• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Even More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

JamesGully said:
Linda,
Excuse me?! Please answer my question about your statistical critique of the COPD study.
Click to expand...

The first post I mentioned it to you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3038810#post3038810

My most recent response:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3197537#post3197537

If you don't know what a power analysis is, I can explain it to you.

People on this list asked for ONE condition for which homeopathy was proven to be effective
Click to expand...

No. They asked for one well-documented case of a patient recovering who would otherwise not be expected to recover.

"Dana, can we have ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION?"

And did you see the new issue of the Lancet that remarked that 100 milliion Indians rely ONLY upon homeopathic treatment. YOU try to prescribe just placeboes to patients and see how long you last. Any takers? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Why not? It worked for the thousands of years before the age of modern medicine.

Linda
 
Last edited:
JamesGully said:
{snip} Just as good homeopaths refer to conventional docs for certain patients in certain circumstances, a large percentage of doctors in Europe refer patients to homeopaths or prescribe these medicine themselves: 42% of British docs refer to homeopaths, 20%+ of German docs prescribe homeopathic medicines, and 30-40% of French docs prescribe them too...and high percentages in Italy and the Netherlands.

And did you see the new issue of the Lancet that remarked that 100 milliion Indians rely ONLY upon homeopathic treatment. {snip}
Click to expand...
For Europe, this represents a "fallacy of popularity." It illustrates a lack of sophistication, not the validity of quackery.

For India, it is still fallacious with respect to the utility of homeopathy; but it probably also reflects a lack of knowledge and wherewithal, as well as local unavailability of genuine medicine.
 
geni said:
Amoung people in good health mortality rate may be sub 70%
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I thought. Though I imagine that's with conventional treatment. I don't know what the expected mortality rate is for untreated Ebola. That was why I posed the question. Pv gave a list of conditions, and I wondered whether it was indeed adequate, and whether we could add to it. The things I'd be happy declaring don't go away without treatment would include

Insulin-dependent diabetes (in man)
Addison's disease
Hypothyroidism
Primary hypoparathyroidism
AIDS
glioblastoma multiforme
metastatic prostate cancer
pulmonary carcinoma
pancreatic carcinoma
malignant melanoma
mesothelioma
(.... oh, let's just say quite a lot of carciomas and sarcomas, especially if metastatic, but not necessarily every single one)
dilated cardiomyopathy
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
emphysema

I'm sure there are lots more, and the medics will list some. However, even serious, life-threatening conditions in which a proportion of the patients (even a small one) would be expected to recover spontaneously don't count. Which is why I was doubtful about Ebola.

JamesGully said:
Some people insist that this thread has only one question. Obviously, it has many questions.
Click to expand...


That's one question.

Next question, documentation.
  • At least one patient
  • Documentary evidence (test results and so on) to demonstrate that this person really was genuinely diagnosed with such a condition. This is important, because many alleged miracle cures fall down when one realises that the original diagnosis was not clear or not confirmed.
  • Details of the homoeopathic treatment given, and additional information to exclude the possibility that conventional medicine may in fact have played a part in the outcome
  • Documentary evidence that, after the completion of the homoeopathic treatment, the patient no longer had the original condition.
Yes, it's a lot of detail, but no more than is routinely included in many published case reports of notable cases treated by conventional medicine. And no more detail than the person treating the patient should be able to obtain from case records.

So why is there nothing of this sort on the literature? Dammit, the homoeopathic literature is stuffed with anecdotal cases! Do we have to assume that none of these is documented to the standard that would be minimum requirement for any mainstream reputable medical journal? Do we assume that neither Dana or any of his colleagues has a single patient whose anonymised details could be presented to prove this point?

Of course, it's possible to make stuff up. But at least if we have a plausible candidate case, we could examine it for plausibility and try to verify the details and so on. As it is we have nothing.

And the final question.

Rolfe said:
.... why not do as I asked and give us your definition of homoeopathy? Does it require case-taking? Does it require finding a simillimum according to the doctrine of "like cures like"? Do you subscribe to the single remedy doctrine, and waiting to see what effect that has, or do you allow polypharmacy?
Click to expand...


Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Badly Shaved Monkey - I will give you one incontrovertible example of Homeopathy curing a non-selflimiting condition. Before doing that I must explain to you what is Homeopathy. Homeopathy is an economic discipline based on (strong) emotions. I can see right now that Homeopathy is responsible for many (negative) emotions that you experience. These emotions could devolop into diseases and therefore I would suggest you the following: take 5 granules of Ignatia 9 CH tds for 15 days. If symptoms persist you should consult an Homeopath otherwise these emotions may degenerate into depression and other serious conditions. The best thing to do for you would be to get a homeopatic visit with Dana which will be able, after a careful homeopatic interrogation, to make the correct diagnosis and to prescribe the right remedies. My guess is that at the end of the visit, either Dana kills you or you kill Dana. Then, if you are still alive, I will give you an example, with references, of Homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition.

You may be interested in knowing why Homeopathy is an economic discipline. Anas Barbariae (Oscillococcinum 200K) can transform a duck in 20 million EUR for the manufacturer. Even Keynes was unable to find a formula on how to trasform a duck in 20 million. I still wonder why the Nobel prize went to others. Homeopathy trasforms something in nothing and then nothing in billions. Northern Rock managers learnt just the first part of Homeopathy: they trasformed 20 billion £ in nothing.
 
JJM said:
For Europe, this represents a "fallacy of popularity." It illustrates a lack of sophistication, not the validity of quackery.

For India, it is still fallacious with respect to the utility of homeopathy; but it probably also reflects a lack of knowledge and wherewithal, as well as local unavailability of genuine medicine.
Click to expand...


I'd comment that a friend of mine, a "Brtish doc" knows that homoeopathy is a crock of lying sugar pills. She insisted on pulping an entire batch of baby-care leaflets delivered to her practice because they had a small paragraph on the back page recommending homoeopathy. Nevertheless, if a patient of hers requests a referral to a homoeopath, she will give it. As much to get the patient off her back as anything. That's the sort of support Dana has to invoke?

So, if so many "real" doctors are channeling patients to homoeopaths, so much more opportunity to find a well-documented and thoroughly worked-up case of something that doesn't go away on its own, which went away after homoeopathic treatment.

We're waiting, still.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively Dimethylmercury (say 1ml) or Sarrin (say 3 milligram of course that will admitedly probably kill you in about one min).

Dimethylmercury should give you a few months.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't mercury one of the things Hahnemann used as a simillimum when he was still in his "material doses" phase? And it was the deaths from this treatment that started him off on the dilutions!

You're right, we can add poisonings in large enough doses that recovery would be impossible.

Come on, Dana, surely you know of at least one person whom you can prove has been cured?

Rolfe.
 
I would like the homeopathy-supporters to answer a few simple questions:

1) If homeopathy were proven effective at all, for any purpose whatsoever, then why is it not mainstream?

2) If the theory behind homeopathy were true, why have the laws of physics not been modified to authenticate the assertion that water can retain the "memory" of a substance, as well as supporting the existence the so-called "Vital force?"

3) And who is Dana?

(Told ya they were easy questions!)
;-)

:pigsfly​

250 years have passed since the advent of homeopathy, yet still no acceptable evidence of its efficacy has surfaced.

Perhaps this Dana person needs another couple hundred years to conjure up an "incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition."

:pigsfly​

In all seriousness, I'd really like the homeopaths to reflect upon the selfishness:

Considering the countless unproductive studies conducted on homeopathy, at what point will the quacks finally lay it to rest and allow the tax-payer's money go towards funding promising research, education, and prevention of diseases? Every dollar that is lobbied for funding studies on already disproven methods is another dollar taken away from funding research of finding real cures and preventions of serious diseases.
 
Deetee said:
I'll flummox you with a counter move (if I'm allowed the Cross variation)
Holland Park
Click to expand...

Hell's teeth, but the Elastic Recoil from that move was huge. Did you really intend to leave me with only one possible reply? (I suspect you did!).

Kropotkinskaya

Way to take Dana off his home territory, dude!
 
JamesGully said:
Blah..blah...blah
Click to expand...

It just gets funnier the more you try to pretend you have answered the question for which this thread was created;

GIVE ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION?

T = 05d 13h 35m 13s

I'll return to one of the options you have been given previously. I find it unlikely that you have never treated and HIV patient. Please present one that you personally have cured. If you really want to impress us and recover some moral authority, they really should have progressed to AIDS before treatment.
 
Jaana said:
I...
3) And who is Dana?
....
Click to expand...

Have you tried Google? Anyway, check out this discussion: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82393

In short a guy in California who claims to be a leading American homeopath. He tends to show up on blogs and elsewhere claiming to have proof that homeopathy works, only to run away when the serious flaws in the papers are pointed out to him:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php
and
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/quacking-about-ducks/
... oh, and:
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/the-myth-of-the-secret-eight/

That is one of the reasons he is sometimes referred to as "Brave Sir Dana."
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
He has written about it though:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12676041
Click to expand...

Without wishing to get into the detail of those studies in this thread, the claim that was noticeable by its absence was that HIV was eliminated. So, all those expert homeopaths doing proper homeopathy couldn't cure a single patient out of hundreds.

Doubtless the papers will turn out to have the usual methodological flaws, but if someone has a link to the full text of the studies perhaps we could discuss them in the other thread

In the meantime, Dana should use this thread to

GIVE ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION

T = 05d 14h 51m 36s
 
JamesGully said:
Just as good homeopaths refer to conventional docs for certain patients in certain circumstances, a large percentage of doctors in Europe refer patients to homeopaths or prescribe these medicine themselves: 42% of British docs refer to homeopaths
Click to expand...


An interesting observation on that "British docs" figure was made by Mojo a few weeks ago:

Research carried out for the recent consultation about funding of the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital found that although 52% of GP practices in West Kent referred patients to homoeopaths, less than 1% of the patients in those practices were referred, and referral was almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clinical decision.
Click to expand...


A link to those figures can be found in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3041905&postcount=75
 
Last edited:
Paul Wilson chose to "defend" the Shang/Egger comparison of homeopathic and allopathic studies in the Lancet (2005)...and here was my response...

Anybody better able to defend this piece of junk science? Or better, as I sugget below, skeptics and advocates of homeopathy should work together to critique bad science, such as Shang's embarrassing work...

Paul Wilson’s defense of the Shang “comparison” doesn’t answer several important questions:

Shang self-selected the 110 conventional medical studies. Because Shang and Egger (his co-author) are known antagonists to homeopathy, how can anyone feel confident that they didn’t choose certain conventional trials that showed particularly positive results?

Ironically, the 110 conventional medical trials had only 9 that Shang defined to be of a “high quality.” Because Shang found 21 of the 110 homeopathic trials to be a “high quality,” this finding alone suggests that TWICE as many homeopathic studies were designed and conducted to a higher level of scientific investigation. Because Shang choose to generalize his conclusion from 6 conventional trials and 8 homeopathic trials, how come one of Shang’s conclusion wasn’t that homeopathic investigations are substantially more scientifically based?

The most glaring error of the Shang analysis (and one that Paul Wilson purposefully chose to ignore, despite the fact that many homeopaths, including myself, have persistently pointed it out) is what was Shang’s results of comparing the 21 high quality homeopathic and the 9 conventional ones? Curious minds want to know. It is also intriguing to know that apgaylard highlighted that he uncovered the “missing 8 trials,” but curiously enough, he too completely ignores ask what were the results of the high quality 21 and 9 trials. The fact that Paul and apgaylard are obviously smart and scientifically-oriented people, their omission seems to be pre-meditated and purposefully secretive (not exactly good science at work).

Why did Shang’s definition of large enough trials happen to include Wallach’s trial of 98, but not several larger trials that tested, for example, Oscillococcinum (there have been 3 trials testing this medicine in the treatment of influenza, but he only included one of the these 3 trials). Shang also only selected 1 of the 3 trials that Jacobs conducted on childhood diarrhea, and he didn’t include the pooled data from these 3 trials that have been published in a major pediatric journal…and he didn’t include her high quality study that was published in PEDIATRICS.

