Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-b

bayani · 12th March 2012, 01:50 AM

I am after a copy or a link to this study:

Phlebology (The Royal Society of Medicine Press, UK)
“Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial”

E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, 1990, 157-163.

I asked Prof. Edzard Ernst about it and he confirmed that it provided a positive result, though only so much can be communicated with ease via Twitter.

Can't seem to find an online version; perhaps someone will have some better resources than I?

Acleron · 13th March 2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

May 1990
E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, and K.L. Resch
Phlebology, 1990, 5:157-163.

This study of 61 patients showed a 44% improvement in venous filling time in the homeopathic treated group when compared with placebo.

Best I can find, but without the full paper, impossible to see what they did to get that result.

Vic Vega · 13th March 2012, 03:59 PM

I'll bet $20 that the study was flawed and the results are not repeatable...

Weak Kitten · 13th March 2012, 05:32 PM

Um, was the placebo also a fluid? Because if it wasn't then the entire study is bogus. You can get those sorts of numbers just by changing fluid intake.

I will be interested to see any more information about the testing procedures.

bayani · 14th March 2012, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Best I can find, but without the full paper, impossible to see what they did to get that result.

That's as far as I can get; i am weary of the claimed results because they ONLY appear on pro-homeopathy website. I want to see the conclusions from the authors - more importantly, the entire study.

bayani · 14th March 2012, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

I'll bet $20 that the study was flawed and the results are not repeatable...

Results may very well have been a statistical anomaly; though I agree - unlikely to be replicated.

Given the positive results and reportedly good methodology, one wonders why this study does not get more homeopaths attempting to replicate it.

bayani · 14th March 2012, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Um, was the placebo also a fluid? Because if it wasn't then the entire study is bogus. You can get those sorts of numbers just by changing fluid intake.

I will be interested to see any more information about the testing procedures.

Without seeing the study, I expect it to be a fairly good study - being from Edzard Ernst.

Mojo · 14th March 2012, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by bayani

Without seeing the study, I expect it to be a fairly good study - being from Edzard Ernst.

Originally Posted by bayani

Results may very well have been a statistical anomaly; though I agree - unlikely to be replicated.

Given the positive results and reportedly good methodology, one wonders why this study does not get more homeopaths attempting to replicate it.

The homoeopaths are still desperately trying to discredit him. They can't possibly cite it.

Mojo · 14th March 2012, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by bayani

Results may very well have been a statistical anomaly; though I agree - unlikely to be replicated.

Only 65 subjects, and over 20 years old - has nobody tried a replication with a bigger sample size over the last couple of decades?

jli · 15th March 2012, 09:54 AM

I think there is a bit of a mix up. The only article I can find from Ernst and co. on varicose veins is this one: A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins.
It is not a study on homeopathy, and it was not placebo controlled. I don't think it is available online, so we will have to settle with the summary.

I can't track down the paper that Acleron found (a mentioning of), but the number of patients enrolled was the same, suggesting that we really are talking about the same study.

dlorde · 15th March 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by jli

I think there is a bit of a mix up. The only article I can find from Ernst and co. on varicose veins is this one: A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins.
It is not a study on homeopathy, and it was not placebo controlled. I don't think it is available online, so we will have to settle with the summary.

I smell a rat. 'Scientific Research in Homeopathy', a Knol by Nancy Malik, gives this:

Quote:

8. Phlebology (The Royal Society of Medicine Press, UK)
"Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial" E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, 1990, 157-163.
Over a period of 24 days, the effects of a homeopathic complex preparation and placebo on varicose veins were tested in a double-blind trial of 61 people suffering from this condition. The homeopathic complex produced an averaged 44% improvement in the condition while those given the placebo experienced an averaged worsening of the disorder.

Same authors, same number of patients, same trial length... This entry by Malik is referenced by many homeopathic blogs, forums, and sites.

ETA: I couldn't find any articles of that name or with those authors in a search of the 'Phlebology' journal on the The Royal Society of Medicine Press site.

Mojo · 16th March 2012, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by dlorde

ETA: I couldn't find any articles of that name or with those authors in a search of the 'Phlebology' journal

If you try to browse their online archive, it only seems to go back as far as 2003 (when they seem to have changed publisher - the first article there is called "Change of publisher and Editor - a new era"), so most likely it's just too old.

jli · 16th March 2012, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

If you try to browse their online archive, it only seems to go back as far as 2003 (when they seem to have changed publisher - the first article there is called "Change of publisher and Editor - a new era"), so most likely it's just too old.

