Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?

No, no, no, no. Please do not spend your precious money on homeopathy. It has no mainstream scientific evidence supporting it at all and it has never passed a legitimate double bind trial. The only true statement for it is that it has no side effects. Sorry to be a grinch, but things should not be sold as remedies without evidence being presented, and given that homeopathy violates the fundamental principles of chemistry, some very strong evidence would be needed for it.

Boy, you guys go for the jugulars. Poor Steve. He might need stitches after those comments. Apt name Genghis. Don't most, if not all medicines come from plants/plant extracts? Surely making a blanket statement that homeopathy is rubbish is not wholly true. I'm not a great fan myself, but surely some of their remedies do have actual benefits.

What about all the folks who say that they have benefited? Maybe some of you homeopathy believers can comment on this.

I don't want to sound biased, as I really don't know anything about homeopathy aside from what I've just read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy and the article Mandy has just provided, but if homeopathy really is "...no more effective than a placebo" I can't help wondering if the Placebo Effect has been known to wield more power under certain conditions than it has previously been given credit for.

For example, if you give 50% of a test population a placebo, often positive effects are seen because of potential psychological effects of the patients THINKING they've been treated.

So to take that concept one step further, it seems to me that homeopathy has a somewhat cult following comprising individuals who have found cause for genuine belief that the treatments will actually work. So under standard placebo conditions where perhaps the patients are aware that they might not have been given the real drug, in the case of homeopathy it seems more likely that the average patient could be found far deeper within the 'believer' camp, and thus produce a slightly more positively skewed 'placebo effect'.

I really have no intention of discrediting homeopathy, largely because I'm known to buy into a few equally outrageous concepts of a medical/biological nature. I'm also accutely aware how far short documented science can fall of actual truth, even when unprecedented quantities of test data seem to be available.

I chose statins just because they're a hot potato at the moment and Mr Phillips mentioned the lack of side effects from homeopathy.

I'm not sure you understand what homeopathy is. you say:

'Don't most, if not all medicines come from plants/plant extracts?

Many do, but I fail to see what relevance that has to homeopathy, since homeopathic remedies, whatever they may be called, don't actually contain any plant extracts (or anything else - they are water).

'Surely making a blanket statement that homeopathy is rubbish is not wholly true. I'm not a great fan myself, but surely some of their remedies do have actual benefits'

Do they? Then why do homeopaths refuse to test their remedies in proper clinical trials?

Torquemade is absolutely right - it is nothing short of criminal that NHS funding is squandered on homeopathy when patients elsewhere are being denied treatment that has been proven to work.

And as for the suggestion in the original article that homeopathy can be used to treat 'shock' - I suspect the author hasn't got a clue what the term actually means, and the assertion is laughable to anyone who does.

I entirely agree - these cases are quite different in almost every way, except that they are all called into question - a fact which is, in and of itself, not the real topic of discussion.

With regard specifically to statins, as a topic controversy, it's fair, I think, to add that the nature of the controversy is actually quite the reverse, in that it's the minority who call them into question.

There is, indeed, overwhelming evidence showing that statins are the single greatest tool we have for lowering cholesterol, and it's true to say that it does so through a very specifically designed process with a scientifically understood, chemical basis.

However, the vague similarity between this case and that of homeopathy is that a growing group, a minority at present, granted, have noticed that the benefit derived from the use of statins is utterly overwhelmed by the cost [to the NHS]. The all but insignificant positive effect they have on heart disease is grounds on which to stop paying Fortune 500 drug companies for a drug which, having reduced serum cholesterol (considered one of the most serious risk factors for coronary events) by as much at 60%, the return measured in - for example - average days added to life or number of lives saved over a control group, is about as laughable AND effective as, perhaps, a good old homeopathic heart attack remedy.

So yes, statins by comparison are considered to be a solid medical tool for scientific reasons (bad science aside, if that's even fair), and the general concensus is that they are the best weapon in the fight against CHD. But unfortunately that doesn't stop drug companies bleeding the NHS dry for almost-ineffective pills on which even the young are encouraged to LIVE (the 'oversell' angle James raised is also a concern), all the while doing their level best to convince the punters that there aren't really any side-effects and if they've got a bad memory or muscle pain its because they're old, or otherwise unhealthy, and that they should probably eat better and exercise - something that would likely produce a significantly larger benefit than the pills themselves.

So, in general agreement with James, statins might be a luke-warm potato, for a tiny minority of well-read individuals, but that's about the only similarity between these cases.

Just a disclaimer, in case there is a misunderstanding: correct me if I'm wrong - I might well have missed something - but I don't believe anyone has suggested here that homeopathy might be used to treat cardiovascular disease, and I haven't even implied it in my previous comment(s) - at least not intentionally.

