[myotis]

Can I recommend Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh's latest book "Trick or Treatment" which looks at the evidence for a variety of complementary or alternative remedies?

This does look interesting, I have ordered a copy, but it does seem to be the same old story of one side (Ernst and Singh) saying homeopathy doesn't work and the other side saying they have ignored the clinical trials showing that it does.

Graham

 

[Jodie]

They've ignored any clinical trials that weren't well designed - ie they have focused on the
quality of the methodology rather than the outcome. If the methods used were insufficient
to distinguish a genuine effect for the treatment then it's not a fair test - I am being a bit
simplistic here but there are many ways in which a trial may be less good, or not
comparable with other better designed trials.

A similar book which gives a good overview is from Toby Murcott - Ernst and Singh go
in to more detail on specifics.

It's not a hatchet job on alternatives - they look at herbal remedies (it would seem that
there's some good evidence that St. John's Wort preparations are effective for mild
depression, but that it's not spectacularly better than prescription meds, for example)
and some other types of treatments used therapeutically.

I'm not sure if Ernst and Singh actually say that homeopathy doesn't work (they might
do, but I don't remember seeing it specifically stated). I'd doubt it because they are
acknowledging the importance and effectiveness of a placebo effect in ALL therapeutic
interventions - regular and alternative.

Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's PDF on drug interactions with St.
John's Wort:
Herb-medicine interactions: St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)
http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/scifactsheetstjwort.pdf

 

[JohnC]

re he lady who cures skin cancer: I am extremely sceptical of this. I'm sorry that I write this, but seeing people coming to grief of melanoma each week and then reading about someone who claims to cure it, but wont submit their secret cure to scrutiny as it "it would be abused if it was told to others" is thorougly wrong. I realise there are many types of skin cancer and she may be talking about warts, freckles, or moles with the potential to change, or squamous or melanomas, but I hate reading of "secret cures" that docs dont know about

sorry rant over

 

[myotis]

They've ignored any clinical trials that weren't well designed - ie they have focused on thequality of the methodology rather than the outcome. If the methods used were insufficient to distinguish a genuine effect for the treatment then it's not a fair test - I am being a bit simplistic here but there are many ways in which a trial may be less good, or not
comparable with other better designed trials.

I'm not sure if Ernst and Singh actually say that homeopathy doesn't work (they might
do, but I don't remember seeing it specifically stated). I'd doubt it because they are
acknowledging the importance and effectiveness of a placebo effect in ALL therapeutic
interventions - regular and alternative. ]

The experimental design aspect is also part of the same old argument with both sides arguing about the validity of the other sides trials.

The idea of the book saying Homeopathy didn't work, came from some of the reviews I read since reading your first post.

I also came across Snake Oil Science by Baussell, which looked a good read, so I ended up ordering that as well.

Just have to find the time to read them now.

Graham

 

[firecrest]

For people who say there is scientific research that shows homeopathy works and scientific substansiation on the hypothesis that water holds memory, can someone provide links to research?
As for the old lady. she sounds a bit selfish to me. "might be abused" indeed. By who? people not wanting to die of cancer? even if drug companies profited it obscenely from it, it being on the market would save more lives than she is doing now.

 

[Tengu]

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2....php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

 

[myotis]

For people who say there is scientific research that shows homeopathy works and scientific substansiation on the hypothesis that water holds memory, can someone provide links to research?

I think I am the only "people" who is suggesting there is enough scientific research not to just dismiss homeopathy as snake oil so.

For a summary

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/pdf/Summaryofresearchevidence.pdf

and,

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/res_toc.html

which has a reasonable reference list, but will probably duplicate the first link, but includes the links that I gave earlier in this thread

Obviously a potentially biased site, but all the members are conventionally trained and have then come to homeopathy. And the papers scathing of homeopathy tend to get lots of publicity while those supporting it get none.

Some of these papers that conclude the homeopathic remedies show no clinical effect, seem to also conclude that homeopaths do.

The paper that Doc earlier linked to is like that.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296913?ordinalpos=1&itool=En trezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pub med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_Discov eryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&l inkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed

and one of the authors of the the very damming paper in the Lancet a couple of years ago, when interviewed, also reflected on this anomaly that although they had concluded there was insufficient evidence to convince them that the homeopathic "remedies" showed any clinical effect, they still found sufficient evidence to convince them that homeopathic "treatment" had a beneficial clinical effect.

So this is the dilemma, it seems that the evidence is contradictory and complex. As it is of course with anything, eg the recent Prozac publicity.

There is some complex relationship between the effectiveness of the remedy itself and the practitioner, so maybe it is all, or largely, a placebo effect, but even if it is, then given the fairly wide acceptance that "homeopaths" have a good success rate, then it would seem a great loss, if for example the NHS homeopathic hospitals were to close, or people to lose the opportunity to receive treatment from qualified homeopaths.

But I admit my interest is fuelled by the number of people I know who had appalling lives due to chronic illnesses of one sort or another, who were seeing no improvements with conventional treatment, but had rapid and permanent improvement after seeing a homeopath.

But I would still like to see more clarity in the science as to what might be happening.

Graham