Well, think about that.


A bad trial will not have some of the following essential features:

- appropriate placebo.
The placebo must account for all effects other than that due solely to the treatment. It must look, smell and taste the same and come in identical containers.
- random allocation (of patients to treatment and placebo groups).
This is to ensure that the patients in each group is identical with respect to all possible confounding factors such as age, sex, state of health, degree of illness etc.
- double-blinding (of patients and practitioners).
Neither the patient nor the practitioner must kow whether the patient is receiving placebo or remedy. The person who codes the bottles must have no contact with either patients or practitioners.

I think cross-over trials are not appropriate for homoeopathy for reasons stated in other posts.

So, the better the trial, the smaller the effect, because you are eliminating all other possible causes of the patient feeling better apart from the effect of the remedy.


What do you think?

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
> Without any *paper* even? And on millions of computers at once? What a
> laugh! Must be that "placebo effect" I read about...
>
> Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this "skeptic" thing... :-D

Yep - they tried to do a double blind crossover test on the placebo
email in thin air thing (even though they already knew from the Wright
brothers that thin air is just that) - but could not find enough blind
doubles matches using cross over bras.....

Have a great day!!!
....Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

It is possible to do a DBRCT of homoeopathy.
It is also quite simple:

Let the homoeopathic patient do whatever he usually does when he attends his homoeopathic practitioner.
Let the homoeopathic practitioner do whatever he usually does when he attends to his homoeopathic patient.
The only thing that will be different is in the dispensing of the remedy:
- The homoeopathic pharmacist must make up both the remedy prescribed by the homoeopath and an appropriate placebo.
- A Selector, must randomly select between the remedy and placebo and pack it in a sealed container ready for dispensing.
- The Selector must have no contact at any time with the homoeopathic pharmacist, practitioner, or patient.
- The homoeopathic pharmacist then dispenses whatever has been randomly selected and pre-packaged.

In such a trial, there is no interference at all between the homoeopathic patient and the homoeopathic practitioner.


Ideally, neither the homoeopathic pratitioner, not the homoeopathic patient would know that they are even part of a trial. In other words, only the homoeopathic pharmacist and the Selector would be recruited into the trial. However this would be inappropriate for ethical reasons


There is no credit, though, if the trial is not a DBRCT

Yes I think that would work. Nobody has ever constructed a trial with all that diligence and probably never will. The skeptics wouldn't accept it anyway.

Yes, it probably requires a little fine-tuning, but I think it would work.

It's quite a simple trial and there is no reason why it, or something like it, could not be done. All it requires, in addition to what normally happens anyway, is the mediator making up a placebo, randomly selecting between the remedy amd placebo, and packaging it in a stgandard container.

If it was clear that the Mediator was truely independent and had no contact at any time with the homoeopathic pharmacist, practitioner, or patient, everyone would have to accept the result. Anyone who does not accept the result would have to show why.

There are some provisos, though, that are part of any trial:
- there must be a minimum of 50 patients in each group.
- the result must be replicated.
This is to rule out a chance result.

http://www.newstarget.com/scientific_fraud.html


The above link has excellent articles on loads of scientific fraud cases.


Here's one of the latest - http://www.newstarget.com/022485.html
Merck engaged in blatant scientific fraud with Vytorin Cholesterol study




Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
info not found on mainstream websites!
www.homoeopathyclassical.com
Samuel Hahmenmann's teachings

www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/collections/
See my pictures - ENJOY!

You may want to check out this blog, Christine, which also covers this in detail and provides plenty of links showing that this is a discussion that medical blogs have been having for some time.
Scientific Misconduct Blog

How, exactly, is this relevant to this thread which is titled "Proof of homeopathy"

I'm just a lay homeopath and this is a difficult subject, but just in case
you don't get another answer:

HOMEOPATHIC (whether or not a treatment is homeopathic) depends first of all
on the principle Dr. Hahnemann elaborated (though did not discover) of LIKE
CURES LIKE, i.e., the symptoms of the patient and the symptoms that can be
caused by the remedy being identical. The symptoms of the remedy are drawn
from what we call "provings" and/or from known cases of poisonings, say with
Nux vomica (poison nut, I believe the common name is--or strychnine, maybe
is the chemical).

A second principle is the MINIMUM DOSE. In the 6th edition of the Organon (a
must-read for anyone seriously interested in homeopathy, preferably for the
first time in a more approachable translation such as Kunzli et al.), Dr.
Hahnemann stated that he had found that with the VERY dilute and very much
succussed potency LM, the remedy, given in water and so even further diluted
on dosing, could be repeated without impeding the progress of the
patient--but NOT every day, NOT by rote. Only repetition when indicated by
the patient's reactions to that remedy. In the 5th edition of the Organon,
Dr. Hahnemann describes doing the same thing with a very dilute solution of
a regular "c" potency, the so-called "watery dose".

To learn more about this or correct anything I have inadvertently
mis-stated, see Dr. Little's site (Simillimum.com)on LMs and much more or
www.drluc.com on the "watery dose" among of course many other informative
and educational websites. t



I am a bit puzzled now. it is early days in my learning about homepathy.


in the fibromyalgia trial above. Patients took their LMpotencies
every day throughout the trial. Did this
make the results wrong?

Can anyone help explain?


--
batakali
------------------------------------------------------------------------
batakali's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/batakali.html
View this thread: @ gimpy: proof of homeopathy

Hi,

The question is NOT whether a SPECIFIC highly diluted/potentized
remedy works for a SPECIFIC condition - homeopaths will readily admit
that it very well may not do so.

The skeptics deny that those remedies can work at all!!!

In order to disprove that even one trial that comes out highly
significantly for homeopathy would disprove the skeptic's assertion -
just as only one black swan falsifies the assertion that all swans are
white (which is a standard example of what falsification means).

Regards

Luise

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

>
> I do feel rather uncomfortable that we reject trials that show
> homeopathy does not work, but leap on those that do, even if we can see
> their design is flawed.
>
> But my real question was either the trial is good homeopathy and so is
> hitler's usage, or both are bad. Which is it?
>
>
>

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========