>Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy..
>From:
[email protected] (Jan)
>Date: 3/15/2004 12:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <
[email protected]>
>
Ooops, forgot to post studies, see below
Jan
>Subject: Re: A few questions on homeopathy..
>>From: "Rich Andrews."
[email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:36
>>AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
>><
[email protected]>
>>
>
>See Rich's reply below.
>
>Another example of the *gang*, with a few lies thrown in.
>There are studies comparing homopathy with placebo. They
>have been posted, yet this lie Rich tells gets repeated.
>
>Jan
>
>>"Michael" <
[email protected]> wrote in
>>
news:c33kt9$jcv$1 @news-reader1.wanadoo.fr:
>>
>>> I went to a homeopath a week ago (first time) and he
>>> gave me a book he wrote. It covers the history, which I
>>> find very interesting. Then I
>>found
>>> an even better book on the web, written by a homeopath:
>>>
http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/homeopathy/index.html
>>> After reading
>>this
>>> book I've come to a personal conclusion that it's a
>>> placebo. In my case,
>>my
>>> homeopath gave me a diet (nothing weird, just a normal
>>> balanced diet
>>with
>>> more fiber). He also made me swear to exercise at least
>>> 3x a week for
>>30
>>> minutes, which I also did. I went to him for
>>> stress/anxiety and it has definitely improved, but I
>>> think it's the exercise and diet that are responsible
>>> and not the sugar pills.
>>>
>>> I have a few questions that aren't clear to me. I looked
>>> up some of my medicine, for example "Actaea racemosa".
>>> Here's what it says:
>>>
>>> Backache Depression Dysmenorrhea Fibromyalgia Menstrual
>>> problems and PMS Migraine Osteoarthritis Postpartum
>>> depression Tinnitus
>>>
>>> I got that from this link:
http://www.vitacost.com/scie-
>>> nce/hn/Homeo_Homeoix/Actaea_racemosa.htm
>>>
>>> So my questions are:
>>>
>>> 1) It appears to be used for a bunch of conditions that
>>> I do not have. I don't know why I'm taking this.
>>>
>>> 2) More importantly, wouldn't taking this medicine give
>>> me symptoms of
>>the
>>> problems listed above if I don't already have them? From
>>> the "provings"
>>I
>>> read about, it seemed the medicines caused healthy
>>> people to become ill
>>and
>>> therefore they believed that would cure someone who had
>>> the same
>>symptoms.
>>> But this isn't logical. First, I would get the syptoms I
>>> don't have, and second it just doesn't make sense! For
>>> example, if I have a stomach
>>ache,
>>> giving me a medicine which causes stomach aches isn't
>>> going to improve
>>my
>>> stomach ache. I see how this can work with vaccines and
>>> allergies, but
>>not
>>> things like diarrhea, stomach aches, etc. In the book my
>>> homeopath gave
>>me
>>> it claims that insomnia is cured by a homeopathic
>>> medicine made from
>>coffee.
>>> That doesn't make sense either.
>>>
>>> I'm very curious if you have ideas on the questions
>>> above.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Michael,
>>
>>Homeopathy has never been proven effective. The whole
>>concept should have been left in the history books,
>>but unscrupulous people keep digging it up and
>>foisting it on others as a cure all. In short,
>>homeopathic remedies are BS.
>>
>>Your posting begs the question of why you were seeking
>>medical advice.
>>
>>r
http://tinyurl.com/
>"Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo
>Effects?..."
> >(Meta Analysis of Placebo Controlled Trials) Linde K, et
> >al, Lancet 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43
> >
> > INTERPRETATION: "The results of our meta-analysis are
> > not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical
> > effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo."
>
> "Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on
> seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular
> symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74)."
>
> And if the persons were allergic to something with a short
> blooming season, such as olives, one would get the same
> results with tap water.
METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies
and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers,
individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings,
and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or
randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions
were considered.
Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the
inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis,
and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility.
Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales
and extracted data for information on clinical
condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy",
population, and outcomes.
FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered
into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in
favour of homeopathy.
The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66
(1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was
1.78 (1.03, 3.10).
Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal
allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4
weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74).
Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-
difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -
0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool
(both p < 0.05).
INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not
compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of
homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found
insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is
clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is
rigorous and systematic
http://tinyurl.com/ad09
http://tinyurl.com/aa13
http://tinyurl.com/acwm
http://tinyurl.com/acyf
http://tinyurl.com/fe09
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/455872
http://tinyurl.com/a7ry
http://tinyurl.com/ad14
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
>
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/169/Fu1
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/169#resp5
http://www.focusnewsletter.org/placebo.htm
---
Recent attempts to resolve the controversy surrounding
homoeopathy have centred on the 180 or so controlled trials
to date. A criteria based review in 1991 found that the
evidence was positive but not conclusive. Kleijnen, J.,
Knipschild, P., & ter Riet, G. Clinical trials of
homoeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 316 323. In a 1997 update, other
workers concluded that 73% of the existing trial data
supported homoeopathy being more effective than placebo,
with the pooled odds ratio from a criteria based meta-
analysis of 89 trials suggesting homoeopathy showed around
twice the overall mean effect of placebo. The difference was
significant and proved robust in sensitivity analyses that
included correction for publication bias. Linde, K.,
Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., Melchart, D., Eitel, F., Hedges,
LV., & Jonas, WB. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy
placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled
trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834 843 A third working group,
independently set up by the European Commission, selected 17
comparisons in 2001 patients for a meta-analysis. The pooled
P value was highly significant, and the group commented that
"it is likely that among the tested homeopathic approaches
some had an added effect over nothing or placebo." Linde,
K., Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., Melchart, D., Eitel, F.,
Hedges, LV., & Jonas, WB. Are the clinical effects of
homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-
controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834 843. Are these
findings "meta-errors" or, however implausible, does
something tangible lie at the core of homoeopathy?
To interpret these findings as arguing for homoeopathy
having an effect may now be more plausible than our previous
hypothesis of serial false positive results.3 32 For now, we
conclude that this study has failed to confirm our original
hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo.
Reilly, DT. & Taylor, MA. Potent placebo or potency? A
proposed study model with initial findings using
homoeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever. Br
Homoeopathic J 1985; 74: 65 75. Reilly, DT., Taylor, MA.,
McSharry, C., & Aitchison, T. Is homoeopathy a placebo
response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with
pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet 1986; ii: 881 886.
Reilly, DT., Taylor, MA., Beattie, NGM., Campbell, JH.,
McSharry, C., & Aitchison, TC. Is evidence for homoeopathy
reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344: 1601 1606. [PubMed]
Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in
perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial
series Morag A Taylor, research associatea, David Reilly,
honorary senior lecturer in medicinea, Robert H Llewellyn-
Jones, lecturerb, Charles McSharry, principal immunologistc,
and Tom C Aitchison, senior lecturer in statistics BMJ
2000;321:471 476 (19 August)
BMJ 2000;321:471476 (19 August) Randomised controlled trial
of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis
with overview of four trial series
a.University Department of Medicine, Glasgow Royal
Infirmary, b Department of Psychological Medicine,
University of Sydney, c University Dept of Immunology,
Western Infirmary, Glasgow d Department of Statistics,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow Discussion "To interpret
these findings as arguing for homoeopathy having an effect
may now be more plausible than our previous hypothesis of
serial false positive results.3 32 For now, we conclude
that this study has failed to confirm our original
hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo.
Jan
