Homeopathy

[Maria Mac]

Latest post of the previous page:

But I am asking myself (and anyone can answer): if herbal medicine is well-accepted why it is not Homeopathy whose medicaments are herb-based???

Possibly because herbal medicine still has some herbs in it.

But OTOH, is 'herbal' medicine well-accepted?

I don't think herbal medicine is taken particularly seriously but neither does it provoke the derision that homeopathy does and I think Nick is right about the reason. The thing that gets us all going about homeopathy is, firstly, the dilution. Homeopaths themselves admit there are no active ingredients left in the remedies but claim that the water has a memory of them. This raises the question of why the water only remembers the homeopathic ingredient and not the rest of what the water has been through. Secondly, it's the bizarre preparation method of 'succussion', which is obviously bonkers. Thirdly, there's the nonsense about it treating the whole person and the underlying disease and the false comparison with evidence-based medicine in this respect. Finally, it is the nature of the ingredients themselves because they are not all plants - far from it! This came up in another discussion here. Homeopathic remedies start with all kinds of stuff including duck's livers, crushed bees and even dog excrement.

Good job it's so dilute!

[Alan H]

Possibly because herbal medicine still has some herbs in it.

...and sometimes some additional ingredients not specified on the label...

[Gottard]

Just for the record:
we have a health programme on the Swiss radio where a medical doctor answer listeners' queries. It was just a couple of days ago when a listener asked why homeopathic medicaments are not refunded by the Social Security; the doctor answered (I swear) that conventional medicaments must show that they are effective on a minimum number of patients before they are approved. Homeopathyc medicaments do not react evenly to to all patients, in this way they are not statistically measurable and cannot be taken into account. In France, however, they are refunded by the local NHS.

May I suggest that the gist of this topic can be summed up by the statement:
"the best remedy for anyone's illness is achieved when you are cured according to your preferred medicine"
Elio

[Alan C.]

When we went to the library today (as we do every week) they were conducting this years survey (which they do every year) You are invited to make comments on the back of the survey form, so I made my usual about all the books they have in the non fiction section, that don't belong there, I won't list them all as most of you know the ones I mean, but homeopathy was up near the top of my list, I even had it above astrology

[Alan H]

homeopathy was up near the top of my list, I even had it above astrology

A hierarchy of quackery! Now there's a thought.

[Alan C.]

homeopathy was up near the top of my list, I even had it above astrology

A hierarchy of quackery! Now there's a thought.

A hierarchy on quackery would be impossible Alan, just as a heirarchy on religions would, every one is as nuts as the other, it's just a case of listing them as they pop into your memory, and homeopathy (cos of an ongoing debate on the Shetland forum, is fresh in my mind.)

When they get my survey form, they'll know exactly who it's from as I say the same thing every year, and the library staff know my feelings on the subject, I said to Margaret (the librarian) as she handed me the survey form, "I have only one complaint" she said "yes I know Alan" But it's national policy an we can't do anything about it.
So it would seem that the librarians have no say on how the books are categorised, it's done by a higher power
I've never seen a bible in non fiction, which I commended them on, but there is a Koran
There is also David Robertson's "The Dawkins letters" a very small, very thin, "response" to The God Delusion, which had been taken out once on 17th September.

[Alan H]

There is also David Robertson's "The Dawkins letters" a very small, very thin, "response" to The God Delusion, which had been taken out once on 17th September.

When is it due back, Alan?

[grammar king]

I've just discovered a homeopathic clinic running on campus at the University of Edinburgh. It's run by the Edinburgh University Settlement, which is apparently an independent charity with which current and past members of the University can volunteer, and it appears to have very close links with the University, indeed it operates through an office in Potterrow (the student union building). I went in yesterday to ask some questions and as far as I can tell, it looks like the University is condoning the use of homeopathy on campus, something which obviously we're not too happy about (we being the University Humanist Society).

At the same time, however, I don't want to be totally dismissive. After all, homeopathic treatments are common in France and Asia, and there seems to be a fair bit of evidence that it works, albeit anecdotal. The homeopath I spoke to kept asserting that homeopathy works, but avoided my questions on how much scientific research goes into it, and how it works. I think we can all agree that whether or not it works, we should understand how it works before we give it government funding. I would not object to doing more scientific research on the matter.

