Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 390 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #979770
    Avatar
    opalette
    Member
    Joined: 12 May 2005
    Location: 71
    Total posts: 1130

    @nifty wrote:

    @jsks wrote:

    I should add that homeopathy is excellent for treating people that there’s nothing wrong with. And I’m sure the placebo effect is no less powerful for homeopathic remedies as it is for any other demonstrably ineffective therapy.

    But in 20-odd pages we have yet to have any reference to a scientifically valid article showing that homeopathy performs better than placebo.

    No amount of jumping up and down compensates for lack of evidence.

    All the evidence, data and proof in the world will not necessarily change firmly held beliefs. One is free to believe what they like. (Which includes a belief that stating facts is in some way doing anybody a disservice.)

    Agreed. But the danger here is that people put their own health and that of others at risk through their firmly held beliefs, encouraged by those who should know better. That’s why some of us get hot under the collar about it.


    #979769
    Avatar
    halfpint
    Participant
    Joined: 21 Oct 2010
    Location: Auvergne
    Total posts: 1244

    Opalette that has to be the most ridiculous statement ever.

    You more put your health at risk over taking medecine or
    going into hospital than taking homeopathic medecines

    Tell it to the Queen of England, she’s never struck me as a
    foolish woman in any way and I’m fit and healthy cared for
    by homeopathy but you and a couple of others on here
    cannot be budged from your opinions, try homeopathy
    then speak


    #979768
    Avatar
    opalette
    Member
    Joined: 12 May 2005
    Location: 71
    Total posts: 1130

    No, you put your health more at risk by taking homeopathy instead of a conventional treatment when you have a condition that needs a conventional treatment. I’m sure the Queen isn’t silly enough to do that.

    What’s the point of my trying homeopathy when I am well? I’m certainly not going to try it if I’m sick; I’d rather use something for which real evidence of efficacy exists.


    #979767
    Avatar
    sorrel
    Member
    Joined: 14 Jan 2011
    Location: Montagne Noire 81
    Total posts: 78
    #979766
    Avatar
    sorrel
    Member
    Joined: 14 Jan 2011
    Location: Montagne Noire 81
    Total posts: 78
    #979765
    Avatar
    mellon
    Participant
    Joined: 06 Sep 2006
    Location: Norwich, ici et la
    Total posts: 231

    This is far too small a trial to draw any reliable conclusions (more than twice the number of subjects would be needed). Interestingly, the patients didn’t perceive any improvement in their condition when treated homeopathically.


    La vie est dure sans confiture.

    #979764
    Avatar
    sorrel
    Member
    Joined: 14 Jan 2011
    Location: Montagne Noire 81
    Total posts: 78

    ](*,) ](*,) “Both groups reported improvement in symptoms, with patients taking homoeopathy reporting more improvement in all but one of the centres, “

    So this means what then? And of course typical fault finding with an accredited study.
    The conclusion stated there was a difference between placebo & homeopathy…so why? if there’s nothing in it!


    #979763
    Avatar
    opalette
    Member
    Joined: 12 May 2005
    Location: 71
    Total posts: 1130

    @sorrel wrote:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471
    The conclusions are the relevant part!

    http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471

    This is quite important too:

    “Fifty one patients successfully completed qualification screening and were randomised (fig 1). Because of the exacting screening, strict qualification criteria, and the prospectively defined requirement to stop enrolment before the pollen season, we did not recruit the number of patients that the power calculation had estimated we required……”

    I’m using this as displacement activity while writing something about a randomised trial of a treatment in a particular group of women with endometrial cancer. I won’t go into detail because it’s not published yet, but it includes data from over 16,000 women. Now that’s the size of sample you need to be relatively sure that the findings are valid.


    #979762
    Avatar
    mellon
    Participant
    Joined: 06 Sep 2006
    Location: Norwich, ici et la
    Total posts: 231

    The fault (that the study was underpowered) was later admitted by the authors who then failed to publish any follow-up study.

    “On average no significant difference between the groups was seen on visual analogue scale scores.” In other words the patients reported feeling better but analysis of their own scoring of their condition showed otherwise.

    All we are left with is a flawed study of a condition, allergic rhinitis, that is notoriously difficult to diagnose objectively in the first place.


    La vie est dure sans confiture.

    #979761
    Avatar
    sorrel
    Member
    Joined: 14 Jan 2011
    Location: Montagne Noire 81
    Total posts: 78

    There seems to be some obfuscation going on here,the conclusion of the study states that there IS a difference between placebo & homeopathy that is my point…


    #979759
    jsks
    jsks
    Participant
    Joined: 03 Sep 2010
    Location: Potatoshire, North Yorkshire and Co Cork soon?
    Total posts: 5674

    @mellon wrote:

    The fault (that the study was underpowered) was later admitted by the authors who then failed to publish any follow-up study.

    Which is, of course a shame. You’d think that if they were confident of a difference they would have explored further, even to include a third group who would be given a conventional alpha-blocker. Homeopathy v conventional v control. Maybe 900 participants to have any real meaning?

    Did you notice who the study was sponsored by?

    Why, when so close, do they give up? Could it be that one result is cherry-picked from among all those that fail to demonstrate the desired result? A sort of confirmation bias.

    #979760
    jsks
    jsks
    Participant
    Joined: 03 Sep 2010
    Location: Potatoshire, North Yorkshire and Co Cork soon?
    Total posts: 5674

    @sorrel wrote:

    There seems to be some obfuscation going on here,the conclusion of the study states that there IS a difference between placebo & homeopathy that is my point…

    The study is essentially scientifically worthless, that is my point. Why such a small sample and, more importantly, why no follow-up with a statistically meaningful sample?

    #979758
    Avatar
    sorrel
    Member
    Joined: 14 Jan 2011
    Location: Montagne Noire 81
    Total posts: 78

    “The study is essentially scientifically worthless,”

    Of course!


    #979757
    jsks
    jsks
    Participant
    Joined: 03 Sep 2010
    Location: Potatoshire, North Yorkshire and Co Cork soon?
    Total posts: 5674

    @sorrel wrote:

    “The study is essentially scientifically worthless,”

    Of course!

    Glad you agree.

    #979756
    Avatar
    nounours
    Member
    Joined: 23 Feb 2009
    Location: 12
    Total posts: 1148

    @jsks wrote:

    @mellon wrote:

    The fault (that the study was underpowered) was later admitted by the authors who then failed to publish any follow-up study.

    Which is, of course a shame. You’d think that if they were confident of a difference they would have explored further, even to include a third group who would be given a conventional alpha-blocker. Homeopathy v conventional v control. Maybe 900 participants to have any real meaning?

    Did you notice who the study was sponsored by?

    Why, when so close, do they give up? Could it be that one result is cherry-picked from among all those that fail to demonstrate the desired result? A sort of confirmation bias.

    If you were part of a multi-million pond industry, would you really do and publish a study which proved that your products had no more value than drinking a glass of water? Time after the quacks have done these studies to keep the gullible and gormless on-side only to find there was a problem in samplehttp://www.frenchentree.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/screening etc. If the quacks were serious about proving their potions worked they would carry out the same clinical trials “proper” drugs companies have to undertake, the reluctance to do so speaks volumes. When ever I think of homoeopathy, I think of the Bob Newhart tobacco sketch, “and you then roll it in a tube and set fire to it??” :P As funny as “so you get this substance and put it in gallons of water and put it in a leather bag and you do WHAT to it??” :shock::P


Health and Social Welfare
Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 390 total)

You cannot reply to this topic.