Articles in Phlebology were not Pubmed indexed until 2007, which makes it even harder to check out. I can't access EMBASE from home, so I will have to wait until Monday unless anybody else have access.

I still think the similarities between the summaries of the "two" papers look suspicious. None of this changes the fact that one positive study does not constitute proof. I would think that it would be worthwhile for homeopathic practitioners to replicate a positive study. Publication bias can definitely not be ruled out.

Mojo · 16th March 2012, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by jli

I would think that it would be worthwhile for homeopathic practitioners to replicate a positive study.

Not really.

jli · 16th March 2012, 04:26 AM

Come on Mojo. Do you really think that they don't understand that a single positive study does not constitute proof?

Mojo · 16th March 2012, 05:11 AM

I suspect they are also aware that larger trials are less likely to produce positive results.

bayani · 16th March 2012, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by jli

I think there is a bit of a mix up. The only article I can find from Ernst and co. on varicose veins is this one: A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins.
It is not a study on homeopathy, and it was not placebo controlled. I don't think it is available online, so we will have to settle with the summary.

I can't track down the paper that Acleron found (a mentioning of), but the number of patients enrolled was the same, suggesting that we really are talking about the same study.

When I asked Ernst about the study, I cited the name of the study - I date say I I had got it wrong, he would have corrected me on it.

As has been noted, the publisher changed and it seems no one has access to this document without the actual journal itself.

Makes one wonder what passes for an assessment when so many homeopaths have cited as evidence, when it is a study they have not read - or have access to.

I will ask Malik to provide a copy.

Mojo · 17th March 2012, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by bayani

Makes one wonder what passes for an assessment when so many homeopaths have cited as evidence, when it is a study they have not read - or have access to.

I will ask Malik to provide a copy.

I wouldn't hold your breath; she seems quite able to post studies that she evidently hasn't read (most notoriously the Nuremberg salt trial).

Acleron · 17th March 2012, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

The homoeopaths are still desperately trying to discredit him. They can't possibly cite it.

The logical approach would be to ignore the paper, but we are talking about homeopaths here

jli · 18th March 2012, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by bayani

When I asked Ernst about the study, I cited the name of the study

But the title doesn't even mention homeopathy. It could be an article on the effects of chestnut seed extracts, which indeed have shown positive effects in a couple of studies.

Another oddity is the omissions from the abstract. If you look at the abstract from the hydrotherapy study it says

Quote:

In conclusion this controlled study implies that hydrotherapy may help patients suffering from primary varicose veins.......

This tells us how much weight the authors feel that the positive result of the study has. Assuming that the paper exists, Malik has not shown us what the authors conclude.

jli · 18th March 2012, 06:52 AM

I have been asking around, and someone got in touch with Ernst. This is what he wrote:

Quote:

The homeopathic study did take place. We tested a remedy that contained several plant substances in undiluted form. So,it was only nominally a homeopathic preparation.

So it was not a positive homeopathy study after all.

Scott Sommers · 18th March 2012, 07:10 AM

I can't even get a hit on it off Google Scholar. The only source of it at all is this post about, Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine.

If it worked and could be replicated, there would be more work that followed it up...unless of course the super secret super duper Global government and their reptilian overlords at the Federal Reserve Board...or at least something like that...

...I forgot, there has to be Da' Jooz' is 'dere somewhere.

Gord_in_Toronto · 18th March 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

The logical approach would be to ignore the paper, but we are talking about homeopaths here

OK. So we'll ignore it just a teeny, weeny, its-see-bits-see, infinitesimally small bit? I'll have mine with scotch, not water, please.

drewid · 18th March 2012, 10:24 AM

Surely scientific papers on homeopathy should be more effective with fewer words, with the most effective being a stack of blank paper without a molecule of ink between them.

Mojo · 18th March 2012, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by jli

I have been asking around, and someone got in touch with Ernst. This is what he wrote:

Quote:

The homeopathic study did take place. We tested a remedy that contained several plant substances in undiluted form. So,it was only nominally a homeopathic preparation.

So it was not a positive homeopathy study after all.

A bit like this one, perhaps.

jli · 18th March 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

A bit like this one, perhaps.

Don't know. The only thing that smells like homeopathy is the company name (as far as I can see). But I have seen homeopathy studies cleverly "camouflaged" as studies on effect of real substances.

Yuri Nalyssus · 18th March 2012, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

A bit like this one, perhaps.

Not to mention this one.

Gits!

Ernst isn't a great fan of homeopathic cancer "treatments":

... there is no reason to believe that homeopathic medicines have anything to offer to patients suffering from cancer or other conditions apart from non-specific effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948867/

Yuri

Mojo · 18th March 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by jli

Don't know. The only thing that smells like homeopathy is the company name (as far as I can see).

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-oh-wait.html

jli · 19th March 2012, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-oh-wait.html

Thank you Mojo. From the update: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/200...-analysis.html it becomes clear that the aricle is similar. A positive homeopathy study that turns out to be a positive herbalism study. Wonder what characterisation Boiron would have given the remedy if the study had produced a negative result

Acleron · 19th March 2012, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by jli

Thank you Mojo. From the update: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/200...-analysis.html it becomes clear that the aricle is similar. A positive homeopathy study that turns out to be a positive herbalism study. Wonder what characterisation Boiron would have given the remedy if the study had produced a negative result

You don't need to categorise anything if you don't publish ...

jli · 19th March 2012, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

You don't need to categorise anything if you don't publish ...

True - but if somebody else publishes for you, you might as well use it to your advantage.

Boiron market themselves as manufacturers of homeopathic remedies. Categorising it as a homeopathic remedy if it works under clinical testing conditions and as a non-homeopathic remedy if it fails under clinical testing conditions make sense from a conspiratory theoretical point of view

12th March 2012, 01:50 AM	#1
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19	Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-b I am after a copy or a link to this study: Phlebology (The Royal Society of Medicine Press, UK) “Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial” E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, 1990, 157-163. I asked Prof. Edzard Ernst about it and he confirmed that it provided a positive result, though only so much can be communicated with ease via Twitter. Can't seem to find an online version; perhaps someone will have some better resources than I?
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19

13th March 2012, 03:59 PM	#3
Vic Vega Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Cradle of Liberty Posts: 1,075	I'll bet $20 that the study was flawed and the results are not repeatable...
	__________________ "The sleeping and the dead Are but as pictures. 'Tis the eye of childhood That fears a painted devil." --Shakespeare - Macbeth

13th March 2012, 05:32 PM	#4
Weak Kitten Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend? Posts: 1,718	Um, was the placebo also a fluid? Because if it wasn't then the entire study is bogus. You can get those sorts of numbers just by changing fluid intake. I will be interested to see any more information about the testing procedures.
	__________________ A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot

14th March 2012, 03:14 AM	#5
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19	Originally Posted by Acleron Best I can find, but without the full paper, impossible to see what they did to get that result. That's as far as I can get; i am weary of the claimed results because they ONLY appear on pro-homeopathy website. I want to see the conclusions from the authors - more importantly, the entire study.
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19

14th March 2012, 03:15 AM	#6
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19	Originally Posted by Vic Vega I'll bet $20 that the study was flawed and the results are not repeatable... Results may very well have been a statistical anomaly; though I agree - unlikely to be replicated. Given the positive results and reportedly good methodology, one wonders why this study does not get more homeopaths attempting to replicate it.
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19

13th March 2012, 03:09 PM	#2
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Quote: May 1990 E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, and K.L. Resch Phlebology, 1990, 5:157-163. This study of 61 patients showed a 44% improvement in venous filling time in the homeopathic treated group when compared with placebo. Best I can find, but without the full paper, impossible to see what they did to get that result.

14th March 2012, 03:17 AM	#7
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19	Originally Posted by Weak Kitten Um, was the placebo also a fluid? Because if it wasn't then the entire study is bogus. You can get those sorts of numbers just by changing fluid intake. I will be interested to see any more information about the testing procedures. Without seeing the study, I expect it to be a fairly good study - being from Edzard Ernst.
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19

14th March 2012, 03:22 AM	#8
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by bayani Without seeing the study, I expect it to be a fairly good study - being from Edzard Ernst. Originally Posted by bayani Results may very well have been a statistical anomaly; though I agree - unlikely to be replicated. Given the positive results and reportedly good methodology, one wonders why this study does not get more homeopaths attempting to replicate it. The homoeopaths are still desperately trying to discredit him. They can't possibly cite it.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

14th March 2012, 03:23 AM	#9
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by bayani Results may very well have been a statistical anomaly; though I agree - unlikely to be replicated. Only 65 subjects, and over 20 years old - has nobody tried a replication with a bigger sample size over the last couple of decades?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

