Singh and Ernst’s book ‘Trick or Treatment?’ ”has no validity as a scientific examination of alternative medicine.”

From H:MC21: ‘Halloween Science’

A critique of Trick or Treatment? by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst written by William Alderson on behalf of H:MC21 (Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century); March 2009.

Trick or Treatment? by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst claims to “examine the various alternative therapies in a scrupulous manner” (p.3). This critique assesses the validity of this claim, both in general and specifically in respect of homeopathy, by analysing the authors’ own arguments and evidence for accuracy, consistency and reliability. Where information is lacking in Trick or Treatment?, the critique incorporates evidence from other primary sources (where possible) or reputable secondary sources. Some conclusions reached on the basis of Ernst and Singh’s own statements are also supported by reference to other sources. All sources are referenced.
RESULTS: We have identified nineteen major faults in the case presented by this book

Evidence: (1) The authors frequently rely on figures, trials, events, quotations, statements, opinions and explanations which are unsupported by reference to sources. (2) This evidence is frequently misleading as a result of being presented out of context. (3) The authors use different criteria when assessing the validity of evidence, depending on whether the evidence supports their views or not.

Science: (4) The authors commit the common fallacy of confusing absence of proof with proof of absence. (5) The importance of theory is minimized or even ignored, when discussing both science in general and individual alternative therapies. (6) The authors assume that orthodox medicine is scientific, but offer no justification for this position. (7) There is evidence that the authors do not understand the principles and practice of orthodox medicine.

Definitions: (8) Alternative medicine is defined in four different ways in the course of the book. (9) Other significant terms, such as ‘science’, ‘disease’, ‘cure’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘orthodox medicine’ are undefined. (10) This allows arguments to be built on vague preconceptions rather than on clearly defined principles. (11) The differences between orthodox medical and alternative medical definitions is not taken into account, despite their impact on the design of trials. (12) The authors fail to present the ideas of evidence-based medicine accurately. (13) The authors fail to present the nature and development of homeopathy accurately, raising doubts about their presentation of the other therapies. (14) They also call into question the principles of orthodox drug therapy, despite the fact that the tests used by this therapy underpin much of their argument.

Analytical tools: (15) The authors fail to prove that their main tool, the randomised controlled trial (RCT), is valid for testing curative interventions, while presenting evidence that there are serious problems with using it for this purpose. (16) They show that a tool derived from these trials, the meta-analysis, is prone to lack of objectivity, yet they rely on this for some of their conclusions. (17) Their conclusions are also dependent on the concept of the placebo effect, but they make it clear that this effect has no scientific basis and is so unpredictable as to have questionable scientific validity in this context. (18) They acknowledge the importance of individuality in the curative process, but deny its significance for the design of analytical tools. (19) They fail to take into account the need for analysis of evidence from clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS: Ernst and Singh have failed to provide a secure theoretical or evidential base for their argument, and have used analytical tools inadequate (in this context) for achieving objective and reliable conclusions. The result of these weaknesses is that their argument relies heavily on preconceptions, variable definitions and opinion, a problem exacerbated by a tendency to confirmation bias on the authors’ part. As a result, Trick or Treatment? has no validity as a scientific examination of alternative medicine.

Full report here

Contribution of homeopathy to the control of an outbreak of dengue in Macaé, Rio de Janeiro

From the International Journal of High Dilution of Research 

“Homeopathy has contributed throughout history [see here,  here and here ] to the control and eradication of epidemic diseases. Facing the challenge of controlling an outbreak of dengue, the Secretary of Health of the county of Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in early 2007 carried out a “Homeopathy Campaign against Dengue”. 156,000 doses of homeopathic remedy were freely distributed in April and May 2007 to asymptomatic patients and 129 doses to symptomatic patients treated in outpatient clinics, according to the notion of “epidemic genus”. The remedy used was a homeopathic complex against dengue containing Phosphorus 30cH, Crotalus horridus 30cH and Eupatorium perfoliatum 30cH. The incidence of the disease in the first three months of 2008 fell 93% by comparison to the corresponding period in 2007, whereas in the rest of the State of Rio de Janeiro there was an increase of 128%. While confounding factors were not controlled for, these results suggest that homeopathy may be an effective adjunct in Dengue outbreak prevention.”

CAM can provide significant health improvements to NHS patients

Hospital Healthcare Europe reports:

A year-long pilot scheme in Northern Ireland has found that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) can offer significant health improvements to NHS patients.

Independent analysis of the findings showed:

• Patients receiving acupuncture treatment reported an average 33% improvement in their health and wellbeing
• Patients receiving chiropractic and osteopathy treatment reported an average 38% improvement in their health and wellbeing
• Patients receiving homeopathic treatment reported an average 54% improvement in their health and wellbeing

Founder of Get Well UK, Boo Armstrong, says of the results: “The results from this project speak for themselves – complementary therapies improve health and save money. These findings are consistent with other service evaluation from across the UK. A personalised health service will need protocols to include complementary therapies.”  Full report

Randomised Controlled Trials are the worst of medicine

Over at spiked-online there is a debate on the Best and Worst of Medicine.  Unsurprisingly, skeptics have nominated homeopathy as one of the worst, but the sheer volume of messages of support for homeopathy managed to get a nomination for best as well.

The debate for the worst of medicine is due on the 17th July.  A clinician sums up the current fundamentalist scientistic backlash against CAM with a damning criticism of the RCT and of those who narrowly support it:

Randomised Controlled Trials are the worst 28 May 2008

The worst thing to happen to medicine is undoubtedly the Randomised Clinical Trial (RCT) – not for the information it does and doesn’t give us but for the way it has been used by government and tunnel visioned researchers to qualify some ridiculous practices under the heading “Evidence Based Medicine”.

As clinicians we are ‘encouraged’ (read ‘forced’) to ignore our clinical skills and acumen in favor of flow chart diagnosis and prescribing. It is virtually never mentioned how much morbidity and mortality modern medicine directly causes – recent analysis in the USA places iatrogenic problems as the country’s third biggest killer!

In addition we are using medicines on complicated people, often with multiple diagnoses and on a variety of drugs – RCTs are conducted in strict (non-clinical) settings using young, relatively fit and healthy people. I am always flabbergasted at the conclusions drawn from these to ‘inform’ normal clinic practice – the information is barely ever transferable!

The best thing to happen to modern medicine is the shake-up of the rigid paradigm that is now being forced on the ‘establishment’ by hoards of patients and practitioners giving a huge range of complementary practices their attention and confidence.

The narrow-minded view taken by a radical few is that we don’t know how these modalities work, therefore they can’t work. This attitude clearly needs to be counterbalanced by the many hundreds of thousands of people who use these treatments and (RCT be damned) find that they work!

Scientific curiosity, informed by actually hearing what people are saying, is the only way forward. Retire any ‘scientist’ who is not actively demonstrating a flexible and curious approach to investigating these complementary therapies, suspending thier predjudice and bias – after all, is this not the DEFINITION of a real scientist?

Geoff Woodin, UK

Edzard Ernst, take note.

So much homeopathic research evidence should be made widely available ‘for the sake of scientific progression’

Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughton, author of ‘Punk Science’, attended the Scientific Research in Homeopathy Conference hosted by the Complementary Medical Association, held at the University of Westminster on June 18th 2008.

Here are the Complementary Medical Association’s links (some yet to be activated) to the presentations by Dr Alex Tournier, Karin Mont, Dr Rob Verkerk, Oliver Dowding, Claire Haresnape, Dr Lionel Milgrom and Stephen Gordon.

Dr Samanta-Laughtons response to the conference is on her Amazon blog:

“I got invited to the most amazing conference last week as a VIP guest courtesy of Jayney Goddard and the Complementary Medical Association. Well it threw me for a loop! I had no idea there were so many RCT trials and evidence of homeopathy. Or that there were real scientific investigations into the actual mechanisms of homeopathy as eloquently demonstrated by Dr Lionel Milgrom, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemists. As this was the inaugural conference of its kind, I have one question – where have you been all my life? Why has this information been so hard to find? For the sake of scientific progression, this sort of information should be widely available.”

