Mass existing and well distributed since long....

[Rolfe]

Why then ,to go for modern evidances instead of practical observations & experiances in mass & well distributed people since long of its community.There can be difference in trial at home & trial at competitor's place esp when competitor's substances & views are used in decisions.Well, our "home" can do these sorts of trials too. Just like Kumar wants us to do. That is, go and ask a bunch of homoeopathic patients if they're satisfied with what they got.

I thought someone else might have started a thread on this by now, but since they haven't, here is the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stmA six-year study at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital shows over 70% of patients with chronic diseases reported positive health changes after treatment.

More than 6,500 patients took part in the study with problems ranging from eczema to menopause and arthritis.

The biggest improvements were seen in children - 89% of under 16s with asthma reported improvement.

Of the group 75% felt 'better' or 'much better', as did 68% of eczema patients under 16.The report goes on to say that this study contradicts the recent Lancet study that showed homoeopathy to be no better than taking dummy drugs. In fact, of course, it doesn't.

The patients surveyed were merely asked if they felt better. By the homoeopath who had been treating them. Guess what the majority said? There was of course no control group, who were given exactly the same regimen, but instead of the selected remedies, got "dummy drugs" instead. Perfectly possible the same reports would have been given by the dummy treatment group.

The study that really contradicts this, specifically, is the one Kumar thinks he has debunked, but of course he hasn't. (White et al., 2003 (http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/317)).In a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial the effects of individualised homeopathic remedies were compared with placebo medication in 96 children with mild to moderate asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment. The main outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome measures included other subscales of the same questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment of change, and adverse reactions.

There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant changes in the active quality of life score. Other subscales, notably those measuring severity, indicated relative improvements but the sizes of the effects were small. There were no differences between the groups for other measures.

This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.So, when you do a properly blinded, controlled study, the magic sugar pills have no effect. But when the homoeopath asks the homoeopathic patients how they feel, no less than 89% (or is that only 75% of the 89%? - the text is very unclear) of them say they have noticed an improvement. For exactly the same clinical condition, in (as far as it's possible to tell) identical circumstances.

What do we think this tells us about the nature of the placebo effect in the context of the way homoeopaths treat their patients?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

It talks about particularly big approval ratings for under 16s suffering from asthma and eczema. Are these conditions that people tend to "grow out of?"

For that matter, people probably start seeing the homoeopath at a point when their condition is particularly severe, so they might claim a positive outcome if they've only returned to average.

[Rolfe]

Quite honestly, when you consider how these trials are carried out, I'm almost surprised they didn't do even better. When you work out the figures, it's about 67% said they felt either "better" or "much better", on the asthma question. Now, how you feel on any given day is a fairly subjective thing anyway. When you have your friendly local homoeopath asking you solicitously whether maybe you feel better, possibly even expressing his opinion that you do in fact appear to be much better, how many patients are going to come out and declare no, I don't? Especially the sort of "believer" patient who tends to get referred to these people.

Prof. Egger had it right (quote at the end of the article).Patients were simply asked by their homeopathic doctor whether they felt better, and it is well known that in this situation many patients will come up with the answer the doctor wants to hear.Compare that with the assesments carried out by the Exeter team, when they looked at whether their asthma patients were "better".The main outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome measures included other subscales of the same questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment of change, and adverse reactions.That's how you do it if you really want to see if there's anything going on. You get as objective a measurement as you can. It's only people who are trying to justify the unjustifiable who say "and tell me, do you feel a little better; better; or a lot better?"

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Funny, I thought Kumar would be eager to tell us why the Bristol study is superior to the Exeter one.

Rolfe.

[clarsct]

Hell, I was confused enough by the language used with the poster's name underneath.

I must say, Rolfe, you've spent too much time on Kumar threads....It's a little scary.

The studies are cool, though. I'm sure Kumar will misinterpret and misrepresent them to the fullest. But I suppose `tis far better to light a candle....

[Rolfe]

Ben Goldacre has had a go at this one on his own web site,
http://www.badscience.net/?p=188
including linking to a pdf of the complete study,
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/acm.2005.11.793?cookieSet=1
which is more than the BBC article deigned to do.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Well, our "home" can do these sorts of trials too. Just like Kumar wants us to do. That is, go and ask a bunch of homoeopathic patients if they're satisfied with what they got.

I thought someone else might have started a thread on this by now, but since they haven't, here is the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stmThe report goes on to say that this study contradicts the recent Lancet study that showed homoeopathy to be no better than taking dummy drugs. In fact, of course, it doesn't.

The patients surveyed were merely asked if they felt better. By the homoeopath who had been treating them. Guess what the majority said? There was of course no control group, who were given exactly the same regimen, but instead of the selected remedies, got "dummy drugs" instead. Perfectly possible the same reports would have been given by the dummy treatment group.

The study that really contradicts this, specifically, is the one Kumar thinks he has debunked, but of course he hasn't. (White et al., 2003 (http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/317)).So, when you do a properly blinded, controlled study, the magic sugar pills have no effect. But when the homoeopath asks the homoeopathic patients how they feel, no less than 89% (or is that only 75% of the 89%? - the text is very unclear) of them say they have noticed an improvement. For exactly the same clinical condition, in (as far as it's possible to tell) identical circumstances.

What do we think this tells us about the nature of the placebo effect in the context of the way homoeopaths treat their patients?

Rolfe.

Rolfe thanks, I think, you have cleared my every point/doubt, which I recently mentioned in one recent remarks against one study in some topic....Emotional effects, Home Effect, Temple effect, Hotel effect, Bar effect, Belief effect, Adjunctive studies effect, softer/lighter vs. stroger effects or subtle vs. chemicals effect or C vs. P effects...etc. :)

Sorry, not posting in detail as become careful as you asked/warned. :)

ETC.

[Donks]

Rolfe thanks, I think, you have cleared my every point/doubt, which I recently mentioned in one recent remarks against one study in some topic....Emotional effects, Home Effect, Temple effect, Hotel effect, Bar effect, Belief effect, Adjunctive studies effect, softer/lighter vs. stroger effects or subtle vs. chemicals effect or C vs. P effects...etc. :)

Sorry, not posting in detail as become careful as you asked/warned. :)

ETC.
You forgot the most important effect when dealing with homeopathy: the control effect. Any controls on the study will nullify all effects of homeopathy. Weird, huh?

[Kumar]

All the patients were referred by their GP or hospital specialist and many had tried conventional treatment first without success.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm

There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant changes in the active quality of life score. Other subscales, notably those measuring severity, indicated relative improvements but the sizes of the effects were small. There were no differences between the groups for other measures.

This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.
(from Rolfe's fordt post).

Just think dynamically & truely, how it happened. Clue: Bold letters in above quote.:)

[Kumar]

You forgot the most important effect when dealing with homeopathy: the control effect. Any controls on the study will nullify all effects of homeopathy. Weird, huh?

But you fought & forget the most important effect when dealing with homeopathy--- The Adjunctive study's Effect. Whatever left with this effect, was indicative. Just think "dynamacally & truely". :)

[Donks]

Just think dynamically & truely, how it happened. Clue: Bold letters in above quote.:)
Clue: you are cherrypicking words in a desperate attempt at getting something positive out of a study that quite clearly states that there were no benefits.

[Donks]

But you fought & forget the most important effect when dealing with homeopathy--- The Adjunctive study's Effect. Whatever left with this effect, was indicative. Just think "dynamacally & truely". :)
So because it's adjunctive it's invalid? I'm sure you can provide evidence to back this up. Otherwise *poof* the assertion vanishes.

