From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Date: Thu Aug 05 1999 - 17:02:36 MDT
In response to my request to document the claimed effectiveness
of homeopathic treatment, Mr. Lubkin responded with statistics
from three epidemics and citations of two meta-analyses (one
even from Lancet). All of the epidemics noted were in the late
19th century before antibiotics. It is likely that the medical
treatments of the time were quite harmful, and that therefore
homeopathy would have been more effective, so I discount those.
It should also be noted that two of the three were cholera, and
homeopathic hospitals were at the time necessarily located near
sources of fresh water (cholera is caused by waterborne
bacteria).
The meta-analyses are harder to dismiss (though all such are
susceptible to selection bias and very vulnerable to fraud).
Here's what Dr. Stephen Barrett says about them:
>> K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al.,
>> "Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A
>> Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials" Lancet,
>> September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.
1. None of the published homeopathic meta-analyses shows
effectiveness against any specific condition. This paper even
acknowledges this.
2. The tipoff is that they rated the Jacobs Nicaragua study highly
when it was completely worthless. I have no way to judge whether
similar uncritical thinking impacted on any of the others, but what
they did with the study I know best indicates lack of trustworthiness.
A few negative studies have been published within the past two years,
but I don't know whether they would tip the balance.
>> J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet,
>> "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy" British Medical Journal,
>> February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
These folks are tops, but the analysis is a bit old. I don't know
whether they would draw the same conclusions today.
[End of Dr. Barrett's comments]
Make no mistake: the claims of homeopathy are extraordinary claims
that would overturn much of what we think we know about chemistry and
biology. Because such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
proof, and the proof offered here barely even rises to ordinary, I
remain convinced that homeopathy is bunk. Until they can either
come up with an explanation that doesn't fly in the face of common
sense, or demonstrate an independently-reproducible result at least
as good as those demanded for conventional drugs, I will continue to
consider homeopathy tantamount to fraud.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:40 MST