Cochrane review: Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, 2019, Peckham et al

Cheshire said:
Anyone who maintains on a blanket basis that homeopathy works should watch a teething baby given a fake homeopatic remedy containing sugar.
Click to expand...

Does anyone have any evidence of a fractious teething baby's red inflamed cheeks and gums being cured by a few sugar onlly granules? Or can hypothesise a mechanism? However I regularly observed it happen with homoeopathic Chamomilla teething granules.
 
Annamaria said:
Does anyone have any evidence of a fractious teething baby's red inflamed cheeks and gums being cured by a few sugar onlly granules? Or can hypothesise a mechanism? However I regularly observed it happen with homoeopathic Chamomilla teething granules.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any clinical trial for homeopathic remedies for teething babies, but no trial has ever found homeopathy effective, nor does its rational stand.

To prove it has any effect on teething pain, you'd need something more convincing than someone's observations, which are, as you should know, of no scientific value.
 
Last edited:
Cheshire said:
I'm not aware of any clinical trial for homeopathic remedies for teething babies, but no trial has ever found homeopathy effective, nor does its rational stands.

To prove it has any effect on teething pain, you'd need something more convincing than someone's observations, which are, as you should know, of no scientific value.
Click to expand...

I suspect that trials of homoeopathy are rarely done because of lack of funding. Homoeopathic suppliers don't have the deep pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
 
Annamaria said:
We shall have to agree to differ.
Click to expand...
No. That's not a matter of disagreement. Bring proofs of what you're asserting.

The profits made by Boiron are huge. Their research credits are way lower than any other pharmaceutical companies (nearly non existing), and the raw materials they use are cheap (water and sugar). That's one of the most profitable sections of the pharmaceutical industry.
 
Last edited:
Annamaria said:
I suspect that trials of homoeopathy are rarely done because of lack of funding. Homoeopathic suppliers don't have the deep pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are wrong. Plenty of trials have been done and shows homeopathy does not work. It also makes plenty of money for people selling it.

This website is about evidence based medicine so you can’t be surprised at people following what many trials have shown over your anecdotal story.
 
rvallee said:
I've seen this line used by many of the most prominent cheerleaders of CBT-GET for ME: there may not be evidence for it but I feel that it works and I have seen it work anecdotally.
Click to expand...

This line is also used by some proponents of bogus medical treatments for ME/CFS. "Sure, there are no trials showing that this drug works, or in fact trials have shown that it doesn't work, but I have seen it work anecdotally and therefore I in my infinite wisdom and clinical judgement know that it works for a subgroup and I'll continue to prescribe it (for profit) until I get struck off the medical register." And so these doctors continue to defraud the public with treatments that don't work.
 
Sid said:
This line is also used by some proponents of bogus medical treatments for ME/CFS. "Sure, there are no trials showing that this drug works, or in fact trials have shown that it doesn't work, but I have seen it work anecdotally and therefore I in my infinite wisdom and clinical judgement know that it works for a subgroup and I'll continue to prescribe it (for profit) until I get struck off the medical register." And so these doctors continue to defraud the public with treatments that don't work.
Click to expand...
:emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap:
 
I had many discussions in PR and maybe here too about homeopathy. I know you all disagree with homeopathy with the above arguments. Which is fair enough, makes sense, I don't really want to go all over again but I must emphasize that it helped me to relieve some symptoms.

It would be unfair if I didn't mention. I don't know how it did this as I don't know many conventional medicine works (or does not work) either.

However, the article has a huge problem as homeopathy never works like conventional medicine; homeopath is someone like a magician (I know it is completely deluded thinking) guessing whatever the substance is causing the person's symptoms and preparing / prescribing the remedy based on that substance. It is different for each person. One remedy for all, -based on the same symptom is used for babies and animals at times, however it is not regarded as proper homeopathic treatment.

Please don't get angry with me, I'm not defending homeopathy I just feel guilty to deny the benefits that I got from homeopathy. I've been on many remedies some helped some didn't. Never helped for POTS, cognitive problems, vertigo, palpitations, nausea. But helped insomnia, intestinal problems of both kind, gas, indigestion, some skin problems to a degree, menstruation- menopausal problems, and more I can not remember right now.

I'm so gonna regret posting this.:nailbiting:
 
Last edited:
No harm in sharing your own experience, @erin. I have tried homeopathic remedies too, a long time ago, and at the time convinced myself that some of them worked. Looking back I can see that the conditions I treated with them were either ones easily amenable to placebo effect, or likely to resolve anyway, so my experience proved nothing. And of course they often didn't have any effect.

I agree that just giving the same remedy for a condition to everyone is not how homeopaths prescribe. But it would still be perfectly possible to carry out a double blind trial, with the homeopath sending the prescription to someone who is dispensing the remedies, and that someone not to tell the homeopath or patient whether they had sent the patient the prescribed remedy or plain sugar pills. Then the allocations unblinded at the end of the trial.
 
Trish said:
No harm in sharing your own experience, @erin. I have tried homeopathic remedies too, a long time ago, and at the time convinced myself that some of them worked. Looking back I can see that the conditions I treated with them were either ones easily amenable to placebo effect, or likely to resolve anyway, so my experience proved nothing. And of course they often didn't have any effect.

I agree that just giving the same remedy for a condition to everyone is not how homeopaths prescribe. But it would still be perfectly possible to carry out a double blind trial, with the homeopath sending the prescription to someone who is dispensing the remedies, and that someone not to tell the homeopath or patient whether they had sent the patient the prescribed remedy or plain sugar pills. Then the allocations unblinded at the end of the trial.
Click to expand...
Yes. Good double blind trials of homeopathy as described above would be easy and cheap. The homeopathic medicine makers are rich and could fund these studies. Like pharma fund trials of their drugs because they have to get them licensed and so design them to favour the drug and spin the results like there's no tomorrow. No surprise that homeopathic medicine makers don't fund large trials. They don't have to to get licensed, so and they don't want to risk proving they don't work. Rather than Cochrane wasting time doing reviews of poorly conducted studies, they should be funding or at least campaigning for decent well-powered double blind trials which can convincingly debunk or support homeopathy once and for all.
 
What homeopaths should be doing is not expensive clinical trials on humans, but small and inexpensive experiments on say plants that can convincingly demonstrate that the homeopathic remedy isn't just water. That would demonstrate that there is something to the idea.
 
Trish said:
I agree that just giving the same remedy for a condition to everyone is not how homeopaths prescribe.
Click to expand...
Makes me think that in fact homeopath's way of working is, I believe, a highly bespoke and personalised approach, or at least that is the impression a patient will get. Maybe this is a key ingredient of placebo effect? Might be interesting if there were a trial of homeopathic 'remedies' with one arm as per typical treatment, and another which still administers exactly the same intervention, but without any of the personal attention, just "there it is, get it down you!"
 
Last edited:
I take a homeopathic remedy in liquid form every day. In Germany it is delivered to every household via a tap over the kitchen sink. I know my experience is only anecdotal so don't be too hard on me, but I swear it's effective in reducing symptoms of thirst, especially dry throat.
 
I have just looked at the UK ME Association website section on alternative therapy for ME to see if homeopathy is mentioned.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/about-what-is-mecfs/management/#Part 7
I found this statement:
Alternative Therapies

Even though people with ME/CFS frequently report that alternative and complementary therapies have been helpful, there are others who spend large sums of money on highly speculative treatments and gain no benefit at all.

As with many other conditions, there is very little evidence from well-conducted clinical trials into the efficacy of alternative treatments – one exception possibly being homeopathy (Weatherley-Jones et al 2004).

A systematic review of 26 randomised controlled trials involving the use of complementary and alternative medicines in ME/CFS (17 studies assessed supplements) provided limited evidence for their effectiveness in relieving symptoms (Alraek et al 2011).
Approaches such as acupuncture and homeopathy may be worth trying if a person has faith in them and can find a reputable practitioner.
Click to expand...
My bolding.

I was astonished to see this, so thought I'd better follow the evidence and found the trial mentioned.

Here it is:
A randomised, controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome.

The authors themselves conclude the evidence of efficacy is weak and equivocal. I have no idea why the MEA would recommend homeopathy on the basis of this trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom