Homeopathic repertory, by J.T. Kent. (Image via Wikipedia)
I had to do this in lots of small doses to prevent the stupid rubbing off…
People with bad-science style blogs, or on twitter may have noticed ‘Dr’ Nancy Malik and co pushing a google knol page in which said homeopathic astroturfer had dumped a whole bunch of links to homeopathy paper that she concludes has “confirmed the efficacy of homeopathic medicine.”
O RLY?
First thing to note is that she reckons there are 130+ studies… just under 100 by my reckoning, but then I didn’t count the 59 instances of multiple posting of the same paper, or indeed the many websites, news articles and blog posts which are not peer-reviewed.
I’ve gone through Malik’s knol page (fixing some of her wretched formatting quirks), and annotating each paper. My annotations appears as blockquotes. There are a few instances where I ‘ve not been able to access the full text of an article. If you can, e-mail me at xtaldaveblog_squiggle_gmail_dot_com. I have NOT drilled down into papers that might be mentioned on pages linked to, because, to be honest, I have a career and a family, and I can only read so many crappy clinical trials in a week.
Picking holes in the individual papers was not a particularly arduous task, but the sheer quantity of piffle to plough through meant that it took a while. At some point, I intend to create a searchable spreadsheet… watch this space…
The basic take home message is that the vast majority of these studies fail to impress as they have very small sample sizes. Mostly less than 100 patients per group, occasionally down to single figures. There are also plenty of instances where remedies are used at dilutions below 12C – thereby suggesting that active ingredients may actually remain – thus the ‘prior probability‘ of these remedies is non-zero. I have no real issue with the plausibility of such remedies – but let us be clear that in such cases the homeopathic bells and whistles (like succussion) have not been shown to have a demonstrable effect. This does not mean of course, that sub 12C remedies do not need to have their efficacy assessed in a correct and rigorous manner.
TRIPLE-BLIND STUDIES
1. Journal of Psychosomatic Research (Pergamon)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15016577 (2004) //Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Subjective, Patient questionnaires to measure outcome of 92 patients. p=0.09 – is not generally considered to be significant.
DBRPCT
World’s first DBRPCT was conducted in 1835 by a homeopath physician Johann Jacob Reuter,
http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/19th_Century/lohner/lohner-commentary.html
Hardly relevant, as it is not peer reviewed. Worth mentionning only because it demonstrates the amazing ability of Malik to post things without actually reading them or critically assessing them. The DBRPCT concluded that “The vast majority of those who had received the homeopathic salt dilution had thus not experienced any ‘effect’. The investigators concluded that Reuter was wrong.”
1. Lancet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (1997) //homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective and positive) to placebo
The 1997 Linde review was updated in 1999 and concludes “Our analyses provide clear evidence that in the study set investigated more rigorous trials tended to yield smaller effect sizes.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2886%2990410-1/abstract (1986) //hay fever
Only 52/56 patients in each group. Only subjective scores changed – objective measures like IgE no different.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2990407-3/abstract (1994) //homeopathy does more than placebo
15/13 patients in each group. Conventional meds taken alongside homeopathy. No difference in objective measures.
2. British Medical Journal
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/302/6772/316 (1991) //105 studies: 77% of studies show positive result of homeopathy
CONCLUSIONS–At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471 (2000) FULL TEXT //allergic rhinitis
51 patients. Flawed Statistics.
“Editor – Taylor et al came to the conclusion that “this study has failed to confirm our original hypothesis that homeopathy is a placebo” [1]. Unfortunately, the statistics do not prove that. The basis for the study was a prestudy power calculation [2] which required 120 patients to prove the hypothesis, with a 5% significance and an 80% power, infact only the study only recruited 51 patients, but analysed the results as if they had the required number. In fact their only conclusion was that they do not have enough data to make a conclusion. If we accept the availability of only 51 patients at the outset, what are the relevant calculations ? The power calculation is only 43%, and to maintain the power calculation at 80%, the “p-value” becomes 34% ! The only conclusion is that the trial is not able to prove anything.”
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/content/effect-of-homoeopathic-treatment-on-fibrositis (1989) //fibromyalgia (Inflammation in muscles)
Not beyond Avagadros constant. “We showed that the homoeopathic medicine R toxicodendron 6c was effective for a selected subgroup of patients with fibrositis.”
http://www.vithoulkas.com/images/stories/Articles/premenstrual_syndrome_orig_paper.pdf (2001) //Pre Mensuration Syndrome
8/11 patients participated in each arm of this trial. Pitiful.
3.Chest
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full (2005) FULL TEXT //Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
25 patients in each group – groups not properly matched.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php
4. European Journal of Paedretics (SpringerLink)
http://adhdinfocentre.com/homeopathy/Homeopathic%20treatment%20of%20children%20with%20attention%20deficit%20hyperactivity%20disorder.pdf (2005) FULL TEXT //ADHD
Cochrane review of Homeopathy for ADHD (which includes this study) concludes “Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005648/frame.html
5. Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerLink)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf (2009) FULL TEXT //electromagnetic properties of highly-diluted biological samples
Debunked here – http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081
6. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=03000&article=00005&type=abstract (2003) // diarrhea
Debunked here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=508
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=02000&article=00012&type=abstract (2001) //otitis media
Not statistically significant. “There were fewer treatment failures in the group receiving homeopathy after 5 days, 2 weeks and 6 weeks, with differences of 11.4, 18.4 and 19.9%, respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant.”
7. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (InterScience by Wiley)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03116.x/abstract (2009) //Psoriasis
No Placebo Control
8. Ear, Nose and Throat disorders (Bio Med Central)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6815/9/7 (2009) FULL TEXT //chronic sinusitis
No Placebo Control
9. Toxicological Sciences (Oxford University Press)
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/368 (2006) //why small doses is better than large dose
Paper concerns HORMESIS and NOT HOMEOPATHY. Doesn’t even mention homeopathy.
10. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery (American Medical Association)
http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/8/1/54.long (2006) FULL TEXT //Arnica for bruising
14/15 patients in each group. This graph says it all.
http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/8/1/54/F3.large.gif
11. Sleep Medicine (Elseiver)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673648 (2010) //Nux Vomica 30 & Coffea Cruda 30 for insomnia
Patients with caffeine induced insomnia had to alter their caffeine intake to participate in the study.
Should be retitled “Altering caffeine intake in patients with caffeine induced insomnia alters their caffeine induced insomnia”
12. Cancer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%2820010801%2992:3%3C684::AID-CNCR1371%3E3.0.CO;2-%23/full (2001) FULL TEXT //Traumeel S for stomatitis
15/15 patients in each group – Traumeel S is not diluted beyond 10^23…
13. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19799472 (2009) //Sinfrontal for ENT & respiratory tract infections
Can’t get full text – but it is clear that the remedy is not diluted beyond 10^23, Looks like their basis for Sinfrontal being superior is in part due to that that it is cheaper than genuine antibacterials. Also – it is not clear whether or not the cases of sinusitis studies were confirmed as being due to a bacterial infetion, rather than viral infection of allergen response.
14. Inflammation Research
http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/histamine.pdf (2004) FULL TEXT // homeopathy histamine modulates human basophil activation
Degrenulation studies discussed in depth here.
http://dannyb1022.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-faculty-of-homeopathy-%E2%80%9Canswers-the-critics%E2%80%9D-scientific-basis-of-homeopathy/
15. Rheumatic Diseases Clinics of North America
http://www.rheumatic.theclinics.com/article/S0889-857X%2805%2970125-3/ (2000) //rheumatic diseases
Can’t get full text…
16. Pediatrics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8165068 (1994) //diarrhea
Discussed here : http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=472
17. Journal of Hellenic Headache Association
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/280/lang,en/ (2006) //migraine
36 patients. Not placebo controlled.
