I just read in the New Scientist (a March edition, I'm a bit behind in my science reading) that a person is proposing to do a randomised controlled trial of homeopathy.

Normally, in this type of clinical trial, one would use a placebo.

My question is:
What on earth do you use as a placebo for a homeopathic tincture? The undiluted substance???

At this point, my head is hurting.... :) :)

> I just read in the New Scientist (a March edition, I'm a bit behind in my
> science reading) that a person is proposing to do a randomised controlled
> trial of homeopathy.
>
> Normally, in this type of clinical trial, one would use a placebo.
>
> My question is:
> What on earth do you use as a placebo for a homeopathic tincture? The
> undiluted substance???

Maybe just the dilutant.. I might join the trials if it's brandy :)

Though I suspect they may just use the original homeopathic remedy as there are no molecules of the 'active' ingredient in them anyway. LOL.

cRunchy

---

Not so fast there, crunchy

I think you're confusing homeopathy with something else.....

Not all homeopaths are quacks....
----------------
homeopathy ~ the method of treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses, that would produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the disease. (opposed to allopathy)
----------------
"The Similum or Law of Similars: This basic law of homeopathy is similia similibus currentur: 'let likes be cured with like'. Based on this premise, the first homeopathic principle states that any substance that can make you ill can also cure you - anything that is capable of producing symptoms of disease in a healthy person can cure those symptoms in a sick person. By 'symptom' the homeopath means those changes that are felt by the patient (subjective) or observed (objective), which may be associated with a particular disease, or state of dis-ease, and which are the outward expression of that state"

"Homeopathy is a 200-year-old medical system you can use at home to help treat family members with a wide spectrum of acute health problems. It offers a way to gently stimulate your inner healing resources through recognizing and reinforcing the adaptive reaction's of the body's natural defenses. By choosing the correct, individually suited homeopathic medicine from the plant, mineral, animal, or chemical kingdom, you can successfully stimulate the body's own defenses...you can complement your family's efforts toward good health with these safe, natural medicines that provide an effective, inexpensive alternative to conventional medicine "
-------------------
'Alternatives' to big pharma is not necessarily quackery. I can attest to treatments that are quite successful where synthetic drug regimes have failed to produce a satisfactory result. Naturally produced drugs can be quite effective and there are plenty of known and recognized USP natural drugs.

I haven't read the article in question, so can't comment on relevance of the 'placebo' question or how that will be handled in the clinical trials, but don't think homeopathy is just snake oil.

---

> 'Alternatives' to big pharma is not necessarily quackery. I can attest to
> treatments that are quite successful where synthetic drug regimes have failed
> to produce a satisfactory result. Naturally produced drugs can be quite
> effective and there are plenty of known and recognized USP natural drugs.

Agreed. Two points here:
1. I have seen (but with no scientific research backing this) estimates that up to 80% of the positive results from conventional medicine are due to the placebo effect.
2. Alternative practitioners tend to treat sicker people, on average, than conventional practitioners. The reason for this is people try alternative practitioners once conventional treatments have failed. Therefore, a lower success rate for alternative practitioners across members of the public is NOT evidence of failure, as the sample they are treating is heavily biased.

> I haven't read the article in question, so can't comment on relevance of the
> 'placebo' question or how that will be handled in the clinical trials, but
> don't think homeopathy is just snake oil.

Just in case anyone wants to read up on part of the New Scientist lastest reporting on this, here's one webpage from their site:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600

Note that New Scientist has a history of "political" editorials that attack any organisations preventing the betterment of society, e.g. lack of funding into drugs that would help prevent third world diseases because there's no money in it, warning that global warming is real, etc. They report things as they see them.

> Not so fast there, crunchy
> I think you're confusing homeopathy with something else.....
> Not all homeopaths are quacks....

Now here we go :) You put words in my keyboard in your eagerness :o))

I referred to no molecules in homeopathic drugs and did not say they were quacks... although I have no faith in the practice that's true :)

Example: But the maths do boggle my mind: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/homeopathy_atoms.html

We have Jarr's Homeopathic Handbook on the stacks in my city library so I have been pretty lucky to research my own homeopathic remedies when I was a tad younger from a very original and rare source.

