Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:58:25 GMT

I saw a bit of an episode of something called "Casualty" (I think) once. It was twice as funny as this.

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:39:19 GMT

If you need a volunteer for the testing give me a call

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:38:04 GMT

Here it is ...

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Roger Meacock — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:31:13 GMT

Your bias shows in your methodology. The true test is using equal volumes of remedy and then determining which has the better result. A hangover may have multiple causes one of which is undoubtedly dehydration and probably a toxic element too that the hair of the dog is likely to be more effective for. If the dehydration is the over-riding factor then of course drinking 2 pints of water will have the best overall result of any remedy. However that would not be a true comparative test of the hair of the dog!

I presume the experiment would need to be conducted on at least 3 separate, equally spaced occasions drinking the same amount of alcohol each time with 3 options of treatment

1) volume of homeopathic remedy alone,

2) equal volume of water alone,

3) remedy + water.

Of course you'd need an objective way of determining severity of hangover before and after a treatment. I get the feeling it could take quite a lot of planning research just to get the protocol right!

Roger

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Ian Mostyn — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:33:41 GMT

It would be an interesting thing to try. Which is more effective; 2 pints of pure water or a teaspoon or two of a homeopathic dilution of vodka or Theakstons XP? My personal belief is that the water will combat the dehydration better and I will test my theory at the next available opportunity.

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Roger Meacock — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:20:01 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]

You mean have a glass of water before you go to bed stops the hangover!

Ian

[/quote]

No - that's called prevention!

I was talking about "cure" of an existing problem in the hangover using a homeopathic dilution of the previous night's drink. If you have a hangover a small glass of water won't be sufficient to remedy the dehydration but the dilution technique has a more significant effect. The phrase "hair of the dog" wouldn't have arisen from just drinking pure water either.

Cheers

Roger

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Ian Mostyn — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:50:54 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]With regard to the alcohol idea maybe you should consider the possibility that the traditional "hair of the dog" cure for hangovers might in fact refer to a homeopathic dilution of the drink from the previous night.

[/quote]

You mean have a glass of water before you go to bed stops the hangover!

Ian

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:52:45 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Niall, just because I can't remember the exact reference of a peer-reviewed paper doesn't make it any less valid - it was peer-reviewed...[/quote]

I have to disagree here. Everyone's recollections have the potential to be less than perfect – yours, mine (definitely!), Einstein's, anyone's, so it is important to have the full reference so we can check exactly what was said. This isn't a criticism of anyone's abilities or views, just a recognition that we live in a less than perfect world so it is better to get as close to the source work as possible when considering a claim.

The peer review process isn't perfect. Just because an article is published in a peer review journal doesn't mean it has a definitive answer. There are a number of reasons for this, not all journals practice the same rigour in the peer review process for a start, publication bias is still an issue even in peer reviewed journals.

Even an apparently rigorous trial with what looks like good methodology is still only a single trial, only a small part of the investigation of the subject (e.g. homeopathy). Other trial might produce different results depending on trial conditions, patient selection, geography, different authors etc.. Again, that's not to say that the original trial was wrong, it is a fundamental part of the scientific process to check and re-check such findings in a dispassionate and disinterested way. To gain a proper impression we need to look at the total body of evidence, not isolated trials.

The peer review process is just one part of the way scientific findings are validated. Another, even more important stage is the replication of results. Benveniste's original 'water of memory work' (Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE) was later found to be flawed (Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE) when other researchers attempted, unsuccessfully to repeat the original results under blinded conditions. Both papers were published in the peer reviewed and highly reputable journal Nature and there is no contradiction there, just a brilliant example of how the scientific process works. Later attempts to replicate the results also failed; a few laboratories have claimed success though but, crucially, have never published their findings for public scrutiny.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]To dismiss a peer-reviewed study without having even seen it on the basis that you don't think the methodology could have been correct because some other trials have been poorly constructed in the past clearly demonstrates a closed mind...[/quote]