[Rolfe]

Kumar, wake up and smell the coffee.

Studies specifically designed to test whether homoeopathic sugar pills have any effect on the body consistently show they have none. However, homoeopaths are getting quite desperate to defend their vested interests, their "hospitals", their power. So instead of doing proper studies, they deliberately set out to produce a report that can be represented as showing that the whole homoeopathic ritual might have some benefit.

In doing this they reject every proper scientific procedure, for example a control group, a formal baseline pre-treatment assessment, any objective measurements of patients' condition, and even the use of impartial interviewers. Any of these could have introduced a degree of objectivity into the process, and so of course they were shunned.

Imagine, you have a chronic, but not very severe condition, which tends to come and go a bit (most of the conditions in the list given in that paper are in that category). You are rather a demanding patient, and open to the idea of complementary medicine, and your GP sends you to the homoeopaths. The homoeopaths give you a lot of attention, and make you feel special. But there's even more to it than that. To quote Ben Goldacre again.A transparent modern medic will say: “I can’t be exactly sure what the cause for your problem is. This treatment might make it better, but, well, it might not.” Nice. “Oh, and it also might have these side effects.” Thanks. Sometimes we even finish off with: “What do you think?”I can't at the moment find the text where the suggested equivalents are given for alternative treatments, but it went something like this. "Acupuncture might help with your problem, but then again it might not, there's no definite evidence. And by the way, side effects include pain and bleeding. And there have been a number of fatalities due to infection or pneumothorax. What do you think?" Or similarly, "homoeopathy might make you feel better, but then again it might not, there's nothing but sugar in the pills anyway. Side effects include a wide range of aggravations, or you might start proving the remedy, which can also be unpleasant. There have been reports of people continuing to suffer for years after a homoeopathic proving. What do you think?"

But do the homoeopaths use this approach? Of course not. They're dogmatic and paternalistic, and they patronise the patient. Most of all, in my experience they claim success when none is really apparent. I feel that this is the most important key to the apparently good results of these "patient satisfaction" studies.

If you've been going to an honest GP for years with a chronic complaint, and the GP frowns and isn't terribly happy with how well you're doing, and agrees that there's little change, then a homoeopath comes along and starts telling you how much better you're looking, and encouraging you to re-interpret what's going on in terms of an improvement, then do you buy it? Quite honestly, yes. Indeed, I'm almost surprised that they couldn't get more than half their patients to admit to feeling "better, or much better".

What really bugs me is the dishonesty of it all. Qualified doctors are deliberately designing and publishing studies to obscure the fact that their remedies are sugar pills, in order to hold on to their empires.

Why isn't there a smilie for holding your nose?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Just in case anyone was in any doubt, the patients at Bristol were also getting "adjunctive" treatment. They were also on conventional treatment for their conditions, as well as the homoeopathy.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Just think dynamically & truely, how it happened. Clue: Bold letters in above quote.:)Hey, this is a good game. Let's try bolding some different words: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care. How's that, Kumar? You're not the only one who can cherry-pick! ;)

NB: I am not suggesting that this is a valid approach. I am just demonstrating the fallacy Kumar is trying to rely on.

[Donks]

I went looking through google scholar and I bumped into this pilot study (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.13) done by homeopaths, seemingly a well controlled study. Dunno if it has been discussed here or not, I suppose you guys have seen it already. In any case, I thought it was interesting.
Results:
Eighty-five percent (85%) (45/53) of women completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference seen between groups for either activity (adjusted difference =–0.4, 95% confidence interval CI –1.0 to 0.2, p = 0.17) or profile scores (adjusted difference = –0.4, 95% CI –0.9 to 0.1, p = 0.13) using this trial design, although post hoc power calculations suggests that 65–175 would be needed per group to detect differences of this magnitude with sufficient precision. Clinically relevant improvements in symptoms and mood disturbance were seen for both groups over the study period.
As I understand this it says "we found no difference between placebo and homeopathic treatment, but if we really crunch and massage the numbers, and get more patients (so we can massage even more numbers) we might find something."
Conclusion:
Improvements were seen for symptom scores over the study period. However, presuming these improvements were caused by the individualized homeopathic approach, the study failed to show clearly that the specific effect of the remedy added further to the nonspecific effects of the consultation. Future trial design must ensure adequate power to account for the nonspecific impact of such complex individualized interventions while pragmatic designs may more readily answer questions of clinical and cost effectiveness.
Again my translation (take into account I'm used to reading Robotics Papers and not Medical ones): "The patients enjoyed some improvement of their symptoms due to the placebo effect, and we could find no effect beyond that. Next time we do the trial we need to get more people so we can see the effect that must surely be there because otherwise we are selling sham treatments."

[Kumar]

Look at my comments;

http://www.badscience.net/?p=188

Are these ok/justified?

[Rolfe]

My God, the page has crashed!

(I feel guilty now, having pointed Kumar at Ben's blog. Maybe I should apologise to him.)

Rolfe.

[Donks]

Look at my comments;

http://www.badscience.net/?p=188

Are these ok/justified?
I'm sure they'll love them. They'll laugh and laugh and laugh.

[Rolfe]

OK, it's back. Kumar, didn't you hear what I told you? The patients in the Bristol study were also on conventional treatment.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Eighty-five percent (85%) (45/53) of women completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference seen between groups for either activity (adjusted difference =–0.4, 95% confidence interval CI –1.0 to 0.2, p = 0.17) or profile scores (adjusted difference = –0.4, 95% CI –0.9 to 0.1, p = 0.13) using this trial design, although post hoc power calculations suggests that 65–175 would be needed per group to detect differences of this magnitude with sufficient precision.So, despite all that we've been told by homoeopaths about the effects of their remedies being so large that they're self-evident, when they actually perform a properly blinded and controlled test the effects suddenly become too small to detect using the sample size they've chosen!

Conclusion:

Again my translation (take into account I'm used to reading Robotics Papers and not Medical ones): "The patients enjoyed some improvement of their symptoms due to the placebo effect, and we could find no effect beyond that. Next time we do the trial we need to get more people so we can see the effect... But haven't they notoced that the harder they look, and the better they design their tests, the smaller the observed effect gets? :rolleyes:

[Mojo]

Look at my comments;

http://www.badscience.net/?p=188

Are these ok/justified?I certainly approve of this one: Homeopathic effects are said/thought/claimed by homeopaths as gentle, softer, slow but deep & long term. So these can’t be compared with conventional medicine’s real effectsI entirely agree. Homoeopathy's effects can not be compared to real effects. I'm glad you've finally managed to make this distinction.

[Kumar]

OK, it's back. Kumar, didn't you hear what I told you? The patients in the Bristol study were also on conventional treatment.

Rolfe.

Where you said? It os also not there in BBC article. Even if so said/there, still it don't justify that studies at both places are justified in observing homeopathic effects, exclusively. Many time, I have to suffer due to it....but what to do, I am also addicted to modernizations & do favour both C & P. Anway, some belief/emotional effects at home may also be having some role. Btw, Who surveyed at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, whether doctors/people from modern system were involved in this survey?

I previously insisted for survey.:)

[Mojo]

Where you said? Just in case anyone was in any doubt, the patients at Bristol were also getting "adjunctive" treatment. They were also on conventional treatment for their conditions, as well as the homoeopathy. It os also not there in BBC article. Yes it is. It's even there in one of the extracts you quoted yourself.

[Kumar]

I certainly approve of this one: I entirely agree. Homoeopathy's effects can not be compared to real effects. I'm glad you've finally managed to make this distinction.