As she says in ‘Punk Science’: “The paradigm of science has come to a grinding halt. Some are complaining that there are no big discoveries to find. Although technology advances at a rapid pace, these are simply improvements on previous discoveries. There have been no radical changes in the way we see the universe for decades…until now!  The time is right for a change in science; for the next big discovery. This revolution will place consciousness at the very heart of an intelligent universe.”

Homeopathy works – more scientific investigation merited

The Daily Mail reports:

“Homeopathy really does work and doctors should recognise its healing effects, say researchers.

A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead.

Doctors should be more positive about the alternative medicine, which is the only complementary therapy available on the NHS, the researchers said.

Their study attempts to settle the controversy over homeopathic treatment, which critics say is not effective because of the tiny level of active substance used in most remedies.

It works on the principle that a substance which in large doses will cause the symptoms of an illness can be used in minute doses to relieve the same symptoms.

Critics argue that the active substance is so diluted that homeopathic remedies have no more effect than placebo or dummy treatment.

The study put homeopathy to the test in 50 patients suffering from nasal allergies. They were given either a homeopathic preparation or a placebo.

Each day for four weeks patients recruited from general practices and a hospital in London measured their nasal air flow and recorded symptoms such as blocked, runny or itchy nose, sneezing or eye irritation.

Both groups reported that they got better – but on average patients who received homeopathy had a 28 per cent improvement in nasal air flow compared with 3 per cent among those in the placebo group.

The study was carried out by doctors in Glasgow, led by Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, one of five specialist hospitals in Britain. He said the difference in results from the two treatments was statistically significant.

Dr Reilly said this was the fourth trial carried out by his hospital, all with similar results. In addition, there were positive findings in 70 per cent of a further 180 clinical trials.

‘I hope this will encourage doctors to examine the volume of evidence supporting homeopathy – they might be quite surprised at the positive outcome in many trials,’ he said.

He added that it would take consistent scientific investigation to persuade some doctors, but attitudes were changing.

About 20 per cent of doctors in Scotland have basic homeopathic training compared with one per cent 15 years ago.

‘It isn’t just about the remedies, which can be put to the test in trials, but about a greater holistic approach in encouraging self-healing and self-recovery.’”

Dr Bob Leckridge, president of the Faculty of Homeopathy – the body for doctors, vets, nurses and other health professionals – said: ‘This latest research builds on existing evidence that homeopathy works, something that hundreds of doctors and their patients have known for 200 years.’

Homeopathy awareness week – Nelson’s Pharmacy open day

From www.londonisfree.com:

Nelson’s Pharmacy in Mayfair will be offering free mini homeopathic consultations as part of National Homeopathy Awareness Week 2008.

You can benefit from one-to-one drop-in consultations on Saturday 14 June from 10am to 5pm as part of a Homeopathy and Natural Health Open Day when homeopaths will be on hand to provide expert advice on a range of ailments.

Taster sessions of other holistic therapies including massage, health testing and reflexology will also be available at Nelson Homeopathic Pharmacy, along with light refreshments and a free goodie bag.

Find out more about National Homeopathy Awareness Week 2008.

To find out more and book an appointment call 020 7079 1282 or email HAW@nelsons.net.

Edzard Ernst’s uncritical endorsement of EBM is ‘empirical quackery’

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick’s review of the book ’Trick or Treatment’ by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst at  spiked-online (they say: “an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms”) makes the following observations and criticisms of interest:

“Despairing of their capacity to engage with serious adversaries or big issues, former left-wingers are inclined to re-fight the battles of the past and to seek out soft targets for their invective: current favourites include neo-fascists, creationists and conservative religionists. Though any small success of these forces is trumpeted as a menace to civilisation, in reality they are as marginal as they have ever been. Exaggerating these threats enables liberals to imagine a return to their glory days, and allows them to evade the real problems of the present.”

“Alternative medicine, the focus of a new critique titled Trick or Treatment? by the science writer Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, ‘the world’s first professor of complementary medicine’, has become another target of the radical backlash. Following the spectacular success of a series of works promoting militant secularism, a spate of books and blogs now signals a new crusade against alternative medicine.”