18. Rheumatology (Oxford University Press)
http://bit.ly/9cs6C2 (2004)FULL TEXT// LM potency for fibromyalgia
26/27 patients in the study groups.
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/7/714 (2000) FULL TEXT //osteo-arthritis of the knee
Not placebo controlled. Not clear if ingredients of gel are diluted beyond 10^23.
19. American Journal of Pain Management
http://www.homeopathic.org/content/osteoarthritic-pain-a-comparison-of-homeopathy-and-acetaminophen (1998) //pain due to osteo-arthritis
Not statistically significant, or placebo controlled.
20. Physica A
http://bit.ly/d7e0Oq (2003) //distinguishing one homeopathy medicine from another
Interesting, but largely irrelevant wrt homeopathy. Discussed here
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/a-homeopathic-refutation-%E2%80%93-part-two/
21. Journal of Clinical Gastro-enterology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9451677 (1997) //post-operative ileus
Concludes “However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue.”
22. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
http://journals.lww.com/headtraumarehab/Abstract/1999/12000/Homeopathic_Treatment_of_Mild_Traumatic_Brain.2.aspx (1999) //Mild traumatic brain injury
Total of 50 patients. “Our findings require large-scale, independent replication.”
23. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
http://flusolution.net/bjcp.pdf (1989) FULL TEXT //influenza
Cochrane review of homeopathy for influenza: “Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like
syndromes.”http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=Br%20J%20Clin%20Pharmacol[object 3]+AND+9[Volume]+AND+453[page] (1980) //rheumatoid arthritis
Only 26 patients in each group
24. Phlebology
“Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised,
Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial” E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, 1990, 157-163.Over a period of 24 days, the effects of a homeopathic complex preparation and placebo on varicose veins were tested in a double-blind trial of 61 people suffering from this condition. The homeopathic complex produced an averaged 44%
improvement in the condition while those given the placebo experienced an averaged worsening of the disorder.
Can’t get full text.
25. Human and Experimental Toxicology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917505 (1994) //80% homeopathy medicines shows positive effects
Points out that many studies are of poor quality and lack replication – as the paper doesn’t make any specific claims of cure of efficacy ,hardly relevant.
26. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247843 (1997) //otitis media
Otitis media is a self-limiting condition with multiple causes. This paper compare Homeopathy with conventional meds – however, as no attempts appears to be made to determine what caused the OM, the conventional meds may be ineffective themselves, given that OM can be caused by viral infection, etc. No placebo control.
27.Journal of Dermatological Treatment
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09546639709160282 (1997) //Sulphur 6, Siliciea 6 & Carbo Veg 6 for ulcer
7 patients in each group. Not diluted beyond 10^23.
28 Archives of Otolaryngology – head and Neck Surgery
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713 (1998) //vertigo
Can’t get full text – but abstract reveals no placebo control – “+ve control” is against conventional meds which may or may not be effective depending on cause of vertigo.
29. Biological Therapy
http://www.heelusa.com/practitioners/clinicalresearch/Docs/Euphorbium/Homeopathic_Sinusitis_Medication.pdf (1995) FULL TEXT //sinus
HomeoNasal Spray not diluted beyond 10^23 – may contain active ingredients!
30. International Journal of High Dilution Research
http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/369 (2010) //Nux-Vomica, Merc, Belladonna for acute rhinitis
No Placebo control, and Rhinitis is another self-limiting condition which is often caused by viral infection, allergic reactions, seasonal responses to change in climate, etc etc.
http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 (2008) FULL TEXT // Quality of life, Cost effectiveness
Not a clinical trial.
31. The Science of the total Environment (Elseiver)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628642 (2007) //Arsenicum Album 30 for arsenic toxicity
Discussed here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=556#comment-12704
“a trial with no real inclusion criteria, poor randomisation, enormous drop out rate, that changes its protocol halfway to include meaningless controls, then utilises incorrect statistical techniques to analyse the wrong parameters.”
32. International Journal of Oncology
http://bit.ly/cM9faz (2003) //Ruta 6 for brain cancer
A cell culture-based paper with actual amounts of active ingredient – not homeopathy.
33. Nonlinear Biomedical Physics (Bio Med Central)
http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/3/1/10 (2009) //Dilution beyond avogadro number
Noisy data. Cell culture based assay of a fungal enzyme.
34. Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (German)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725 (1997) //homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever
Not got full text. Outcome measured by the patient. “As not all of the single studies were analyzed by intention to treat analysis the results may be biased.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16425109 (2005)
//emergency/critically ill/ICU patients
Not got full text.
35. Der Kassenarzt (German)
http://www.vasezdravlje.com/izdanje/clanak/1874/ FULL TEXT // tonsillitis
Croatian, not german. Not sure where this is published, or if it is even peer reviewed. Treatments used not beyond 10^23.
36. Arzneimittel-Forschung (German) meaning Medicines Research (English)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15727161 (2005) //vertigo
No full text – but no placebo control.
HOMEOPATHY-ONLY JOURNALS:
1. Homeopathy (Elseiver)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725250 (2003)
This journal is hardly an unbiased observer in this case, and has been seen taking liberties with published data to provide support for homeopathy where support is not justified – including this paper – see https://xtaldave.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/diluting-the-truth/ (paper 2)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15892486 (2005) //severe sepsis
Only 35 patients per trial arm. This is in addition to conventional meds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19135953 (2009) //treatment of respiratory infections by homeopathy is cheaper by 50% compared to conventional medicine
So apparently sugar is cheaper than real meds. Who knew?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15751328 (2005) //Inflammation of the mucous membranes of nose & throat
Concludes that homeopathy is better than antibiotics at treating acute rhinopharyngitis – but then given that most pharyngitis is viral – is that really a well designed trial? No. No placebo arm either.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine
“RESULTS: In 13 matched sets the placebo effect in the homeopathic trials was larger than the average placebo effect of the conventional trials, in 12 matched sets it was lower (P=0.39). Additionally, no subgroup analysis yielded any significant difference.” – Yeah, and?
http://bit.ly/9kWmuV (2010) //Leptospirosis (fever+jaundice+ inflammation in kidney+enlargement of spleen)
Debunked here –
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/much-ado-about-nothing/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647206 (2009) //oral ulcer
Not diluted beyond 10^23. Only single (patient) blinded.
http://bit.ly/bpXyQX (2010) FULL TEXT //chronic insomnia
Only 30 patients in total. Sleep quality questionnaire were only outcome measure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19358959 (2009) //homeopathy as an adjunct to usual care for fibromyalgia
47 patients. No placebo arm.
http://bit.ly/9R3TVG (2006) FULL TEXT //patho-genetic trials
About provings. Not particularly relevant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371566 (2008) //osteo-arthritis
The paper is so badly written, it’s difficult to see quite what they intended to show. No placebo arm, doesn’t mention blinding, 47 patients in total.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371568 (2008) // 3C differs from 4C
The fact that Malik thinks that the fact that a 100^3 dilution differs from a 100^4 dilution is significant suggests an astonishing lack of chemistry knowledge.
All I have to say is “well-duh”
2. British Homoeopathic Journal
http://bit.ly/aojfhY (1986) //Arnica, Bryonia & Rhus Tox for fibromyalgia
24 Patients. “homœopathy produced a statistically significant improvement, but only when the prescribed remedy was well indicated.” – “well indicated” is a subjective assessment by the homeopath…
http://bit.ly/ar8PhX (1993) //Caulophyllum 7C reduces duration of labour by 90 minutes
7C may contain active ingredient. No Placebo arm. Control group may not be well matched, and have some spuriously long labour times, which skewed average.
3. Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy
http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/research_and_homeopathy.htm
Not peer-reviewed as far as I can tell
4. American Journal of Homoeopathic Medicine
(http://www.homeopathyusa.org/journal)Acute Diarrhoeal Diseases in Children, 2009, 102 (3): 122-129
Not listed in Pubmed.
5. Asian Journal of Homeopathy (homoeomag@yahoo.com)
To investigate the effectiveness of homeopathy in medical primary care in upper and lower respiratory tract complaints, 01 Feb 2008, pp. 3-19
Not listed in Pubmed
6. Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, Govt of India
http://ccrhindia.org/cumulative/clinicalresearch.htm(1985-1998)
Link broken – not peer-reviewed
http://ccrhindia.org/collaborative.asp (1988-2007)
Link broken – not peer-reviewed
CAM JOURNALS
1.Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine(Liebert)
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2007.0560 (2008) //Arnica Montana for wounds
No placebo arm. No diluted beyond 10^23. Only 88 patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914 (2005) //distinguishing homeopathy medicine from solvent
Can’t get full text. Doesn’t distinguish remedy from remedy though? Are all high dilution homeopathic remedies identical? (Yes).
Not peer-reviewed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914 (2005) //distinguishing homeopathy medicine from solvent
A repeated citation from above.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555303321222928 (2003) //distinguishing homeopathy medicine from solvent
Can’t get full text.
2.Evidence-based Complimentary & Alternative Medicine (Oxford University Press)
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7 (2007) FULL TEXT
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/your_friday_dose_of_woo_when_a_mad_mathe.php
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep114v1 (2009) FULL TEXT //LM potency for Depression
Homeopathy no worse that Fluoxitine, which is itself only indicated for severe depression
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/441 (2005) FULL TEXT //immunology
Historical review paper. Irrelevant.
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/257 (2007) FULL TEXT //in-vitro, tumour
Heh – I “did” this one – Failure to control for ethanol concentration is epic. https://xtaldave.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/dynamised-preparations-in-cell-culture/
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/129 (2007) FULL TEXT //thallasemia
Some remedies beyond 10^23, some not. Small, variable N numbers – largest group 24 patients.
3.Complementary Therapy in Medicine (Elseiver)
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2806%2900041-0/abstract (2006) //arnica for inflammation
Review of 3 trials. Arnica NOT beyond 10^23 (“. In arnica 30×, arnica is diluted 30 times with water, each dilution in the proportion 1:1”) Only one (with 57 patients made significance).
http://smhcv.org.mialias.net/wp-content/uploads/articulo_lancet3.pdf (2005) FULL TEXT //chronic diseases
Not Placebo controlled. Poorly matched groups (look at education, which is correlated with social class & prosperity & thus general health). No objective clinical outcome measures.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2807%2900013-1 (2007) //in vitro evidence of serial agitated ultra-molecular dilutions
Review of in-vitro experiments, eg. Basophile degranulation assays. Many of these studies not blinded. Notes that “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036165 (2005) //Arnica Montana & Bellis Perennis for bleeding after delivery
Bizarre. Trail conducted on ~210 patients. But this is a preliminary report of just 40. Which manages to just about crawl into
significance. Despite 5 years waiting, the full study not published yet… Also – some treatment groups not beyond 10^23 – and treatment groups look to be combined in analysis.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023697_homeopathy_medicine_steroids.html //homeopathy for eczema
Natural News. Lolzors..
4. Forsch Komplementarmed(German) meaning Research in Complimentary Medicine (English)
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=10.1159/000093586 (2006) //homeopathy is safe & effective
Tries to be a meta-review. Fails to examine or judge methodology. Multiple diseases and treatments and outcome measures.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19295225 (2009) //Antimony 6X for pro-coagulatory effect in bleding disorder
Not beyond 10^23. Only 30 patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420956 (2009) //homeopathy differs from placebo
Proving. Bonkers.
DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES
1. Public Health (Bio Med Central)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/115 (2005) FULL TEXT // (Chronic) Disease severity and quality of life demonstrated marked and sustained improvements following homeopathic treatment
Not placebo controlled, or indeed controlled or blinded at all. A study of regression to mean.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/413 (2008) FULL TEXT //Disease severity & quality of life increases following homeopathy treatment
Not placebo controlled, or indeed controlled or blinded at all. A study of regression to mean.
2. Homeopathy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194760 (2008) //hot flushes in menopausal women
Not a controlled trial. No placebo arm.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960096 (2004) //improved physical condition & high satisfaction, allopathy drug discontinued
No controls. No objective clinic outcomes measures.
3. Journal of Alternative & Complimentary Medicine
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.793 (2005) //chronic diseases
Not placebo controlled, or indeed controlled or blinded at all. “Patients who want sugar pills, like sugar pills”
4. Complimentary & Alternative Medicine (Bio Med Central)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/52 (2008) FULL TEXT //higher paptient satisfaction compared to allopathy
Patients satisfactory survey. Not relevant for efficacy.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/7 (2007) FULL TEXT
//respiratory& ear complaints
Not controlled. Many respiratory & ear complaints are viral in nature, and so comparison to conventional meds is not justified.
5. Homoeopathic Links
https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI10.1055/s-0029-1240889 (2010) //Hepar sulphuris, Antimonium crudum, Sulphur and Calcarea carbonica for boils
Not beyond 10^23. Not controlled.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS & META ANALYSIS
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/about-homeopathy/clinical-research/experimental-studies
Website
http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/systematic_reviews/index.html
Website
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (1997) //89 studies: homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective) to placebo
Linde Test Fail (REPOST) – see above for conclusions of 1999 re-analysis.
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=03000&article=00005&type=abstract (2003) // diarrhea
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9451677 (1997) //post-operative ileus
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725 (1997) //homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine
REPOST
http://smhcv.org.mialias.net/wp-content/uploads/articulo_lancet3.pdf (2005) FULL TEXT //chronic diseases
REPOST
ONLINE DATABASE
1. PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pmc.Pmc_LimitsTab.LimitsOff=true&db=pmc&cmd=search&term=homeopathy (1906-till date)
Websearch link.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843608 //hypericum for depression
St John’s Wort for depression. Not homeopathy.
2.InterScience (Wiley)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000448/frame.html (2009) //hypericum for depression
REPOST
3. Cochrane
http://www.library.nhs.uk/cam/ViewResource.aspx?resID=295205 (2008) //hypericum for depression
REPOST
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/rel0001/CD001957/frame.html (2003) // Oscillococcinum for influenza
See above – apparently shortened flu by 7 hours. How would you know? Noise.