I still don't have faith in it though.

> ----------------
> homeopathy ~ the method of treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses,
> that would produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the
> disease. (opposed to allopathy)

The argument suggests there are NO Minute amounts in the dilution anyway.

> ----------------
> "The Similum or Law of Similars: This basic law of homeopathy is similia
> similibus currentur: 'let likes be cured with like'.

Yes and Pete's Law Of Ping Pong says every culture has its foibles :o))

> 'Alternatives' to big pharma is not necessarily quackery.

I think your associating your thoughts with what you thought I thought... If you see what I'm thinking... That's kind of The Law of Similars also.

> I can attest to
> treatments that are quite successful where synthetic drug regimes have failed
> to produce a satisfactory result. Naturally produced drugs can be quite
> effective and there are plenty of known and recognized USP natural drugs.

I agree nature sure does produce loads of great chemicals that have some use or other.

There are also plenty of anecdotal evidence for all sorts of alternative medicines. Anecdotal statistically uncertain when you look at the cure rate of say Bubonic Plague. Homeopath Zero.

But yes there are lots of illnesses that can't be treated by conventional manners either due to lack of chemicals, understanding or too higher variance in the population.

Sometimes these illnesses that would kill one person seem cured in another. The use of Homeopathy, prayer, placebo all have statistical positives somewhere though for prayer and placebo there are some excellent studies.

I actually welcome trials for homeopathy. It would be fascinating to prove my feelings (and that's all they can be as I'm not scientist) wrong.


> I haven't read the article in question, so can't comment on relevance of the
> 'placebo' question or how that will be handled in the clinical trials, but
> don't think homeopathy is just snake oil.

I think last time I spoke to my bio-chemist mate he suggested there is a 14% across the board effect from placebos... What that actually means I don't know but as placebos are used massively within standard medical research I should imagine whatever the figure is and whatever its effect it is a concrete measure by now.

Of course what we don't know is how many people homeopathy has killed either as dramatic cures can also be dramatic failures....

More trials... equal to the rigors (?) of standard medicine and then we can all decide on quackery.

cRunchy

---

> I referred to no molecules in homeopathic drugs and did not say they were
> quacks... although I have no faith in the practice that's true :)
...
> I think last time I spoke to my bio-chemist mate he suggested there is a 14%
> across the board effect from placebos... What that actually means I don't know
> but as placebos are used massively within standard medical research I should
> imagine whatever the figure is and whatever its effect it is a concrete
> measure by now.

I just wanted to quote these two statements together. I would be very interested if you could get some peer-reviewed references from your biochemist friend re the placebo effect size, as I have never seen a single estimate for this.

I am curious as to whether the placebo effect would be constant across different types of drugs. Say your 14% figure is accurate, would we really expect the effect to be 14% for pain-relief drugs, 14% for anti-cancer drugs, 14% for asthma medication and so forth? I'm just wondering if it has been investigated to this level. Personally, I would be very interested in the results.

> Of course what we don't know is how many people homeopathy has killed either
> as dramatic cures can also be dramatic failures....

Do you mean killed as in "the homeopathy treatment poisoned them" or killed as in "the homeopathy treatment did not reduce/eliminate their medical condition"? Of course, you could mean both. :)

Magenta wrote"
> 2. Alternative practitioners tend to treat sicker people, on average, than
> conventional practitioners. The reason for this is people try alternative
> practitioners once conventional treatments have failed. Therefore, a lower
> success rate for alternative practitioners across members of the public is NOT
> evidence of failure, as the sample they are treating is heavily biased.
>
That may have been in the past but now and into the future more and more people are starting to try "alternative" medicines FIRST! That is one of the problems I have with these kinds of "Doctors", they see a problem and BELIEVE they can cure or at least stabilize it. Sometimes "modern medicine" is BEST! My personal family experience is an example, my father-in-law goes to an "alternative Doctor" and has for a very long time. His back was hurting so the guy referred him to a chiropractor. After 2 years, I know WAAAAY to long, he finally went to a "regular Doctor" and after doing a test found he had an infection in his back and it almost crippled him! The infection was SOOOOO bad he had to have a pic tube put in so he could get anti-biotic shots daily for a month! The chiropractor and the "alternative Doctor" kept telling him "we can fix it"!!!
I think "alternative Doctors" AND chiropractors have their place but the problem is a "regular Doctor" will tell you to go see a chirpractor BUT a chiropractor will NEVER tell you need a "regular Doctor". The same goes for an "alternative Doctor"!!!

