 |
From: John (ool-4356040c.dyn.optonline.net)
Subject: Pat and Cornelius
Date: February 11, 2004 at 12:48 pm PST
Cornelius & Pat, The internet has the potential for being a forum where intelligent, thoughtful discourse can flourish. When you belittle ideas that you clearly haven't taken the time to investigate you create the internet as we largely know it today - a cynical extension of bigotry, self-aggrandizement and mean-spirited exclusion of minority or novel opinions where dissent gets you blocked from participating on a site. At least try to become familiar with the evidence before you lambaste homeopathy, acupuncture or naturopathy. You both really behave poorly when faced with a subject you can't pigeonhole. And you're vegetarians! I'd think that you'd have some perspective on what it's like to be treated without respect. Perhaps you're both such young vegetarians that you have no idea of what it's like to be the object of ignorant, dismissive rantings. In my opinion, there is good reason to be very skeptical about homeopathy. I don't practice it. I know, though, that the results of the admittedly spare scientific scrutiny of homeopathy that has proven it to be effective provides reason to be curious as to when and why homeopathy might be effective. The following abstracts published in respected allopathic, peer-reviewed journals lend credence to the anecdotal observations of patients who use homeopathy and the health care practitioners who practice it. In the little time I was willing to spend collating abstracts I found evidence that homeopathy has been well-studied as effective for ailments as diverse as childhood diarrhea, chemotherapy-induced stomatitis, hayfever, vertigo and low back pain. Sincerely, John [The Efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of chronic low back pain compared to standardized physiotherapy]
[Die Wirkung von klassischer Homoopathie im Vergleich mit standardisierter Physiotherapie bei der Behandlung von chronischen Kreuzschmerzen.]
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2002 Sep-Oct;140(5):503-8 (ISSN: 0044-3220)
Gmunder R; Kissling R
Abteilung fur Physikalische Medizin und Rheumatologie, Orthopadische Universitatsklinik Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland.
AIM: The aim of this pilot project was to evaluate the efficacy of treatment of chronic low back pain during two months either by homeopathy or by standardised physiotherapy. METHOD: 43 patients suffering from chronic low back pain were included in this controlled, randomised prospective study. They were divided in two treatment groups: homeopathy and standardised physiotherapy. Based on the initial and final clinical investigations, the Oswestry questionnaire and the visual analogue scale, that were assessed at the beginning, at the end and 18.5 months after therapy, the results were statistically evaluated. A further questionnaire documented the acceptance of treatment. RESULTS: A comparison of the groups from the beginning to the end of treatment reveals a significant decrease of the Oswestry score in patients treated by homeopathy. This tendency could not be confirmed 18.5 months later. Homeopathy was well accepted by most of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, nothing can be said against attempting treatment of chronic low back pain by means of homeopathy. Further research is recommended to confirm the results of our investigation, using a larger number of patients, a third treatment group, homeopathy double blinded. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL S in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation.
Cancer 2001 Aug 1;92(3):684-90 (ISSN: 0008-543X)
Oberbaum M; Yaniv I; Ben-Gal Y; Stein J; Ben-Zvi N; Freedman LS; Branski D
The Institute of Research on Complementary Medicine, The Center of Integrated Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, P.O. Box 3235, Jerusalem 91031, Israel. oberbaum@netvision.net.il.
BACKGROUND: Stomatitis is a common consequence of chemotherapy and a condition for which there is little effective treatment. Although the management of patients with other chemotherapy-related toxicities has improved in recent years, the incidence of stomatitis is increasing because of more intensive treatment and is often a dose limiting factor in chemotherapy. The authors assessed the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy, TRAUMEEL S(R), in the management of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 32 patients ages 3-25 years who had undergone allogeneic (16 patients) or autologous (16 patients) stem cell transplantation. Of the 30 evaluable patients, 15 were assigned placebo, and 15 were assigned TRAUMEEL S both as a mouth rinse, administered five times daily from 2 days after transplantation for a minimum of 14 days, or until at least 2 days after all signs of stomatitis were absent. Stomatitis scores were evaluated according to the World Health Organization grading system for mucositis. RESULTS: A total of five patients (33%) in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group did not develop stomatitis compared with only one patient (7%) in the placebo group. Stomatitis worsened in only 7 patients (47%) in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group compared with 14 patients (93%) in the placebo group. The mean area under the curve stomatitis scores were 10.4 in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group and 24.3 in the placebo group. This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that TRAUMEEL S may reduce significantly the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials.
Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003 Mar;22(3):229-34 (ISSN: 0891-3668)
Jacobs J; Jonas WB; Jimenez-Perez M; Crothers D
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. jjacobs@igc.org.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a positive treatment effect of individualized homeopathic treatment for acute childhood diarrhea, but sample sizes were small and results were just at or near the level of statistical significance. Because all three studies followed the same basic study design, the combined data from these three studies were analyzed to obtain greater statistical power. METHODS: Three double blind clinical trials of diarrhea in 242 children ages 6 months to 5 years were analyzed as 1 group. Children were randomized to receive either an individualized homeopathic medicine or placebo to be taken as a single dose after each unformed stool for 5 days. Parents recorded daily stools on diary cards, and health workers made home visits daily to monitor children. The duration of diarrhea was defined as the time until there were less than 3 unformed stools per day for 2 consecutive days. A metaanalysis of the effect-size difference of the three studies was also conducted. RESULTS: Combined analysis shows a duration of diarrhea of 3.3 days in the homeopathy group compared with 4.1 in the placebo group (P = 0.008). The metaanalysis shows a consistent effect-size difference of approximately 0.66 day (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.
Homeopathic vs conventional treatment of vertigo: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical study.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998 Aug;124(8):879-85 (ISSN: 0886-4470)
Weiser M; Strosser W; Klein P
Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, Baden-Baden, Germany. weiser.michael@heel.de.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a homeopathic remedy (Vertigoheel, Heel Inc, Albuquerque, NM) vs betahistine hydrochloride (active control) in the treatment of patients with vertigo of various origins in a confirmative equivalence trial. DESIGN: Randomized (1:1) double-blind controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Fifteen study centers (general practice) in Germany between November 1995 and November 1996. SUBJECTS: A total of 119 patients with vertigo of various origins (from whom 105 patients could be analyzed as intended per protocol). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks. RESULTS: Both homeopathic and conventional treatments showed a clinically relevant reduction in the mean frequency, duration, and intensity of the vertigo attacks. The therapeutic equivalence of the homeopathic remedy and betahistine was established statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning the main efficacy variable, therapeutic equivalence between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance (confirmative analysis). Both remedies reduced the frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks during a 6-week treatment period. Also, vertigo-specific complaints were significantly reduced in both treatment groups.
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.
Lancet 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43 (ISSN: 0140-6736)
Linde K; Clausius N; Ramirez G; Melchart D; Eitel F; Hedges LV; Jonas WB
Munchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universitat/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universitat, Munchen, Germany.
BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.
Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model.
Lancet 1986 Oct 18;2(8512):881-6 (ISSN: 0140-6736)
Reilly DT; Taylor MA; McSharry C; Aitchison T
The hypothesis that homoeopathic potencies are placebos was tested in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The study model chosen compared the effects of a homoeopathic preparation of mixed grass pollens with placebo in 144 patients with active hayfever. The homoeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patient and doctor assessed symptom scores. The significance of this response was increased when results were corrected for pollen count and the response was associated with a halving of the need for antihistamines. An initial aggravation of symptoms was noted more often in patients receiving the potency and was followed by an improvement in that group. No evidence emerged to support the idea that placebo action fully explains the clinical responses to homoeopathic drugs.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