“it is light on references”

“My reservations about Trick or Treatment? concern its uncritical endorsement of what the health policy expert Rudolph Klein has characterised as the ‘new scientism’ of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (1), its incoherent advice to doctors on telling the truth and its curiously paternalistic approach towards patients.

According to Singh and Ernst, ‘evidence-based medicine’, a term coined by the epidemiologist David Sackett in 1992, has ‘revolutionised medical practice’. They acknowledge that ‘prior to the development of evidence-based medicine, doctors were spectacularly ineffective’. However, ‘once the medical establishment had adopted such simple ideas as the clinical trial, then progress became swift’. As a result, ‘today’, less than two decades later, according to this remarkable telescoping of the familiar narrative of progress from darkness to enlightenment, ‘the clinical trial is routine in the development of new treatments and medical experts agree that evidence-based medicine is the key to effective health care’.

While it is true that evidence-based medicine (EBM) has made some useful contributions to contemporary medical practice, notably in the systematic use of randomised controlled trials in the study of therapeutic interventions, it is nonsense to claim that it has played a major role in the successes of modern medicine (such as vaccines, antibiotics, steroids, anaesthetics, surgical techniques) which arose from developments in the basic medical sciences.”

“To some of its critics, in its disparagement of theory and its crude number-crunching, EBM marks a return to ‘empiricist quackery’ in medical practice.”

“Why are so many GPs tolerating, promoting or even using bogus treatments?’ is the provocative question posed by Singh and Ernst to my colleagues in primary health care. They consider various possibilities (though they do not seem to apply their commitment to an evidence-based approach to their speculations in this area). Could it be that GPs are simply ignorant of the facts that alternative medicine is useless? They raise the possibility that some GPs may be true believers in alternative therapies, but – understandably – find this too terrifying a subject to investigate further. They believe that many GPs are so inconsiderate towards their patients that this drives them into the sympathetic, empathetic arms of alternative therapists. But for them the most likely explanation is that GPs are simply lazy and respond to their patients’ relentless minor complaints by ‘fobbing them off with placebos’, in the form of ‘bogus remedies’ and referrals to alternative therapists.”

“Singh and Ernst criticise GPs for ‘encouraging patients’ to seek out alternative therapists. In a bizarre parallel with the world of drug addiction, they argue that ‘introducing patients to alternative therapists in relation to a minor condition could act as a gateway to a longer-term reliance’. One taste of a (tasteless) homeopathic pill or twist of an acupuncture needle could lead to a serious habit, and they may end up refusing vaccinations and stopping prescription drugs.

This is getting silly.”

I have received the following further comments from Ralf Jeutter PhD RSHom:

“The quotes from the book presented by Fitzpatrick show how superficial Singh and Ernst’s critique is. It is primarily based on the assumption that EBM is a reliable tool with which to judge treatments, totally ignoring that EBM is far from accepted as that.  Fitzpatrick calls it ‘incoherent advice to doctors’; the ‘founder’ of EBM, Sackett, wrote: ‘EBM … never replaces clinical skills, clinical judgment and clinical experience’, thus refuting in one single sentence everything Ernst claims: that EBM is the most reliable and generally accepted standard for assessing clinical effectiveness.

Ernst is a dramatiser who has lost perspective of real academic/scientific issues when he writes that ‘prior to the development of evidence-based medicine, doctors were spectacularly ineffective.’ If he really means this it is clear that he has an utterly uncritical enthusiasm for what is only the latest fashion in medicine, one that is neither established nor universally accepted. The one appeal it has is its mind numbing simplicity, which totally ignores clinical realities.

The review also highlights how desperate Ernst is to find ANYTHING to discredit CAM: apparently it is habit forming on a par with, well, seriously habit forming things. Rightly Fitzpatrick says: ‘This is silly’.

Ernst loses academic credibility by refusing to acknowledge the real complexity of research into CAM. Moreover he refuses to acknowledge that most conventional treatments and interventions are not evidence based. He has found a way of making headlines by propagating very crude science indeed. His academic status is further undermined by acting much more like a quackbuster of recent years than as somebody who should be encouraging more research (including research methodologies into CAM) to benefit the profession and patients.

