Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Re: Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:20:50 GMT

Sorry I haven't got the will to read the paper but just to say that I was having a discussion with a friend at the weekend. He is a civil engineer, so he is intelligent and has a logical analytical mind but zero medical knowledge. He was appalled when I explained how homoeopathy 'works' (or rather how it doesn't) and how it is dished out by practitioners of the art with little explanation of this and that there are few, if any, genuine trials. He like many who unwittingly succumb to the temptation of the promises of alternative medicine assumed that there was scientific foundation to it and was horrified that it is little more, or even less, than snake oil.

Re: Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Bob Russell — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:19:08 GMT

At least someone is making an effort but at present the results of the review suggest more about the standards of the trials rather than homeopathy.

The real message is 'must do better'.

That said conventional medicine is not often not whiter than white!

Re: Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:17:54 GMT

I found the paper. Agree pretty much with Anthony's thoughts. The results look compelling but the write up is sketchy.

Re: Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Marie Kubiak — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:17:36 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

I can't get the paper either via RCVS Knowledge or the University of Liverpool! Grr.

[/quote]

It seems freely available online:

http://www.centaurea.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/biggenstudie.pdf

Re: Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Anthony Dennison — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:26:48 GMT

I managed to get it fine searching via Web of Science through University of Liverpool electronic library Michael.

The RCT on homeopathy and mastitis showed some scepticism of homeopathic treatment, and admits in the discussion that the sample size (57 cows across multiple farms) gives the study a low power.

The piglet E. coli paper is much more pro-homeopathy, but the method of writing just feels less scientific; despite the fact faecal cultures were taken that showed no E. coli, they still went ahead with the trial because it had been a problem before and so probably still was! The 'diagnosis' of E.coli diarrhoea was made on at what age the piglets started with clinical signs and the colour/consistency of the faeces, no culture. No way of poking any holes in that diagnosis then...

At one point they discuss the percentage of piglets in the homeopathic group that got diarrhoea, and then in the next paragraph say that no homeopathically treated piglets got diarrhoea... The discussion is just as bad 'diarrhoea seemed more well controlled'.

Finally, they couldn't finish the paper without saying that the farmer was so amazed by the results he uses it on all sows now, and things seem better than they were. Well, if that's not a reason to rush out and buy some sugar pills I don't know what is...

In conclusion: the one paper that is apparently a true RCT proving homeopathy is good is incredibly weak.

Re: Systematic review of homeopathy trials

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:02:04 GMT

I can't get the paper either via RCVS Knowledge or the University of Liverpool! Grr.

If you do enough studies you can get one that proves anything. The 'burden of proof' that most science works to is 5% due to chance, so if you examine 20 papers one could be positive by chance even if no real difference.

If this homoeopathic nosode is that great, repeat the study and do another (larger scale) trial.

(there is often no need to use antibiotics to treat e.coli anyway)