Bad Science

Re: Bad Science

Niall Taylor — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:50:27 GMT

[quote user="John Hoare"]

So Niall, What is your view of it? He may only be 'weakly' pro homeopathy, but his last pronouncement was 'For'. He seems to be a floating voter.

Jack[/quote]

My view is that there is too much talk of views and not enough about evidence. What a strange question, this isn't a referendum, if it was a question of numbers of supporters then astrology would be one of the core sciences.

Niall

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:07:04 GMT

Some interesting quotes from the enquiry held by the Commons cross-party science committee to investigate the strength of scientific evidence behind government policy on homeopathic medicines:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/25/homeopathy-nhs-commons-committee-inquiry

For example:

"Paul Bennett, standards director at Boots, the chemist, said the company would continue to stock homeopathic treatments. "I have no evidence to suggest they are efficacious. It's about consumer choice and a large number of our customers think they work," he said."

Alex

Re: Bad Science

John Hoare — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:31:18 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

So, in answer to my question "why do you continue to quote discredited studies?" you post a thought piece which quotes the very discredited study in question; I wish I could say I was surprised!

[/quote]

So Niall, What is your view of it? He may only be 'weakly' pro homeopathy, but his last pronouncement was 'For'. He seems to be a floating voter.

Jack

Re: Bad Science

Niall Taylor — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:27:10 GMT

[quote user="John Hoare"]

Hi Niall,

I continue to quote it because Linde was still quoting it in 2003

[/quote]

Hello Jack,

So, in answer to my question "why do you continue to quote discredited studies?" you post a thought piece which quotes the very discredited study in question; I wish I could say I was surprised!

The problem is there are countless studies out there which "prove" that homeopathy is effective just so long as you aren't concerned about the quality. One of my favourites is Mathie, R.T., (2003) The research evidence base for homeopathy:a fresh assessment of the literature, Homeopathy 92, 84–91.

The author makes the claim that "50 papers report a significant benefit of homeopathy in at least one clinical outcome measure", which sounds very impressive until you read the selection criteria for papers which basically state the author has employed no selection criteria and prefers to leave that to other researchers; "This review deliberately does not categorise published trials in homeopathy by their intrinsic scientific quality,for information on this issue is already available." Never the less there is still much talk of looking at studies which were "randomised and/or doubleblinded" (NB not both, and no mention as to what types of randomisation were used) and "the weight of evidence currently favours a positive treatment effect in eight [conditions]".

This is only one of many papers of questionable methodology, others involve microscopic variations in the growth rate of germinating grain, blotches on the leaves of tomato plants and one questionable study where dogs with Cushing's syndrome were denied effective treatment while being dosed with homeopathic sugar tablets to try to make a point; the list is endless.

Yet all these papers have been presented to me by homeopaths as evidence that homeopathy works. All I can conclude is that the quantity of print is more important than the quality and any study, regardless of methodology, which supports homeopathy will be quoted and re-quoted by homeopaths knowing that most of the time there will be no-one around willing or able to make a critical assessment of them.

So, I look forward to your next sound bite which should be along the lines of "According to Mathie (2003) 50 double blinded, randomised trials reported a significant benefit of homeopathy". You can have that one on me .

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:06:42 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Are you sure that in treating certain chronic conditions, it is not really the owners' perceptions of "suffering" rather than the animal's actual "suffering" that is the reason for treatment?

Similarly, in certain acute but mild conditions from which the animal will get better anyway, is it really the owner's perception of "suffering" which you are treating?

[/quote]

This is down to an individual clinician's approach to a consultation. However, there are almost no treatments without at least a chance of side effects, in which case I would contend it is unethical to give an animal a treatment purely to make the owner feel better. I have heard of vet's giving sterile water injections to animals to pacify the owner when they feel the animal isn't ill. This is not only fraudulent, but involves the animal undergoing a minor painful procedure purely for the owner's peace of mind.

Alex

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:03:13 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]And that is true, but can you be absolutely sure that a placebo effect is fundamentally impossible in any condition in any animal[/quote]

Personally I wouldnt rule out there being a genuine placebo effect in an animal feeling better because of more positivity from the owner. If time ever allows, i would love to run a controlled trial to find out if placebo is better than no treatment in an acute self-limiting condition, subjectively and objectively. I would say whatever the results of such a trial show, it isn't great for homeopaths. If there is a real placebo effect in animals, then subjective experience of homeopathic success is meaningless. If there is no placebo effect, (and we assume that homeopathy doesnt work as the weight of evidence suggests) then homeopaths are using an entirely ineffective remedy.