I am also. I said quite justified. Don't degrade/defame any of system--as may not be compareable, as you want. Moreover, being some "subtle"/"spritual", "Prime Force" may not like other's home or disbeliving in IT or testing it, so cause variables in understandings/expressing. ;)

[Rolfe]

I went looking through google scholar and I bumped into this pilot study (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.13) done by homeopaths, seemingly a well controlled study. Dunno if it has been discussed here or not, I suppose you guys have seen it already. In any case, I thought it was interesting.

As I understand this it says "we found no difference between placebo and homeopathic treatment, but if we really crunch and massage the numbers, and get more patients (so we can massage even more numbers) we might find something."

Again my translation (take into account I'm used to reading Robotics Papers and not Medical ones): "The patients enjoyed some improvement of their symptoms due to the placebo effect, and we could find no effect beyond that. Next time we do the trial we need to get more people so we can see the effect that must surely be there because otherwise we are selling sham treatments."Thanks, I hadn't seen that one. I don't usually look at the fanzine journals, on the assumption that anything well enough designed to get into a real journal will probably be in a real journal.

I think they mean that all the patients imagined they felt better due to the homoeopathic soft-soap approach, but there was no evidence that the sugar pills made any difference to this. However, they keep hoping that maybe a bigger trial might show some influence of the sugar pills? Nevertheless, the most important thing is to design trials so that the "complex" effect of the soft-soap approach is shown in the best possible light, in order to provide ammunition in the fight to keep homoeopathy funded by the NHS.

I won't go through all the arguments about whether it's justifiable to lie to your patients in order to make them feel better, because David Colquhoun has put it much better than I ever could.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#dilemma

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Yes it is. It's even there in one of the extracts you quoted yourself.

May be discontinued for some time. It was six year study. I/you was not there.

Whatever may be the case, I can't accept/endorss any study with C+P.

[Mojo]

Whatever may be the case, I can't accept/endorss any study with C+P.So I take it that the answer you're proposing to the question you ask in your sig is "no." From Kumar's sig
Can Chemical Medicines+Potentised Remedies be the solution for many unclear disorder?

[Donks]

So I clicked on the newer study that quoted the study I linked above and guess what? They also found nothing!
From here (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.799)
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between homeopathic remedy and placebo groups on the primary or secondary outcome variables. However, there were statistically and clinically significant improvements in both groups on many of the outcome measures.

Conclusions: This pilot study provides no evidence to support a therapeutic effect of individually selected homeopathic remedies in children with ADHD. A therapeutic effect of the homeopathic encounter is suggested and warrants further evaluation. Future studies should be carried out over a longer period of time and should include a control group that does not receive the homeopathic consultation. Comparison to conventional stimulant medication for ADHD also should be considered.
As Rolfe mentioned, they'd like to study the bedside manner of the homeopaths, but the remedy itself can go in the trash for all it's worth.

Kumar: You going to comment on either of these studies?

[Rolfe]

Yes it is. It's even there in one of the extracts you quoted yourself.Well, what the BBC report says is that patients had been treated previously by conventional methods. However, I have the advantage of you here, I heard both Dr. Spence and Prof. Egger being interviewed about this on Radio 4 yesterday morning. Prof. Egger specifically asked Dr. Spence if the patients in his study were also on conventional treatment as well as the homoeopathy, and Dr. Spence said yes, they were.

Prof. Egger's point of course was that in that case there was no way to show that it was the homoeopathy rather than the conventional treatment which was responsible for any improvement reported. However, it's also relevant to the point about antidoting. People like Kumar point to studies like the Exeter one, which are done exactly in the way that homoeopathy is delivered in practice, and declare that the use of conventional medicine at the same time as the homoeopathy is the reason why the sugar pills have turned out to have no effect.

However, the point is that homoeopathy in the 21st century is marketed as "complementary therapy", that is to be given as an extra on top of the regular stuff, with the claim that there is extra benefit to be achieved. And indeed, dishonest questionnaire surveys like the Bristol one (homoeopathy's principal source of "evidence") still show their positive results under these circumstances. Therefore it is indeed completely valid to do the controlled tests under the same circumstances.

Yes, the idea of homoeopathy as "complementary medicine" is entirely contradictory to the basic beliefs of classical homoeopathy, where any real medicine is routinely blamed for the failure of homoeopathic treatment. Nevertheless, it is so advantageous as regards co-exsisting within the NHS, and removing the risk of legal action for harm if a patient has been advised to stop medication they need, and being able to take the credit for improvements actually caused by the real medicine, that canny homoeopaths have spotted that this is the way to go.

Did I say this practice was dishonest? (To quote Peter Bowditch.) Why, yes, I did.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Btw, Who surveyed at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, whether doctors/people from modern system were involved in this survey?

I previously insisted for survey.:)Why don't you actually read the full paper?

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/acm.2005.11.793

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

So I clicked on the newer study that quoted the study I linked above and guess what? They also found nothing!
From here (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.799)
A therapeutic effect of the homeopathic encounter is suggested and warrants further evaluation. Well, why not abandon the sugar pill bit of the treatment, since it doesn't appear to have any effect, and call it something like "Cup of Tea and a Chat Therapy."

Future studies ... should include a control group that does not receive the homeopathic consultation. Wow! They're actually suggesting using a control group that doesn't receive a convincing placebo!

[Mojo]

I/you was not there. Well why not, as Rolfe has suggested, read the actual paper? That will tell you exactly how the study was carried out and what the results obtained were.

[Mojo]

Well, what the BBC report says is that patients had been treated previously by conventional methods. However, I have the advantage of you here, I heard both Dr. Spence and Prof. Egger being interviewed about this on Radio 4 yesterday morning. Prof. Egger specifically asked Dr. Spence if the patients in his study were also on conventional treatment as well as the homoeopathy, and Dr. Spence said yes, they were. That's interesting, because now I have had the opportunity to look more closely at the study, I see that it seems to indicate that patients taking conventional treatments were excluded from the results (or at least placed in a separate category): from foot of page 794, right-hand column
...if their conditions had been affected by obvious external factors (e.g. other treatments), this was scored as an "x." See also the table of possible outcomes in the left-hand column.

ETA: According to Table 4 (Overall Outcome for 6544 Patients) only 20 out of the 6544 came under the "x" category.

[Blue Bubble]

Well, what the BBC report says is that patients had been treated previously by conventional methods. However, I have the advantage of you here, I heard both Dr. Spence and Prof. Egger being interviewed about this on Radio 4 yesterday morning. Prof. Egger specifically asked Dr. Spence if the patients in his study were also on conventional treatment as well as the homoeopathy, and Dr. Spence said yes, they were.
You can listen to the interview again here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_homeopathic_20051121.ram

This makes my blood boil ...:mad:

[Rolfe]

from foot of page 794, right-hand column
...if their conditions had been affected by obvious external factors (e.g. other treatments), this was scored as an "x." Er, you really think they excluded everybody taking other medication, on the basis of that little statement? I don't think so!

First, we have Dr. Spence's statement on the Today programme. Also, we know that homoeopathy is generally marketed in the NHS as a "complementary" therapy, and it is extremely unlikely that most of the Bristol patients weren't on conventional treatment.

I believe that the exclusion group only included the very few patients where even the homoeopaths were forced to admit that their recovery was due to other factors - or possibly, cases where a deterioration was attributable to side-effects of something else they were taking.

Rolfe.

[Blue Bubble]

Er, you really think they excluded everybody taking other medication, on the basis of that little statement? I don't think so!

First, we have Dr. Spence's statement on the Today programme. Also, we know that homoeopathy is generally marketed in the NHS as a "complementary" therapy, and it is extremely unlikely that most of the Bristol patients weren't on conventional treatment.