[Alan H]

After all, homeopathic treatments are common in France and Asia, and there seems to be a fair bit of evidence that it works, albeit anecdotal.

The only evidence that homoeopathy works is anecdotal! All high quality trials that have been done do mot show any efficacy over placebo. It is pseudo scientific quack nonsense and ad populum appeals just don't cut it!

[tubataxidriver]

Skeptics will find this amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w

[Alan C.]

grammar king
After all, homeopathic treatments are common in France and Asia,

Catholisism is common in Italy and lots of other countries, Islam is common in (it seems) every bloody country in the world, Hinduism is common in India and lots of other countries, I could go on but you get the picture? Because something is common to a lot of people, in a lot of places, doesn't make it true.

[grammar king]

I wasn't trying to use an ad populum argument, just that if it didn't work, someone would've realised by now. If proper studies have been done into it, I'll read into it but as of yet I haven't had a lot of time to do so. I'm sure there'll be links in this thread so I'll look through tomorrow.

[Alan C.]

grammar king
just that if it didn't work, someone would've realised by now.

grammar king! 98 percent of the population (or more) "realize" it doesn't work, have you been living in a cave?
Homeopathic "medicines" are just water (with a memory ) and the only condition they will cure, is thirst!
I think you should do some reading on the subject, and then get back

[Maria Mac]

I wasn't trying to use an ad populum argument, just that if it didn't work, someone would've realised by now. If proper studies have been done into it, I'll read into it but as of yet I haven't had a lot of time to do so. I'm sure there'll be links in this thread so I'll look through tomorrow.

There've been more 'proper studies' done into it than you've had hot dinners.

If you are serious about looking into it, you need to be prepared to do a lot of reading around the whole subject of clinical evidence and learn how to sort the wheat from the chaff and then practise by reading through reports of clinical trials. It's a fascinating subject but extremely time-consuming. Many doctors themselves don't really understand how clinical trials work, how bias can sometimes fail to be eliminated and how results can be skewed and that's why you occasionally hear one or other of them making positive comments about homeopathy (these are usually people who make some sort of living out of it). Fortunately, the vast majority of medical practitioners realise that homeopathy is a total crock.

Take, for example, the Shang metanalysis of 2005. This looked at 110 trials of homeopathic remedies and a similar number of trials for conventional medicine. Shang's team of researchers were extremely strict and eliminated all but the highest quality trials. They were left with a mere eight trials for homeopathy and nine for conventional medicine. These trials were appropriately large, randomised, double-blinded and placebo-controlled. The trials for conventional medicine all demonstrated an effect that was significantly better than placebo. Not one of the homeopathy trials did.

Tell this to the homeopushers and how do they respond? (1) Oh, Shang was biased and deliberately selected trials that would bring about the result he wanted; (2) Homeopathy by its very nature doesn't lend itself to being tested in this way.

These arguments are utter cobblers.

It actually doesn't matter how much time and money is wasted conducting trials into homeopathy, homeopushers will never accept what the scientific method has demonstrated over and over again. Homeopathy doesn't work. It never has worked and it never will work.

And that is all there is to it.

[grammar king]

grammar king
just that if it didn't work, someone would've realised by now.

grammar king! 98 percent of the population (or more) "realize" it doesn't work, have you been living in a cave?
Homeopathic "medicines" are just water (with a memory ) and the only condition they will cure, is thirst!
I think you should do some reading on the subject, and then get back

I mean out of people who use it! I'm not expressing myself very well at all, but the way I'm thinking is that if it was as obvious as you make out that it doesn't work, I doubt the French government would subsidise homeopathic treatment the way it does. I'll do some more reading around it today.

Here's another question I'll put to you. I'm sure you're aware of the fairly surprising effects placebos can have. Considering sugar pills are so much cheaper that real medicine, as well as superbug problems we have through the overuse of antibiotics, would you condone a larger use of placebos by the NHS in cases in which it may have an effect?

[Alan H]

It's not just the French government that funds this nonsense: th UK does too (there's a NHS homoeopathic hospital here in Glasgow and a few others around the country, although there is a lot of pressure to have them closed). However there is a difference between funding what's effective and what there is a demand for [---][/---] and the demand doesn't make it work.

As for prescribing sugar pills instead of real medicine, there's a real issue of trust and integrity for doctors.

There is certainly a lot we don't know about placebos, but placebos don't kill superbugs.

