Critics say Lancet homeopathy study flawed

[Guest guest]

http://altmedicine.about.com/od/alternativemedicinebasics/a/lancet_homeopat.htm?\

nl=1

 

Critics say Lancet homeopathy study flawed

 

A study published in the August 27 issue of The Lancet contends that

homeopathic remedies are no better than placebo. However, the study

has been criticized by peer researchers and homeopathic experts for

being scientifically flawed.

 

It's one of a recent string of negative studies about alternative

medicine that fail to properly test the hypothesis in question. For

example, a $2.2 million echinacea study, which found that echinacea

had no effect on preventing or treating colds, did not use an adequate

therapeutic dose of echinacea.

 

The Lancet study was a meta-analysis--a study that compares a

selection of research studies to see what the overall consensus is. On

page two (p. 727), researchers, led by Aijing Shang, PhD, of the

University of Berne, described the four types of homeopathy studies

they included in their meta-analysis:

Studies using " clinical homeopathy " . Patients did not receive a *

comprehensive homeopathic history and all patients received a single,

identical remedy. This accounted for 48, or 44% of the homeopathy

studies analyzed in the Lancet meta-analysis.

 

* Studies using " complex homeopathy " . Patients did not receive a

comprehensive homeopathic history and all patients received a mixture

of different commonly used homeopathic remedies. This accounted for

35, or 32% of the homeopathy studies analyzed.

 

* Studies using " classical homeopathy " . Patients were given a

comprehensive patient history and received a single, individualized

remedy. This accounted for 18, or 16% of the homeopathy studies analyzed.

 

* Studies using " isopathy " . Patients did not receive a

comprehensive homeopathic history and all patients received a diluted

substance that was believed to be the cause of the disorder (e.g

pollen in seasonal allergies). This accounted for 8, or 7% of the

homeopathy studies analyzed.

 

The problem is there is no such thing as clinical homeopathy. No one

trained and licensed in homeopathy would recommend a single, identical

remedy for patients with a certain disease or condition.

 

Homeopathy is based on the belief that " like cures like " . Diluted

medicinal substances (which look like tiny white pellets) are

prescribed to treat an individual's unique symptoms.

 

For example, if we brought together a hundred people with rheumatoid

arthritis and interviewed them, they would not all have the same

symptoms. Certain factors would aggravate symptoms in some but not

others. A homeopath distinguishes between these various subtypes and

finds a suitable, individual remedy that matches all of that person's

symptoms (hence like cures like).

 

To give everyone with a certain disease or condition the same remedy

is not considered homeopathy. The Lancet meta-analysis included

studies that may have been statistically sound, but should have been

excluded because they lacked a fundamental understanding of what

homeopathy is.

 

In addition, many view the use of complex homeopathy and isopathy as

merely " educated guesses " , because patients receive remedies that

again are not individualized but are commonly used for such

conditions. There is no guarantee that the remedy is correct.

 

Such a major problem in the study should have been detected before the

article was published.

 

This is not the first time the prestigious journal has been at the

center of controversy over scientifically flawed research.

 

The Lancet previously published a sensationalized study linking autism

and the MMR vaccine, which many feel is responsible for eroding public

faith in the MMR vaccine and leading to declining use and new

outbreaks of measles in the UK. The journal later stated that in

hindsight, it would not have published the flawed study.

 

This should not be the end of homeopathy. Instead, our understanding

of whether it does or doesn't work should continue to grow with

better, properly designed research studies.

 

And the lesson to be learned from this particular study is simple--in

order to properly evaluate homeopathy, get someone who actually knows

what it is.

 

 

SOURCES: Shang, A. The Lancet, Aug. 27, 2005; vol 366: pp 726-732.

Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Lancet, Aug. 27, 2005; vol 366: pp 691-692.

News release, National Center for Homeopathy. Matthias Egger, MD,

director, department of social and preventive medicine, University of

Berne, Switzerland. Jan P. Vandenbroucke, MD, PhD, professor of

clinical epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands.

Joyce Frye, DO, MBA, president, American Institute of Homeopathy and

postdoctoral research fellow, center for clinical epidemiology and

biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.