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to convey. I certainly wasn't 'dismissing' the trial you mentioned and I made no comment on whether I thought that particular trial's methodology was sound or not. All I said was that we have no way of knowing about its methodology or anything else without seeing the paper for ourselves. I don't think that is unreasonable and it is certainly not to pre-judge in any way, simply to remain neutral until the paper is available. Requiring evidence before accepting a claim is not closed minded.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]The fact that you chose to ignore the trial based on an in vitro cancer cell culture because you couldn't cry "placebo" is very telling.[/quote]

This also seems to suggest you have misunderstood what I said. Obviously individual cancer cells won't demonstrate a placebo effect but, to use the Benveniste paper again, that was carried out on in-vitro preparations of basophils (also not subject to the placebo effect) but was, never the less, found to be fundamentally flawed and the results discredited because of methodological shortcomings other than placebo issues.

Niall

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Roger Meacock — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:01:26 GMT

Niall, just because I can't remember the exact reference of a peer-reviewed paper doesn't make it any less valid - it was peer-reviewed and probably by people who have no or very little knowledge of homeopathy which makes them rather dubious but probably more rigorous peer-reviewers. The fact that the paper I mentioned was published in the Vet Record that was a summary of previous peer-reviewed papers meant that the original paper had effectively been reviewed not once but twice for the second paper to be acceptable as a peer-reviewed paper itself. What self-respecting peer-reviewer would allow the inclusion of a "bad" paper reference to illustrate a point? To dismiss a peer-reviewed study without having even seen it on the basis that you don't think the methodology could have been correct because some other trials have been poorly constructed in the past clearly demonstrates a closed mind that by definition is unscientific. You quite clearly have no potential to accept anything other than your present narrow view. The fact that you chose to ignore the trial based on an in vitro cancer cell culture because you couldn't cry "placebo" is very telling.

Alex, if you knew anything about the dairy industry you'd know the bulk tank is the final receiver of the milk after milking and so wouldn't be used for medication of the herd. It would appear your recollection has all the bias of Niall's comments. As complete heresay it would be totally inadmissable as evidence as you present it anyway. Who knows what medication the farmer gave the cows himself before passing the solution onto his farm hand? I find it interesting and telling that anything anecdotal that anybody else posts as evidence that goes against what you believe you dismiss, but you're more than happy to accept your own anecdotal stories as being representative of the truth on the whole subject.

Cheers

Roger

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Alex Gough — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:12:37 GMT

Cell counts are so variable they are quite hard to study. As a student I saw practice with a mastitis expert, and the farmer proudly told him how the addition of homeopathy to the bulk tank had reduced his cell count. The vet looked at the figures and was impressed. A bit later the farm hand came up to the vet and said - dont tell the boss, but I dropped that stuff on the ground by mistake. None of it went in the tank!

alex

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:20:20 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]I can't remember the reference so no point asking me![/quote]

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Again I don't have a reference but the study has been done and published as I undrestand it[/quote]

Well that's the problem right there. There are dozens of trials which claim to show an effect from homeopathy but they are consistently found to be of very limited methodology. Too small a sample size, inadequate blinding, no control group etc etc etc. Time and again these claims are made and time and again on closer scrutiny they are found to be fundamentally flawed and therefore worthless. When homeopathic trials are looked at as a whole and trials with poor methodologies disregarded as in a meta-analysis then it becomes clear that there is no effect. It's as simple as that, there really is no physical effect from homeopathy, the entire scientific community is in agreement; there is no debate in the real world. Granted there may be a psychological effect on human patients and on the owners of pets treated homeopathically (see my previous reference about the placebo effect working on caregivers) but as for a physical effect, there is none. Animals will either get better despite homeopathy or they will not.

If claims for homeopathy are being made they need to be supported by trials which are properly referenced so they can be discussed and critiqued. Otherwise any comment simply comes down to "I think it works" and that's just not good enough.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Roger Meacock — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:16:10 GMT

Hi Gillian et al

I wasn't taking it too seriously - just being a bit mischievous in my post!!