Alex

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:59:55 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]That's true, but what about the situation where the clinician believes that what he is doing is actively effective?[/quote]

Yes, I wondered if homeopathy might have a role in human medicine, in that clinicians can refer patients with intractable disease to homeopaths, or use it themselves, and wash their hands of the ethics of prescribing a placebo. Furthermore,the responsibility for any failures, or fallout from the patient at realisation that the treatment is only placebo, can be removed from the primary care giver, and the patient-doctor trust not broken. This does require that we have homeopaths who believe in their subject despite evidence to the contrary, but there appears to be no shortage of them. I am reminded of the electric monk in one of the Douglas Adams book, which is paid to believe in stuff that no one else can be bothered too.
Alex

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:56:06 GMT

[quote user="John Hoare"]especially when the major argument against homeopathy is one of implausability.[/quote]

Having seen the criticisms of the papers on whether ultradilute solutions are different from water now, do you feel there is any other evidence out there that the mechanism is not implausible? And no, it isn't the major argument against homeopathy, the major argument is that whatever the mechanism systematic reviews show it doesn't work.

Alex

Re: Bad Science

John Hoare — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:47:43 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Now please, answer the question, why do you continue to quote the 1997 reference when it has been reanalysed by the original authors in 1999[/quote]

Hi Niall,

I continue to quote it because Linde was still quoting it in 2003. [Jonas WB,Kapttchul TJ and Linde K. A critical overview of Homeopathy. Ann Int Med 2003: 138:393-399]

I will not quoted the whole paper, but I will quote whole sections so as not to be accused of selective quotion.

Does Homeopathy Work?

The evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness includes three areas of research: 1) general comparisons of homeopathic remedies and placebos; 2) studies of homeopathy's effectiveness for particular clinical conditions; and 3) studies looking for biological effects from potencies, especially ultra-high dilutions. Data for general effectiveness include systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Some investigators believe that it is reasonable to combine trials of different populations, interventions, and outcome measures when the question is whether comparison groups (homeopathic and placebo) are generally different (27), but others are skeptical of such approaches. Data for the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions require homogeneous sets of studies with similar populations, diagnoses, and outcomes. Data on the biological effects of high dilutions are investigated with laboratory studies under carefully controlled conditions (5). We orient the reader to these three types of evidence.

Is the Homeopathic Remedy More Effective than Placebo?

Four comprehensive, independent systematic reviews or meta-analyses have examined the question of whether homeopathic therapies behave like placebo in randomized, placebo-controlled trials (Table 2). These have comprehensively searched for all clinical trials and have used standard methods for quality evaluation and analysis of clinical trials. These reviews have found that, overall, the quality of clinical research in homeopathy is low. When only high-quality studies have been selected for analysis (such as those with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size, and other methodologic criteria that limit bias), a surprising number show positive results. For example, Kleijnen and colleagues (28) did a detailed quality evaluation of 60 homeopathic clinical trials and concluded that they would be ready to accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible. Linde and colleagues reviewed 119 placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and evaluated them with an established quality scale for clinical research (the Jadad scale [34]) and a rigorous internal validity scale that examined detailed trial characteristics known to bias results. Multiple subset and sensitivity analyses on many quality variables reduced but did not eliminate an effect in favor of homeopathy. One could eventually eliminate the effect in favor of homeopathy by applying combinations of unusually selective criteria (such as picking a few of the very best studies and simultaneously adjusting their results for both small sample size and presumed publication bias), thereby decreasing the number of studies included (30, = 31). There are other reviews of the clinical homeopathic literature, but these have not been comprehensive, did not use acceptable systematic review methods, or focused on a subtype of homeopathic practice (32, 33, 35) (Table 2). Unfortunately, even the best systematic reviews cannot disentangle components of bias that may exist in small trials, nor can they rule out that true effects may be obscured with pooling of heterogeneous studies (36, 37), thereby making it impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

View this table:

In this window
In a new window

Table 2. = Comprehensive Systematic Reviews of Clinical = Trials of=20 Homeopathy on the General Placebo Question

Is Homeopathy Effective for Particular Conditions?

Patients and most clinicians want to know whether a treatment works for a particular condition, not whether homeopathy is more effective than placebo in general. Several series of randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been done on single conditions with homeopathy and have been reviewed by using good-quality criteria. These studies provide evidence that classical homeopathy does not prevent migraine (38) and that the homeopathic remedy Arnica montana does not alleviate delayed-onset muscle soreness after exercise (39). The quality reviews on the effects of Arnica montana for postoperative recovery are mixed (40, = 41). Some evidence shows that the homeopathic preparation Oscillococcinum is effective for the treatment of influenza but not for its prevention (42) and that the remedy Galphimia glauca is efficacious for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (43). In several other conditions, most notably postoperative ileus (44), asthma (45), and arthritis (46), the evidence from controlled trials is inconclusive; independent replications have not been attempted or the results of trials are mixed.

Recently, Taylor and colleagues (47) published the fourth in a series of high-quality, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of homeopathic immunotherapy. In these trials, patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma were given homeopathic (serially agitated) dilutions of their primary allergen or a placebo after a 2-week placebo run-in phase. Visual analogue scales used to measure symptomatic change have consistently shown greater improvement in the homeopathically treated groups (47). A larger study using a similar protocol did not reproduce this clinical effect, although it reported immunologic findings with homeopathic immunotherapy that were different from those seen with placebo (48). In a series=20 of three high-quality double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on childhood diarrhea, Jacobs and colleagues (49, 50) reported that classical homeopathy reduced the duration of loose stools by about 0.7 day. Double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trials on a few other = conditions=20 have also been published (Table 3). =

View this table:

In=20 this window
In = a new=20 window

Table 3. = Systematic Reviews of Clinical Trials of = Homeopathy for=20 Specific Conditions

Do Ultra-High Dilutions Produce Effects in the Laboratory?

Clinical trials are less sensitive for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects than laboratory research, where more rigorously controlled conditions are possible. The publication of laboratory investigations of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed resultson attempted replication (52-54).Still, unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported (55-59). Multiple independent replications of this research have not yet been done because there are few investigators in the field (60). Future research should focus on simple clinical or laboratory models that can be easily attempted by multiple investigators. In addition, better data are needed to examine the use and effects of homeopathy by the public and in actual practice (5, 29, 61).

Previo= us=20 Section Next = Section

Conclusions

Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based on thePrinciple of Similars and the use of minimum doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th-century health care and recently has undergone a revival in the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine (61). More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. As in all of medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value.

This is not as favourable for homeopathy as I would have liked, but it is certainly not wholy negative. I think the statement "More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it." is the most applicable to the current discussion, especially when the major argument against homeopathy is one of implausability.

Think it over

Jack

Re: Bad Science

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:32:07 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]we have no evidence that the placebo effect per se exists in animals,[/quote]

And that is true, but can you be absolutely sure that a placebo effect is fundamentally impossible in any condition in any animal?

Re: Bad Science

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:28:54 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]The difficult ethics of knowingly prescribing a placebo are that the clinician is deliberately lying to the patient,[/quote]

That's true, but what about the situation where the clinician believes that what he is doing is actively effective?

Re: Bad Science

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:25:32 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]In the veterinary field, we have no evidence that the placebo effect per se exists in animals, although we can't exclude that animals feel better because of some effect from their owners. What is more likely what we observe in the apparent placebo effect in animals is that hope and expectation in owners observing their animals lead to them believing there is an improvement when none exists. In this case it is clearly unethical to prescribe placebos, as you are only making the owner feel better, not the animal.[/quote]

OK. Now then.

Are you sure that in treating certain chronic conditions, it is not really the owners' perceptions of "suffering" rather than the animal's actual "suffering" that is the reason for treatment?

Similarly, in certain acute but mild conditions from which the animal will get better anyway, is it really the owner's perception of "suffering" which you are treating?

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:17:55 GMT

Good question, Evelyn, and a source of a lot of debate in the human field. The difficult ethics of knowingly prescribing a placebo are that the clinician is deliberately lying to the patient, and this can lead to a breakdown in the vital area of patient-doctor trust. Also, the placebo effect if very unpredictable, and may have no effects, mild effects, or major but short-lived effects.

In the veterinary field, we have no evidence that the placebo effect per se exists in animals, although we can't exclude that animals feel better because of some effect from their owners. What is more likely what we observe in the apparent placebo effect in animals is that hope and expectation in owners observing their animals lead to them believing there is an improvement when none exists. In this case it is clearly unethical to prescribe placebos, as you are only making the owner feel better, not the animal.

Alex

Re: Bad Science

Roger Meacock — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:43:23 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]does it matter if something is a placebo if it works?[/quote]

Hi Evelyn

I don't think it does. In fact a placebo-effect cure might be considered the holy grail of healing - patient gets well, no side-effects, no toxicity.Having said that placebo is usually quoted at 30% effectiveness which leaves significant room for improvement with treatments that have a real effect, preferably doing no harm in the process.

Best wishes

Roger

Re: Bad Science

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:41:49 GMT

I'd like some of you to consider this - and it seems necessary on this forum to emphasise that I am not expressing any personal opinion, I am asking those interested to have a bit of a think - does it matter if something is a placebo if it works?

Re: Bad Science

Niall Taylor — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:59:02 GMT

[quote user="John Hoare"]

Hi Niall,

The only meta analysis with Linde as first author that I can find is the Linde and Melchart 1998. That one was favourable for homeopathy.

The only one with Linde that I can find is Jonas WB, KaptchukTJ and Linde K.. Though not strongly pro homeopathy, it did not state that homeopathy was no better than placebo. It did say that homeopathy should be investigated more. Jonas was still quoting Linde's earlier pro-homeopathy articles, and not in a derogatory way.

If you have anothe rmeta-analysis could you let me have a copy.

[/quote]

Dear Jack,

I'm sorry that, even after 6 years you have been unable to find the references to which I refer and which were originally published in the Veterinary Times. Your original letter appeared in volume 33, no 15 on 28th April 2003, page 7 and can be read on the British Veterinary Voodoo Society website here - http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#hoare1.

My analysis of the references in your letter appeared in no 48 of the same volume on 15th december 2003, pages 22 to 23 and can also be read on the British Veterinary Voodoo Society website here - http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes4.html#taylor5

To try to help your search the precise references are as follows:

The original 1997 analysis you have been quoting is:

Linde, K., Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., Melchart, D., Eitel, F., Hedges, L.V., Jonas, W.B., (1997) 'Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects; A meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials' Lancet; vol 350, 834-843 [available online - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000 ]

Findings - The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

The reanalysis by the original team is:

Linde, K., Scholz, M., Ramirez, G., Clausius, N., Melchart, D., and Wayne B. Jonas, W.B., (1999) 'Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy' J Clin Epidemiol, vol. 52, 631-636 [available online http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391656?dopt=Abstract ]

ABSTRACT - We investigated the influence of indicators of methodological quality on study outcome in a set of 89 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homoeopathy in three different ways: The results of studies meeting single criteria (explicit statement of random allocation, allocation concealment, double-blinding, completeness of follow-up) of methodological quality were compared with those of studies not meeting the criteria in univariate and multivariate analyses; The results of studies scoring above and below predefined scores in two quality assessment scales were compared; Primary studies were consecutively entered into a cumulative metaanalysis according to the summary scores derived from the quality assessment scales. All analyses were performed using meta-regression methods. Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria. In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome.

The study was also called in to question by this reanalysis:

Ernst, E., and Pittler, M.H., (2000) 'Re-analysis of previous meta-analysis of clinical trials of homeopathy' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology vol. 53, 1188 [available online - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11186614?dopt=Abstract ]

Letter to the BMJ - In an interesting re-analysis of their previously published meta-analysis of clinical trials of homeopathy Linde et al. [1997 paper] conclude that there is no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We have simply re-plotted their data and arrive at different conclusions. There is an almost perfect and strong linear correlation between odds ratios and Jadad scores in the range of 1-4 (r520.97, P, 0.05). The data point relating to the Jadad score of zero (0) is based on only two studies. Thus, it is not reliable and may be ignored. The data point relating to the Jadad score of 5 is more interesting. It is based on a sufficiently large number (n 5 10) of trials and clearly lies outside the linear correlation of the four other data points. There may be several hypotheses to explain this phenomenon. Scientists who insist that homeopathic remedies are in every way identical to placebos might favour the following. The correlation provided by the four data points (Jadad score 1-4) roughly reflects the truth. Extrapolation of this correlation would lead them to expect that those trials with the least room for bias (Jadad score 5 5) show homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. The fact, however, that the average result of the 10 trials scoring 5 points on the Jadad score contradicts this notion, is consistent with the hypothesis that some (by no means all) methodologically astute and highly convinced homeopaths have published results that look convincing but are, in fact, not credible. Viewed in this way, the re-analysis of Linde et al. [1997 paper] can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos.