4. HomBRex
http://www.carstens-stiftung.org/
WEBSITE
Evidence for Specific Disease Conditions
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/Conditions_where_positive_evidence.html
WEBSITE
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/evid/clinical-trials.aspx
WEBSITE
http://www.nutrition-matters.co.uk/misc/homeopathy.htm
WEBSITE
http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/index.html
WEBSITE
http://bit.ly/aojfhY (1986) //Arnica, Bryonia & Rhus Tox for fibromyalgia
Methodology paper. Maximum Patient number 24.
http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/8/1/54.long (2006) FULL TEXT //Arnica for bruising
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673648 (2010) //Nux Vomica 30 & Coffea Cruda 30 for insomnia
REPOST
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%2820010801%2992:3%3C684::AID-CNCR1371%3E3.0.CO;2-%23/full (2001) FULL TEXT //Traumeel S for stomatitis
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19799472 (2009) //Sinfrontal for ENT & respiratory tract infections
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725 (1997) //homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever
REPOST
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2007.0560 (2008) //Arnica Montana for wounds
REPOST
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2806%2900041-0/abstract (2006) //arnica for inflammation
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036165 (2005) //Arnica Montana & Bellis Perennis for bleeding after delivery
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19295225 (2009) //Antimony 6X for pro-coagulatory effect in bleeding disorder
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843608 //hypericum for depression
REPOST
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/rel0001/CD001957/frame.html (2003) // Oscillococcinum for influenza
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371566 (2008) //osteo-arthritis
REPOST
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/content/effect-of-homoeopathic-treatment-on-fibrositis (1989) //fibromyalgia (Inflammation in muscles)
REPOST
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09546639709160282 (1997) //Sulphur 6, Siliciea 6 & Carbo Veg 6 for ulcer
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713 (1998) //vertigo
REPOST
http://www.heelusa.com/practitioners/clinicalresearch/Docs/Euphorbium/Homeopathic_Sinusitis_Medication.pdf (1995) FULL TEXT //sinus
Not beyond 10^23. Not significant.
http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/369 (2010) //Nux-Vomica, Merc, Belladonna for acute rhinitis
REPOST
https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI10.1055/s-0029-1240889 (2010) //Hepar sulphuris, Antimonium crudum, Sulphur and Calcarea carbonica for boils
REPOST
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/129 (2007) FULL TEXT //thallasemia
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628642 (2007) //Arsenicum Album 30 for arsenic toxicity
REPOST
http://bit.ly/cM9faz (2003) //Ruta 6 for brain cancer
REPOST
Homeopathy Research Resource
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/
WEBSITE
http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7796
WEBSITE
http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-research // USA
WEBSITE
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/default.aspx //EU
WEBSITE
http://www.positivehealth.com/research-list.php?subjectid=134
WEBSITE
http://avilian.co.uk/category/homeopathy/research/
WEBSITE
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-research-models/
WEBSITE
WEBSITE
Homeopathy superior to Allopathy
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/368 (2006) //why small doses is better than large dose
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19358959 (2009) //homeopathy as an adjunct to usual care for fibromyalgia
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960096 (2004) //improved physical condition & high satisfaction, allopathy drug discontinued
REPOST
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/52 (2008) FULL TEXT //higher patient satisfaction compared to allopathy
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247843 (1997) //otitis media
REPOST
A pilot study in Ghana showing homoeopathic treatment equal to and slightly more effective than chloroquine in the treatment of acute malaria (Br Homoeopath J 1996 Apr;85(2):66-70).
Homeopathy cost-effective than allopathy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19135953 (2009) //treatment of respiratory infections by homeopathy is cheaper by 50% compared to conventional medicine
REPOST
http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 (2008) FULL TEXT
REPOST
Homeopathy equals Allopathy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine
REPOST
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/7 (2007) FULL TEXT //respiratory& ear complaints
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713(1998) //vertigo
REPOST
Homeopathy superior to placebo
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (1997) //homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective) to placebo
REPOST
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2990407-3/abstract (1994) //homeopathy does more than placebo
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420956 (2009) //homeopathy differs from placebo
REPOST
http://bit.ly/9R3TVG (2006) FULL TEXT //patho-genetic trials
REPOST
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2806%2900041-0/abstract (2006) //arnica for inflammation
REPOST
http://www.vasezdravlje.com/izdanje/clanak/1874/ FULL TEXT // tonsillitis
REPOST
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=03000&article=00005&type=abstract (2003) // diarrhea
REPOST
http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/research_and_homeopathy.htm // Migraine, Berlin Journal for research in homeopathy
WEBSITE
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471 (2000) FULL TEXT //allergic rhinitis
REPOST
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full (2005) FULL TEXT //Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
REPOST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15892486 (2005) //severe sepsis
REPOST
http://www.library.nhs.uk/cam/ViewResource.aspx?resID=295205 (2008) //hypericum for depression
REPOST
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=02000&article=00012&type=abstract (2001) //otitis media
REPOST
Homeopathy improving Quality of life
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/115 (2005) FULL TEXT // (Chronic) Disease severity and quality of life (QoL) demonstrated marked and sustained improvements following homeopathic treatment
REPOST
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/413 (2008) FULL TEXT //Disease severity & QoL of life increases following homeopathy treatment
REPOST
http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 (2008) FULL TEXT
REPOST
More Research Studies
http://excalibur.110mb.com/experiments.htm //fish kill / laser reflection experiments
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/documents/Positivehomeopathy.pdf
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/proof.html
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.healinginealing.com/homeopathyresearch.php
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/homeopathy.html
Not peer reviewed.
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.earthsremedy.com/researchinhomeopathy.htm
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/researchlinks/4526687502
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.emaxhealth.com/60/23628.html
Not peer reviewed.
http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.heel.ca/pub/library/studies.jsp
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/future%20homoeopathy.htm
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/advanceshomoeopathy.htm
Not peer reviewed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm
Not peer reviewed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/4454856.stm
Not peer reviewed.
Physics behind homeopathy
http://excalibur.110mb.com/physics.htm
Not peer reviewed.
http://lewfh.tripod.com/electromagneticinfectioninhomeopathy/id4.html
Not peer reviewed.
Memory of Water
http://hubpages.com/hub/Homeopathy-and-The-Memory-of-Water-with-Benveniste
Not peer reviewed.
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/memory-of-water/
Not peer reviewed.
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-water-memory/
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/chaplin.html
Not peer reviewed.
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/hydrobiotronics/
Not peer reviewed.
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/lionel-milgrom/
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/The%20Work%20of%20Dr.%20Masaru%20Emoto.html
Not peer reviewed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817
Not peer reviewed.
Not peer reviewed.
http://hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8578
Not peer reviewed.
http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/instrumental.htm
Tries very hard to look like a peer-reviewed paper, but I can’t find it in pubmed…. hmm.
http://www.physorg.com/news105191502.html
Not peer reviewed.
Dilutions beyond Avogadro Number
http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/3/1/10
REPOST
http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/instrumental.htm
REPOST
http://www.high-dilutions.net/VersionAn/
WEBSITE
WEBSITE
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full
REPOST
WEBSITE
Evidence-based Medicine
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/uk-house-of-commons-science
WEBSITE
http://www.the-cma.org.uk/cma_images/Jayney‘s%20Presentation.pdf //Pandemics & epidemics 1813-1918
IRRELEVANT
Not Peer reviewed
To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another
(6 methods) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrum
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/lionel-milgrom/
Not Peer reviewed
Nuclear Spectroscopy
http://hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8879
Not Peer reviewed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371568 (2008)
REPOST
http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6908&PN=4
Protected Forum
Electromagnetic Signatures
http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=10498
Not Peer reviewed
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/nobel-laureate-explains-the
Not Peer reviewed
Not Peer reviewed
Thermo-luminescence
REPOST
Physiological variability in human body
http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com/
Not peer reviewed
Can’t get full text
http://www.jr.ietejournals.org/temp/IETEJRes543223-2643883_072038.pdf
Duff Link
Medical Analyser
http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2530
Not peer reviewed
http://h-wave.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html
Not peer reviewed
http://gentlecare.blogspot.com/2009/08/research-into-how-homoeopathic-remedies.html
Not peer reviewed
Raman Laser SpectroscopyIn 1976, Boiron and Vinh used Raman Laser Spectroscopy, showing that for the 1C potency of Kali bichromicum the spectrum of alcohol disap-pears completely, while that for potassium bichromate appears. In Kali bich 1C the ratio of the number of potassium bichromate molecules is 1 to 500. In such a case the light meets 500 more alcohol molecules as those of bichromate, yet the alcohol spectrum does not appear.