With regard to the alcohol idea maybe you should consider the possibility that the traditional "hair of the dog" cure for hangovers might in fact refer to a homeopathic dilution of the drink from the previous night. Over time the true understanding of the phrase has been misunderstood and using the same analogy drinkers tend to drink another dog equivalent the following day!!

On a more serious not however there was a paper in the Vet Record a few years back (2002/3?) "reviewing" homeopathy in farming that referenced a paper that had found that commercial dairy farms using homeopathy used significantly fewer antibiotics. If the homeopathy didn't work you would expect cell counts etc to be out of control. I can't remember the reference so no point asking me!

It is perfectly possible to treat the whole herd homeopathically through water systems and it is not unreasonable to assume that if all cows are under the same management system then individuals showing clinical symptoms are likely to an indicator of whole herd stress and tendency to exhibit similar clinical signs. With that idea in mind it makes more sense to treat the herd that just an individual. The same happens in conventional herd treatments too with herd blood tests looking for metabolic stress if a few individual cows indicate that possibility. Dairy cows often have similar constitutional traits given the production selection that has occurred in dairy cows so a remedy has a very high probability of being correct for a significant proportion of the herd provided it is chosen on the basis of the individual showing clinical symptoms.

There have been scientific trials looking at the effect of homeopathic dilutions on in vitro cancer cell cultures that recorded a significant reduction in cell division. Again I don't have a reference but the study has been done and published as I undrestand it. I think it nicely demonstrates that homeopathy can have real effects (even if we don't know exact mechanisms) without the ability for doubters to discredit the result by blaming it on the old placebo effect.

It would appear that "pure science" is catching up with homeopathy and maybe in a few years the mechanism too will be fully explained such that homeopathy is accepted as entirely scientific.

Best wishes

Roger

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:32:12 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]it could be... owner and vet expectation[/quote]

Here's a link to a paper about how treating children with placebos makes their care givers think there's been a medical effect in those children:

'"The act of administering medication, or thinking a child has received medication, may induce positive expectancies in parents and teachers about the effects of that medication, which may, in turn, influence how parents and teachers evaluate and behave toward children with ADHD," said UB researcher Daniel A. Waschbusch, Ph.D'

'The parallels with vet med should be obvious', to quote a mentor of mine.

Niall

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Hanna Bennett — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:03:27 GMT

This certainly rings a bell - had an organic farm we used to vet for (back when i saw anything larger than a dog!) and they had some really ill thriven calves. Turns out they had worms - in this day and age they had a significant enough worm problem to cause deaths - but of course they weren't allowed to use worming preparations so had to wait until the animals were showing clinical signs of disease from their worm burden before treating them. Sheer rubbish. Although i did laugh lots at the sketch last night!

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:57:43 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

5.4. The use of veterinary medicinal products in organic farming shall comply with the following principles:

(a) Phytotherapeutic (e.g. plant extracts (excluding antibiotics), essences, etc.), homeopathic products (e.g. plant, animal or mineral substances) and trace elements and products listed in Part C, section 3 of Annex II, shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics, provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal, and the condition for which the treatment is intended;

(b) If the use of the above products should not prove, or is unlikely to be, effective in combating illness or injury, and treatment is essential to avoid suffering or distress to the animal, chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics may be used under the responsibility of a veterinarian;

(c) The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatments is prohibited;

[/quote]

So animals have to get ill first before anyone is allowed to intervene with effective treatment, difficult to understand how this squares with the idea that organic production promotes animal welfare.

Still, one ray of hope, there's no such thing as allopathic medicine so maybe it's ok to use ordinary medicine !

Alex, do you have a link to the regulations?

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Alex Gough — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:16:24 GMT

Found it. Is this really ethical? No synthesised products are allowed to be used in prevention? Ineffective treatments such as essences and homeopathy have to be used in preference to real medicine? I'm stunned. They even use homeopathic language - the use of the word allopathic to describe conventional medicine seems to be primarily confined to homeopaths.

