Homeopathic Belladonna proving fails

[BTox]

I don't remember seeing this discussed here but perhaps it was. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled "proving" was conducted by the Complementary Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton and published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. No surprise - no clinical effects found.

RESULTS: No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine. CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.

bjcp belladonna proving (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14651731&dopt=Abstract)

[geni]

Interesting.

Anyone want to put bets on what excuses homeopaths will use?

[Suezoled]

*rips open the non-homepathic wine* drinks anyone?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
Anyone want to put bets on what excuses homeopaths will use? This one is new, but there are about four previous papers saying much the same thing. Two of these involve arch-woo-woo Walach, so we know the excuse. The control group becomes quantumly entangled in the system, so experiences the same as the test group. Or words to that effect. I gotta go, I haven't time to link to the article now, but Walach seems to like demonstrating that placebo-controlled trials don't work, because he thinks it strenthens his "weak quantum theory" nonsense.

Yes, I know, great, isn't it. So just give the remedy to one person and heal everyone? Or give the remedy to a doll, and entangle the patient in the system? We know what we call that.... (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/)

Rolfe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The control group becomes quantumly entangled in the system, so experiences the same as the test group.
Surely you're joking, Mr. Rolfe?

~~ Paul

[geni]

Well now we know at least one excuse


The low mean difference is explainable because the proving has not been done in the right way. Bell 30c is not supposed to bring our proving symptoms in all the 250 provers. Ideally a medicine proving is started with lower potentised doses (1X, 2X etc) which retain some physiological action too. Such preprations affect most of the individuals and the proving symptoms are recorded. From the group of people, those people who give better symptomatology (reflecting they are more sensitive to the action of a particular drug) are chosen for proving of the same medicine in sub-physiological doses. These people are given the higher potencies to bring our the finer sysmptoms and delayed effect of the medicine. In a general sample of 250 people, it is likely that not more than 10-15 people have that kind of sensitivity. And hence the low mean difference in this study. You redo the experiment starting with the lower dynamisations and you will see marked difference in th results.


source (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=768&PagePosition=1)

[BTox]

Originally posted by geni
Well now we know at least one excuse




source (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=768&PagePosition=1)

Makes perfect sense - start proving with 1X and 2X belladonna, those that survive are eligible for the more dilute proving.

[Rolfe]

Geni, that thread is absolutely priceless.

I've found the links to the four earlier papers with the same results.

G<FONT SIZE="-1">OODYEAR</FONT>, K., L<FONT SIZE="-1">EWITH</FONT>, G. & L<FONT SIZE="-1">OW</FONT>, J. L. (1998) Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of homoeopathic 'proving' for Belladonna C30. (http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/11/579) J. R. Soc. Med. 91(11), 579-82.

V<FONT SIZE="-1">ICKERS</FONT>, A. J., <FONT SIZE="-1">VAN</FONT> H<FONT SIZE="-1">ASELEN</FONT>, R. & H<FONT SIZE="-1">EGER</FONT>, M. (2001) Can homeopathically prepared mercury cause symptoms in healthy volunteers? A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. (http://zerlina.ingentaselect.com/vl=31257457/cl=30/nw=1/rpsv/catchword/mal/10755535/v7n2/s5/p141) J. Altern. Complement. Med. 7(2), 141-8.

W<FONT SIZE="-1">ALACH</FONT>, H. (1993) Does a highly diluted homeopathic drug act as a placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8301625&dopt=Abstract) J. Psychosomatic Res. 37(8), 851-860.

W<FONT SIZE="-1">ALACH</FONT>, H., K<FONT SIZE="-1">OSTER</FONT>, H., H<FONT SIZE="-1">ENNIG</FONT>, T., & H<FONT SIZE="-1">AAG</FONT>, G. (2001) The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers - a randomized, double-blind experiment. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11316508&dopt=Citation) J. Psychosomatic Res. 50(3), 155-160.

I can't see the remark about the entanglement in any of these abstracts, but I do remember reading it, I think in one of Walach's other publications. Might be somewhere in the Magic of Signs (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf) nonsense.

The dichotomy which I find interesting is the way the homoeopaths so often challenge sceptics to take a homoeopathic preparation and experience a "proving" effect for themselves, and yet whenever a controlled proving trial turns up null effect they just dream up another excuse. Even Walach himself, author of two of the resounding null-effect papers, is still a rabid believer.

I'd like to know how to persuade one of the challengers, someone who thinks proving effects are so reliable and so compelling that they are the way to convince the sceptics, to participate in a blind trial, dictating the protocol himself. But they always find a way to wriggle out.

Rolfe.

PS. Geni, where do I apply to join your illuminati cell? :D

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by geni
Well now we know at least one excuse
The low mean difference is explainable because the proving has not been done in the right way. Bell 30c is not supposed to bring our proving symptoms in all the 250 provers. Ideally a medicine proving is started with lower potentised doses (1X, 2X etc) which retain some physiological action too. Such preprations affect most of the individuals and the proving symptoms are recorded. From the group of people, those people who give better symptomatology (reflecting they are more sensitive to the action of a particular drug) are chosen for proving of the same medicine in sub-physiological doses. These people are given the higher potencies to bring our the finer sysmptoms and delayed effect of the medicine. In a general sample of 250 people, it is likely that not more than 10-15 people have that kind of sensitivity. And hence the low mean difference in this study. You redo the experiment starting with the lower dynamisations and you will see marked difference in th results.

source (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=768&PagePosition=1)

This is some of the most nonsensical, meaningless gobbledygook I've ever read. Thanks for sharing.

-TT

[Lost Boy]

http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=768&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=2

Their nonsense is being challenged.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Lost Boy
http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=768&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=2

Their nonsense is being challenged. Ah, I see my PM to you was a day late and a dollar short. Vast amusement if they actually follow up on this challenge.

Rolfe.