Eh?
To distinguish homeopathy medicine from solvent
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914 // Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrum
Can’t get full text
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555303321222928 //Bio-Electrography
Can’t get full text – “the present findings also highlight the need for additional research to evaluate factors that may affect
reproducibility of results.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657201 (2009) //Aconitum 30C differs from placebo
27 patients – non-objective outcome measures.
Placebo Effect
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine
REPOST
http://homoeopathyclinic.com/articles/homeopathy.pdf
DUFF LINK
Anecdotal Evidence [PSHAW!]
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://www.electriceditor.com/impossiblecure/showstories.php
NOT PEER REVIEWED
NOT PEER REVIEWED
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Potency Selection
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-philosophy/removing-the-guesswork-from-potency-selection/
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-philosophy/homeopathic-potency-selection/
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://www.homeoint.org/site/ahmad/potency.htm
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://excalibur.110mb.com/myspc-lm.htm
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Vital Force
http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9047
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Animal Studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17982565 (2007) //Scientific World Journal
Discussed here http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/dr-nancy-malik-is-spamming-my-blog.html
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/3/
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-animal-studies/
NOT PEER REVIEWED
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/1/abstract
Concludes: “The discrepancies between single-blind and double-blind methods in animal pharmacological research are noteworthy and should be better investigated, also in non-homeopathic research.”
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/171FULL TEXT
Lit review.
http://ict.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/362
Another cell culture based paper which fails to control for alcohol.
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/65
Actually controls for alcohol, but with 6 mice in each group….
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/2/4 FULL TEXT
Doesn’t control for alcohol
http://www.mri.psu.edu/faculty/rroy/media/Publications/DefiningStructure.pdf FULL TEXT
The authors note that this is not reproducible, even on the same make of Raman spec – only the spec used in this study. Oh dear.
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep139 FULLTEXT
Small sample sizes. Both sub and beyond 10^23 remedies used. Big variation in data.
Review of a study which fails to control for ethanol content – again
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657773
Not beyond 10^23. Mice behavioural studies are difficult to assess and quantify.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10484832 (1999) //Alternative Therapies in Health & Management
“To confirm whether antibiotic metaphylaxis may be replaced by homeopathic metaphylaxis, this study should be repeated
independently.”
http://www.similima.com/thesis39.html
Not peer reviewed
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-plant-studies/
Another list. Another day.
Related Articles
- Can Homeopathy Cure Mastitis in Cows? (quackometer.net)
- When homeopaths fight back [Respectful Insolence] (scienceblogs.com)
Anomalous Distraction 
[…] here is an even bigger post by @xtaldave. He has specifically looked at the papers that Nancy Malik cites in a Google Knol […]
Wow. This is impressive. I can’t believe you waded through all that garbage just to prove what is so blistering obvious: HOMEOPATHY IS RUBBISH. Congrats, you’re a better person than I could ever hope to be.
You are far too kind… 😀
+1 that. Thanks for the effort Dave. I’ve posted this in response to the NancyBot on a few sites where she’s responded to me.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James Streetley, D Tredinnick's Brain, Aliëtte Jonkers, D Tredinnick's Brain, Kash Farooq and others. Kash Farooq said: RT @xtaldave: Scientific evidence for homeopathy?: http://wp.me/pSvY2-74 […]
Of course, it’s not going to stop Nancy from spamming the crap out of twitter and every skeptic website she finds but it’s thank you for all your work in creating this fantastic resource.
It’s a bit of a tl;dr jumble at the moment – if I can turn it into a google spreadsheet or similar – then it’d be much more user friendly… if I just had the time…..
[…] here is an even bigger post by @xtaldave. He has specifically looked at the papers that Nancy Malik cites in her Google Knol […]
Wow, I was thinking of doing something like this, but I think all that nonsense would make my brain hurt.
What I love is that woo-mongers don’t read the papers they post. They just go “that supports my position, therefore I will post it”. Of course, that is far easier than actually reading anything, yet alone critical analysis.
As usual, you’re a f@~*ing legend, Dave.
A resource we can all draw from. Thanks for this dude 🙂
Great work.
Re: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep114v1 (2009) FULL TEXT //LM potency for Depression
I’ve taken on that study in this blogpost
An epic post, but we should bear in mind that even if there were a few good, positive trials of homeopathy, that doesn’t prove that it works, because even a good trial will find a false positive result 5% of the time and in fact, bearing in mind that most trials have multiple end-points (e.g. three different subjective rating scales and five objective measures), the chance of getting a false positive is even greater.
So we would expect to see a few bits of evidence in favor of homeopathy.
Absolutely. And some of the papers cited above do claim significance. A lot of them are with the more subjective outcome measures. Some of them assay just about anything and everything objective so they can to try and find something that crawls into significance.
By commissioning so many piss-poor trials, I suspect that the homeopaths are actually making a rod for their own backs. IF they ever conduct a decent trial which is significant, the sheer numbers of duff trials that have been published may make people more likely to dismiss it as “they’ve had so many attempts, they’re bound to get lucky eventually”
@xtaldave
Thanks for the analysis. You have discussed version 33 of my google knol. An updated/revised version (ver. 35) is avaliable at http://knol.google.com/k/dr-nancy-malik-bhms/scientific-research-in-homeopathy/pocy7w49ru14/2#
This includes list of 51 journals.
Do you have something to say about them.
Note: Links are reciprocal. Let’s reciprocate
😀
I’ll try and get around to it, but I think I’ll need a few days in a darkened room listening to Sagan’s “pale blue dot” to purge the woo from my mind before tackling the next batch, assuming they’re not just reposts from this list…
Lol Nancy – I was just extracting the new papers from your Knol vsn35 and the first new paper I found was Frenkel et al!!?!
You MUST know how many times that has been pwnd…
Nancy, will version 36 have all the poor studies that Dave has found removed?
Will it have the studies that were posted multiple times removed?
I’ve been wondering recently if there was a list of the studies most cited by homeopathers showing the reasons that, if they wanted to be taken seriously, they really shouldn’t be citing them.
Looks like this is it. A fascinating journey through delusion and a wonderful resource. Many thanks.
Nice.
xtaldave, we all owe you a beer or two for this. Malik and Ullman will keep pushing their nonsense because they’re delusional, but now we have a good central debunk for the lesser woomongers out there.
oh, and the first one on the list – the journal of psychosomatic research? I did actually LOL.
Valid field and all, but by definition these conditions are “curable” by belief alone.
Chronic Fatigue’s status, as I understand it, is controversial and doesn’t have a fixed diagnosis. Then again, I’m not a doctor. I just loved seeing “psychosomatic” right at the top of the page.
Wow.
Fucking. Awesome.
That’s a lot of time and effort. Thanks very, very much – it’s greatly appreciated.
[…] which of course it doesn’t. If you critically examine the links, just as good scientists like xtaldave have done, you quickly see that the article’s support of homeopathy is tentative at best and absent at […]
Skeptics have been trying since 2005 to get rid of homeopathy medeicine in Uk. But to no avail. It is still the most sought after medicine in the world after conventional. The status of homeopathy all around the world http://knol.google.com/k/dr-nancy-malik-bhms/status-of-homeopathy/pocy7w49ru14/7 is what you need to know.