It really does not become a Professor of CAM to dismiss such a longstanding and successful practice like homeopathy as ‘bogus’ and ‘nonsense’. As an academic he has had to make a determined effort to ignore the plethora of research which has grown around homeopathy over the last 200 years: pre-clinical fundamental research; fundamental research into physics and chemistry as far as it has a bearing on homeopathy; experiments on plants with ultra-high dilutions; experiments on animals and animal tissue with ultra-high dilutions; in-vitro studies; clinical studies, be they observational or comparative studies; controlled studies of nosological clinical homeopathy to randomised clinical isopathic and epidemiological studies. He has also ignored the dedicated hard work of many researchers into CAM and associated fields: dismissing all of this as useless activity which has yielded nothing and will never yield anything. I think it would suit Prof. Ernst to show more respect to his colleagues and a modicum of modesty.

Ernst has come to the conclusion that homeopathy doesn’t work by cherry-picking what he considers to be state-of-the-art research methodologies, which conflict in many instances with clinical realities.

It appears that it is Ernst’s desire to call a premature end to homeopathy which informs his understanding of ’science’. Homeopathy has survived many fads, fashions and detractors, and will no doubt survive this latest attempt at discrediting it. In my own modest predicition, Ernst, in all likelihood, will become a footnote in the history of homeopathy, like so many before him.  He is an academic who mistakes scientific models with reality.”

‘There is a good and growing body of research showing beyond doubt that homeopathy is better than placebo’

Courtesy of HMC21:

 

There is a good and growing body of research showing beyond doubt that homeopathy is better than placebo; in fact so much, that this leaflet can only provide a minute selection. There is a list of sources of further, detailed information at the end of the summary. Different types of research have been used to study effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, and all have provided positive evidence, although in the case of RCTs not consistently.

 

Laboratory research                                                                         (including tests on animals and plants)

This research is important because there can be no placebo effect, but there are ethical problems when it involves subjecting animals to toxic substances and procedures. We include animal studies here and leave it to you to decide whether you want to use them or not.

·         Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC, ‘Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation’, Inflamm. Res., 2004, 53:181-188. In a study including four research centres in Europe the effect of potentised high dilutions of histamine were confirmed. Researchers were able to document that these dilutions of histamine inhibit basophile degranulation. Results cannot be explained through molecular theories.

·         Brizzi, M. et al., ‘Biostatistical Insight into the As₂O₃ High Dilution Effects on the Rate and Variability of Wheat Seedling Growth’, Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd, 2005,12:277-283. Plant-based bioassays are suitable for basic research – lacking the placebo effect and ensuring large data samples for structured statistical analyses. A team of researchers at the University of Bologna carried out a structured experiment, performed blind over nine weeks, using wheat seeds previously stressed with a sub lethal dose of As₂O₃ (arsenic trioxide). The seeds were then treated with either potentized As₂O₃ (5x, 15x, 25x, 35x, 45x), potentized water (equivalent potencies) or diluted As₂O₃ (10^-5, 10^-15, 10^-25, 10^-35, 10^-45). The working variable was the stem length, measured after 4, 5, 6 and 7 days. Results: Some potencies (As₂O₃ 45x and water 45x) induced a relevant increase in seedling growth and/or a variability decrease. Diluted As₂O₃ did not induce any significant results. Conclusions: Confirmation of a significant stimulating effect on seedling growth and a significant decrease of variability was obtained with ultra-high dilutions at the 45x potency. The model of wheat germination and growth has been confirmed to be a good tool for basic research in homeopathy.

·         J. Bildet, M. Guyot, F. Bonini, et al., ‘Demonstrating the Effects of Apis mellifica and Apium virus Dilutions on Erythema Induced by U.V. Radiation on Guinea Pigs’,  Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1990, 1:28. Albino guinea pigs were exposed to small doses of X-ray that cause reddening of the skin. Studies showed that Apis mellifica 7c or 9c had a protective effect and a roughly 50% curative effect on X-ray-induced redness of the skin. Apis mellifica (honeybee) is a homeopathic medicine for redness, swelling, and itching, common symptoms of bee venom.