I believe that the exclusion group only included the very few patients where even the homoeopaths were forced to admit that their recovery was due to other factors - or possibly, cases where a deterioration was attributable to side-effects of something else they were taking.

Rolfe.

That's how I interpret the interview (I've just finished listening to it again).

This is disingenuous at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. Absolutely scandalous.

However, we should be able to turn this to our advantage. Anyone with even half a brain (hello Kumar ...) should be able to see this for themselves. This whole issue may turn out to haunt these lunatics.

[Rolfe]

However, we should be able to turn this to our advantage. Anyone with even half a brain (hello Kumar ...) should be able to see this for themselves. This whole issue may turn out to haunt these lunatics.Unfortunately, I doubt this. The whole exercise was very cleverly calculated to achieve postive headlines and soundbites for homoeopathy, and in this it seems to have succeeded rather well.

Disingenuous? Dishonest. Duplicitious. Self-serving. Fraudulent. But nevertheless very clever.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

When I started to read this thread, I thought, what's the use? Does Rolfe think Kumar will take heed?

But it worked! Not that Kumar took any sense, of course, that would require a miracle, but he has exposed himself in an unusually clear way as a typical woo, who will reject and cherry-pick to suit his purpose. Gone is the inquisitive front that keeps fooling newcomers for a thread or two, and out in the open is your plain vanila, totally bias-ridden woo. Well done Rolfe!

Also note that in Kumar's badscience commentary, the good grammar fairie has not only swooped, she has made a landing and sits squarely throughout the piece, which, while not perfect English, is reasonably coherent and reasonably correctly spelled.

Kumar, you are a fake and a troll.

And of course, as others have already remarked, your points are not valid. The trials in question expose the real sitiation for homeopathe very well: It is used as a supplementary treatment, and it has no effect beyond placebo.

Hans

[richardm]

...if their conditions had been affected by obvious external factors (e.g. other treatments), this was scored as an "x."


Er, you really think they excluded everybody taking other medication, on the basis of that little statement? I don't think so!

Me neither; Spence was quite clear in the interview that the patients had been treated with conventional medicine for some time, but still hadn't been fully cured. Therefore I suspect that to him the conventional medicine would not be an obvious external factor. It hadn't worked so far, so any improvement must be due to the homeopathic junk.

[Rolfe]

Well, why not abandon the sugar pill bit of the treatment, since it doesn't appear to have any effect, and call it something like "Cup of Tea and a Chat Therapy."As previously suggested by Dr. Derek Roskell of the John Radcliffe.
http://careerfocus.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7396/S151#31818
Just because some of us are ignorant of what constitutes evidence and therefore might fool ourselves with highly flawed surveys and emotional anecdotes, does not mean that a scientific journal such as the BMJ should uncritically promote unfounded "therapies". Making an individual patient feel better is a good objective, but if that outcome can define a therapy, here are a few we could try:

Coffeeopathy - give the patient a coffee and a home made biscuit whilst you chat to them.
Dinneropathy - take the patient out for a nice meal and a chat over a glass of wine.
Moneyopathy - give the patient a twenty pound note to spend on anything they like. Repeat dose as required.
Haireopathy - send the patient for a quality hair cut and scalp massage.
Home-opathy - provide the patient with a nice house in a good location, all bills paid.
Sexeopathy - no need to explain this one. I am sure that trials would show that all of these worked at least as well as homeopathy, and some would be cheaper.Or I think it was Dr. Kitten who was promoting "Daddy'll kiss it better" therapy.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Er, you really think they excluded everybody taking other medication, on the basis of that little statement? Well, taking the statement at face value...

On the other hand, what's the betting that in those excluded the "obvious external factors" had a negative effect on the outcome... :rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

My main concern here is the question of how the homoeopaths manage to persuade a lot of chronic patients that they're feeling better. Do we really believe that there is any attempt at objective assessment?

This reminds me inexorably of something Richard Edwards noted in his examination of a homoeopathic veterinary practice and its case records.
http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes5.html#edwards1
I became more and more concerned at, what I can only term the "brain-washing" of clients into thinking that, somehow, the homoeopathic treatments were actually working when it was patently clear to an objective outsider that they were not. Many of these animals had been undergoing treatment for years without significant improvement.....

Any good veterinary surgeon knows the power that we all wield in the consulting room. In the extreme, we have the power and the ability to convince a client that the perfectly healthy animal they bring into the surgery is suffering from some terrible terminal disease and should be euthanased immediately. It is equally possible for a veterinary surgeon with "gift of the gab" to convince a client that an animal with an incurable disease is actually getting better with the help of a few sugar tablets. In my view, neither of these situations is tolerable in our profession, yet homoeopathy persists.You think this only works for animal owners, and not on human patients? Think again.

I think the homoeopaths are coming the paternalistic optimist with their patients, and assuring them that they really are improving. Who wouldn't want to believe that? Then, when the same homoeopath askes the question for the survey, well, what is the average patient likely to say?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

My main concern here is the question of how the homoeopaths manage to persuade a lot of chronic patients that they're feeling better. Perhaps they could call it "Couple of Beers and a Chat Therapy..." :D

[Rolfe]

Perhaps they could call it "Couple of Beers and a Chat Therapy..." :Dhttp://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1285733#post1285733

Are we going round in circles here? :D

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

So I take it that the answer you're proposing to the question you ask in your sig is "no."

I was expecting it. I mean by C+P to add both in system but use as per need. When a doctor have two somewhat different/opposit type of medicines, does not mean he will give both. He may have to just maintain 1+1, but prescribing will be as per need. Ok clear? :)

[Donks]

I was expecting it. I mean by C+P to add both in system but use as per need. When a doctor have two somewhat different/opposit type of medicines, does not mean he will give both. He may have to just maintain 1+1, but prescribing will be as per need. Ok clear? :)
Nope, not clear. Why is "as per need" not "as homeopaths are prescribing in the study"? The study clearly states that the remedies were prescribed by "experienced homeopathic practitioners," so if they don't know what the hell they are doing, who does?

[Rolfe]

I think the homoeopaths are coming the paternalistic optimist with their patients, and assuring them that they really are improving. Who wouldn't want to believe that? Then, when the same homoeopath askes the question for the survey, well, what is the average patient likely to say?You know, I was thinking about what the BBC report said about this study contradicting the Lancet study. Well, maybe not the actual study, but it sure does contradict the accompanying editorial!Surely the time has passed for selective analyses, biased reports, or further investment in research to perpetuate the homoeopathy versus allopathy debate. Now doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homoeopathy’s lack of benefit.This current report believes that we need more biased and more selective reports, so that doctors can have even more backing to allow them to lie to their patients to fool them into thinking they feel better.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Are we going round in circles here? :DYes.

Well, Kumar is involved, isn't he?

[Mojo]

I was expecting it. I mean by C+P to add both in system but use as per need. When a doctor have two somewhat different/opposit type of medicines, does not mean he will give both. He may have to just maintain 1+1, but prescribing will be as per need. Ok clear? :notm

[Kumar]

Yes.

Well, Kumar is involved, isn't he?

Since people take it quite contradictory/hostile/unjustified, I try...my move;

Homeopathy-The End.

[Donks]

Since people take it quite contradictory/hostile/unjustified, I try...my move;

Homeopathy-The End.
Does this means you are leaving again? Cause if that's the case Hans has a claim on the million, since he predicted you would a couple of days ago. Well, I guess you leaving is good for the preliminary, and your eventual return will earn him the big bucks.

