Homeopath to HRH The Queen still not admitting defeat

[Blue Wode]

In this month’s ‘Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine’, in a commentary highly critical of the meta-analysis recently published by The Lancet (which found that homeopathy was no better than placebo), Peter Fisher, official homeopath to The Queen, says that meta-analysis should incorporate “sensitivity analysis” and “external validity” and claims that “the way forward is open, transparent science, not opaque, biased analysis and rhetoric”.

You have to wonder just how much more open, transparent science the homeopaths need in order to convince them that their remedies don’t work.

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/1/145

Interestingly, the commentary makes mention of this:

Dr Horton [Editor of The Lancet] also wrote an open letter to the UK Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt and the Chairman of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Prof. Sir Michael Rawlings, calling for the use of homeopathy in the NHS to be reviewed in light of this publication.

Does anyone have an update on the progress of Dr Horton’s request to Prof. Sir Michael Rawlings at NICE?

[BillC]

What's 'external validity'? A lot of people believe in it so it must be true?

[BillC]

Ah, apparently it's "the extent to which what is measures is valid to the real world". So, indeed, a lot of people believe in it so it must be true.

[Mojo]

Ah, apparently it's "the extent to which what is measures is valid to the real world". So, indeed, a lot of people believe in it so it must be true.You mean "mass existing in well distributed people since long". :p

[Darat]

...snip...

You have to wonder just how much more open, transparent science the homeopaths need in order to convince them that their remedies don’t work.


...snip...

If the science says homeopathy works it is transparent, if it doesn't it is opaque.

[Asolepius]

Fisher is as ever clutching at straws. Look, we don't have to try this hard to find evidence for proper medicines. Efficacy usually sticks out like a sore thumb. The measures he is advocating are more commonly used in quality of life studies. If evidence is so elusive that we have to suggest such measures, then is the evidence really there at all? Or, even if it's there, is it worth chasing? Why doesn't he do his own analysis? His `hospital' just got GBP18 million for an upgrade, based in part on its commitment to research. And it's our money - from UK taxpayers.:mad:

[Zep]

Press the point. Publicly. Pointedly. Persistently.


And a lot of other P-words.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If the science says homeopathy works it is transparent, if it doesn't it is opaque.
I did not know about this terminology. Thank you for enlightening me.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

What's 'external validity'? A lot of people believe in it so it must be true?
In the real world of science, external validity refers to the extent to which an experiment can be replicated by others. F & P's cold fusion experiment had none.

[Asolepius]

In the real world of science, external validity refers to the extent to which an experiment can be replicated by others. F & P's cold fusion experiment had none.
I suppose it could hardly be relevant for a meta-analysis. Also I am now wondering how sensitivity analysis can be relevant. I do find it surprising that Shang et al didn't identify the studies included.

Edited to correct bad grammar :(

[burrahobbit]

But what did you expect him to do?

It is his livelihood we are talking about

[Asolepius]

But what did you expect him to do?

It is his livelihood we are talking about
Forgive me, but isn't that a rather fatuous remark? I would expect a tobacco baron to defend his job but that doesn't mean his products don't kill people. Fisher is free to criticise the paper, and we are just as free to criticise him for it. That is how science progresses. The sad fact is that Fisher et al would rather keep us in the Dark Ages.

[burrahobbit]

Probably should have put a smiley in there.

My point was that there is no point being surprised at the reaction. Attack any woo and the practitioners will be up in arms.

[Asolepius]

Probably should have put a smiley in there.

My point was that there is no point being surprised at the reaction. Attack any woo and the practitioners will be up in arms.
Sorry, I took you a tad too seriously:). Of course we expect the woos to react - this shows we are getting to them. We need to keep this up relentlessly. I don't think any of us is surprised at the reaction, just a bit weary of the same old medieval thinking.

[Rolfe]

Well, didn't that same joker say once that it didn't matter if it worked by placebo effect, just so long as the patients said they felt better? David Colquhoun has the reference I think.

Rolfe.

[Blue Wode]

I think this is the reference:

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/9/1052

There has been intense controversy surrounding the analysis of RCTs of homeopathy. This is shown in the extensive criticism of one meta-analysis [13], the major concerns raised in response [14] to an article about homeopathy by Vickers and Zollman [15] and in the statistical analysis of trials of homeopathy in other disorders [16]. They also highlight the difficulties in resolving whether blinding influences the results of RCTs in homeopathy, an issue previously dissected by Langman [17]. We have spent 15 yr planning, undertaking and reporting this study. During this period Ritchie articular index, valid complaint completer analyses and cross-over trials have all become unfashionable. While our methods are dated, their validity is unlikely to have changed. Over these years we have come to believe that conventional RCTs are unlikely to capture the possible benefits of homeopathy. We believe that a new investigational approach is needed which fulfils Vandenbroucke's [18] need for testing a credible hypothesis. Instead of trying to disentangle ‘genuine’ effects of homeopathy from the placebo response, we suggest that a more directly relevant research question is whether it is cost-effective to complement conventional therapy in patients requesting homeopathy. It seems more important to define if homeopathists can genuinely control patients' symptoms and less relevant to have concerns about whether this is due to a ‘genuine’ effect or to influencing the placebo response.

I'd still like to know what NICE are doing about Dr Richard Horton's request.