---

> I think "alternative Doctors" AND chiropractors have their place but the
> problem is a "regular Doctor" will tell you to go see a chirpractor BUT a
> chiropractor will NEVER tell you need a "regular Doctor". The same goes for an
> "alternative Doctor"!!!
>

You really should not generalize all homeopathic practitioners in this manner. There are many quacks in this field, but there are an even larger number that know their limitations. My wife is a Therapeutic Massage Therapist and she will send you off to a Doctor in a heartbeat. We are both Reiki practitioners and we both know our limits.

My own physician beleives that homoepathic remedies can be a first line of defense, but she will draw the line. It was my physician that recommened eating ginger before I go diving to ward off seasickness, but she also prescribed my Scopalomine Patch.

When I was diagnosed as a Type II Diabetic I told my physician I wanted to stay away from medications as long as possible. She agreed, but only as long as my blood test remaind with-in normal limits. My accupuncturist has helped me keep my diet in check, but he has also told me more then once that I needed to go check with my Doctor first. He will not treat me unless my doctor has approved. She will not approve unless my blood tests are with-in obtainable limits.

The trick is to find a homopathic practitioner that knows their limits and will send you elsewhere.

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

> > I think "alternative Doctors" AND chiropractors have their place but the
> > problem is a "regular Doctor" will tell you to go see a chirpractor BUT
> a
> > chiropractor will NEVER tell you need a "regular Doctor". The same goes
> for an
> > "alternative Doctor"!!!
> >
>
> You really should not generalize all homeopathic practitioners in this manner.
> There are many quacks in this field, but there are an even larger number that
> know their limitations. My wife is a Therapeutic Massage Therapist and she
> will send you off to a Doctor in a heartbeat. We are both Reiki practitioners
> and we both know our limits.
...
> The trick is to find a homopathic practitioner that knows their limits and
> will send you elsewhere.

I agree with you. In NZ, chiropractors and osteopaths are recognised medical providers, albeit they are not considered doctors. However, I have had enough friends go to chiropractors for back pain to worry a little bit about some chiropractors - i.e. how on earth does strong, painful, sudden manipulation help a chronic sore back with long-term tissue damage? However, we must be careful about not tarring all "alternative" practitioners with the poor deeds of the few.

I agree that conventional medicine is very important. However, some treatments that have been termed "alternative" in the past are now "conventional", such as green prescriptions. Just because we don't understand how something works now doesn't mean that we won't understand its mechanism of action in the future.

I also believe there is an extremely good case for alternative therapies where the patient is dying and conventional treatments are pretty much palliative only.
:)

>
> > I think "alternative Doctors" AND chiropractors have their place but the
> > problem is a "regular Doctor" will tell you to go see a chirpractor BUT
> a
> > chiropractor will NEVER tell you need a "regular Doctor". The same goes
> for an
> > "alternative Doctor"!!!
> >
>
> You really should not generalize all homeopathic practitioners in this manner.
> There are many quacks in this field, but there are an even larger number that
> know their limitations. My wife is a Therapeutic Massage Therapist and she
> will send you off to a Doctor in a heartbeat. We are both Reiki practitioners
> and we both know our limits.
>
> My own physician beleives that homoepathic remedies can be a first line of
> defense, but she will draw the line. It was my physician that recommened
> eating ginger before I go diving to ward off seasickness, but she also
> prescribed my Scopalomine Patch.
>
> When I was diagnosed as a Type II Diabetic I told my physician I wanted to
> stay away from medications as long as possible. She agreed, but only as long
> as my blood test remaind with-in normal limits. My accupuncturist has helped
> me keep my diet in check, but he has also told me more then once that I needed
> to go check with my Doctor first. He will not treat me unless my doctor has
> approved. She will not approve unless my blood tests are with-in obtainable
> limits.
>
> The trick is to find a homopathic practitioner that knows their limits and
> will send you elsewhere.
>
I agree and will try and point my in-laws to a "better" homeopathic person as I can. I DO have a bad opinion BUT as you pointed out it is a small percentage of the available people. I AM also glad to know that their are GOOD people on both sides. Hopefully the "good" homepathic people will be on the increase and will become easier to find.

