The End Of Homeopathy?
Dr Ben Goldacre hits the jackpot, moving from a column on Saturday's Guardian to a cover story in Friday's Guardian. It's a very balanced and reasoned argument against homoeopathy for people who don't understand what a fair trial is, how placebo works, or just how stupid homoeopaths sound when they try and explain it. It's down to permeated nano-particles, apparently.
I recommend reading the article to anyone who thinks that homoeopathy is better than placebo or agrees that homoeopathy has a place in treating AIDS and malaria. Or people like me, who like watching homoeopathy get slapped down. For the medical geeks out there, there is the companion article in the Lancet too.
Posted by Julian at Fri Nov 16 09:44:07 2007:
Well, one of the best working malaria cures is based on the old chinese homoepathic cure for it.
20 years ago no one believed in the chinese medicine and now the west keeps on adapting it's cures.
Posted by jani monoses at Fri Nov 16 10:03:49 2007:
20 years ago no one believed in the chinese medicine and now the west keeps on adapting it's cures.
Having seen homeopathic treatment work first hand I would not be so quick to dismiss it. Would it work for any illness? No. Do I understand how it works? Nope, but I don't fully understand how regular drugs work either. Most docs don't fully understand themselves (trial and error, not sure about long term effects etc.)
Both traditional and modern medicine have their place IMHO, and both have their share of skilled and clueless practitioners.
Posted by Ross at Fri Nov 16 10:07:44 2007:
Both traditional and modern medicine have their place IMHO, and both have their share of skilled and clueless practitioners.
Julian: the entire point about homoeopathy is that there is none of the original ingredient in the remedy. Contrast that to the huge amount of modern medicine which is derived from traditional remedies, after being analysed, purified and going through medical trials.
Jani: From your comment, I see that you didn't read the article or understand the scientific method. You don't understand how medicine works, but luckily doctors do. Homoeopaths don't understand and can't explain how homoeopathy works, and in medicial trials it is no better than placebo.
Posted by David Mills at Fri Nov 16 10:19:53 2007:
Jani: From your comment, I see that you didn't read the article or understand the scientific method. You don't understand how medicine works, but luckily doctors do. Homoeopaths don't understand and can't explain how homoeopathy works, and in medicial trials it is no better than placebo.
The point is that homoeopathy is used to describe a lot of things in the media.
This includes traditional remedies which have been proven useful, and also mineral water.
The former should be recognised as the source for much of what modern medicine has to offer, the later should be humiliated on the town square.
BUT
They should never be confused, it's degrading to one, and gives the other support it doesn't deserve.
Don't confuse traditional medicine and homoeopathy!
Posted by MJ Ray at Fri Nov 16 10:21:18 2007:
This includes traditional remedies which have been proven useful, and also mineral water.
The former should be recognised as the source for much of what modern medicine has to offer, the later should be humiliated on the town square.
BUT
They should never be confused, it's degrading to one, and gives the other support it doesn't deserve.
Don't confuse traditional medicine and homoeopathy!
The Guardian piece seems to criticise homeopathy for making evidence-free claims while making similar evidence-free claims about it... physician, heal thyself! That sort of stupidity is part of why I don't often buy that paper any more.
Also, whatever I think of his main point, the author's use of statistical terms is pretty slack, which is worrying - neither article has a statistician co-author. In my limited experience, I've already seen too many medics and biologists mislead themselves with misunderstood statistics. I'm not sure that is happening here, but I'm not sure this article adds anything to current knowledge besides some heat. I'm disappointed you linked it - this blog is usually better than that. ;-)
Posted by Jan at Fri Nov 16 10:40:57 2007:
Also, whatever I think of his main point, the author's use of statistical terms is pretty slack, which is worrying - neither article has a statistician co-author. In my limited experience, I've already seen too many medics and biologists mislead themselves with misunderstood statistics. I'm not sure that is happening here, but I'm not sure this article adds anything to current knowledge besides some heat. I'm disappointed you linked it - this blog is usually better than that. ;-)
See also the article <a href=http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=50>Sloppy Thinking about Homeopathy from The Guardian</a> from Steven Novella.
Posted by Ross at Fri Nov 16 11:00:09 2007:
Jan: thats a good analysis of her article. There was another one I saw which was less detailed, preferring to take the piss.
Posted by Daniel Elstner at Fri Nov 16 15:16:35 2007:
Homeopathy is pretty big in Germany, too. The prevalent attitude seems to be "it can't hurt, so why shouldn't I give it a try"? Makes sense -- at first. Well, except for the damage done to your wallet, and the cultural implications of promoting magical thinking in modern societies.
And of course I could easily come up with a bunch of made-up arcane prescriptions and sell them on the same grounds. It saddens me that public opinion seems to be in favor of the current double standard with treatments: So called "alternative remedies" have to undergo much less stringent tests than the pills manufactured by Evil Pharma, Inc. Even though the risks can be higher due to the much lower accuracy of dosages.
Ross, thanks for your voice of reason on the loony intarwebs.
Posted by Eric at Fri Nov 16 15:54:49 2007:
And of course I could easily come up with a bunch of made-up arcane prescriptions and sell them on the same grounds. It saddens me that public opinion seems to be in favor of the current double standard with treatments: So called "alternative remedies" have to undergo much less stringent tests than the pills manufactured by Evil Pharma, Inc. Even though the risks can be higher due to the much lower accuracy of dosages.
Ross, thanks for your voice of reason on the loony intarwebs.
Check this out for a very good read on homeopathy and pseudoscience, from the ubernerds over at Ars Technica.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars
Posted by Jaime at Sat Nov 17 00:30:07 2007:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars
