Homeopathy 'eases cancer therapy'
This review found preliminary data in support of the efficacy of topical calendula for prophylaxis of acute dermatitis during radiotherapy and Traumeel S mouthwash in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. These trials need replicating. There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic medicines for other adverse effects of cancer treatments. Further research is required.In other words, they found two high-quality positive trials. One of them, the trial of "Traumeel S", included just 30 patients, 15 on placebo and 15 on the homeopathic treatment. Which is not very many. Still, at least it actually was a trial of a homeopathic treatment. The other positive trial, the one on "topical calendula", wasn't.
No, really. The second trial, a fairly large French study (254 patients), used an ointment made from a herb, Calendula officinalis, aka the Pot Marigold. Unlike homeopathic treatments, which are just water, the Calendula ointment used in the study in question was apparantlyfabricated from a plant of the marigold family, Calendula officinalis. The digest is obtained by incubation at 75°C in petroleum jelly to extract the liposoluble components of the plant.In other words, it contained plenty of chemicals from the plant, and would be better described as a herbal product, not a homeopathic one. Unlike in a homeopathic remedy, the herb wasn't diluted in water several times until no molecules of the original product remained. It's not homeopathy. The word "homeopathy" doesn't appear anywhere in the paper!
So why on earth was this study included in the Cochrane Review? This is where things get weird. The Cochrane authors describe the paper as "a study of a homeopathic ointment". But how did they even hear about the paper, given that the word homeopathy appears nowhere in the paper, or the abstract, or the PubMed keywords? They say that "One potential study was identified by an expert in the field (Pommier 2004)."
So the best evidence that homeopathy works for alleviating the symptoms of cancer therapy is a paper that isn't about homeopathy, identified by "an expert" in homeopathy. And the Cochrane Collaboration took his word for it. And the BBC reported on it as fact (although to their credit they do include a scathing comment from Prof. Edward Ernst.) A great job all round!
If anyone has any ideas about why this paper was included in the Cochrane review, I'd be interested to hear them. I will be in contact with the authors of the review to try to find out why, because if the Cochrane Collaboration has really just published a review about homeopathy which includes a trial which is nothing to do with homeopathy, it's something of a scandal. I find it somewhat hard to believe just on the basis that Cochrane reviews are generally very competent. So, stay tuned for more on this.
Update 18 4 2009: The authors have kindly responded to my email.
[BPSDB]
16 comments:
not really sure if Traumeel is so homeopathic either. It has quite a lot of plant extracts in D1 (10 times!!! dilution)
Active ingredients:
100 g contains: Arnica montana, radix D3, 4.416g; Calendula officinalis D1, Hamamelis virginiana D1, 1.326g each; Bellis perennis D1, Hypericum perforatum D3, 0.295g; Millefolium D1, 0.265 g; Symphytum officinale D4, 0.295g; Aconitum napellus D3, Belladonna D3, 0.147g each; Hepar sulphuris calcareum D6, 0.074g; Chamomilla D1, Echinacea angustifolia D1, Echinacea purpurea D1, 0.442g each.
I stand corrected! This is getting even more bizarre. What's going on at Cochrane?
Homeopathy is the biggest scam out of all the pseudosciences. How can people buy into that garbage?
I've done meta-analyses before and it is actually (and really annoyingly) very common for Europeans (particularly the Germans) to refer to herbal medications as being 'homeopathic'. It is something to do with them having a 'homeopathic' formulary which is filled with herbal medicines. So I can see why you'd make the mistake - I nearly have (I was going to include the 'homeopathic' arm as placebo, heh, but realised it was actually chocker with active ingredients).
Ah. OK.
On that note, I met someone at a conference once who said that he'd been planning to run a very long clinical trial, and needed something like 10,000 placebos, and the cheapest he found were the sugar pills used by homeopaths. Before the homeopathic remedies are added. They're just about the only mass-produced sugar pills, if you think about it...
As a medical doctor and homeopath with many successful years of practice I can state unequivocally, homeopathy works.
But of course, that is not what you are interested in. You are interested only in 'scientific proof'.
Well, all I can say is this: I have treated thousands of people successfully using homeopathy alone. Attacking homeopathy is unethical, as so many benefit from it (this fact is beyond doubt: why are there so many successful homeopaths out there?? are they all quacks? Come on people, wake up!).