[Soapy Sam]

I've suggested before that hairdressing seems to meet all the requirements to qualify as CAM.
It seems to me we must decide what we want from medicine. Do we want to "get better" or to "feel better"? Why are so many people unhappy with conventional medicine? Can conventional medicine learn from CAM something about how to make patients feel better?
(When did you last see a decent coffee machine in a GP's waiting room? Ye gods, most doctors could learn about customer care from a car salesman, never mind a sCAM expert.)
The critical factor seems to be personal attention and a pleasant, apparently interested attitude. Doesn't cost much.
I believe the term used to be "A good bedside manner."

This year, I have been hospitalised three times, operated on twice and consulted a GP three times. I recall none of the above as pleasant , one incident as deeply unpleasant and I'm frankly unaware that any of it had any beneficial result whatsoever.
I also spent an afternoon with a Reiki "practitioner", which I recall as interesting, pleasant and (medically) equally unproductive.
Viewed objectively,in terms of "feel good factor" Reiki comes out ahead on points.
None of this alters my opinion that Reiki is utter bilge, but I can empathise with someone whose chronic problems get no positive result from either side, yet feels at least the Reiki "therapist" gave a damn. (In fact cared enough to give me several hours of time with no charge, because I was interested enough to ask about what she did. Of course I don't expect busy GPs to do that, but they could work on their customer skills. They work in a service industry. They need to realise that.)

[Mojo]

Since people take it quite contradictory/hostile/unjustified, I try...my move;

Homeopathy-The End.Oh dear. Your pet theory is being comprehensively trashed, and you've been exposed as a liar in another thread, so you don't want to play any more.

[Rolfe]

The critical factor seems to be personal attention and a pleasant, apparently interested attitude. Doesn't cost much.
I believe the term used to be "A good bedside manner."I have a strong feeling that there's a little bit more to it than that. Remember what Richard Edwards found in the homoeopathic veterinary practice.I became more and more concerned at, what I can only term the "brain-washing" of clients into thinking that, somehow, the homoeopathic treatments were actually working when it was patently clear to an objective outsider that they were not.Obviously I can't prove it, but I'm pretty convinced that the same goes on in human homoeopathy. Insisting to the patient that a real improvement is evident, and encouraging re-interpretation of past events to support this. Given that people want to be better, I believe a significant proportion of patients subjected to this regimen are likely to buy it.

There is also the question of lying to the patient about the efficacy of the sugar pills. See David Colquhoun's essay "The Dilemma at the Heart of Alternative Medicine".
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#dilemma
What if the feel-good factor absolutely depends on lying to the patient? Is it then justifiable to tell these lies in order to achieve the feel-good factor? Then, what about all the pseudoscience and false beliefs that are taught in the SCAM "education" courses? Where does it end?

I agree that real medicine does have to look at the question of patient care and support and so on. And that is how the Lancet editorial concludes, with a call to doctors to address the failings in the conventional system that seem to be filled by SCAM. However, how far do you go? A nice cup of coffee, a caring manner, all well and good. But lying to the patient about the efficacy of sugar pills, and telling someone how much better they are when in fact they're not any better at all - do you want real doctors to get involved in that?

Rolfe.

[John Jackson]

Obviously I can't prove it, but I'm pretty convinced that the same goes on in human homoeopathy. Insisting to the patient that a real improvement is evident, and encouraging re-interpretation of past events to support this. Given that people want to be better, I believe a significant proportion of patients subjected to this regimen are likely to buy it.
I also think that that is true. The power of suggestion that the practitioner has over the patient is profound.

I think it’s deeper than just convincing the patient that they’re getting better, however. It also means that they have the power to convince the patient that they really are ill when in fact they are not.

Patients who are simply feeling a bit run down, may be diagnosed with: food intolerances, allergies, “toxins”, all the usual bunkum, and because of the feel-good factor of placebo effects combined with faith in the practitioner, the patient feels a lot better after treatment.

This is where the placebo effect can work against people. The temporary uplift they get from seeing their quack can convince them that they have various illnesses or conditions that they don’t really have.

Then, of course, they are convinced that the practitioner is really helping them, and they become a satisfied repeat customer.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I agree that real medicine does have to look at the question of patient care and support and so on. And that is how the Lancet editorial concludes, with a call to doctors to address the failings in the conventional system that seem to be filled by SCAM. However, how far do you go? A nice cup of coffee, a caring manner, all well and good. But lying to the patient about the efficacy of sugar pills, and telling someone how much better they are when in fact they're not any better at all - do you want real doctors to get involved in that?

Rolfe.Not if you ask me. Basically, you don't give a patient true benefit by lying to them. Not even if the truth is painful. But most importantly, even IF some patients sometimes would be better off lied to, it is not worth the cost: It is essential that a situation of trust exists between doctor and patient. That implies no lies, and this is much too valuable to jeopardize for a bit of feel-good lying.

Hans

[Deetee]

I also think that that is true. The power of suggestion that the practitioner has over the patient is profound.

I think it’s deeper than just convincing the patient that they’re getting better, however. It also means that they have the power to convince the patient that they really are ill when in fact they are not.

Patients who are simply feeling a bit run down, may be diagnosed with: food intolerances, allergies, “toxins”, all the usual bunkum, and because of the feel-good factor of placebo effects combined with faith in the practitioner, the patient feels a lot better after treatment.

This is where the placebo effect can work against people. The temporary uplift they get from seeing their quack can convince them that they have various illnesses or conditions that they don’t really have.

Then, of course, they are convinced that the practitioner is really helping them, and they become a satisfied repeat customer.


Very true.
I sometimes see situations where a patient has consulted several doctors with a variety of nonspecific somatising symptoms which are not of pathogenic origin. Many of these patients are desperate for the doctor to acknowledge a real physical basis for their illness, and have been repeatedly told instead that their problem is psychosomatic or due to depression/anxiety/whatever.
These patients usually end up feeling worse, rather than getting better (as their doctors think they should do).
Merely suggesting to them that there is a genuine cause for their problem seems to work well as part of the healing/recovery process.
It doesn't make much difference what the "disease" is labelled - call it postviral fatigue, candida overgrowth, magnetic-energy depletion, wiffle-woo imbalance etc, and often the patient is so relieved that they have had someone acknowledge the reality for their problem and give it a label for a "genuine" illness that they feel immediately "better".
Many woo practitioners work on this - they tell frustrated patients that they know exactly what is wrong with them, give pseudoscientific reasons for how they can diagnose and treat the illness, and hey presto - a satisfied customer.

[Rolfe]

That's an interesting turn of the discussion! At first I thought it wasn't terribly relevant to the original subject, because the Bristol study was of patients referred to homoeopaths by their doctors, and the homoeopaths themselves were doctors. Then I realised, why not? It's perfectly possible this chainn of events might have been involved in at least some of the patients involved in the survey.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Why don't you actually read the full paper?

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/acm.2005.11.793

Rolfe.

I read, what is the problem in it?

Study limitations
This study..... The particular tool used in this
study is modeled on the 7-point Likert-type scale, which has
been validated elsewhere.38 [b]Such a large cohort of patients,
all referred independently by hundreds of other medical
practitioners in both primary and secondary care, minimizes
the possibility of selection bias. Independent surveys, involving
cohorts of randomly selected patients and run in
years 1, 3, and 5 of the study, help to validate the reported
effects. The study also reflects real-world circumstances in
everyday clinical practice in a busy NHS outpatient unit...
CONCLUSIONS
This observational study has demonstrated positive health
changes seen in routine homeopathic hospital practice for a...

