 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008Homeopathy BLAST Big Pharma
Brilliant article from two researchers questions both the mode and modus of the Homeopathy attacks from "The Growth of a Lie and the End of Conventional Medicine" by Mastrangelo et al. University of Sienna, Med Sci Monit, 2005; 11(12): SR27-31 to be found in the Meta -Analyses section of THIS Link: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp Summary "Throughout its over 200-year history, homeopathy has been proven effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer. However, given its low cost, homeopathy has always represented a serious challenge and a constant threat to the profits of drug companies. Moreover, since drug companies represent the most relevant source of funding for biomedical re- search worldwide, they are in a privileged position to finance detractive campaigns against home- opathy by manipulating the media as well as academic institutions and the medical establishment. The basic argument against homeopathy is that in some controlled clinical trials (CCTs), compari- son with conventional treatments shows that its effects are not superior to those of placebo. Against this thesis we argue that a) CCT methodology cannot be applied to homeopathy, b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs, c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT meth- odology is deeply flawed, d) an accurate testing of homeopathic remedies requires more sophis- ticated techniques, e) the placebo effect is no more “plausible” than homeopathy, and its real na- ture is still unexplained, and f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a “cure” and, as such, worthy of further investigation and analysis. It is concluded that no arguments presently exist against home- opathy and that the recurrent campaigns against it represent the specific interests of the pharma- ceutical industry which, in this way, strives to protect its profits from the “threat” of a safer, more effective, and much less expensive treatment modality." OTHER outstanding Homeopathy articles, include a transcript of a recent historic Homeopathy debate can be found in the "Basic Research" section of the above mentioned link. Citizen Jimserac >Brilliant article from two researchers questions both the mode and >modus of the Homeopathy attacks "Brilliant" is a strong word and certainly appears to be a severe exaggeration in this case. >from >"The Growth of a Lie and the End of Conventional Medicine" by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Summary >"Throughout its over 200-year history, homeopathy has been proven >effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has >little to offer. During much of the early part of that 200 years, conventional medicine was often useless or even harmful, so that's a pretty weak endorsement. A discussion from the last 60 years would be far more relevant. >However, given its low cost, homeopathy has always represented a >serious challenge and a constant threat to the profits of drug >companies. Ah, good. Nothing like a little touch of paranoia and some screaming with alarm about the awful drug companies to give yourself credibility, that's what I say. >Moreover, since drug companies represent the most relevant source of >funding for biomedical research worldwide, they are in a privileged >position to finance detractive campaigns against homeopathy by >manipulating the media as well as academic institutions and the >medical establishment. Plus, of course, the homeopaths are a bunch of selfless do-gooders who are incapable of self-delusion or wishful thinking. >The basic argument against homeopathy is that in some controlled >clinical trials (CCTs), comparison with conventional treatments shows >that its effects are not superior to those of placebo. Against >this thesis we argue that a) CCT methodology cannot be applied to >homeopathy, A common, and completely bogus, claim. The usual method is to insist that homeopathic remedies are tailored to the individual patient and thus can't be used in a controlled setting. This, of course, is complete bullshit. Even if the remedies are tailored, there are still ways to do double-blind testing. > b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs, That part about "common" would have to be shown, and would also have to be shown to be *more* common when it comes to trials of homopathic meds. >c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT meth- >odology is deeply flawed, They show nothing of the sort. Whether or not a drug has side effects or ADRs says nothing about whether a clinical trial of efficacy is valid or not. In fact, since all medications have side effects, the implication here is that CCTs are never valid, which is obviously nonsense. >d) an accurate testing of homeopathic remedies requires more sophis- >ticated techniques, Preferably ones where statistical validity can go out the window. >e) the placebo effect is no more "plausible" than homeopathy, and its >real nature is still unexplained, and The placebo effect is at least well-documented. The fact that something is unexplained does not mean it doesn't work; nobody knew how aspirin worked until relatively recently, but it would have been perverse to claim that it didn't work despite that. >f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a "cure" and, as such, worthy of >further investigation and analysis. Certainly, and there are people doing exactly that. But if homeopathy is just placebo, all the intricacies around its potencies and these varied remedies are simply gingerbread and of no real value. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > In article <912d67b1-be8a-4927-a232-761f0b898...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > CitizenJimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." > -- John Dolan Your comments are well spoken and you raise excellent objections. I'm not thrilled about Homeopathy testing as it is and another thing that gives me trouble are the contradictory schools within Homeopathy. There's the classicists, the modernists and god knows who else. Dr. Vithoulkas, says that the memory of water theory is nonsense. Meanwhile though, everybody is so focused on the memory of water stuff that nobody stops to notice the large number of low dilution homeopathic remedies that DO have some molecules (or more) of the "curative" substance in them. When these remedies work, it is written off as just classical herbology effects again carefully ignoring the Homeopathy theory. And, as if there was not enough confusion, we have the "placebo" issue whose effects these authors insist should be investigated though this "explanation" remains anathema to my thinking which says that if young children and even animals can benefit from Homeopathy it sure cannot be, in their cases, placebo effect. Citizen Jimserac >> In article >> <912d67b1-be8a-4927-a232-761f0b898...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > even animals can benefit from Homeopathy it sure cannot > be, in their cases, placebo effect. You are half-right. Children and animals can appear to respond to placebo treatments because 1. Lots of things get better anyway 2. Those making the observations are attuned to find benefits where there really are none and 3. Many treatments involve or are accompanied by extra attentions to which the children/animals may respond. An example is infantile colic. Any treatment at all will be likely to found to "work" within an hour or so, for one of these reasons. When homeopaths recognise that their treatments are placebo, and that this limits what they can do, there will be less need for skeptical input. PM |
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
|
©2008 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.