Deja vu? I’m sure I’ve had this conversation with you before Nancy…
Evidence of popularity is not evidence of efficacy. People around the world enjoy heroin, crack, alcohol and tobacco. This doesn’t mean that these are necessarily healthy or in any way good for them.
As ever, when the flaws in your scientific arguments get revealed, you revert to the “argument from popularity” fallacy…
Homeopathy was never quackery and will never be quackery. I was successfully treated with homeopathic remedies for nerve pain. Homeopathy is a system of alternative medicine supported by research, see http://adidarwinian.com/father-of-human-pharmacology/ My son also always take homeopathic treatment.
Well, I and the available scientific evidence disagrees with you. Homeopathy is quackery.
There is no reason it should work (beyond the placebo effect) and no credible evidence that it does work. Your personal experiences are subject to biases ( like regression-to-the-mean, conformation bias, etc). Your body is an incredible machine, capable of great feats of healing. Don’t credit hucksters and charlatans when you should be patting yourself on the back.
Which is anecdotal evidence?
RCT with 100 or so participants
or
500 million users of homeopathy medicine worldwide?
Even with the great advances in science most of what we know about functioning in this world is empirical.
A (real) patient experiencing the (real) benefits of Homeopathic medicine. And millions of such patients worldwide. Now when you keep on shouting that Homeopathy is not real medicine. It’s just illusion. At least those who have personally experienced the benefits of Homeopathy won’t listen to your words. How hard you try. How loud you shout.
Millions of people personally experience the benefits of a cold lager on a hot day, that doesn’t make it medicine. They’re all entitled to enjoy the placebo effect and if they feel better, good for them. But the problem arises when you try and pass it off as scientifically proven medicine above and beyond that placebo effect. To do this you need to resort to scientific testing the likes of which your beloved homeopathy does not stand up to. So, by all means continue to enjoy whatever you believe homeopathy does for you, but for the love of common sense, stop your crusade to pass it off as viable medical science. It’s not.
Awesome Nancy. You really do excel at making my point for me.
“Which is anecdotal evidence?
RCT with 100 or so participants
or
500 million users of homeopathy medicine worldwide?”
BOTH -ish.
IF homeopaths did proper, decent RCTs, with a few thousand participants, where the predictive power becomes much greater, then you might get closer to having a leg to stand on. But you don’t. Such small scale trials such as those outlined above really have little more use than the anecdotal evidence upon which homeopathy relies. You then do meta-analyses of a bunch of piss-poor RCTs, which include multiple conditions and remedies and compound the errors.
—
In case you haven’t noticed Nancy, homeopathy in the UK is dying a very slow death. The RLHH is no more. The BMA want to outlaw funding of it on the NHS. The popular press are printing stories about PCTs wasting money on homeopathy. The BBC are running documentaries exposing it as a scam. The only thing keeping it going at the moment are its ties to the Royal family… another anachronistic throw back that we could well be rid of.
—
Anyway, I take that post as an admission that your “scientific evidence for homeopathy” page is essentially devoid of any meaningful evidence, and so look forward to seeing you remove the page, and for you and your placebo-pushing cronies to stop trying to claim scientific relevance by posting endless crappy RCTs that try and dupe people who might lack ability/training to critically assess them.
I won’t be holding my breath.
I’m not sure which I like more – your actual post, or the dialogue (if you can even call it a dialogue. Perhaps an argument over propaganda?) between you and Nancy. (is she even a real doctor?) Both are absolutely brilliant.
Cheers.
Maybe Nancy can answer this for herself… but I’ll wade in with what I know. 😀
Nancy has a BHMS, Bachelors of homeopathic medicine and surgery.
This legally allows her to prefix herself with a ‘Dr’ in India, but not elsewhere.
A BHMS is not recognised as an equivalent qualification to an MD in UK, USA, Canada, Oz, and much of Europe (perhaps all of it – not so sure about that).
Skeptics of homeopathy medicine are going for it but in the rest of the world more and more people are accepting this sytem of medicine.
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/web/english.shtml
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/in-defense-of-homeopathy/
And once again… evidence of popularity is not evidence of efficacy.
Change the record please Nancy.
Special focus on Status of Homeopathy in UK has been put up
http://knol.google.com/k/dr-nancy-malik-bhms/status-of-homeopathy/pocy7w49ru14/7
along with the status of homeopathy medicine in the rest of the world.
What you have to say om homeopathy in your own country?
Regarding this comment…”The basic take home message is that the vast majority of these studies fail to impress as they have very small sample sizes. Mostly less than 100 patients per group, occasionally down to single figures. ”
OK, good objection but…welcome to the club -> a sceptical article on Homeopathy, the famous Shang Meta-analysis that appeared in Lancet, was advertised to be based on hundreds of studies, and it was…BUT, along the way to the conclusion, using various curious arguments for certain studies removal, their conclusion that Homeopathy was no better than placebo was based on a final total of 8 studies!
Another recent Lancet article, causing consternation in the medical world regarding the possibility of a causal connection between MMR vaccines and the growing rates of autism, was based on 12 (yes only 12!) cases. The article, written by the now apparently discredited Dr. Wakefield, was eventually withdrawn by the Lancet.
A later article, in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology if I recall correctly, attacked the Shang conclusion regarding Homeopathy and lambasted its methodology, reasonings and, obviously, its conclusion.
Both sides appear to be seizing on range of the moment hysteria looking for the final “knockout” blow either for or against Homeopathy, instead of letting genuine and protracted scientific analyses take its course. Unreasoning conclusions on either side are to be viewed with scepticism.
Sweeping conclusions made on the basis that they seem to support ones beliefs should be avoided.
Without going over Shang et al at length again (as many more qualified/patient than I have done before) my understanding is that Shang excluded certain trials as they failed to meet certain criteria regarding the methodology of the trial. They found that the more rigorous the trial was, the less likely it was to find a positive effect for homeopathy. The paper was heavily criticised by homeopaths – I have not seen any criticism of the paper by someone who wasn’t a homeopath or an advocate of homeopathy – but if you can show me some, I’d certainly be interested to read it.
Regarding your comparison of Shang et al and the Wakefield paper – this is not a fair comparison IMO – Wakefield has a n=12 (12 patients) – but Shang’s n=8 is 8 clinical trials. I don’t have the paper/figures to hand, but the total number of patients in the 8 clinical trials that have passed methodological criteria is going to be (I imagine) several hundred.
I think that searching for a scientific “knockout blow” to homeopathy as you describe is folly – science and the classical scientific method do not prove negatives. One generates data that either supports or refutes a hypothesis.
In the case of homeopathy, we have a mechanistically implausible modality, with the best evidence suggesting that it has no efficacy above and beyond that of a similarly administered placebo.
That is (as far as I am aware) the current state of the art. Until a plausible mechanism if irrefutably demonstrated, or a really bulletproof RCT is conducted which demonstrates efficacy, I remain sceptical. 🙂
Let the research goes to the general public. They should read the research papers on homeopathy medicine and decide for themselves whether the research supports homeopathy or not. The pepers could be downloaded at http://bit.ly/gFJIbg
Do you have the courage? Or you will keep on denying 170 studies in support of homeopathy
What on earth are you on about? I’m not preventing anyone viewing anything – this page just contains some critical annotations on the mountain of dross that you maintain proves the effectiveness of homeopathy.
It should be abundantly clear to anyone reading them that in the vast majority of cases the conclusions that you make are not supported by these generally very poor research articles.
There is no big secret about how to conduct a decent RCT, come back where you’ve got a few.
Wow, xtaldave, that was a lot of work, I appreciate it.
I have posted a link to a facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Homeopathy/118072948238441
which I have created to increase awareness abt stupdity of Homeopathy.