---

> > I think last time I spoke to my bio-chemist mate he suggested there is a
> > 14% across the board effect from placebos... What that actually means I
> >don't know...............


> I just wanted to quote these two statements together. I would be very
> interested if you could get some peer-reviewed references from your biochemist
> friend re the placebo effect size, as I have never seen a single estimate for
> this.

I'll see him soon so shall try and remember to have a chat about it.

> > Of course what we don't know is how many people homeopathy has killed
> > either as dramatic cures can also be dramatic failures....

> Do you mean killed as in "the homeopathy treatment poisoned them" or killed as
> in "the homeopathy treatment did not reduce/eliminate their medical
> condition"? Of course, you could mean both. :)

Both is possible. The second becomes more possible as people turn to alternative medicines for wider ranging illnesses.

The first is perfectly possible if we are to believe homeopathic theories on molecular targeting. If they claim such powerful results from such tiny interactions then those powerful results can swing both ways...

However I suspect they will only say that it does good... or doesn't harm if it doesn't work... but then then they would and they would also have the 'lack' of clinical results to prove it :o)))

There is even a homeopathic treatment for Syphilis.. and the patient doesn't even have to have ever had the disease because homeopathy claims to also be able to treat the 'latent familial genetic effects' of Syphilis left over from previous generations (general human miasmia - hereditry weakness).

Which would you choose though: Modern drugs that have mostly known side effects.. one of which is continued life :) or some dilutant with mathematically zero molecules of active ingredient with no researched or admitted side effects and of course the chance you could go blind become deformed or die if it doesn't work...

No wonder treatment of Syphilis by homeopaths it is banned by the US government...


cRunchy
being grumpy

---

> I'll see him soon so shall try and remember to have a chat about it.

I'll buy you both coffee (or tea, attempting here not to discriminate against non-coffee drinkers). :)
>
> > > Of course what we don't know is how many people homeopathy has
> killed
> > > either as dramatic cures can also be dramatic failures....
>
> > Do you mean killed as in "the homeopathy treatment poisoned them" or
> killed as
> > in "the homeopathy treatment did not reduce/eliminate their medical
> > condition"? Of course, you could mean both. :)

> There is even a homeopathic treatment for Syphilis.. and the patient doesn't
> even have to have ever had the disease because homeopathy claims to also be
> able to treat the 'latent familial genetic effects' of Syphilis left over from
> previous generations (general human miasmia - hereditry weakness).

Of course this all ignores the prophylatic treatment for syphilis - wear those condoms!!!! This is a public health message, and I am serious.

> Which would you choose though: Modern drugs that have mostly known side
> effects.. one of which is continued life :) or some dilutant with
> mathematically zero molecules of active ingredient with no researched or
> admitted side effects and of course the chance you could go blind become
> deformed or die if it doesn't work...

There are problems with conventional drug treatments, however. The 2 that spring to mind immediately are:
- the sudden recommendation not to prescribe SSRIs (e.g. prozac) to under-18s, even though these drugs have been prescribed for the past 10 years or so; and
- the sudden recommendation not to prescribe HRT (hormone replacement therapy) to women who are post-menopausal, due to the death side effect.

> No wonder treatment of Syphilis by homeopaths it is banned by the US
> government...
Some conventional treatments are problematic too - we must keep an open mind about the possibility of major, unsuspected harm from all chemicals.

> being grumpy
Don't be grumpy hon, you're too nice for that.