 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005Homeopathy is of Value in the Treatment of Menopause
Even with the small sample size results were distinctive(p=.05). The results from the homeopathic drugs were mild but positive. "homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms" Homeopathy for Menopausal Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Feb 2005, Vol. 11, No. 1: 21-27 http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/_archives/2005/8/27/1174694.html > Even with the small sample size results were distinctive(p=.05). The > results from the homeopathic drugs were mild but positive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/_archives/2005/8/27/1174694.html So did Boiron pay for ths study? They've paid for others. So how exactly DO you tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and the solvent? By the way, there is a big prize for the person who can do it! Still, this is more related to reality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16125589&query_hl=5 Are you going to imply that the trial in tainted. If you are, get some evidence before you do. The study is in a peer reviewed Journal and the P=.05 which means there is less than a 5% chance the study is wrong. Read the study and prove it wrong or accept the findings however much you don't like them. > Are you going to imply that the trial in tainted. If you are, get some > evidence before you do. The study is in a peer reviewed Journal and the > P=.05 which means there is less than a 5% chance the study is wrong. > Read the study and prove it wrong or accept the findings however much > you don't like them. Let's see. Probability that the Law of Similars (like cures like) has universal validity in medicine = say, one million to one against. Probability that dilution and succussion ever strengthens the medical properties of solutions= a billion to one against. Probability that homeopathic provings produce ever useful medical information = say, a hundred thousand to one against. Probability that a prescientific and never validated diagnostic system works = well, you get the idea. The likelihood that the results of this study are due to either chance or one of numerous possible errors in performance that can give a spurious result = too high to seriously consider any other possibility. Peter Moran www.cancerwatcher.com So far you can't debunk this study. You are only offering your personal opinion. Where's the science? Prove the P wrong or go away. Even with the small sample size results were distinctive(p=.05). The results from the homeopathic drugs were mild but positive. "homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms" Homeopathy for Menopausal Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Feb 2005, Vol. 11, No. 1: 21-27 http://debunkbigpharma.blognat ion.us/blog/_archives/2005/8/2 7/1174694... > So far you can't debunk this study. You are only offering your personal > opinion. Where's the science? Prove the P wrong or go away. Prove it wrong? Why would I want to do that, when there is at least a one in twenty chance that the results are merely due to chance, and a higher one that if the study was carefully replicated the opposite results would be found. This is happening with clinical trials all the time. It is the replication of studies that is the true guide to whether treatments are *probably* intrinsically active and the FDA, for example, never releases a drug without at least three carefully done randomised controlled studies showing the same effects. Also P levels of this degree were chosen by medicine as a rough rule of thumb so as to not provide too high a hurdle for treatments that may be saving lives. They cannot overturn fundamental observations about the universe, or validate agents that have never been shown to produce objective effects in any context. Benveniste tried for years before he died. Peter Moran www.cancerwatcher.com > Even with the small sample size results were distinctive(p=.05). The > results from the homeopathic drugs were mild but positive. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sent via Health Newsgroups > http://www.healthnewsgroups.com > So far you can't debunk this study. You are only offering your personal > opinion. Where's the science? Prove the P wrong or go away. > > Even with the small sample size results were distinctive(p=.05). The > results from the homeopathic drugs were mild but positive. The results were actually: RESULTS: There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome measure, the hot flash severity score, although there was a positive trend in the single remedy group during the first 3 months of the study (p = 0.1). A statistically significant improvement in general health score in both homeopathy groups (p < 0.05) on the SF-36 after 1 year was found. Evidence of a homeopathic "drug proving" in the subjects receiving the homeopathic combination medicine who were not taking tamoxifen also was found. If you want to read about the ridiculousness of 'homeopathic "drug proving"', go here: http://www.homeoint.org/cazalet/lippe/drugproving.htm The page begins: "Our knowledge of the curative virtues of drugs depends on our knowledge of their sick-making properties ; this latter can be obtained only by proving drugs on the healthy." The page seems to imply that symptoms were induced in the subjects that they had not hitherto suffered?! Cathy > "homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sent via Health Newsgroups > http://www.healthnewsgroups.com >> So far you can't debunk this study. You are only offering your personal >> opinion. Where's the science? Prove the P wrong or go away. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > subjects receiving the homeopathic combination medicine who were not > taking tamoxifen also was found. Ha! So they looked at multiple outcomes!. This multiplies the likelihood of chance postive findings by the number of outcomes examined. Since there are 8 possible profiles in the SF36 the chances that one of them will be positive at the P<.05 level is about one in two or three. But they looked at at least four other outcomes, and also, apparently, outcomes with multiple different remedies, and also over different time periods. This is an example of data mining. The study showed *nothing positive* for homeopathy in menopausal symptoms, the main aim of the study, so it was probably quite well done. But they then deceptively went and rummaged through the data until they found the inevitable few postive findings at the P<05 level and reported those. Are you follwing this, Dan? It is yet another study that shows homeopathic preparations are inactive. What makes such studies more telling is that they are usually on conditions that homeopaths think they are getting good results with. Peter Moran All studies involve data mining. You are data mining right now. Mumble all you want, there are studies that show that homeopathy has a mild but positive long-term effects. Make of it what you will. You look for the negative in the world while I look for real world results that matter. You on the other just want to prove you are right and others are wrong. Much Later Most men would rather die, than think. Many do. Bertrand Russell > All studies involve data mining. You are data mining right now. > > Mumble all you want, there are studies that show that homeopathy has a > mild but positive long-term effects. Go for it! Where? (Does placebo count?) > Make of it what you will. You look for the negative in the world while > I look for real world results that matter. You on the other just want > to prove you are right and others are wrong. So the study you were so keen on didn't show what you thought it did, so you've decided just to pretend it doesn't matter, and that homeopathy works in the real world, even if no-one can prove it. Cathy > Much Later > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sent via Health Newsgroups > http://www.healthnewsgroups.com So the data turned out not to show what you wanted What are you talking about? "homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms" is a direct quote from the study. A bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks try to kick around studies to exploit any weakness in them. Just trying to stir up the pot until they piss someone off. The study is small but does show signs of promise. These Homeopathic bashers believe in absolute results. They say if the results are not hugely successful they are worthless. I say these Monday QBs are full of sh.t. Most men would rather die, than think. Many do. Bertrand Russell > What are you talking about? "homeopathy may be of value in the > treatment of menopausal symptoms" is a direct quote from the study. A [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hugely successful they are worthless. I say these Monday QBs are full > of sh.t. Did you read the actual results? They were looking for improvement in hot flashes. They found none. But you keep kidding yourself. Enjoy. > Most men would rather die, than think. Many do. > Bertrand Russell > > -- > Sent via Health Newsgroups > http://www.healthnewsgroups.com "All studies involve data mining. You are data mining right now." What, exactly, do you mean when you use the term "data mining"? -Will Dwinnell http://will.dwinnell.com >"All studies involve data mining. You are data mining right now." > >What, exactly, do you mean when you use the term "data mining"? And note that the real meaning of the term is to analyze a mass of data to search out relationships between things that are not immediately obvious. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > Are you going to imply that the trial in tainted. If you are, get some > evidence before you do. That has never stopped any of the Realmedicien bashers and whacko conspiracists. The study is in a peer reviewed Journal and the > P=.05 which means there is less than a 5% chance the study is wrong. Which peers? Homeopaths? AltQuackers? > Read the study and prove it wrong or accept the findings however much > you don't like them. Hmmm...where did I hear that before..oh, I know, when we tell AltNuts about their bullshit. If you do not like it when it is done to you, then do not do it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.