46
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 52:
Line 52: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→The skeptical view of homeopathy
'Homeopathy - a sceptical view' [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A954740 BBC]
'Homeopathy - a sceptical view' [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A954740 BBC]
BBC News, 25 October 2006 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6085242.stm 25 October 2006]</ref>
BBC News, 25 October 2006 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6085242.stm 25 October 2006]</ref>
== Scientific testing of remedies==
:''It is not a matter of theory or belief or opinion … Homoeopathy must rest upon facts'' (James Tyler Kent)
In the USA, homeopathic remedies are, like all health-care products, regulated by the [[Food and Drug Administration]], but unlike conventional medicines, they need not be approved by the FDA before sale, nor do they need to be proved either safe or effective, nor to be labeled with an expiry date, or undergo finished product testing. Unlike conventional medicines, homeopathic remedies do not have to identify their active ingredients as they have few or no active ingredients.
As homeopathic remedies at potencies higher than about D23 (10-23) contain no detectable ingredients apart from the diluent (water, alcohol or sugar), there is no known basis for these preparations having medicinal action. A recent review concluded that some experimental research has offered hints that some substances diluted and succussed beyond Avogadro’s number might be biologically active but overall, independently reproducible models have found no consistent effects. Many patients report benefits from some homeopathic remedies<ref>An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys [http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/documents/Positivehomeopathy.PDF The European Network of Homeopathy Researchers April 2005]</ref>, but scientists usually attribute these to the Placebo Effect, the regression fallacy and/or the Forer effect.<ref>American Council on Science and Health,'[http://www.acsh.org/search/txtQuickSearch.homeopathy/health_result.asp The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy]'</ref>
There is wide agreement that evidence based medicine is the best way to assess the efficacy and safety of health-care practices. Ideally, a drug should be tested in large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials, to test whether it has an effect that is better than either a placebo or a different treatment. Some trials of homeopathy have indicated that some remedies might be more efficacious than placebos, but many are technically flawed, or involve samples too small to draw firm conclusions. Systematic reviews byThe Cochrane Collaboration found insufficient evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma, dementia, or induction of labor. They also found no evidence that homeopathic treatment prevents influenza, but reported some evidence that it appears to shorten the duration of the disease. Overall, systematic reviews have found no clear evidence of the efficacy of homeopathic remedies.<ref>'[http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7258/442 Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened]' Editorial (2000) BMJ 321:442-445
Jonas WB et al (2003). "A critical overview of homeopathy". Ann Intern Med 138: 393-9.[http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf]
Jonas WB et al (2001). "A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials". BMC Complement Altern Med 1: 12. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11801202 PMID 11801202]
The American Council on Science and Health [http://www.acsh.org/search/txtQuickSearch.homeopathy/health_result.asp The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy]</ref>
In 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials. The outcome suggested that the clinical effects of homeopathic remedies might all be placebo effects. The Lancet study is notable as a 'global' meta-analysis of homeopathy, not an analysis of particular remedies, i.e. it tested the hypothesis that all of the reported effects of homeopathic remedies are placebo effects. If so, then reports of positive effects reflect publication bias (the tendency to publish results when they show a positive effect but not when they are negative), and the magnitude of such effects should diminish with sample size and study quality. They analysed an equal number of conventional medicine trials similarly; these showed a real effect of treatment, in that the size of the reported effect was independent of sample size, but the trials of homeopathy remedies did not. The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective, but is consistent with the interpretation that all reported effects are placebo effects. The Lancet article was accompanied by an editorial entitled 'The end of homeopathy' which argued that doctors should recognise the absence of real curative powers in homeopathic medicine. The Lancet subsequently published a selection of critical correspondence.<ref>The Lancet study
Shang A et al (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366: 726-32. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16125589 PMID 16125589]
Fisher P (2006) Homeopathy and The Lancet [http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/1/145 eCAM 3:145-47]
Jobst KA (2005). "Homeopathy, Hahnemann, and the Lancet 250 years on: a case of the emperor's new clothes?". J Alt Comp Med 11: 751-54.[http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/acm/11/5]
'As a fourth study says it's no better than a placebo, is this the end for homeopathy?' [http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1556831,00.html The Guardian, Aug 26 2005]</ref>
== References ==
== References ==
<references />
<references />
[[category:medicine]]
[[category:medicine]]