15th March 2012, 09:54 AM	#10
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	I think there is a bit of a mix up. The only article I can find from Ernst and co. on varicose veins is this one: A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins. It is not a study on homeopathy, and it was not placebo controlled. I don't think it is available online, so we will have to settle with the summary. I can't track down the paper that Acleron found (a mentioning of), but the number of patients enrolled was the same, suggesting that we really are talking about the same study.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

15th March 2012, 11:55 AM	#11
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by jli I think there is a bit of a mix up. The only article I can find from Ernst and co. on varicose veins is this one: A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins. It is not a study on homeopathy, and it was not placebo controlled. I don't think it is available online, so we will have to settle with the summary. I smell a rat. 'Scientific Research in Homeopathy', a Knol by Nancy Malik, gives this: Quote: 8. Phlebology (The Royal Society of Medicine Press, UK) "Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial" E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, 1990, 157-163. Over a period of 24 days, the effects of a homeopathic complex preparation and placebo on varicose veins were tested in a double-blind trial of 61 people suffering from this condition. The homeopathic complex produced an averaged 44% improvement in the condition while those given the placebo experienced an averaged worsening of the disorder. Same authors, same number of patients, same trial length... This entry by Malik is referenced by many homeopathic blogs, forums, and sites. ETA: I couldn't find any articles of that name or with those authors in a search of the 'Phlebology' journal on the The Royal Society of Medicine Press site.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... Last edited by dlorde; 15th March 2012 at 12:11 PM.

16th March 2012, 01:31 AM	#12
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by dlorde ETA: I couldn't find any articles of that name or with those authors in a search of the 'Phlebology' journal If you try to browse their online archive, it only seems to go back as far as 2003 (when they seem to have changed publisher - the first article there is called "Change of publisher and Editor - a new era"), so most likely it's just too old.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 16th March 2012 at 01:34 AM.

16th March 2012, 02:42 AM	#13
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by Mojo If you try to browse their online archive, it only seems to go back as far as 2003 (when they seem to have changed publisher - the first article there is called "Change of publisher and Editor - a new era"), so most likely it's just too old. Articles in Phlebology were not Pubmed indexed until 2007, which makes it even harder to check out. I can't access EMBASE from home, so I will have to wait until Monday unless anybody else have access. I still think the similarities between the summaries of the "two" papers look suspicious. None of this changes the fact that one positive study does not constitute proof. I would think that it would be worthwhile for homeopathic practitioners to replicate a positive study. Publication bias can definitely not be ruled out.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

16th March 2012, 03:31 AM	#14
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by jli I would think that it would be worthwhile for homeopathic practitioners to replicate a positive study. Not really.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

16th March 2012, 04:26 AM	#15
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Come on Mojo. Do you really think that they don't understand that a single positive study does not constitute proof?
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

16th March 2012, 05:11 AM	#16
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	I suspect they are also aware that larger trials are less likely to produce positive results.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

16th March 2012, 12:04 PM	#17
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19	Originally Posted by jli I think there is a bit of a mix up. The only article I can find from Ernst and co. on varicose veins is this one: A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins. It is not a study on homeopathy, and it was not placebo controlled. I don't think it is available online, so we will have to settle with the summary. I can't track down the paper that Acleron found (a mentioning of), but the number of patients enrolled was the same, suggesting that we really are talking about the same study. When I asked Ernst about the study, I cited the name of the study - I date say I I had got it wrong, he would have corrected me on it. As has been noted, the publisher changed and it seems no one has access to this document without the actual journal itself. Makes one wonder what passes for an assessment when so many homeopaths have cited as evidence, when it is a study they have not read - or have access to. I will ask Malik to provide a copy.
bayani New Blood Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19

17th March 2012, 05:40 AM	#18
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by bayani Makes one wonder what passes for an assessment when so many homeopaths have cited as evidence, when it is a study they have not read - or have access to. I will ask Malik to provide a copy. I wouldn't hold your breath; she seems quite able to post studies that she evidently hasn't read (most notoriously the Nuremberg salt trial).
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 17th March 2012 at 05:41 AM.