So the conclusions were that the better quality the trial, the less likely it was to show a positive effect for homeopathy and that in fact homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo.

You had this information in 2003 and again last week when it was posted here. I have just posted it again with references, online links and abstracts.

Now please, answer the question, why do you continue to quote the 1997 reference when it has been reanalysed by the original authors in 1999 who concluded, "Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria." and "there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results" and, again, in 2000, " ...the re-analysis of Linde et al. [1997 paper] can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos"

I do indeed have copies of all three papers and am happy to email them to you if you wish.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Bad Science

John Hoare — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:11:17 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Given that my post was a re-hash of a letter published in response to a similar claim made by you in 2005 you obviously have known about the newer interpretations for at least 4 years; what reason could you have for continuing to quote the original, flawed study?

[/quote]

Hi Niall,

The only meta analysis with Linde as first author that I can find is the Linde and Melchart 1998. That one was favourable for homeopathy.

If you have anothe rmeta-analysis could you let me have a copy.

Best wishes

Jack

Re: Bad Science

Niall Taylor — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:35:35 GMT

[quote user="John Hoare"] Linde K et al 1997; Lancet 350: 834-843assessed 89 trials covering 10,500 patients and concluded that the clinical effects of homeopathy could not be explained soley by the placebo response and that more research was needed.[/quote]

So, Jack, getting back on track a bit, can you explain why you are still quoting the Linde 1997 analysis when you are aware that it has been superceded by 2 later interpretations, one by the same author, which found that the data actually proved homeopathy was indistinguishable from placebo.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:47:06 GMT

[quote user="John Hoare"]Are you implying that MsRCVS who also have a homeopathic qualification have forgotten their basic training and neglect to perform essential diagnostic procedures? Duels have been fought over lesser insults. [/quote]

I wouldn't presume to malign an individual homeopath's diagnostic skills without seeing their case histories or reading their notes. On general principles though, does it not seem likely that the more time you spend asking about details to get the "correct" homeopathic preparation, which are often irrelevant to the conventional diagnosis, the less time there is in the consultation to get a more complete conventional medical history. And furthermore, wouldn't you agree that if you have arrived at the "correct" homeopathic treatment based on your history taking and examination, it will seem less important to run extensive medical testing to get to the correct medical diagnosis. I'm not a homeopath, so tell me if I am mistaken.

[quote user="John Hoare"]

[quote user="alex gough"]Conventional vets will often be a lot more pragmatic and realistic about prognoses, which doesn't lend itself to inducing the placebo effect[/quote]

Why not?

[/quote]

It's interesting that you don't know more about the placebo effect, it's a fascinating subject. The placebo effect relies on the client believing the treatment will work. The belief can be instilled in many ways - the elaborate methods involved in acupuncuture, the detailed history taking in homeopathy and such things as succussation to distinguish water from homeopathic remedies. The strength of the placebo effect can even be altered by how expensive the remedy is, or what colour it is. So if a conventional doctor tells a client they can try pain killers for their back pain, but back pain is hard to treat and not all cases respond, and then they go to an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and they are told that this treatment is brilliant, almost always helps, has no side effects etc, which has the more powerful placebo effect?

[quote user="John Hoare"]If you bothered to look at animals before and after homeopathic treatment you would easily discern the improvement in their condition.[/quote]

You seem to have confused an ethical position not to use a proven ineffective treatment with laziness for not bothering to give it a go.

Alex

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:35:51 GMT

He already has Jack, and I already posted it above. I'll reproduce it here for you:

Further comments on the UV spectroscopy paper:

I love the fact that they get 'significant results' not on the ones that they tested instantly, but only on the ones they left sitting around for 60 days. [In the methods],they're saying on the one hand you shouldn't be looking for evidence in this region of the spectrum, cos it's the noise region, but on the other, oh wtf it may give us the results we want.

If you run repeated spectroscopy of supposedly spectrograde solvent over and over again you would get exactly the same result so why don't they?

(spectrograde means so pure that you can use it in very accurate machines to run all types of spectra on and it'll give you the same result, they say they used it twice distilled in fact lol not very necessary since the companies sell it to you super pure anyway) but you would get the same spectra off it time after time after time yet they don't which is weird and shows that their methodology is appalling. If a student showed you that you'd send them away for being poor.

