No disagreement with the general structure of the trial.

The only query I have is how large is 'large enough' to produce the two groups?

Elena,

Remember that my focus is evidence based medicine. The health dept, in my opinion, should only subsidise evidence based medicine. Of course this is an ideal and there must be a bit of give and take, the nature of evidence being what it is (ie rarely ever is there 100% proof). However, if a treatment has no known mechanism and no evidence base to support its use, it should not be subsidised in my opinion.

Whether or not it is cheaper for the government fo subsidise homoeopathy is a separate issue and, in my opinion, it is not a sufficient reason for them to do so. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it is the wrong reason. The decision to subsidise should be based on evidence for its effectiveness (actually "cost effectiveness" is the correct term to use here, but this could lead us into another discussion about "the greatest good for the greatest number" v "individual rights", so I will leave that stand) Also, I have read a paper somewhere that conclude the opposite: that homoeopathy only adds to existing cost. Who is right, I do not know but, as far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant


I have been attended to by a doctor only three times in my life. The first resulted in an unnecessary operation, the second resulted in a clever diagnosis of malingering by the doctor when I tried to get a day off school, and the third resulted in an embarassing (for me) misdiagnosis of an STD which was actually an impossiblilty, if you know what I mean.
I have been lucky though.
I don't think my father would have survived without his cholecystectomy, or my brother with his osteomyelitis, without appropriate medical care. And my mother has totally new lease on life after her total hip replacement and no longer has to live with chronic severe pain (never mind that her heel ulcer took twleve months to heal :( ).
Coincidentally I was also born at home by a midwife. However this is the way things are done in my country of birth.


There is potentially great harm to be done.

A few years ago the health dept here introduced the HIB vaccine. The HIB virus is the cause of epiglottitis which can cause death by choking in infants and young children. These days the illness is hardly ever seen and there are no longer any deaths due to epiglottitis.
Homoeopathy cannot immunise against HIB, so promoting it can obviously prove harmful to those who remain unvaccinated as a result. Fortunately, as long as about 90-95% of the population remains vaccinated, the disease is unlikely to reappear and, fortunately less than 5-10% believe the false claims of some homoeopaths regarding vaccinations.


With all due respect, I hope they don't follow your example, because the evidence is clear regarding childhood vaccinations. If "herd immunity" from vaccinations drops below 90-95%, all unvaccinated children will be at risk.
It is okay, even wise, to look at the pros and cons, but you have to know where to look for reliable information. There is a small, but fairly influential, anti-vaccination lobby worldwide who spread misinformation about vaccinations because they do not understand how to evaluate the evidence and they have gotten themselves into such an entrenched position that they cannot even see the truth any more.


I empathise with her and I understand her reaction and her decision.

I don't know if the coma was the result of the flu vaccine or not, or whether it was coincidental. There are possible allergic reactions to flu vaccine and he amight have had a strong allergy, so it's certainly possible. However, the possible benefits have to be weighed against the possible side-effects. If 10 children die because of the flu vaccine, but 100 die if no child gets vaccinated, what should we do, vaccinate or not vaccinate?

In Australia we do not have routine flu vaccines for children (only for the elderly and those with chronic heart or lung disease, or diabetes - though anyone else can get them if they wish). In the USA, they do. So the risk/benefit ratio is probably not clearly in favour of vaccination in this age group.

regards,
BillyJoe

That is a good question.
As someone said previously, with conventional medicine doing their level best to wipe homoeopathy off the face of the earth, how on earth are we going to get enough patients to conduct a reliable trial.
I don't know the answer to that question.
Perhaps such a trial is perfect in theory but impossible in practise.
Any ideas yourself?

Hi batakali,
Sorry I'm coming to this late--comments below:

On Jan 10, 2008, at 1:31 PM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

>
> I am a bit puzzled now. it is early days in my learning about
> homepathy.
>
> On the hilter threads, people have quite rightly pointed out that it is
> not homeopathic for hitler to haven taken nux. vom. and bellad. every
> day.

Actually there were several issues in that story, one being that it was
"every day"--for nine years! Which is way, way beyond any reasonable
timeframe for the homeopathic process. Another is that this procedure
was continued while he also followed regimen of "heavy drugs", and more
importantly, while he grew sicker and sicker in various ways,
eventually ending in suicide. That again is utterly inconsistent with
the homeopathic process, which would dictate that if the patient is not
improving, you must *change your approach*.

> This is because homeopathic remedies have long term effects unlike
> allopathic drugs which just relieve symptoms.

How long-term the effects are will depend on various things, including
the potency, and also including just how the remedy relates to the
*particular* case. E.g. same remedy and same potency may act for
months in one person, but only minutes in another. The homeopath would
have an idea of what type of response to expect in a given case, but
even so one couldn't be certain, until seeing what happened.
>
> But in the fibromyalgia trial above. Patients took their LMpotencies
> every day throughout the trial.

Usually LMs do not *need* to be taken every day, and for that reason it
would not usually be ideal to do it every day, but many LM users do it
this way, and usually it can work alright. So again, the issue with
the Hitler story was less because he took it (actually them) daily, and
more because it continued for such a very long time, despite his
obvious deterioration.

> And the trial was a cross-over trial so that verum and placebo swapped
> half way through. Surely, the first people on homeopathy would have
> continued to gain from it even on placebo?

It is true that in *some* cases a single dose of even a low LM potency
(or any potency) can act for weeks or months, and yes, in that case it
would have *appeared* that the patient was continuing to recover
"spontaneously" (or inexplicably), or due to "placebo response", when
in fact it was a long-running remedy response. That would be somewhat
unusual, tho, as *usually* a single dose of LM would act anywhere
between a day and a week--at least this is what I *gather* is more
common with LMs; my experience with them is limited.

> Were the people doing the research real homeopaths? Did this
> make the results wrong?

(I haven't read the fibromyalgia trial yet; perhaps I'll have more
comment when I do.)
Best,
Shannon
>
> Can anyone help explain?
>
>
> --
> batakali
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> batakali's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/batakali.html
> View this thread: @ gimpy: proof of homeopathy
>
>

On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:03 PM, 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.

Very true...
Ideally, we should examine those trials that seed to "show" homeopathy
not working, and see if we can tell what went wrong! Analyzing our
failures can be some of the BEST learning experiences!!!

>
> But my real question was either the trial is good homeopathy and so is
> hitler's usage, or both are bad. Which is it?

Definitely neither. The two situations are very, very different--did
my prior post explain that well enough?
Shannon
>
>
> --
> batakali
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> batakali's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/batakali.html
> View this thread: @ gimpy: proof of homeopathy
>
>

"bad trials -> bad outcome. always."

:-)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
The thing about a "bad trial" is that its results are not reliable, and
not meaningful--whether they are positive or negative.
Shannon

Spot on, Shannon.

11th January 2008, 03:31 AM
batakali asked
< I am a bit puzzled now. it is early days in my learning about homepathy.....
Surely, the first people on homeopathy would have continued to gain from it even on placebo? Were the people doing the research real homeopaths? >


HOW PLACEBOS HEAL
Placebos



A rose called by any other name smells just as sweet.

In homeopathy, it is the drug-picture projection in symptomatic totality: Physically ,Mentally and Spiritually, of great importance are the peculiar and the mental characteristics.
In holographic Healing, it is called Conciousness Restructuring Process ( CRP )

Holographic Healing
Holographic Healing: Placebos and Consciousness Restructuring through REM



Consciousness Alters Space


Lew

BillyJoe,

"how to evaluate the evidence" - What evidence?

Wow, there's a lobby! How does one benefit from lobbying such things?