17th March 2012, 06:10 AM	#19
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Mojo The homoeopaths are still desperately trying to discredit him. They can't possibly cite it. The logical approach would be to ignore the paper, but we are talking about homeopaths here

18th March 2012, 01:47 AM	#20
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by bayani When I asked Ernst about the study, I cited the name of the study But the title doesn't even mention homeopathy. It could be an article on the effects of chestnut seed extracts, which indeed have shown positive effects in a couple of studies. Another oddity is the omissions from the abstract. If you look at the abstract from the hydrotherapy study it says Quote: In conclusion this controlled study implies that hydrotherapy may help patients suffering from primary varicose veins....... This tells us how much weight the authors feel that the positive result of the study has. Assuming that the paper exists, Malik has not shown us what the authors conclude.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

18th March 2012, 06:52 AM	#21
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	I have been asking around, and someone got in touch with Ernst. This is what he wrote: Quote: The homeopathic study did take place. We tested a remedy that contained several plant substances in undiluted form. So,it was only nominally a homeopathic preparation. So it was not a positive homeopathy study after all.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog Last edited by jli; 18th March 2012 at 07:46 AM.

18th March 2012, 07:10 AM	#22
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,641	I can't even get a hit on it off Google Scholar. The only source of it at all is this post about, Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine. If it worked and could be replicated, there would be more work that followed it up...unless of course the super secret super duper Global government and their reptilian overlords at the Federal Reserve Board...or at least something like that... ...I forgot, there has to be Da' Jooz' is 'dere somewhere.
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy Last edited by Scott Sommers; 18th March 2012 at 07:19 AM.

18th March 2012, 09:49 AM	#23
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,409	Originally Posted by Acleron The logical approach would be to ignore the paper, but we are talking about homeopaths here OK. So we'll ignore it just a teeny, weeny, its-see-bits-see, infinitesimally small bit? I'll have mine with scotch, not water, please.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

18th March 2012, 10:24 AM	#24
drewid Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,086	Surely scientific papers on homeopathy should be more effective with fewer words, with the most effective being a stack of blank paper without a molecule of ink between them.
drewid Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,086

18th March 2012, 11:06 AM	#25
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by jli I have been asking around, and someone got in touch with Ernst. This is what he wrote: Quote: The homeopathic study did take place. We tested a remedy that contained several plant substances in undiluted form. So,it was only nominally a homeopathic preparation. So it was not a positive homeopathy study after all. A bit like this one, perhaps.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

18th March 2012, 02:40 PM	#26
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by Mojo A bit like this one, perhaps. Don't know. The only thing that smells like homeopathy is the company name (as far as I can see). But I have seen homeopathy studies cleverly "camouflaged" as studies on effect of real substances.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

18th March 2012, 03:02 PM	#27
Yuri Nalyssus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Ancient Isle of Avignuon Posts: 1,074	Originally Posted by Mojo A bit like this one, perhaps. Not to mention this one. Gits! Ernst isn't a great fan of homeopathic cancer "treatments": ... there is no reason to believe that homeopathic medicines have anything to offer to patients suffering from cancer or other conditions apart from non-specific effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948867/ Yuri
	__________________ "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." -David Ben-Gurion Peasant: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. King: Shut up! Peasant: Come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help! I’m being repressed! King: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Ooh, what a giveaway, did you hear that... that’s what I’m on about, d’you see him repressing me? You saw it didn’t you... - Monty Python and The Holy Grail Last edited by Yuri Nalyssus; 18th March 2012 at 03:07 PM.

18th March 2012, 04:36 PM	#28
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by jli Don't know. The only thing that smells like homeopathy is the company name (as far as I can see). http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-oh-wait.html
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

19th March 2012, 04:24 AM	#29
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by Mojo http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-oh-wait.html Thank you Mojo. From the update: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/200...-analysis.html it becomes clear that the aricle is similar. A positive homeopathy study that turns out to be a positive herbalism study. Wonder what characterisation Boiron would have given the remedy if the study had produced a negative result
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

19th March 2012, 07:59 AM	#30
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by jli Thank you Mojo. From the update: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/200...-analysis.html it becomes clear that the aricle is similar. A positive homeopathy study that turns out to be a positive herbalism study. Wonder what characterisation Boiron would have given the remedy if the study had produced a negative result You don't need to categorise anything if you don't publish ...

19th March 2012, 08:24 AM	#31
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by Acleron You don't need to categorise anything if you don't publish ... True - but if somebody else publishes for you, you might as well use it to your advantage. Boiron market themselves as manufacturers of homeopathic remedies. Categorising it as a homeopathic remedy if it works under clinical testing conditions and as a non-homeopathic remedy if it fails under clinical testing conditions make sense from a conspiratory theoretical point of view
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog