HomeAbout UsAbout HomeopathyGetting TreatmentHow We Can Help YouWhat You Can DoResearchMedia Centre

General: British Homeopathic Association Misleading People with research Overviews

Bottom of Page

1 to 13 of 13

  1.  
    • CommentAuthornielsbohr
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2009 edited
     
    The BHA Say on their research page:

    "44% of randomised controlled trials in homeopathy have reported positive effects; only 7% have been negative."

    http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html

    It is well established that there are very many poor quality or small trials of homeopathy and that the larger they are and the better quality the more likely the trial is to show homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo.

    By reporting these simplistic figures, isn't the BHA misleading people?
  2.  
    I would say so
    • CommentAuthorjdc325
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2009
     
    I can't think of any alternative explanation off the top of my head. Wonder if the BHA will bother respond to this?
    • CommentAuthorlpeacock
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2009
     
    From the BHA: Our website accurately states that 44% of randomised controlled trials have reported statistically significant findings in favour of homeopathy. All the original 138 trials concerned were published in peer-review journals. Moreover, the full text of each paper explicitly stated that the study was randomised and observer-blinded - two of the essential criteria of intrinsic trial quality. We recognise, of course, that further criteria of quality are also important, and these are being accommodated in ongoing analyses of the peer-review literature.
  5.  
    "We recognise, of course, that further criteria of quality are also important, and these are being accommodated in ongoing analyses of the peer-review literature."

    Exactly. Have you got these figures from a meta analysis?

    If so may I ask which one ?
    • CommentAuthorlpeacock
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2009
     
    From the BHA: The figures have emerged from a thorough, objective, analysis of the peer-review literature in homeopathy. It is ongoing work we are pursuing with international collaboration. The complete findings will be published in due course.

    The data are consistent with an earlier comprehensive meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy (Linde et al., 1997), in which 43 out of 89 (48%) trials were positive.
  7.  
    Thanks for that. As you will appreciate I will have to reserve judgement until the findings are published. Are you sure it is wise to state the findings as fact until then?

    As far as Linde et al goes:

    "One of the positive meta-analyses, by Linde, et al.,[105] was later corrected by the authors, who wrote:
    The evidence of bias [in homeopathic trials] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.[16][13]"

    Sorry to use Wikipedia but I do not think this is out of context
    • CommentAuthorlpeacock
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2009
     
    From the BHA: Thank you for your constructive comments. The Wikipedia authors have managed to quote accurately from Linde's 1999 discussion, though they have failed to quote the actual results of the paper. When analysis was restricted to just those 10 trials with the highest quality (Jadad score = 5), the odds ratio remained significantly different from 1.00 (mean, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.37–2.91). With all 89 trials included, the equivalent data were 2.47 (2.06–2.97)."
  9.  
    So the majority of trials are shown to be not of high quality?
  10.  
    To clarify from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12492603

    In more detail with regard to Linde et al

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1874503&rendertype=table&id=tbl1
    • CommentAuthorlpeacock
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2009
     
    From the BHA: Note that Linde's analysis of trials included only those published up to August 1995. Yes, a majority of trials available at that time were of poor quality: 49 trials scored just 0–2 on the Jadad system, while 40 scored 3–5.

    It's also worth noting another of Linde's key findings: "When the odds ratio of primary studies are plotted against quality scores, it becomes obvious that there is no clear linear relationship between these two parameters". In discussion, he offers three possible explanations for this: (1) any 'true' effect sizes might vary strongly between treatment and conditions; (2) the relationship between quality and outcome is rather weak; (3) the scores are not suitable to detect an existing relationship.
    • CommentAuthorToast
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    Everything you need to know here:

    http://www.rationalvetmed.org/the%20best%20they%20can%20do.html

    Or check out some of Ben Goldacre's columns in the Guardian.

    http://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=homeopathy

    It's laughable that homeopathy still exists and has not been done away with along with bloodletting and other quackery.

    And the next time someone says "so, it's just a placebo, but where's the harm?" I beg to differ.

    There are now numerous studies to show that where a person THINKS they have taken something healthy, they change other behaviours as a result, eg smoking more, taking more risks or eating more unhealthy food.

    Prescribing sugar pills is unethical and wrong, except as part of a controlled experiment.

    We are all paying for this stuff with our taxes, and it benefits no-one except the practitioners.
    • CommentAuthorimageh
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2012
     
    Here is a very well written paper on the lack of science and the equal lack of ethics concerned with the "practice" of homeopathy. It is response to a defence of homeopathy and clearly and politely refutes every argument given. Its conclusion contains this final sentence:

    "Homeopathy is ethically unacceptable and ought to be actively rejected by healthcare professionals."

    I recommend reading the paper in its entirety.

    here is the link:
    http://www.dcscience.net/Smith-response.pdf

1 to 13 of 13

  1.