I am so pissed off with govt. of India that it show homeopathy ads on tv promoting it.
[…] http://knol.google.com/k/dr-nancy-malik-bhms/scientific-research-in-homeopathy/pocy7w49ru14/2 The vast majority of homeopathy trials are flawed. I know – I read over 100 of them – please see here. […]
[…] Patients with caffeine induced xtaldave.wordpress.com […]
What Is Physical Therapy…
[…]Scientific evidence for homeopathy? « Anomalous Distraction[…]…
Prof Iris Bell, a top-researcher says:
“The evidence coming from multiple laboratories, multiple technologies and multiple investigators overwhelming demonstrates that homeopathy demonstrates biological activity. Further, plausibility is addressed by ground breaking research in material science.”
Appeal to authority?
Anyway, Prof Iris Bell is incorrect. Citations are needed to back up her assertions.
As I hope reading this post demonstrates, the vast majority of scientific papers that purport to demonstrate a homeopathic effect are often flawed in some critical way, which might lead to incorrect results or incorrect interpretation of results.
Then it simply comes down to Occam’s razor: which is more probable
– that our understanding of science is so flawed such that rules that hold true for millions of scientific studies being routinely carried out around the world in thousands of laboratories every single minute of every single day are dramatically wrong, or
– homeopathy works?
As for “plausibility being addressed” – the evidence presented thus far is woeful, ranging from experiments that only work on one machine in one lab and cannot be replicated, to experiments that study noise or contaminants and then conclude some sort of significant relevance.
It would be wonderful if we could cure cancer with a sugar pill, but sadly it isn’t so.
You can PREVENT cancer with a “sugar pill”
A short answer. The reason is: I can read English, but writing is difficult for me.
Citation Needed.
You cannot simply assert that something is so without proper evidence to back it up.
Not appeal to authority, but appeal to science.
Bell is not the only scientist who says this.
Believe me, this is not an appeal to science.
Bell and a handful of others may say this, but scientific consensus is that homeopathy is an anachronistic irrelevance.
1. I read the post, I think it is incorrect to state that “refutes” the quotes of Malik, therefore only take out conclusions, unfortunately almost half of the refutas studies, but few or you did it, others only you just to give opinions, and some do not say anything except REPOST.
2. Of course, assert that “no evidence” or rather evidence is laughable if not absurd. Only a few studies have cited (very few indeed), so when you say that Bell cited incorrectly, since I doubt that anyone who makes such an act is the author of this blog. It appears that such charges should be more like a “I have no studies” or rather pretend to not see them or say they do not.
3. The appeal to authority is very common for example, “the scientific community says there is no evidence” Which scientific community? Is that true? Got evidence?
4. That homeopathy is only 10 ^ 23? That awful nonsense, the homeopathic dilutions included below 10 ^ 23, so that studies are invalid Traumeel is lying in a grave.
It’s a shame that this post is not properly refute of these studies, as being an opinion of a blogger who is not or published in any journal, let alone proven only thing you can say about this post is not wasted.
Thank you. Sorry I took a while to post it . I have been away from my computer this weekend.
There is only one mention of the word refute on that blog page, and it is in a reply to a comment. So right off the bat, you are misquoting me.
I am not presenting new data – so I am not refuting/supporting any hypotheses. I am providing a critique or a review of previously presented data, and how the (overall very poor) quality of the trials calls into question the conclusions made in the papers themselves.
Right – first off when I say “REPOST”, I mean that Malik had already mentioned the paper earlier in her list, and therefore I had already commented on that paper. So as you can see, Malik was guilty of *a lot* of duplication, which I was pointing out.
I am afraid that I am not clear what point you are making with the rest of that paragraph. I am posting comments on the papers in question, and pointing out methodological flaws that call into question the conclusions if the paper.
The take home message of this post is that the evidence for homeopathy is incredibly weak. Poorly controlled studies with insufficient statistical power to conclusively prove anything.
Not sure what point you are making here – can you clarify?
I actually said that “scientific consensus is that homeopathy is an anachronistic irrelevance.” I stick by this.
This is taken from the Wikipedia entry on homeopathy:
References are provided in the wikipedia article. WRT the consensus of the scientific community, it’s a good start.
You misunderstand me. I have no problem with the concept that a ‘homeopathic’ remedy at 6C might work – because it actually contains ingredients from the original source. Of course, these remedies ( I would label them as ‘naturopathic’ or ‘herbal’ rather than ‘homeopathic’ to distinguish them from remedies beyond 10^23 that are utterly implausible) must still be proven to be effective.
That is your opinion.
Oooops.
This may not be published in peer reviewed journals but my real work has been and in some decent journals too, if I do say so myself.
Your opinion. Again. You use your opinion to accuse me of wrong-doing in posting my “opinion”. Can you see why you are slightly undermining your own argument here? This blog post represents a critique of Malik’s blog post in which she claims that these papers support her hypothesis that homeopathy works. I am demonstrating that the only evidence that supports homeopathy is of extremely poor quality, and isn’t of sufficient persuasive power to reverse years of scientific work that would be required to be undone if homeopathy was really all it is cracked up to be.
Again using arguments free, overall I must clarify a few things:
1) On the scientific community rejects homeopathy are you wrong, the referncias quoting from Wikipedia are very few. Are you so sure that the “scientific community” rejects homeopathy or will that only a few organizations?
2) Again not showing anything beyond what is already known: It is clear that there are trials of poor quality (as in any professional area) so using the excuse that is based on unscientific. Also obvious is that not only research, which made Malik are very few references, so that his “criticism” does not contribute anything new.
3) On that refutes the texts, some do not even have read. Those who have read is necessarily content to say that those who demonstrate a significant effect should be of very poor quality.
4) The papers published are irrelevant to this discussion. To which I meant is that his criticisms are not published in any magazine, not its publications cirstalografia.
5) Is the only evidence? This is the height of lies and dishonesty
1) On the scientific community rejects homeopathy are you wrong, the referncias quoting from Wikipedia are very few. Are you so sure that the “scientific community” rejects homeopathy or will that only a few organizations?
—
As I told you in my previous response – providing a definative answer to this is difficult, as nobody has asked every single scientist. However, the fact that major medical and scientific organizations in the USA and UK has publicly stated that homeopathy is nonsense is a clear indication that homeopathy is nonsense.
2) Again not showing anything beyond what is already known: It is clear that there are trials of poor quality (as in any professional area) so using the excuse that is based on unscientific. Also obvious is that not only research, which made Malik are very few references, so that his “criticism” does not contribute anything new.
—
You are making a strawman argument. At no point did I claim there was new data in this blog post. If you want to cite more references please do. At the moment, this smacks of whataboutery – it is as if you are saying ” ok, yeah, so THAT evidence is poor, but what about all if this stuff that I am not telling you about.” If you’ve got more evidence, where is it? Write a blogpost, and post a link here.
3) On that refutes the texts, some do not even have read. Those who have read is necessarily content to say that those who demonstrate a significant effect should be of very poor quality.
—
I stated planely that I am unable to access the full text of some if the papers.
Where I have said the papers are poor, I have pointed out why. Poor patient number or poor controls is more often than not where the problem lies.
4) The papers published are irrelevant to this discussion. To which I meant is that his criticisms are not published in any magazine, not its publications cirstalografia.
—
Yes – I thought so too but I wasn’t quite clear what you were originally refering to.
This blog post was never meant to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you want peer reviewed critiques of homeopathy, check out pubmed.
5) Is the only evidence? This is the height of lies and dishonesty
You are making a strawman argument and an ad-hominem. Please direct me to the sentence that states I said this was all the evidence.
