NATURE helps explain how Homeopathy is Different
The article presents the homeopaths argument that the emphasis homeopaths place on individually tailored treatment makes designing double-blind, placebo-controlled trials a challenge. But, that the homeopathy remedy itself does have an effect independent of the practitioner.
From the article:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070319/full/446352a.html
"...Clare Relton, a practising homeopath who is conducting research into homeopathy at the University of Sheffield and has taken part in a clinical trial designed to assess homeopathic treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome. "I found it difficult to build a therapeutic relationship," she says. Relton argues that homeopathy is scientific, but that the problem of trust means that double-blind trials aren't the best way to measure its effectiveness..."
IOW, the patient and the homeopath have to believe in the treatment or it won't work. So, in study, we can't blind the homeopaths as to whether their remedies are true or placebo, because a doubt (by either patient or practitioner) as to whether they have a real remedy will negatively influence the treatment outcome.
"...Instead, she and other homeopaths prefer to rely on more qualitative methods, such as case studies and non-blinded comparisons of treatment options. These, they say, provide ample evidence that homeopathy works."
"Qualitative methods" probably means they cherry-pick those higher-quality cases where the patient, practitioner, and remedy clicked right-along from the get-go, and the patient got better. "Study" probably then consists of discerning how to make every case click-right-along like these more successful cases.
This should all make sense now. It doesn't matter that not one active substance molecule remains in the homeopathic remedy. We only need to know that the remedy once had an association with the active substance. And then we need only create that same kind of true connection between the remedy, the practitioner, and the patients infirmity. The belief and the positive conviction and emotion are the key to success in Homeopathy.
But, wait. Does then the Homeopathic remedy become a mere talisman? And its use mere ritual? If that is the case, we in evidence-based science are trying to compare the apples of Homeopathy with the oranges of EBM. We perhaps should rather compare homeopathy with other methods of healing that use or require talismans and rituals.
Alternately, we will have to breech or skirt our ethics for clinical study and double-blind both the practitioner and patient in that neither one knows they are in a study and assigned to either active treatment or placebo. If we do this, I predict that, as in the study comparing acupuncture and sham-acupuncture, both study arms will produce a positive effect and the WHO will herald Homeopathy as effective.
-n
From the article:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070319/full/446352a.html
"...Clare Relton, a practising homeopath who is conducting research into homeopathy at the University of Sheffield and has taken part in a clinical trial designed to assess homeopathic treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome. "I found it difficult to build a therapeutic relationship," she says. Relton argues that homeopathy is scientific, but that the problem of trust means that double-blind trials aren't the best way to measure its effectiveness..."
IOW, the patient and the homeopath have to believe in the treatment or it won't work. So, in study, we can't blind the homeopaths as to whether their remedies are true or placebo, because a doubt (by either patient or practitioner) as to whether they have a real remedy will negatively influence the treatment outcome.
"...Instead, she and other homeopaths prefer to rely on more qualitative methods, such as case studies and non-blinded comparisons of treatment options. These, they say, provide ample evidence that homeopathy works."
"Qualitative methods" probably means they cherry-pick those higher-quality cases where the patient, practitioner, and remedy clicked right-along from the get-go, and the patient got better. "Study" probably then consists of discerning how to make every case click-right-along like these more successful cases.
This should all make sense now. It doesn't matter that not one active substance molecule remains in the homeopathic remedy. We only need to know that the remedy once had an association with the active substance. And then we need only create that same kind of true connection between the remedy, the practitioner, and the patients infirmity. The belief and the positive conviction and emotion are the key to success in Homeopathy.
But, wait. Does then the Homeopathic remedy become a mere talisman? And its use mere ritual? If that is the case, we in evidence-based science are trying to compare the apples of Homeopathy with the oranges of EBM. We perhaps should rather compare homeopathy with other methods of healing that use or require talismans and rituals.
Alternately, we will have to breech or skirt our ethics for clinical study and double-blind both the practitioner and patient in that neither one knows they are in a study and assigned to either active treatment or placebo. If we do this, I predict that, as in the study comparing acupuncture and sham-acupuncture, both study arms will produce a positive effect and the WHO will herald Homeopathy as effective.
-n
posted by nawledge at
10:25 PM
|
0 comments