Alex

5.4. The use of veterinary medicinal products in organic farming shall comply with the following

principles:

(a) Phytotherapeutic (e.g. plant extracts (excluding antibiotics), essences, etc.), homeopathic

products (e.g. plant, animal or mineral substances) and trace elements and products listed in

Part C, section 3 of Annex II, shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic

veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics, provided that their therapeutic effect is effective

for the species of animal, and the condition for which the treatment is intended;

(b) If the use of the above products should not prove, or is unlikely to be, effective in combating

illness or injury, and treatment is essential to avoid suffering or distress to the animal,

chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics may be used

under the responsibility of a veterinarian;

preventive treatments is prohibited;

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Alex Gough — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:56:11 GMT

addendum - i just did a search on the pdf of EU regulation 1804/99 and there was no mention of homeopathy. Honestly, I do have better things to do with my time but our computers are down for an upgrade right now, and I am waiting for a MRI scan to finish!

alex

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Alex Gough — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:50:31 GMT

BTW, in this month's Veterinary Practice, in the article on Focus on mastitis, there is a German study mentioned that suggested homeopathy reduced the use of antibiotics in organic farming. However, it was unclear on whether this was done in conjunction with other changes in management, not how significant the finding was. They didnt give a reference or even an author name. Anyone know about this study?

Two things intrigued me. One is - how does the addition of a homeopathic treatment to the bulk tank fit with the one of the fundamental homeopathic principles of individualised treatment. Secondly, they made the, to my mind bizarre claim, that homeopathic treatment of animal diseases was required in organic farming since EU regulation 1804/99 came into force. Some mistake surely?

alex

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Alex Gough — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:44:55 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]When you then couple that fact with the fact that there are very many veterinary conditions that will improve or appear to improve with no treatment at all the "path of least resistance" regarding an explanation for homeopathy is that it is ineffective and any and all apparent improvements following its administration can be explained by other means.[/quote]

I think you're invoking Occam's razor here, that the simplest explanation is most likely truest. Of course it is possible that the results we see from homeopathy are interventions from Sucros, the God of sugar, who views the application of sugar pills as an offering to him and heals the recipients. Or it could be that there is a hitherto unknown mechanism that causes them to improve against the known laws of physics. Or it could be placebo, owner and vet expectation, self-limiting disease and regression to the mean. I know which one I suspect.

Alex

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:12:51 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Just shows how much ignorance there is in entertainers too! Cheers Roger

[/quote]

Why would you conclude that they are ignorant? Maybe they've studied the subject closely and come to the conclusion that homeopathy is ineffective.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:07:24 GMT

[quote user="david hopper"]I believe in God and Homeopathy. Is there any hope for me? No rational explanation for either but do they work wonders !!

[/quote]

Hi David,

Whilst still stubbornly staying out of the God conversation , as far as homeopathy is concerned no rational explanation is required.

Many treatments have been used in the past with good results (limes for treating scurvy springs to mind) long before a rational explanation was discovered. What matter is results and while every proponent of homeopathy claims consistent and at times miraculous results from it, when it is studied by people who are not a priori convinced that it works the results are consistently indistinguishable from placebo.

When you then couple that fact with the fact that there are very many veterinary conditions that will improve or appear to improve with no treatment at all the "path of least resistance" regarding an explanation for homeopathy is that it is ineffective and any and all apparent improvements following its administration can be explained by other means.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

David Hopper — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:02:47 GMT

I believe in God and Homeopathy. Is there any hope for me? No rational explanation for either but do they work wonders !!

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:10:36 GMT

Oh come on - don't take it so seriously - it is hilarious! I very much doubt it will change the views of who believe in homeopathy or God!

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Roger Meacock — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:56:48 GMT

Just shows how much ignorance there is in entertainers too! Cheers Roger

Re: Mitchell & Webb - Homeopathy

Niall Taylor — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:38:13 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]Should be on iplayer tomorrow[/quote]

Here's the link - "OK, so you kill the odd patient with cancer or heart disease... or bronchitis, flu, chicken pox or measles. But when someone comes in with a vague sense of unease, or a touch of the nerves or even just more money than sense, you’ll be there for them with a bottle of basically just water in one hand and a huge invoice in the other."

Brilliant!

Niall