·         Endler, P.C. et al., ‘The Effect of Highly Diluted Agitated Thyroxine on the Climbing Activity of Frogs’,  Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 1994, 36:56. Thyroxine 30x (thyroid hormone) was placed in the water of tadpoles. When compared to tadpoles who were given a placebo, the study showed morphogenesis of the tadpoles into frogs was slowed for those who were exposed to the homeopathic doses. Thyroid hormone in crude doses is known to speed up morphogenesis; it makes sense from a homeopathic perspective that homeopathic doses would slow it down. See doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.11.002 at http://dx.doi.org for a further experiment in 2006 which confirmed this research.

 

Meta-analyses                          (the statistical amalgamation, summary, and review of previous quantitative research)

·         Linde, K. et al.,  ‘Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials’, The Lancet, 1997, 350:834-843: Meta-analysis of 89 trials of homeopathic medicine versus placebo. Result: significantly in favour of homeopathy (OR 2,45 (95% CI 2,05-2,93)). This meta-analysis included 186 placebo-controlled studies of homeopathy published until mid-1996, of which data for analysis could be extracted from 89 studies. The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo”.

·         Homeopathic Medicine Research Group, Report to the European Commission directorate general XII: science, research and development, vol. 1 (short version), Brussels: European Commission, 1996:16-17. This is an overview of clinical research in homeopathy which identified 184 controlled clinical trials. They selected the highest quality randomized control trials, which included a total of 2617 patients for a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis resulted in a p-value of 0.000036 (which means that results are highly significant) indicating that homeopathy is more effective than placebo. The researchers concluded that the “hypothesis that homeopathy has no effect can be rejected with certainty”.

·         Ullman D, ‘Controlled Clinical Trials Evaluating the Homeopathic Treatment of People with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome’, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 9, no. 1, 2003, pp. 133–141. A review of placebo-controlled clinical trials using homeopathic medicines to treat people with AIDS or who are HIV-positive found five controlled clinical trials. Results showed statistically significant results in subjects with stage III AIDS, and specific physical, immunologic, neurologic, metabolic, and quality-of-life benefits, including improvements in lymphocyte counts and functions and reductions in HIV viral loads in patients receiving homeopathic treatment.

 

Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs)           (where one group of subjects is given the treatment being tested,

                                                                                       while a control group is given either a current treatment or a placebo)

Dozens of individual RCTs have been carried out, sometimes repeatedly, researching the effectiveness of homeopathy for a range of conditions. Many are covered in the meta-analyses discussed above.  See the websites below for details.

 

Non-controlled clinical study             (comparison of new or different types of treatments with current treatments)

·         Witt, C. et al., ‘Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: A comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders’, Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2005, 13, pp. 79-86. Researchers at the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charite University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany and the Institute for Statistics and Econometrics, Economics, University of Hamburg, Germany  conducted an evaluation of  the effectiveness of homeopathy versus conventional treatment in routine case. Patients with selected chronic diagnoses received either homeopathy or conventional treatment.  Severity of symptoms was assessed by patients and physicians on a scale of 0 to 10, at baseline, 6 and 12 months; costs were also compared. The analyses of 493 patients (315 adults, 178 children) indicated greater improvement in patients’ assessments after homoeopathic versus conventional treatment (adults: homeopathy from 5.7 to 3.2; conventional from 5.9 to 4.4; p = 0.002; children homeopathy from 5.1 to 2.6; conventional from 4.5 to 3.2). The conclusion was that patients having homeopathic treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment, whereas total costs in both groups were similar.

 

Clinical outcome survey              (secondary analysis of data collected routinely by clinical services, in order to

                                                        judge the effectiveness of interventions; allows the study of large databases of patients)

·         Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ, ‘Homeopathic Treatment for Chronic Disease: A 6-Year, University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study’, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2005, 11:793-798. In one of the largest studies ever carried out, over 70% of the 6500 patients involved reported significant benefits from homeopathic treatment. The results come from a 6 year study of 6500 consecutive patients seen in the outpatient clinic of the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital in the UK, a UK National Health Service Hospital. Patients with a wide range of conditions such as eczema, asthma, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome, menopause, arthritis, depression and chronic fatigue syndrome were included in the study, all patients having been referred by their General Practitioner or a hospital specialist after unsuccessful conventional treatment.

