Lancet Study on Homeopathy: Biased Propaganda

[Guest guest]

The Lancet has published the results of a study comparing peer-reviewed studies

in homeopathy against studies in conventional medicine. Out of 110 matched

studies only 8 of the homeopathic studies were compared to 6 studies of

conventional medicine. The report concludes that homeopathy is no better than

placebo. The study is poor, but makes some very strong claims.

 

Researches were highly selective and looked at only double-blind

placebo-controlled homeopathic studies (which were probably prescribed on

allopathic rather than homeopathic principles). In a double-blind

placebo-controlled study normally only one medicine is given against the

placebo. Homeopathy will naturally do poorly if the selected medicine is not

similar to the symptoms displayed in the patient.

 

Prescribing methods for homeopathy are not compatible with this type of study

because the homeopath needs to make a homeopathic diagnosis, not a conventional

diagnosis. For example, for someone with asthma there are a number of remedies

that could be used depending on the characteristics of the disease. It may be

more bronchial (wet) or dry asthma, be affected at different times (eg, worse at

night) or in different seasons. Hence 10 people with asthma may require

different homeopathic medicines.

 

Constructing a study on homeopathy is difficult, as the method of diagnosis is

so different to conventional medicine. Also, the amount of funding for studies

into homeopathy is almost non-existent compared to the funds available for

conventional medical studies.

 

It also seems that the researchers of the Lancet study are quite biased in

anything that does not match their concept of treatment, as the following quote

from a researcher suggests (emphasis mine):

 

[ Juni thinks the findings show that homeopathic remedies don’t have any

biological benefits. “Based on these trials, remedies which do not fit into our

traditional concepts of biological mechanisms do not have a specific effect,” he

said. “We cannot prove the negative, but we find an effect which might just be a

placebo effect or a nonspecific effect.” ]

 

Not long ago a large study showing that homeopathy is more effective than

conventional medicine had a brief mention by one news source (the telegraph),

while this new study saying it is no better than placebo has been picked up by a

number of news sources. It seems main stream media is keen to show homeopathy in

a negative light, simply because it does not conform to the scientific status

quo.

 

This new study also conflicts with a preliminary report on homeopathy from the

World Health Organization. It states that the majority of peer-reviewed placebo

controlled studies of homeopathy over the last 40 years demonstrate that

homeopathy is superior to placebo. The WHO study says that homeopathy is

equivalent to conventional medicine in its effectiveness.

 

Just recently placebo was found to have a physical effect on the body, releasing

opioid like substances called endorphins. Endorphins are the body’s own natural

pain-killing substance that are much more powerful than any pain killing drug.

 

Homeopathy is becoming very popular again. In Britain alone, sales of

homeopathic medicines have grown by a third in the past five years to 32 million

pounds in 2004. Recently Prince Charles issued an inquiry into alternative

medicine, which found that £480 million could be saved if just 10% of GP’s

prescribed homeopathy instead of conventional medicine. Homeopathy is not only

cheap it is effective.

 

The study is poor and goes against the general finding that homeopathy does work

and is just as effective (in some cases more effective) than conventional

medicine. More disappointing is the mainstream media’s strong reporting of such

a weak study as cold hard fact.

 

References at:

http://www.althealthinfo.com/2005/08/26/lancet-study-on-homeopathy-biased-propag\

anda/