If you're not sure about what homoeopaths claim for their wonder cure (both what it 'cures', how it 'works' and how they 'prescribe' it, just have a look at the Nancy Malik thread.

[grammar king]

As for prescribing sugar pills instead of real medicine, there's a real issue of trust and integrity for doctors.

There is certainly a lot we don't know about placebos, but placebos don't kill superbugs.

Been reading around today, it does appear an open-and-shut case, like you say (the leaflet on pg 1 was particularly helpful, I think we'll start the campaign by printing some of those off and putting them outside the clinic). I also discovered some limited evidence on bad sciencethat placebos can be effective even when the patient knows it's a placebo. Study [url=http://www.leecrandallparkmd..net/researchpages/placebo1.html]here[/url]. That could alleviate some of the trust and integrity issues.

By bringing up superbugs I didn't mean that placebos kill them, just that our continued reliance on antibiotics is what's created them, and increasing the use of placebos instead could reduce the problem.

Even so, though, placebos only treat the symptoms rather than the underlying cause (ironic, seeing as homeopaths make the same objection about 'conventional' medicine), so it's a bad idea generally.

[Alan H]

grammar king

Did you see this thread on Universities that are teaching pseudo scientific quack nonsense? It includes Napier University (not Edinburgh or Heriot-Watt, of course!):

Bachelor of Arts:
Complementary Healthcare (Aromatherapy)
Complementary Healthcare (Reflexology)
Complementary Therapies Practitioner Conversion Course - Aromatherapy

Bachelor of Science:
Herbal Medicine


I'm off to read what you've said on your blog...

[Maria Mac]

The Natural History Museum website now has a Homeopathy database.

I found out about it when I came across this blog entry, which is recommended reading.

For such a reputable and outstanding source of science education to be involved with quackery at this level is to denigrate the good name of the NHM and to give homeopathy a scientific acceptability that it does not deserve.

[tubataxidriver]

The Natural History Museum website now has a Homeopathy database.

Picking up from Maria's indignation, here is the text of an email I have just sent to the Director of the NHM. Let's see if anything happens.

Attn: Dr Michael Dixon, Director, Natural History Museum
I note that a section of the NHM website covers plant “remedies” used in so-called homeopathy. As you probably know, this pseudoscience has been shown by double blind trials to be complete codswallop.
While people still adhere to its nonsense, there is clearly a need to make sure they identify plants etc. carefully, and the NHM has a role in passing on its taxonomic knowledge in this regard, but it should not use language and presentation which infers any scientific credibility or any effectiveness for its “remedies”.
The NHM should be at best neutral on the subject, and should not give it the scientific credence it does.
May I suggest that in this section:
1. A suitable “health warning” should be placed on the main page, each sub-page and each page displayed from this database. Appropriate wording might be: “The effectiveness of homeopathy is strongly contested.”
2. The word “remedies” and similar usage should be replaced with a suitable alternative such as “extracts”. “Remedy” implies effectiveness. There is no evidence for this.
3. Include a web link to an appropriate site supporting homeopathy.
4. Include a web link to an appropriate site that is against homeopathy.
5. A declaration of the sources of funds supporting this NHM activity is made.
Ref: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/ ... index.html
Keeping this section of the website in place as it is does discredit to an otherwise excellent institution.

[tubataxidriver]

And an instant reply with a hint of some action. Well done to NHM Director. And well done to Maria for spotting it.

Dear Dr Hodge
Thank you for your note on the section of our website devoted to clarifying the classification and identification of plants used by practitioners of homeopathy. I am not sure that I agree that the material on the site gives homeopathy scientific credence, but if you have inferred this then that itself highlights the need to be more explicit.
The NHM is a scientific organisation and we promote good science. This is, for example, why we promote Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as the only tried and tested explanation of how diverse life forms on our planet came to be, and why we will not promote alternative theories based on faith (e.g. creationism, intelligent design) as having any scientific basis.
As a publicly funded organisation we have a duty to be respectful of the views of our audiences from all backgrounds and walks of life, but this does not mean that we have to agree with all their views or promote something as fact when there is no extant evidence to support this.
When these pages of our website were first posted, there was internal debate about how we presented our position. I have asked that we look at this again in the light of the inferences and comments you have made. This will likely lead to some changes though I would expect this to take some weeks to implement.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Regards
Michael Dixon
Director