 

Good Sources of Research Information:

·         Bianci, Prof. Ivo et.al. (2002) Homeopathy: The scientific proofs of its efficacy.  This excellent report has detailed information about many trials and comparative studies, including cost comparisons, and is based on international research. It can be downloaded as an e-book at: http://www.guna.it/eng/ricerca/Homeopathy%20the%20scientific%20proofs%20of%20efficacy.pdf

·         www.homeopathic.com is the website of Dana Ullman’s Homeopathic Educational Services and provides a wealth of good research information.

·         An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys; March 2007. This document has been produced by the European Network of Homeopathy Researchers and can be downloaded from the Research page of the Society of Homeopaths’ website (www.homeopathy-soh.org).

·         www.thehomeopath.org.uk is the website of homeopath Ralf Jeutter PhD RSHom, and has detailed research information.

 

Skeptics are advised to comment on their own blogs. I will accept links. H4H

‘Is an alternative just the tonic?’ Northern Ireland’s ‘Get Well UK’ project

Although Homeopathy is under threat on the mainland, BBC Northern Ireland and The Belfast Telegraph  report on succesful homeopathic treatment in a trial of alternative therapies in two Northern Ireland GP clinics (Get Well UK):

BBC Northern Ireland: “Northern Ireland is said to use more prescription drugs than any other UK region. While tablets may alleviate symptoms, they can be addictive and have side effects. A BBC NI documentary looks at the alternatives:

Londonderry woman Frances Gillen was addicted to prescription drugs for more than 20 years. The legacy of the Troubles and raising five children by herself took its toll. After being caught up in gunfire, she slid into depression and refused to leave home for years.
“
It affected me… I stayed in the house for the guts of three years, or maybe more, without going out. The only place I would have gone to was to go over to the doctors,” she said.  “It got that I would not even wash myself. I got the TV brought up into my room. “I didn’t want to commit suicide but I really didn’t want to go on if this was life, if this was my life… the quicker the better, I could go.

However, her life was turned around when she tried homeopathy as part of a pilot scheme being run in two centres in Northern Ireland.  The Get Well Scheme allowed GPs to refer patients to complementary therapists, with the NHS paying for their treatment.

Within weeks, Frances felt her depression lift and she started to resume normal life; she also came off all prescription medication.

“Now I feel like 16 again… well 30,” she joked.

Belfast Telegraph: “Traditionally Northern Ireland has always used more prescription drugs than anywhere else in the UK. We’re fond of our medicines and we’re fond of going to our doctors. The doctor has always been at the centre of our society. Attitudes, however, are changing and for decades patients are now turning to ancient forms of medicine such as acupuncture and aromatherapy — among other therapies.

In 2006 the government controversially decided to do the same and announced a new initiative — the Get Well Scheme. The trial provided complementary therapies to patients within two health centres in Northern Ireland, the Holywood Arches Health Centre in east Belfast and the Shantallow Health Centre in Londonderry, with the treatment paid for by the NHS.

Its aim was to see if complementary therapies could help the health service be more cost-effective by making patients feel better without the use of expensive prescription drugs.

It was designed to help people with problems such as depression and anxiety.

Then we meet Anne McCloskey, a straight-talking GP from the Shantallow Health Centre whose view on complementary medicine differs but changes over time.

In part, her conversion is due to the case of one remarkable patient featured in the film.

Every GP, Anne McCloskey says, has a set of what is referred to as ‘heart-sink’ patients; those who make the GP’s heart sink as soon as they walk through the door. Some ‘heart-sinks’ will visit their GP as often as every second day and, no matter what the GP does, they continue to decline despite there being no clear cause of sickness.

Dr McCloskey’s ‘heart-sink’ patient was Frances Gillen. For over two decades Frances had been suffering from depression which she says began as a result of ‘Troubles-related’ anxiety coupled by the stress of bringing up a large family.

In the film she recalls an incident in which she was almost hit by gunfire and, as a result, refused to leave the house for a number of years.

Frances became heavily dependent on prescription drugs and was one of the first patients Dr McCloskey referred to the Get Well Scheme and her subsequent story is a success.”