Re: Bad Science

John Hoare — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:37:10 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

Regarding the "real science" papers that we have quoted in this thread, the UV spectroscopy one and the NMR spectroscopy one, I tracked down a chemist with postgraduate/doctoral experience in the subject who very kindly reviewed the two papers. He has given permission for me to quote him verbatim:[/quote]

Can you get another friend to run his eyes over this?

High dilution effect assessed by UV-Spectroscopy

A team of researchers at the Swiss Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM in collaboration with two laboratories in the USA investigated homeopathic preparations with UV-spectroscopy.

In a blinded, randomized, controlled experiment homeopathic preparations of copper sulfate (CuSO4; 11C–30C), quartz (SiO2; 10C–30C, i.e. centesimal dilution steps) and sulfur (S; 11D–30D, i.e. decimal dilution steps) and controls (one-time succussed diluent) were investigated using UV-spectroscopy and tested for contamination by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

The UV transmission for homeopathic preparations of CuSO4 preparations was significantly lower than in controls. The transmission seemed to be also lower for both SiO2 and S, but not significant. UV transmission values between homeopathic preparations had a significantly higher variability compared to controls.

Thus, experimental evidence accumulates that highly diluted homeopathic preparations, i.e. diluted beyond the Avogadro limit, exhibit particular physicochemical properties different from shaken pure solvent. The exact nature of these properties is not yet known; the current working hypothesis is an increase in the solvent’s molecular dynamics for homeopathic preparations. All high-quality experimental data obtained so far by several independent working groups for different homeopathic preparations, involving studies with high- and low-field 1H NMR relaxation time, 1H-NMR-spectroscopy, and thermodynamics are compatible with this ‘dynamization hypothesis’.

Reference:
Wolf U, Wolf M, Heusser P, Thurneysen A, Baumgartner S (2009). "Homeopathic Preparations of Quartz, Sulfur and Copper Sulfate Assessed by UV-Spectroscopy," Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, doi:10.1093/ecam/nep036.
[to be downloaded here]

Jack

Re: Bad Science

John Hoare — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:19:56 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"] but equally paying too much attention to whether the dog is clairvoyant and not what its pcv is might not lend itself to diagnostic accuracy. [/quote]

Are you implying that MsRCVS who also have a homeopathic qualification have forgotten their basic training and neglect to perform essential diagnostic procedures? Duels have been fought over lesser insults.

[quote user="alex gough"]Conventional vets will often be a lot more pragmatic and realistic about prognoses, which doesn't lend itself to inducing the placebo effect[/quote]

Why not?

[quote user="alex gough"]what we dont know of course is the placebo effect in animals real, or all in the vets/clients mind, in which case it is even less ethical than using placebos in humans, where at least real effects are felt. [/quote]

If you bothered to look at animals before and after homeopathic treatment you would easily discern the improvement in their condition.

Jack

Re: Bad Science

Niall Taylor — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:15:42 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]With the frequency this occurs from our perspective it makes it questionable that anybody should be prescribing anything at all! Lifelong chronic medication must surely be considered as malpractice purely for financial gain, especially given the side-effects frequently experienced that results in patients receiving cocktails of preparations that have never been trialled together.[/quote]

Niall

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:15:35 GMT

Further comments on the UV spectroscopy paper:

If you run repeated spectroscopy of supposedly spectrograde solvent over and over again you would get exactly the same result so why don't they?

Re: Bad Science

Alex Gough — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:09:59 GMT

For the NMR spectroscopy/histamine paper:

They added 0.2 ml of the solution to 19.8 ml of the solvent

using a dropper,and the same dropper was used to fill the nmr tube

then to prepare the next dilution. The important thing is they need a clean dropper to fill their nmr tubes. i'd probably recommend not leaving them around for up to 3 weeks before doing the test

and the loss of solution from the 'sealed tubes' was interesting. Anyway the important thing was thatthey used a seriously pants fixed field machine

and then say that they don't see anything significant in T2 times but oh they do in T1. t1 refers to the relaxation of the substance in the lattice, so in this case the histamine in the water

(or the water in the water) whereas T2 refers to the relaxation of the histamine with itself.

It's called spin-spin. You shouldn't be looking at t1 in that sort of machine, the field will fluctuate more than enough to produce their results, even if the water had never 'seen' any histamine. It's unbelievable. So how on earth they think it can measure a beyond tiny amount of something is just hilarious.

alex