[Kumar]

Objective parameters were incorporated in the assessment
whenever possible (e.g., alteration in conventional medication,
changes in forced expiratory volume, measurable
changes in mobility or exercise tolerance, or changes in results
of investigations). If patients could not score their outcome,
they were given a score of “99” and if their conditions
had been affected by obvious external factors (e.g.,
other treatments}, this was scored as an “x.”
TABLE 4. OVERALL OUTCOME FOR 6544 PATIENTS; "x" showing just o.3% & n20

And what does it mean?

[Rolfe]

What's the problem? Haven't you read the rest of this thread?

Deetee, you tell him. You put it so eloquently.

Rolfe.

[Deetee]

Deetee, you tell him. You put it so eloquently.
Rolfe.

I may be a bit of a masochist, but I'm not that mad.

[Ohmer]

I've suggested before that hairdressing seems to meet all the requirements to qualify as CAM.
It seems to me we must decide what we want from medicine. Do we want to "get better" or to "feel better"? Why are so many people unhappy with conventional medicine? Can conventional medicine learn from CAM something about how to make patients feel better?

Remember this:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=995793#post995793

I haven't seen much from him lately.

[Kumar]

Er, you really think they excluded everybody taking other medication, on the basis of that little statement? I don't think so!

First, we have Dr. Spence's statement on the Today programme. Also, we know that homoeopathy is generally marketed in the NHS as a "complementary" therapy, and it is extremely unlikely that most of the Bristol patients weren't on conventional treatment.

I believe that the exclusion group only included the very few patients where even the homoeopaths were forced to admit that their recovery was due to other factors - or possibly, cases where a deterioration was attributable to side-effects of something else they were taking.

Rolfe.

I can care on the mentionings of study report only, not otherwise. How can you say, such a big issue of giving Conventional medicines to all, is missed in the report? On the contary, they have clearly mentioned "x" figures. On radio, it might have meant, given to those who ever badly required i.e. to "x" group only.. Moreover, it is a biased interpretation of "complementary therapy", I mean a therapy as a whole can be named as complementart therapy to conventional system(means approved as complement therapy), but it does not mean that, its remedies should go alongwith CMs. As I feel, UK is considered to have quite a lot unbiased people. Why doctors reffered to homeopathic hospital? It means they were previously recognizing positivities of homeopathic treatments, otherwise would have sentto other govt. hospitals. Were not they with patients, during studies? It was six years, why they not adviced their patients to discontinue or why patients not dicontinued themselves? Means, it is indicative that those doctors, homeopaths, patients & relatives, were observing improvements?

One can split skin from hair if biased, otherwise hairs as it is, is ok to unbiased people.

[Kumar]

Oh dear. Your pet theory is being comprehensively trashed, and you've been exposed as a liar in another thread, so you don't want to play any more.

As indicative, I was not reading this thread deeply & was willing to say fairwell to homeopathy in this thread and mostly in other threads. You have not respected it, provoking--so I entered again.

Comments, if can be biased or from biased people have no value in my body. Dealing in speculative type bussiness with the comments/tips from biased people can take the dealer to the hell....probably but mostly.

[Kumar]

'Lancet's homeopathy report unfair'
Tonsillitis alone has 100 different kinds of homoeopathic medicines.

Therefore, the random controlled trials concept does not work here.

"Is it right to check the effectiveness of one medical system using the meas ures of another, when the two systems are so different?" asks Dr Sunita Joshi, a practitioner.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1241713,curpg-1,fright-0,right-0.cms

Different people can fight on, as they want. :)

[Donks]

Different people can fight on, as they want.
Impressive quote you found there. Now answer me this, oh ye of little brain, why do homeopaths try doing DBPC studies (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.13) and they come up with the same answer every other properly controlled study reaches, ie homeopathy does nothing?

[Kumar]

Future studies should be carried out over a longer period of time and should
include a control group that does not receive the homeopathic consultation.

It is not clear to me, whether points as I commented elsewhere can be the cause to these studies.

[Donks]

It is not clear to me, whether points as I commented elsewhere can be the cause to these studies.
Could you comment here? This was a study done solely by homeopaths. What is wrong with it in your view?

[burrahobbit]

Interesting statement by Sunita Joshi. Random Controlled trials are not appropriate for Homeopathy

I am allowed to prescribe water for everything, find ingenious excuses when things dont work, provide absolutely no evidence that my treatments work but should not be attacked by science.

Sounds like a religion to me

Incidentally, there was a case in India where homeopaths had incorporated high (allopathic!) doses of corticosteroids in their pills. Naturally they got effects.

Since Homeo remedies are not covered by the same licensing and regulatory mechanisms, they got away with it for a long time

[Kumar]

Every system can have its own norms/protocols. You can't observe modenn medicines as per homeopathic theory, by which anything can be thought.:) You can't make everything & being in two home alike.

Anyone including homeopaths can also do or bound to follow mistakes under modern advanced atmosphere, does not mean it is right/proved/justified.

Fouthur, things don't go on some cheatings/misutilization of system, it should be in mass.....You can't discredit discontinue modern system, if few medicines are found toxic, banned, shown severe adversities etc. or few frauds made/sold duplicate infereior medicines or few doctors/hospitals done carelessness/mistakes in treating. We may have to base on average net results based of current stutus of any system.

[Donks]

Every system can have its own norms/protocols. You can't observe modenn medicines as per homeopathic theory, by which anything can be thought. You can't make everything & being in two home alike.

Anyone including homeopaths can also do or bound to follow mistakes under modern advanced atmosphere, does not mean it is right/proved/justified.
So anyone doing something that dosn't show a positive result for homeopathy is obviously doing something wrong...
Fouthur, things don't go on some cheatings/misutilization of system, it should be in mass.....You can't discredit discontinue modern system, if few medicines are found toxic, banned, shown severe adversities etc. or few frauds made/sold duplicate infereior medicines or few doctors/hospitals done carelessness/mistakes in treating. We may have to base on average net results based of current stutus of any system.
You really don't get it, do you. It's not just one study or one homeopathic remedy. It's all of them. None have been able to show results. Can you show me results from any homeopathic remedy? Or just more "surverys"? The "average" of a thousand zeros is zero.

[Mojo]

'Lancet's homeopathy report unfair'
Tonsillitis alone has 100 different kinds of homoeopathic medicines.

Therefore, the random controlled trials concept does not work here.
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to conduct individualised DBPC trials. If you look carefully you will find some, carried out by homoeopaths, linked to from this very thread!

[Rolfe]

Comments, if can be biased or from biased people have no value in my body.Well, I think that's every post you ever made just consigned to the trash can. Can you not spot the bias in your own mind, Kumar?

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

More comments:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=188

[MRC_Hans]

And we note again that Kumar can write intelligibly if he tries. It is just around here he doen't bother.

Not that it matters much, since the, now comprehensible, content is still nonsense. Perhaps you might just as well write gibberish.

Hans

Edited for typos....

[Donks]

ANd we note agin that Kumar can write intelligibly if he tries. It is just around here he doen't bother.

Not that it matters much, since the, now comprehensible, content is still nonsense. Perhaps you might just as well write gibberish.

Hans
Hey, he still uses his world is flat analogy. I don't care how intelligibly he puts that, it's still moronic gibberish.

ETA: look at his thrid paragraph:
Anyhow, in any type, Survey report shows quite positive results (somewhat exactly, as homeopaths & its patients observe at home). But why DBPC studies not? Mostly, it can be due that when studying with CMs, variations(both relevant & non-relevants) can be there in reporting whereas may not be if homeopathic remedies are given, exclusively. At home or during routine treatments, it may become possible with some added benefits of independancy, emotions ,belief etc..
To anyone not familiar with Kumar and his threads, that will appear as pure gibberish. I mean, what the hell are relevant and non-relevant variations, and why are non-relevant variations important if they are not relevant?