Then apologize for accusing me of lying.
This was a direct response to a document that was being touted as proof homeopathy works. It is clear that this document proves no such thing. If you want to write you own blog post and link it here, feel free.
6) The last point is that you label Traumeel as “herbal” forgetting that preprara in diluted form. So your categorization is irrelevant and invalid, use it only to say that homeopathy remedies are beyond the 10 ^ 23.
Look – I have stated numerous times that I have no problem with the plausiblity of a remedy with actual active ingredients in them. However, they still need to be tested. Also nobody has ever demonstrated that bouncing a remedy off a bible dies anything other than make someone look slightly silly.
PLEASE – PLEASE – PLEASE keep this list up along with the astute interpretations of these incredibly weak “studies”! It’s an invaluable resource for the scienctific community in the fight against ignorance and pseudomedicine!
1). His first answer does justify the report of the House of Common loss (Evidence Check 2) and secondly with the Lancet study (Shang et.al).
In fact you are wrong, the “United Kingdom” has not declared that homeopathy is a “tonreria” who have done that are skeptical organizations (including campaigns such as 10:23, and organizations like The Meyerside skeptiks and Sense About Science, CSI and Cfi and bloguerosi).
Again, your arguments are unfounded, just choose the medical and scientific organizations to support your point.
2) No, I’m not making a straw man please do not raise false. All I did was tell a little more. You know it is somewhat funny that accuse me of a straw man when you’re doing precisasmente, pretend a dialogue that I did not say.
Estduios what is best not to bring more enllaces, since not plead anything. Why put more links will you do if the only thing is that all controls are poor or who are paid by homeopathic laboratories?
3) Oh yeah “all” have poor controls. Mother!
4) Just PubMed tells another story very different from yours.
5) I will give NO apology, do not be naive. I love the fact I did invent ad-hominem attacks and straw men, when the only thing I have done is criticize your entry as unrealistic.
6) not work? Again you are dishonest.
In fact you seem not interested to discuss, does not give me any argument, and more depressing is that is passed as a victim accused of being attacked with fallacies.
If you think I have made a mistake in my critiques of individual papers, please be specific.
If you have further evidence, cite it.
You say PUBMED has more – show me.
You accuse me of not wanting to discuss, but you have not actually given me anything to discuss with you.
The ball lies firmly in your court. Burden of proof lies with those making claims – i.e. homeopaths.
Again that feeling of victim. As you repeat your pseudocríticas are that seem to give a sense of criticism of the studies, but are just bogus. More elaborate criticism came from Edzard Ernst, curiously tend to bias to prove that “this is placebo.” So to express their criticisms are irrelevant documents. the burden of proof I’m not investing, if you thing you. Homeopaths have the olbigación to demonstrate that their remedies work, in that I agree. But the above has a moral skeptics and scientific to show that:
1. “There are no studies or double blind”
2. “Violate” all “the most basic laws of physics and chemistry”
3. “Homeopathy is ilogical”
4. “All supporters of homeopathy are paid by Boiron”
5. “The industry does not invest in homeopathic research,” 6. “Homeopaths are millionaires,”
7. “The scientific community as pseudoscience says homeopathy”
8. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (pseudo phrase by the way),
9. “Homeopathy is just water,”
10. “Homeopathy contradicts everything we know of nature”, (also the water?)
11. “All clinical trials in homeopathy uestran significant data are paid by Boiron or no bias”,
12. “Homeopaths are murderers”
13. “The believers in homeopathy should receive only homeopathic remedies, but not required although conventional medicine,”.
This is getting really tedious. You are barely making sense any more. You appear to be trying the old “reverse burden of proof gambit”. You are the one suggesting homeopathy cures stuff. Prove it.
1. “There are no studies or double blind”
I didn’t say that. I said that all the studies are really poor quality, and do not support the efficacy of homeopathy.
2. “Violate” all “the most basic laws of physics and chemistry”
If you dilute something to the point where it is no longer present, it cannot exert an effect. Simple. IF you cannot grasp this then you need to go back to school.
3. “Homeopathy is ilogical”
I didn’t say this – but in the light of answer 2, it is.
4. “All supporters of homeopathy are paid by Boiron”
I didn’t say this.
5. “The industry does not invest in homeopathic research,”
I didn’t say this.
6. “Homeopaths are millionaires,”
I didn’t say this.
7. “The scientific community as pseudoscience says homeopathy”
If you mean that the view of the scientific community is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, then yes, it is. But we need a nice survey as evidence to back this up.
8. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (pseudo phrase by the way),
They do. I don’t know why that’s a ‘pseudo phrase’.
9. “Homeopathy is just water,”
Well, that depends on what you use to dilute the ingredients away. Water, Water/Ethanol mix.
10. “Homeopathy contradicts everything we know of nature”, (also the water?)
I didn’t say that. For it to work at extreme dilutions violates simple chemical prinicples though. If nothing is present, how can it have an effect.
11. “All clinical trials in homeopathy uestran significant data are paid by Boiron or no bias”,
I didn’t say this. Not all trials are paid by Boiron.
12. “Homeopaths are murderers”
I didn’t say this, but insofar as they persuade people to shun conventional medical treatment which could heal them, then they are occasionally guilty of manslaughter. See the Penelope Dingle case.
13. “The believers in homeopathy should receive only homeopathic remedies, but not required although conventional medicine,”.
Again, I didn’t say this – but if homeopaths who are vehemently against conventional medicine take conventional medicine when it suits them, that makes them hypocrits, does it not.
Right Magufo – Please make your next comment less of a misattribution fest and please ask some sensible questions.
Magufo, you didn’t actually provide a single requested point from xtaldave’s last reply to you.
Thanks for answering, but I want to make a clarification:
I never said that you Dave, say you said the points record. I referred to the arguments of the skeptics can be summarized in that, which is not clear and I apologize, as repeated arguments that can be found on the net. In any case the important thing is that you have answered these questions, one of their sites of the most cited among the skeptics sites.
Anyway, my intention was never to bother him. Any aggression from me, sorry.
Holy crapola Dave… thanks for posting this. You just saved me SO much time in a current debate I am in. 🙂 Respect.
[…] In the not too distance past, Ms Malik had a “knol” a Google hosted blog where she collected all the scientific papers that she thought showed homeopathy worked. I assessed that here. […]
The question is whether the zero molecular dilution can work. You can admit it or deny. However, there is no controversy about Hormesis. There is no dispute even that minute biomolcules if they are highly significant are allowed to stimulate living cells they can arouse spectacular visual response. Therein lies the basic support over homeopathy. Although it cannot be said that in all the cases homeopathy is successful.
That is part of the question. The rest of the question is “does it work” — these clinical trials and meta-analyses demonstrate that homeopathy is nothing more than an elaborate placebo.
Hormesis is not “a small dose of a thing has an effect”. Hormesis is things having an opposing effect at a particularly low dose. It is not universal, and there exists a certain degree of debate as to whether the effects seen are relevant, physiologically or otherwise.
No. Homeopathy and hormesis are not the same thing. Unless hormesis is demonstrated to be a universal phenomenon, the ‘hormetic’ effects of the memory of compounds found in homeopathic ‘remedies’ are unproven and cannot be used to prop up a modality that has repeatedly been demonstrated to be no more effective than a placebo.
… or indeed, any cases.
“Dr” Nancy Malik is lying and claiming nobody has the ability or courage to dispute her.
Despite having commented in this very article, she has tweeted TODAY that nobody has ever responded.
Just to be clear: she has seen Dave’s exhaustive response, replied to it here, then lied for the next four years.