http://drkaplanarticles.blogspot.com...at-humble.html



<http://drkaplanarticles.blogspot.com/2008/09/let-critics-of-homeopathy-eat-humble.html>Let
critics of homeopathy eat humble pie

by Brian Kaplan, MD
Thursday, September 11, 2008

I promised to use a pie to put everything into
perspective and here it is - a pie baked by the
highly reputable British Medical Journal’s Handbook of Clinical Evidence.

The Background: Prof. Edzard Ernst and others
have repeatedly attacked homeopathy on the basis
that there is no evidence to suggest that it
works. Ernst even went as far as to claim that
homeopaths were lying to their patients – a claim
to which I took the strongest possible objection:
I challenged him to a duel albeit with merely words as weapons.

In the ongoing debate there is something that
never seems to be sufficiently discussed. When
Ernst and company viciously attack homeopathy for
not being evidence-based, the obvious implication
is that orthodox, conventional medicine is indeed
based on reliable evidence. There is just one
little problem with this implication: It is
simply not true. And here is
<http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp>the
pie that proves this. Now please know that this
is not a pie baked in my kitchen. The source of
this pie is the British Medical Journal of
Clinical Evidence, as respectable source of
information on scientific medicine as can be
found on the planet. Okay, eat, swallow, digest
and assimilate this pie and then we will discuss.
<http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp>This
pie represents the proven effectiveness of modern
medical interventions or treatments.


Now let’s take a deep breath, put aside all
prejudices, sit back and look at the pie again and agree on 3 facts:

1. A mere 15% of medical interventions are proven
to be beneficial – ie. evidence based. I suspect
that’s a lot less than you thought and hardly
powerful ammunition for people like Ernst and his
henchmen to use against homeopathy and
alternative medicine. 15% that’s fifteen per cent.

2. 21% of interventions are ‘likely to be
beneficial’. That means they are likely to help
but there is no hard evidence to prove this.
Hmmm, that reminds me of the many thousands of
patients who say they have been helped by visits
to homeopathic hospitals in England.

3. We simply don’t know if 47% of interventions
are of any use at all! And we are talking about
drugs and surgery here – not eating an apple a
day or doing 20 minutes meditation twice a day or
taking a few pills that homeopathy’s detractors describe as pure placebo.
And side effects obviously occur more frequently
with orthodox drugs than they do with homeopathic
medicines – a fact Ernst and co. cannot deny
since they think homeopathic remedies simply
cannot have any effect independent of a placebo response!

So what does this say about all the attacks on
homeopathy for not being evidence based and on
homeopaths for lying to their patients. Now I’m
going to make some strong statements here because
I believe that homeopathy’s detractors have got
away with murder and this really does need to be redressed:

Ernst accused homeopaths of lying ( interview in
The New Scientist on the 28th April 2008) to
their patients because of lack of evidence that
homeopathy works. Yet only 15% of orthodox
interventions are definitely evidence based. Did
he accuse orthodox doctors of lying to their
patients about 85% of their treatments? Did he
allow the public to assume that just about all of
orthodox medicine is evidence based? Did he use
evidence based medicine as a club to bash
homeopathy exclusively when only 15 (sic) % of
orthodox interventions are definitely evidence
based. Is this unequivocally honest? Is this what
we expect from a Professor of Complementary
Medicine? Does this reek of bias against
homeopathy? Is this in the public interest?

1. If most of medicine is not evidence based and
many drugs (by their manufacturers’ admission)
are capable of causing side effects, this
actually means that most of orthodox medicine not
only lacks evidence of its efficacy but actually
can do harm. And certainly more harm than
homeopathy! I find this quite stunning because it
means that doctors like Ernst should be telling
their patients: ‘Orthodox medicine is superior to
homeopathy because homeopathy is not evidence
based and at least 15 (fifteen!)% of conventional
medicine is! And before you make your choice let
me warn you that side effects are much more
common with orthodox drugs!’ Do they do this? Do
politicians ever admit mistakes? Does anybody actually say ‘Fair cop guv’?

2. Homeopathic doctors do use orthodox medicines
on occasion, usually when there is an excellent
indication for their use in a specific clinical
condition ie. strong evidence. Could this mean
that homeopathic doctors tend mainly to use the
orthodox interventions that comprise the 15% of
the pie that represents evidence based medicine?

So is it just possible that homeopathic doctors
use only the best 15% of orthodox medicine and
homeopathy for everything else? You know
something – this could really be close to the
truth. I don’t know of a homeopathic doctor who
wouldn’t treat syphilis with penicillin or
appendicitis with surgery. We do use orthodox
medicine when it really does work. And we do
consider orthodox medicines which may be of
benefit – when homeopathy doesn’t do the trick.
What we don’t do is use medicines that could do a
lot of harm when there is no evidence for their
use. This we leave to the huge majority of
orthodox doctors some of whom (such as Ernst,
Baum and co.) have the audacity to criticise us!

I suggest therefore that homeopathic doctors that
are respectful of the best of orthodox medicine
might just be the most efficient users of
evidence based medicine. This may be true simply
because orthodox doctors feel obliged to use
sectors of the pie (ie 85% of it) that are not
evidence based simply because they feel that they
must try something. Homeopathic doctors however
can use their homeopathic remedies safely instead
of using drugs and surgery in situations where
their efficacy has not been proved and even
carries the risk of doing harm. So exactly who do
the general public need protection from?

Needless to say, the attacks on homeopathy will
continue. I suggest to all defenders of
homeopathy that citing the pie above is the best
possible defence of our art. Show it to our
detractors, let them taste it and if they still
refuse to eat humble pie – well then be courteous
and only throw it into their faces very, very gently.

Source of the pie: BMJ Clinical Evidence
Handbook, Summer 2007, Figure 1, page 4
http://www.clinicalevidence.com/cewe.../knowledge.jsp
Posted by Brian Kaplan, MD at
<http://drkaplanarticles.blogspot.com/2008/09/let-critics-of-homeopathy-eat-humble.html>12:21
PM<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10460964&postID=7047467808860828448>


Note from Sheri - when he talks about homeopathic
doctors, he is talking about MD's who are homeopaths

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine
Dangers; Childhood Diseases - next classes start in September

Hi Sherry

Your post would be a valuable contribution to this thread:

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?


Can you post again there?

Regards
Sim

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.