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I know. It is reasonably well-formulated gibberish. I prefer that, so you don't struggle your way through it just to find it is indeed gibberish (of course, I realize the basic naivité in expecting anything but gibberish from Kumar).

Otherwise, I would prefer if he just hit random keys.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, some people on Bad Science are now responding to Kumar. Should we tell them?

Rolfe.

[Donks]

Hmmm, some people on Bad Science are now responding to Kumar. Should we tell them?

Rolfe.
You unleashed Kumar on those poor unsuspecting folk, it is your duty.

[MRC_Hans]

I just told them (I'm in the role of the bad cop to Kumar anyway, so...)

ETA, seems they looked straight through him anyway ;).

Hans

[Kumar]

Hmmm, some people on Bad Science are now responding to Kumar. Should we tell them?

Rolfe.

I don't mind now, if anyone bites me on the back. Anyway since you asked in advance, it can be just biting, not back-biting. Thanks.:D

How much I am wrong in those replies? Just to assess.

[Mojo]

How much I am wrong in those replies? Just to assess.It's difficult to say. You're pretty much off the scale.

[Kumar]

And we note again that Kumar can write intelligibly if he tries. It is just around here he doen't bother.

Not that it matters much, since the, now comprehensible, content is still nonsense. Perhaps you might just as well write gibberish.

Hans

Edited for typos....

Not intentionally. But, not yet familier and not so busy there,as yet.:)

[Mojo]

Not intentionally. But, not yet familier and not so busy there,as yet.:)That's OK then. As long as you weren't intentionally writing intelligibly... :oldroll:

[Kumar]

More comments: Look and comment unbiased. Am I unjustified?

http://www.badscience.net/?p=188

I think this thread is owerpowered, suppressed or taken by other powerful threads. I just thoght to visit onlt this to go with Rolfe.

[Mojo]

More comments: Look and comment unbiased. Am I unjustified? Yes.

[Kumar]

Yes.

Why so many threads are opened on somewhat same issue, esp. when first started by Rolfe? It is causing much confusions & unable to attend all. All that got mixed?

[Rolfe]

Why so many threads are opened on somewhat same issue, esp. when first started by Rolfe? It is causing much confusions & unable to attend all. All that got mixed?You're a fine one to talk! If you examine the threads of mine currently showing, you'll see that they are on quite distinct issues. The vote at TrustHomeopathy, John Hoare's official complaint about the Voodoo Society to the RCVS, and that pile of rubbish posted by cellsalts. Oh, and this one, which is about the Bristol patient satisfaction survey. If you think these are all the same topic, maybe it's because you have a one-track mind.

Have a look at the ones you start. They all end up exactly the same, even start exactly the same, and who knows which is about what? Wasn't there something about getting the beam out of your own eye, before trying to tackle the mote in someone else's?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Why so many threads are opened on somewhat same issue, esp. when first started by Rolfe? It is causing much confusions & unable to attend all. All that got mixed?Why so many threads are opened on somewhat same issue, esp. when first started by Kumar?

[Kumar]

You're a fine one to talk! If you examine the threads of mine currently showing, you'll see that they are on quite distint issues. The vote at TrustHomeopathy, John Hoare's official complaint about the Voodoo Society to the RCVS, and that pile of rubbish posted by cellsalts. Oh, and this one, which is about the Bristol patient satisfaction survey. If you think these are all the same topic, maybe it's because you have a one-track mind.

Have a look at the ones you start. They all end up exactly the same, even start exactly the same, and who knows which is about what? Wasn't therre something about getting the beam out of your own eye, before trying to tackle the mote in someone else's?

Rolfe.

Ok, if you found these different.Thousand treads can be opened. Why not to insist for "Homeopathic Forum, instead.

I was thinking just vested interests; "Mass existing and well distributed since long...." should continue and get a boost.:D

Can you just tell; whether all studies on homeopathy is done as "Adjuctive Study" i.e. CMs+Homeopathic remedies(C+P) is common in all studies or not esp. those failed?

If not, can you give me some referances or links, where homeopathic remedies and placebo were only used?

[MRC_Hans]

That's right, Kumar! Insult people, then ask them to do your homework for you. That'll get you far.

Hans

[Kumar]

That's right, Kumar! Insult people, then ask them to do your homework for you. That'll get you far.

Hans

Have you ever insulted or bb me at sciforum, Badscience or at this forum?

Anyway I think. you will just excuse--That was this & that.. not insult.

Moreover, it is not my homework. First, you all may be knowing about all/most homeopathic studies. Second, it is most important issue in crediting, rejecting or discrediting all previous studies.

However, Looking at the response here to my questions about my suspicion & doubts, I have started taking it as, all or most would have been studied as an "adjunctive study--so might have shown variations or no results EXCEPT this six year study. Otherwise, you have ignored or oversighted this most important issue.

[Mojo]

I have started taking it as, all or most would have been studied as an "adjunctive study--so might have shown variations or no results EXCEPT this six year study. No, one of the homoeopaths involved in the six year study specifically said that the patients in the study were taking conventional treatments as well: Originally posted by Rolfe
Prof. Egger specifically asked Dr. Spence if the patients in his study were also on conventional treatment as well as the homoeopathy, and Dr. Spence said yes, they were.

[Rolfe]

The BBC News web site is currently running an audience poll regarding its own performance. I used the one place in that where you can input text to criticise their coverage of the Bristol homoeoapthy story.

Others may feel moved to do likewise?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

The BBC News web site is currently running an audience poll regarding its own performance. Can't see it. I assume you mean news.bbc.co.uk. Whereabouts on the page is it?

[Rolfe]

Can't see it. I assume you mean news.bbc.co.uk. Whereabouts on the page is it?Seems to have gone! It can only have been there for about an hour!

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Seems to have gone! It can only have been there for about an hour! Did you say something to upset them?

[Rolfe]

Did you say something to upset them?Don't imagine so. I was idly checking during work to see if George Best was still alive, and on one of my checks, this box inviting me to take part in the questionnaire appeared. As the work had just dried up for lunch, I decided to fill it in. I gave them quite good ratings overall, but I didn't rate them as trustworthy. Then there was a text-entry part where you had to say what you liked and what you disliked. In the latter box, I told them that I was concerned by their uncritical promotion of alternative medical claims, and cited the Bristol study as the most recent example.

Maybe there's some sort of random pop-up which is only offering the questionnaire to a proportion of viewers?

Rolfe.

[Deetee]

More comments: Look and comment unbiased. Am I unjustified?


To solve this, you need to type your response in word, select the text and click the justify text icon. You can then cut and paste your response into the JREF (which does not support this particular form of formatting, I see)

[Kumar]

No, one of the homoeopaths involved in the six year study specifically said that the patients in the study were taking conventional treatments as well:


Prof. Egger specifically asked Dr. Spence if the patients in his study were also on conventional treatment as well as the homoeopathy, and Dr. Spence said yes, they were.

It is not there in report. No one also cotradicted my thought on Badscience page. What is then, the meaning of "x" group in report. One might have said something unclear considering Prevailing Modern atmosphere. Still variations--relevant, irrelavent or nil can be possible in "adjunctive studies & surveys.

What about other studies, which claimed & blamed?

Btw, can you tell me something about this Bad science site, who are they & what are their interests? Previously, I read one badscience site, It indicated many variations in science understandings.