Statins do have side effects - like ALL effective medications. Serious side effects are rare. Yes they can cause muscle pains in some patients this stopped on ceasing the drug. Trying alternative statins is often successful due to different metabolic pathways.

"Bleeding the NHS dry" - simvastatin costs £1.32 per month.

I would rather we spent NHS money on statins than homeopathy

On a lighter note watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

That video is very funny! Good link.

"...simvastatin costs £1.32 per month."

Ah, that surprises me. I was led to believe they commanded a significantly higher price, at least to punters.

I share Mandy's sentiment, though. We've done quite a bit of research into heart disease, cholesterol and statins and it would be of great interest to us to have someone on the other side to bounce intelligent banter off, in an effort to put the debate to bed. If we could turn it into an article(s) on the subject that'd be great, but perhaps you'd be open to some offline discussion of my research, with a suitably open mind, such that we might be able to remove the heat from the debate and see about drawing some kind of conclusion. I remain totally open minded about all of this, but it seems I've found legitimate information that is often laughed at for reasons I have yet to ascertain.

In the interests of returning to the original topic, homeopathy, I suggest that we drop statins altogether here and if Iain Phillips or anyone else with an interest in statins or heart disease would be open to some strictly civilised, purely educational sharing/debate on the topic, please make independent contact using the form on the contact page.

Coming back to topic: Steve - is it possible you could get Tim to chime in here, before the talk, to boost the other side of the debate? Do we know of any other homeopaths in/around Wincanton who might fight their corner?

I think we should all have an open mind on this - having had experience of both the NHS homoepathic hospital in Bristol and private naturalist treatments for a close relative. Treatments certainly improved and helped a chronic condition for a while - but thereafter the condition worsened .... I certainly think any form of homeopathy should be taken on the guidance of a practitioner.

Quite. I do wish Mr MacCaw would name even a single such piece of peer-reviewed journal evidence instead of giving a myriad of links and assertions about how effective it is.

Its simple, if homeopathy works, hold it up to the standards used to judge any theory - test it via experiment, in this case a double blind trial. This is what every real drug has to go through.

I wonder why the homeopathic organisations, which stand to benefit so enormously from such a project if it worked, don't do it?

Shame on you for offering a first aid course which proposes using water to cure ailments. I really hope no one is taken in by this, but I know people are, and will continue to be.

As for the insinuation that the anti-homeopathy lobby is full of drug company brainwashed 'useful idiots': I am a science student who spends considerable time studying pharmacology, and this includes performing experiments to test the knowledge I gain. You do not appear to have any scientific education, and judging by your claim to be able to treat shock (a medical emergency) with water, it is not at all safe for you to be claiming to be a healer. Its like trying to cure a heart attack with water, shock really is that serious. My view is that you probably didn't know what shock was, since its such a shocking claim to make. Have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory)

Bob's right. I know diddly about Homeopathy. Hang I have trouble spelling it. So I shouldn't really discuss what I don't know. That said I came across the following link that infers that the NHS have trials underway checking out homeopathy remedies. At least the NHS seems to be doing something about it.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/clinical-trial.aspx

try here

[With advance apologies for the length of this comment which is necessitated by the need to encourage the Phillipses to not make untrue assertions and to learn to integrate their approach to medical healthcare with those of other historically effective therapies]

Re Phillips Junior’s remarks about Shock, he will have to learn to speak the language of the layman as homeopaths do and not hijack the definition for a specific medical (circulatory) emergency. Mental/emotional and/or physical shock to the mind or parts of the body is well understood by most patients, and, Yes, it has been effectively treated by homeopathic doctors and laymen/women since long before he was born and giving us the benefit of his years of learning.

The sneer about water treatment: just reveals that he hasn’t read the information in the links supplied with my first comment (and there are more, informative links below in Dr Milgrom’s papers)

Show us the RCTs? Ah yes, the next default question out of the British Medical Association’s Handbook on handling homeopaths and how to sow misinformation and create confusion! Well I suppose for a few seconds it may do that, while diverting attention from a little admission which Dr Phillips volunteered, “Statins do have side effects - like ALL effective medications”. What a great heading for some separate information sharing one day in the Wincanton Window – “ALL effective (conventional) medications have side effects”. Doubtless part of the reason that over 400 UK doctors have added homeopathy to their expertise.


But, to address their RCT question, perhaps the Phillipses haven’t googled long enough to come across the site http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org?
They will find all their questions there, and enough answers to set them on the path to enlightenment under FREQUENT FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY… AND THE TRUTH.
Thereafter it is up to them. An open mind is required, an acceptance that science, as they think they may know it, is not static, and an ability to interrogate the internet (and not just for the answers that will fit the conventional medical paradigm they are clinging to as an alcoholic clings to his bottle).

Here it is on RCTs.
“The RCT is the most popular method used by pharmaceutical companies to bring a new drug to the marketplace. However, it is not the best scientific method for researching whole-systems modalities such as homeopathy. A whole-systems approach recognizes that the human body and mind are dynamic and complex, with each part influencing the other and acting together. Therefore, one part or system of the body cannot be studied in isolation without looking at the effect on the whole person. Scientists find the RCT methodology is too restrictive when studying a whole-system methodology, and advocate other more appropriate research paradigms.
Many scientists and health practitioners question the usefulness of RCT studies even in standard drug testing. They prefer “real world” or “clinical outcome” studies that are more applicable to day-to-day practice instead of strictly-controlled drug trials. Health practitioners and the US Department of Health and Human Services are calling for “comparative effectiveness” research. These are studies that compare the usefulness of various treatments and provide more practical information about their use for patients and practitioners. “Clinical outcome,” “comparative effectiveness” and “systems-based” studies are types of research that are better suited for investigating the healing ability of the body and the effect of homeopathic treatment.
Having said all that, homeopathy has been shown to be effective in plenty of RCTs.”

If the Phillips family (representing all of Wincanton’s doctors?) still want to look at some RCTs, they should start at http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/ [Between 1950 and 2009, 142 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy have been reported. This represents research in 74 different medical conditions. Of these 142 trials, 63 were positive, 11 negative and 68 non-conclusive. A number of systematic reviews have evaluated the homeopathic research literature. Non-randomised, non-controlled clinical outcomes studies make a useful contribution to the evidence base].

Continuing now with the criticism of RCTs : “The assumption is often incorrectly made that the double blind RCT (DBRCT) is the best research tool with which to establish the evidence base of any therapy. However, deconstructing the DBRCT’s rationale reveals that it imposes in any therapeutic procedure an implicit and simplistic division of therapy from context. This turns out to be nothing more than an arithmetic convenience that allows the measurements made, statistics gathered, and inferences drawn from a trial ultimately to have significance within a deterministic framework. It has been demonstrated and explained (by analogy with quantum theory’s notion of wave-function collapse during observation) that this separation can seriously interfere with homeopathy/complementary medicine’s therapeutic effects.

What tends to be forgotten by those who promote an overzealous adherence to DBRCT as the “gold standard” for testing any therapy’s efficacy is that no therapeutic modality, conventional medicine included, is ever practised in real life according to the DBRCT’s procedural separation of therapy and context. As a result, the “evidence-based” (a misnomer) movement’s hold on the health sciences is now being challenged (even from within conventional medicine), for its exclusion of alternative therapy discourses.”

For the last two paragraphs I am indebted to Dr Lionel Milgrom, who has over 30 years experience in chemistry (BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC). In his evidence to the (biased) HoC Science and Technology Committee at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45we05.htm he quotes Sir Michael Rawlins (Chair of NICE and no supporter of homeopathy/CAM) who in his Harveian Oration 2009, [15] warned:
"RCTs, long regarded as the 'gold standard' of evidence, have been put on an undeserved pedestal. Their appearance at the top of hierarchies of evidence is inappropriate; and hierarchies are illusory tools for assessing evidence. They should be replaced by a diversity of approaches that involve analysing the totality of the evidence base."


The many other points covered in Dr Milgrom’s full paper should give the Phillipses cause for reflection. And, as an aside, lest either gets left behind by current scientific progress on the unique properties of succussed water, they would benefit by reading Dr Milgrom’s other paper: Homeopathy and the New Fundamentalism, and the sources to which he refers in it, which can be downloaded at http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/homeopathy-and-the-new


This RCT section wouldn’t be complete – from my point of view - without pointing the Phillipses to an outcomes study conducted in 2005 in Germany entitled:
Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders by De Witt et al.

It can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036164 and other sites. Its team included members of the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, 10098 Berlin, Germany, and the Institute for Statistics and Econometrics, Economics, University of Hamburg.

The study using 493 patients, children and adults, evaluated the effectiveness, and cost, of homeopathy versus conventional medical treatment in routine care of selected chronic disorders.

If conventional medical treatment had “won” in this study, despite the caveats the team highlights regarding its design, I suspect this triumph would be being trumpeted from the rooftops by conventional medicine’s bigwigs. But the result was the other way round! Patients seeking homeopathic treatment had a (statistically significant) better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment (for the chronic disorders selected).

It is a testimony, I believe, to the relative humility of most homeopaths compared to the strident aggressiveness of many conventional doctors, and their camp followers, who persist in trying to stamp out homeopathy and other complementary therapies with the goal of a complete monopoly over UK healthcare, that, with study results like this, we simply carry on in consultations and First Aid courses helping the public to learn how to treat and heal themselves effectively, safely, and cheaply with no side effects, without banging our own drum unduly. If we do get strident occasionally, it is purely as a reaction to the ludicrous statements coming from the conventional medicine camp, and their (not very) hidden agenda.