Lancet Study on Homeopathy: Biased Propaganda

http://www.althealthinfo.com/2005/08/26/lancet-study-on-homeopathy-biased-propaganda/

The Lancet has published the results of a study comparing peer-reviewed
studies in homeopathy against studies in conventional medicine. Out of
110 matched studies only 8 of the homeopathic studies were compared to
6 studies of conventional medicine. The report concludes that
homeopathy is no better than placebo. The study is poor, but makes some
very strong claims.

Researches were highly selective and looked at only double-blind
placebo-controlled homeopathic studies (which were probably prescribed
on allopathic rather than homeopathic principles). In a double-blind
placebo-controlled study normally only one medicine is given against
the placebo. Homeopathy will naturally do poorly if the selected
medicine is not similar to the symptoms displayed in the patient.

Prescribing methods for homeopathy are not compatible with this type of
study because the homeopath needs to make a homeopathic diagnosis, not
a conventional diagnosis. For example, for someone with asthma there
are a number of remedies that could be used depending on the
characteristics of the disease. It may be more bronchial (wet) or dry
asthma, be affected at different times (eg, worse at night) or in
different seasons. Hence 10 people with asthma may require different
homeopathic medicines.

PM There have been a number of studies that have used individualised
homeopathic remedies or even a combination of a large number of homeopathic
remedies that might be prescribed for the same condition e.g. 53 in the case
of one study in rheumatoid arthritis, and these have also shown no effect of
homeopathy *even in the conditions that homeopaths think they have most
success with.*

Note also that homeopaths are glad to accept such studies when they are
positive.  It is only when they are negative that these objections arise.

And whenever were homeopathic diagnoses validated?   They are a product of
200 year old prescientific medicine when virtually nothing was known about
pathology or physiology or biochemistry.  If homeopathy has been unable to
accomodate itself to new scientific discoveries, what does that say about
it?

We can explain everything that homeopathy can achieve in individual patients
in terms of placebo reactions and reporting biases and spontaneous
fluctuations in symptoms.   The conditions it appears to help are those
prone to these kind of responses, and it has never been shown to
consistently affect any objective disease process.

What more do we need?

Peter Moran

Constructing a study on homeopathy is difficult, as the method of
diagnosis is so different to conventional medicine. Also, the amount of
funding for studies into homeopathy is almost non-existent compared to
the funds available for conventional medical studies.

It also seems that the researchers of the Lancet study are quite biased
in anything that does not match their concept of treatment, as the
following quote from a researcher suggests (emphasis mine):

Juni thinks the findings show that homeopathic remedies don't have
any biological benefits. "Based on these trials, remedies which do
not fit into our traditional concepts of biological mechanisms do not
have a specific effect," he said. "We cannot prove the negative,
but we find an effect which might just be a placebo effect or a
nonspecific effect."

Not long ago a large study showing that homeopathy is more effective
than conventional medicine had a brief mention by one news source (the
telegraph), while this new study saying it is no better than placebo
has been picked up by a number of news sources. It seems main stream
media is keen to show homeopathy in a negative light, simply because it
does not conform to the scientific status quo.

This new study also conflicts with a preliminary report on homeopathy
from the World Health Organization. It states that the majority of
peer-reviewed placebo controlled studies of homeopathy over the last 40
years demonstrate that homeopathy is superior to placebo. The WHO study
says that homeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicine in its
effectiveness.

Just recently placebo was found to have a physical effect on the body,
releasing opioid like substances called endorphins. Endorphins are the
body's own natural pain-killing substance that are much more powerful
than any pain killing drug.

Homeopathy is becoming very popular again. In Britain alone, sales of
homeopathic medicines have grown by a third in the past five years to
32 million pounds in 2004. Recently Prince Charles issued an inquiry
into alternative medicine, which found that £480 million could be
saved if just 10% of GP's prescribed homeopathy instead of
conventional medicine. Homeopathy is not only cheap it is effective.

The study is poor and goes against the general finding that homeopathy
does work and is just as effective (in some cases more effective) than
conventional medicine. More disappointing is the mainstream media's
strong reporting of such a weak study as cold hard fact.

http://www.althealthinfo.com/2005/08/26/lancet-study-on-homeopathy-biased-propaganda/