[Mojo]

It is not there in report. ... What is then, the meaning of "x" group in report. Read it carefully: if their conditions had been affected by obvious external factors ...It doesn't say that all those who were using conventional treatments were assigned an "x", just those whose "conditions had been affected by obvious external factors."

[Mojo]

Btw, can you tell me something about this Bad science site, who are they & what are their interests? Previously, I read one badscience site, It indicated many variations in science understandings.Try looking at the site:
http://www.badscience.net/?page_id=4

[Kumar]

Read it carefully: It doesn't say that all those who were using conventional treatments were assigned an "x", just those whose "conditions had been affected by obvious external factors."

Why you have not completed the sentance?

if their conditionshad been affected by obvious external factors (e.g.,
other treatments}, this was scored as an “x.”


TABLE 4. OVERALL OUTCOME FOR 6544 PATIENTS; "x" showing just o.3% & n20

[Kumar]

Try looking at the site:
http://www.badscience.net/?page_id=4

That I read but few comments pls?

[Mojo]

Why you have not completed the sentance?Because it wasn't necessary. While it mentions "other treatments" as an example of the sort of thing that would lead to a patient being scored as an "x", it doesn't say that this was the only reason, nor does it say that all patients who were taking "other treatments" were assigned an "x".

It only excluded patients where "obvious" external factors were thought to have affected the outcome. It doesn't even say how they decided whether an external factor was "obvious", although I suspect from the context that they actually mean adverse effects which could be pinned down to an external cause. If a patient said that they felt better after their homoeopathic treatment, I very much doubt that the homoeopaths will have gone looking for reasons other than the homoeopathy, seeing as the whole study relies on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

This is the whole point. There was no control, therefore there is no way of knowing whether the claimed improvements were the result of the homoeopathy.

ETA: In any case, it's pointless to argue about this: one of the homoeopaths who carried out the study actually admitted that the patients were also receiving conventional treatment.

[Mojo]

Previously, I read one badscience site, It indicated many variations in science understandings.Which "badscience site" did you read, and what the hell would you know about "science understandings?"

[Donks]

Which "badscience site" did you read, and what the hell would you know about "science understandings?"
Don't forget that science is still not absolute/static/perfect so missunderstandings are possible when dealing with testing in your house/my house and nonexpert type person can think dynamically and offer new thoughts.

[Kumar]

Because it wasn't necessary. While it mentions "other treatments" as an example of the sort of thing that would lead to a patient being scored as an "x", it doesn't say that this was the only reason, nor does it say that all patients who were taking "other treatments" were assigned an "x".

"Other treatments" can also be inclusive of modern treatments. It says about external factors..x group. Pls read whole para about limitations.

It only excluded patients where "obvious" external factors were thought to have affected the outcome. It doesn't even say how they decided whether an external factor was "obvious", although I suspect from the context that they actually mean adverse effects which could be pinned down to an external cause. If a patient said that they felt better after their homoeopathic treatment, I very much doubt that the homoeopaths will have gone looking for reasons other than the homoeopathy, seeing as the whole study relies on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

If I am not mistaken, modern medicines can be taken as an external factor, which they would/should have included. Homeopathy has its own way i.e. "based in symptoms" , so studied accordingly. Modern pathological tests, if relevant or not with homeopathy--is a thought?

This is the whole point. There was no control, therefore there is no way of knowing whether the claimed improvements were the result of the homoeopathy.

This was a " observations based survey of mass candidates" as per homeopathic theory not a DBPC science study. Outcome can be compared with non-treated regular similar patients.
Moreover, we can keep some belief as I indicated here or there.

ETA: In any case, it's pointless to argue about this: one of the homoeopaths who carried out the study actually [b]admitted that the patients were also receiving conventional treatment.]

It is not in report. He might have quoted for few patients--may be for x group. Or may be due to PMA.:)

Do you accept that all studies in homeopathy in science or with science people is or could only be done as an "adjunctive study" not with exclusive homeopathic remedies due to PMA. At home reported observations are claimed to come out as per theory. HOW??????

Just clear this point otherwise I can think otherwise.:D

[Donks]

Do you accept that all studies in homeopathy in science or with science people is or could only be done as an "adjunctive study" not with exclusive homeopathic remedies due to PMA.
Why would he? Is this study (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.13) adjunctive?

[Mojo]

"Other treatments" can also be inclusive of modern treatments. It says about external factors..x group. Pls read whole para about limitations. If I am not mistaken, modern medicines can be taken as an external factor, which they would/should have included. Homeopathy has its own way i.e. "based in symptoms" , so studied accordingly. Modern pathological tests, if relevant or not with homeopathy--is a thought? Are you now suggesting that objective methods of assesing patients' conditions shouldn't be used in studies of homoeopathic treatments?

This was a " observations based survey of mass candidates" as per homeopathic theory not a DBPC science study. Outcome can be compared with non-treated regular similar patients.Well why weren't they so compared in this study? Is it, perhaps, because the people involved were fully aware that there would be no difference between the two groups?


Moreover, we can keep some belief as I indicated here or there. You can believe whatever you want, sunshine, but it won't affect reality.


It is not in report. He might have quoted for few patients--may be for x group. Neither is it indicated in the report that all those taking conventional treatments were excluded. But one of the authors has publically stated that they were not. Why would he lie about this? Or may be due to PMA.:) what the hell is "PMA"?
www.pma.org.uk/
www.pma.com/
www.pma.org/
www.pmanet.org/
www.pma-online.org/
www.pma-group.co.uk/
www.pma.co.uk/
None of these seem relevant.

Do you accept that all studies in homeopathy in science or with science people is or could only be done as an "adjunctive study" not with exclusive homeopathic remedies due to PMA. At home reported observations are claimed to come out as per theory. HOW??????

Just clear this point otherwise I can think otherwise.:DIf you want this point "cleared", try stating it clearly.

[Kumar]

Why would he? Is this study (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.13) adjunctive?

It is not clear in abstract. Moreover, we don't know about recent previous history of medications. Moreover it is after surgeory. Moreover it is hormone/replacement based condition not medicine/remedy based condition. Pls clear every such thing.

[Donks]

It is not clear in abstract. Moreover, we don't know about recent previous history of medications. Moreover it is after surgeory. Moreover it is hormone/replacement based condition not medicine/remedy based condition. Pls clear every such thing.
So homeopathy doesn't treat the symptoms if it is after surgery? And why does it matter that it's hormone replacement? Does homeopathy now suddely can't treat a person? Or are you just making excuses? What study would you consider valid, or are you going to cover your ears and yell "LALALALA!"?

[Kumar]

When anyone from science community say otherwise or radicule homeopathy, it looks to me that, he is radiculing on weakness & ignorance of his pro-system.

[Mojo]

When anyone from science community say otherwise or radicule homeopathy, it looks to me that, he is radiculing on weakness & ignorance of his pro-system.Perhaps people are "radiculing" it because they don't want such ridiculous ideas to take root.





OK, has anyone a weaker pun than that?

[Donks]

When anyone from science community say otherwise or radicule homeopathy, it looks to me that, he is radiculing on weakness & ignorance of his pro-system.
Perhaps you are just ignorant of the fact that homeopathy is a radiculous system. Pretty weak, too.

[Mojo]

There's an article about the study on the Spiked website:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAEB6.htm

[CapelDodger]

For that matter, people probably start seeing the homoeopath at a point when their condition is particularly severe, so they might claim a positive outcome if they've only returned to average.
And they won't claim a negative one if they're dead.

[Mojo]

And they won't claim a negative one if they're dead.No, because that just shows that the remedy is working. OK, as aggravations go it's pretty severe...