I was once a sceptic too. But I have seen for myself how homeopathy can change lives.
Go and take a long look at yourselves in the mirror today: do you really want to rob humanity of something so valuable?
But then, I guess, if you are not an experienced practitioner dealing with life and death situations every day you will lack compassion. Or am I wrong?
I have to say that if all anyone is going to rely on to prove the efficacy of homeopathy is modern scientific evidence, you'll be waiting a long time for the studies. After all, how much money can pharmaceutical companies make on alternative medicines that are already being created without their involvement?
Why does anyone need to be so negative about hopeful alternatives (or complements) to modern, side-effect ridden, drugs?
I was always a skeptic of homeopathy, even after having studied it at naturopathy school. But! After suffering serious pregnancy-related psychiatric symptoms and, at the suggestion of a therapist, receiving specialized homeopathic treatment from a medical practitioner who chose to switch from conventional psychiatric drugs to homeopathic remedies, and after realizing a complete recovery from the symptoms within a few days, I can honestly say my acceptance of the medicine went from skepticism to curious astonishment. I think it is irresponsible to suggest homeopathy doesn't work because, for example, a homeopathic cream or generalized homeopathic remedy someone bought off a store shelf didn't seem to work. My understanding is that in order to be effective, homeopathy is way more specific to the individual being treated than what can be shown in a modern scientific laboratory - it requires a thorough understanding of the patient's entire constitution before a suitable remedy can be chosen.
I recommend anyone who is struggling with a health issue and doesn't want to use modern drugs (or is looking for a complementary treatment to medication) to consult with a qualified homeopathic doctor, take the prescription and then decide if you believe it works or not.
Well done Neuroskeptic - although I am very much pro Homeoopathy, I enjoyed this piece and am pleased that you took the trouble to contact the authors on the issue of the Calendula. Being a student of classical Homeopathy, there have been enormous disputes within Homeopathy regarding the infinitesimal doesages and over other issues. While knocking yourself over journal articles why not read some books on real Homeopathy by MD's who practiced it for decades? Try Dr. Dorothy Sheperd or Dr. M. Blackie or, if you dare, Vitoulkas.
I’ve just Had a Phone call from My mother
She suffers from depression and I told her to get some Magnesium Citrate pills so she went to her pharmacist quack and he told her that that would not work because it is a trace element!? (you mean a small amount lol) But then he told her to buy some Homeopathy medicine! I said er, OK
So he doesn’t believe you need Magnesium but will sell you diluted water!
She then went on to Acupuncher! she said that it worked for her, I told her that they were both bollocks!
She hung up the phone.
So this is the rub I have MS (I’m also a 7th degree black belt) if an acupuncherist or Homeopathy ist or what ever, can cure me or even relieve say my fatigue, I will have a go if it doesn’t not work I will go around and kick their head in! For wasting my time, that is a good incentive, and if they believe it does work they will take the risk! To prove that crap works
yours Trevor Robinson
hi
Hi.
Nothing worse than an educated moron....you don't know squat about homeopathy...I've healed hundreds of ailments for years successfully w/homeopathics...and you who kow nothing about it are going to tell us it doesn't work....what an egotistical, moronic buffoon! Because you went to college doesn't mean you know everything pal... Homeopathy works at a vibrational level...look up Nicklo Tesla...he talked about the power of vibrational energy...and he was a genius that would you look like a mental gnat....so quit the commentary on that which you no nothing!
"Nothing worse than an educated moron."
I think an uneducated moron is worse, actually.
I really like this site, it's so important to know more about this topic, keep it up and of course every time I have time I'll love to check out again
My 2 cents :
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-16/mumbai/28261112_1_iit-scientists-sweet-white-pills-work-homeopathy-paper
I'm just an amateur. I was under the impression that metastudies are vulnerable to problems in methodology just as easily as original trials are, and that one source of those methodological errors was non-systematic collection of studies to examine.
Throwing in a study because it is recommended by an expert in the field sounds like the height of non-systematic selection to me. I think it is obvious how using this method to select sources for your metastudy will bias your metastudy.
This seems to me a much more serious problem than anything having to do with actual ingredients and homeopathy. Am I somehow mistaken?
Post a Comment