Just selecting the largest trials isn’t always the best way to evaluate whether homeopathy worked or not. While it is certainly true that sometimes there is one single medicine that can be effective in treating a specific ailment, homeopaths find that this is an exception, not the rule. For instance, Oscillococcinum seems to be effective in the TREATMENT of the flu, but not in its prevention. One of these large trials that was a part of the “magic 8” was one that tested one medicine (potentized thyroid hormone) for weight-loss. The fact that it didn’t work didn’t surprise anyone I know…and the negative result doesn’t disprove anything about the system of homeopathy.

There are many other sharp criticisms that I can give of the Shang article and of Wilson’s defense of it, but the above is simply a good place to start.

The bottomline here is that skeptics of homeopathy tend to be extremely critical of various homeopathic studies, but whenever “junk science” comparison articles, like Shang’s, suggest a negative result to homeopathy, the skeptics seem to forget their high scientific standards

I personally think that skeptics and advocates of homeopathy should join together to sharply condemn the Lancet for publishing this piece of junk science. Skeptics and advocates of homeopathy should join together to encourage high quality scientific investigations.
 
The idea that single homeopathic ‘medications’ don’t always work seems like a post-hoc excuse to me. The example of Oscillococcinum is particularly unconvincing. For a start it is not possible to say that all the trial participants actually had the flu. The Cochrane Review uses the term “…influenza and influenza-like syndromes ...” for good reason.

The Review includes four treatment trials. Two of these are particularly problematic: Casanova (1992) was unpublished and Casanova (1984) was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but a general medical magazine. The reviewers were also suspicious of the round number trial sizes reported (100 and 300). These trials, although larger than Walach(96) (the smallest of the final eight trials, n=98) probably wouldn't have come up in Shang et al.'s initial search because of their somewhat informal nature. It's pretty clear that they'd not have made it past the quality assessment.

The Review actually found insufficient evidence to say that treatment with Oscillococcinum works at all. In the words of the Review “… the difference between groups in the meta-analysis only just reaches statistical significance. It is arguable that a question as scientifically controversial as whether homeopathic medicines are always equivalent to placebo would require more statistically robust data …”. The authors concluded that “…Though promising, the evidence was not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for routine treatment …”

Given the number of outcomes measured by the two journal papers included in the review (8 for Ferley 1989 and 17 for Papp 1988) the odds of getting at least one statistically significant outcome by chance alone are pretty high.

The Review also notes that “…Two trials (Ferley 1989; Papp 1998) pre-specified 'recovery after 48 hours' as the main outcome measure. The RR of being sick at 48 hours on Oscillococcinum was 93% (95% CI 88% to 99%) of that of placebo …”. Evidently a 95% CI reaching 0.99 cannot be safely considered to have reached statistical significance; that the main outcome measure did not make it into the oft quoted ‘headline’ for this review is another reason for caution.

Papp 1998 was included by Shang et al. in the final eight homeopathic studies (n=334). On the other hand Ferley 1989 doesn't seem to have figured in Shang et al.'s analysis, unless I've missed it. It would be nice to know why.

Anyway, I'd need a lot more to convince me that sometimes single homeopathic 'medicines' work and sometimes they don't. In fact Shang et al.'s Lancet letter demonstrated that individualised homeopthy fared no better than this kind of "clinical" homeopathy.
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen Cyanide: Thank you so much for the clarification and the links.

My ability to read and understand the scientific language of clinical studies is unfortunately very weak, thus, I admit that I rely heavily on those who are experts -or more knowledgeable- in the field for assessing these studies.

It is my understanding that good science supersedes bad science, and if homeopathy were capable of proving efficacy, it would have by now evolved from its current standing to mainstream medicine. But it has not. This is why I posed those very simple questions, which I have yet to have ever heard a homeopath answer (without slipping into conspiracy theories).

James Gully wrote:
At first blush, homeopathy seems weird to me too, but heck, nature is full of mysteries. Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.
Click to expand...

James Gully: Homeopathy is more than "weird." It seems to be nothing less than fraudulent according to the FDA's definition of "health fraud."

I agree that humility is a "healthy scientific attitude," and I have given this some thought.

Considering how confident you appear to be about your practices, I am willing to volunteer myself as your test subject and give you an opportunity to prove your claims.

I suffer from arthritis of the spine, herniated disk(s), COPD, FMS, and a coagulation disorder (FVL and PCD). All these things have been documented in my medical records over the past several years and I have an enormous collection of MRI's, CT-scans, X-rays, lab work, etc.

Pick any (or all) of these conditions, and I would be willing to cease all conventional treatment & have you cure my ailments with your water. I have nothing to lose and you have a Nobel Prize to gain from this challenge (if you should succeed).

(Of course everything would have to be monitored by an unbiased 3rd party and follow all other guidelines required to meet the criteria of scientific proof.)

Are you confident enough in your remedies to take this challenge?

If so, let's not waste any more time. I have been ill and suffering tremendously for far too many years, and words cannot express how much I look forward to living a healthy and pain-free life again.

Mahalo nui loa,
Jaana


Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Have you tried Google? Anyway, check out this discussion: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82393

In short a guy in California who claims to be a leading American homeopath. He tends to show up on blogs and elsewhere claiming to have proof that homeopathy works, only to run away when the serious flaws in the papers are pointed out to him:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php
and
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/quacking-about-ducks/
... oh, and:
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/the-myth-of-the-secret-eight/

That is one of the reasons he is sometimes referred to as "Brave Sir Dana."
Click to expand...
 
Dana, what is it with you and reading comprehension? I have resisted thus far, but DullMan is becoming increasingly appropriate.

This thread is for you to answer this question,

GIVE ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION

There is a perfectly good thread here for you to trawl the murky waters of homeopathy's published research record.

It's almost like you don't want to answer the big question.

T = 06d 03h 55m 08s
 
It's not original, it's been posted elsewhere, but I beg indulgence:

Water, water, everywhere
(And nowt else in the vial)
It’s *special* water, let’s be fair,
With memory and guile.

In homeopathy, you know,
We hypnotise the water.
Each molecule of H2O
Then does just what it oughta.

When desperate, we make up stuff
(It *might* just play a role!)
My favourite’s the quantum fluff,
Which adds a bit of soul!

Some rotten spoilsport asked for facts:
“Do tinctures *really* work?”
He claimed that we’re just dodgy quacks -
I called the guy a jerk!

Of course, I couldn’t prove my case
(Who could? The Easter Bunny??)
But water, water, without trace,
Sure makes me lots of money.
 
Here’s an original from JREF member, Kieran…

In homeopathy, you'll be a hero,
If you can prove that zero isn't really zero.
That "it" is there, even if its not,
And it's not just a pile of bogus rot.
You'll be able to claim the JREF prize,
And to the top of your profession rise.
'Homeopath' will be a profession,
Instead of just a total pile of b@ll@cks duping gullable people out of money.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1457796&postcount=4
Click to expand...


…which was inspired by this:

Poetry and homeopathy: an exploration

This paper explores a relationship between poetry and homeopathy. It proposes we expand and enlighten our knowledge of the patient and develop our consultation through our experience of poetry. Within each consultation is a poem. Heightened awareness of this and many other aspects can improve the sensibilities of the practitioner and enhance deeper healing of the patient. We are challenged to respond.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=bd5d05da4e94db0442770adc20b38cfa
Click to expand...


From the conclusions section of the paper:

Through my exploration of poetry and homeopathy,
I have shown to understand further; we must be
attentive, be fully present for the patient. Daring to
wander the edges, we find a still centre of healing
possibility. As the consultation evolves, language and
forms of poem unfold, improving the dialogue and
relationship, expanding space. Remedies seethe and
seep through our consciousness, enlivened by poetic
images and their expression in patients. If not mermaids,
we can be taught to hear something of other
worlds as we practice in this heightened state, and can
assist the visualization of the full being of the patient
before us, taking care in the telling of the story, such
that this assists healing too. All this requires courage.
We share with the brave poet a sense of wonder; an
enriched practice of homeopathy emerges.
Click to expand...


Maybe there’s something in those little pills after all.

[/derail]
 
Last edited:
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_maceoin/2007/11/your_ignorance_is_showing.html

Unfortunately the time-gate has closed on that thread. I wonder whether JamesGully or his extremely close friend Dana Ullman will dare to show up here to keep it going.

It was getting to be fun.

I think we can assume he reads these forums, so I'll ask the question that he seems determined to overlook in his paranoid fantasies of " Big Pharma reps who are hired guns". Though, I should also like to know, if Big Pharma is hiring "guns" does anyone know what the pay is like and whether it can compete with the living that Mr Ullman is making for himself?

"GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION."
Click to expand...

Just one question, Monkey. Would it be possible that homeopathy doesn't do anything AND Big Pharma reps are hired guns? Or do the two issues have to be tied together, like school lunches and a new golf course in some congressman's neighborhood?
 
Blue Wode quoted from elsewhere (and my apologies for not seeing that defunct thread):

"Poetry and homeopathy: an exploration

This paper explores a relationship between poetry and homeopathy...Within each consultation is a poem."

Ye gods; it's even worse than I thought....they're not just nutters, but fluffy nutters....
 
...nor have there been knock-out blows to the severe sepsis study, also conducted at the University of Vienna.
Click to expand...
.

I'd certainly like to comment on the severe sepsis study.(Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit: Homeopathy 2005 (94) 75-80.) As background, I am a specialist in intensive care and treat patients with sepsis every day. I am therefore very familiar with the literature in this field and am a reviewer for several ICU journals.

Mr Gully whilst I do not wish to be rude, suggesting that this study is good positive evidence of homeopathy's efficacy suggests that either you have not read it or more likely you do not know enough about the subject.

First, this is a small study. Seventy patient were enrolled, which for a sepsis trial in particular is very low. The reason is that sepsis is a very heterogenous condition, and small trials are unlikely to have well matched patients. As comparisons, recent sepsis trials in the literature randomised 300-500 patients. (Annane et al, Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock, JAMA 2002; Corticus (not yet in press)).
What this means is we have to look very closely at the 2 groups at baseline, and here we see the second major problem. As I mentioned sepsis is very heterogenous. This means outcomes are different for different sites of infection. Urinary sepsis tends to have a good prognosis, whilst intra abdominal is less so. However, the authors do not present this data. Instead in Table 1 they simply give "reason for admission" In this category the majority of patients are classified as just "sepsis" which is meaningless, as all patients would have had sepsis by definition, in order to be included. Thus we have no idea how well the groups were matched in terms of site of infection.
Now we come onto the statistics. Mr Gully claims this study shows efficacy of homeopathic treatment over placebo. However, 28 day mortality was NOT
significantly different between the two groups (Survival at day 30: 81.8% vs 67.7%, P 0.19 Hom vs Plac). At day 180 there is a significant difference in survival (75.8% vs 50% P=0.043). Now this is rather odd. Why should there be no difference at 30 days, but one at 180 days? Sepsis tends to have an early effect on mortality. Most large scale trials will use 28 day mortality as a primary outcome measure, as by this time the majority of patients will either have died or got better. Average length of stay in ICU's is certainly well under 180 days, and is more in the range of 5-7 days for sepsis. In this trial the medication was ceased upon discharge. So how to interpret this strange finding? Well, the sort of standard data for a sepsis trial we need is simply not presented. There is no information on length of stay, time on mechanical ventilation, cumulative inotrope dose, time on dialysis -nothing apart from the baseline information is given. Without this the likeliest reason for the findings at 180 days is just a statistical aberration, in an underpowered study which we have no way of knowing was matched properly.

Frankly if this was a trial of a conventional drug, no reputable ICU journal would publish it in its current form. If a drug rep attempted to convince me to use a conventional med based on this study I would laugh them out of the office. Attempting to trumpet it as a triumph for homeopathy shows an astonishing lack of understanding of the subject and in my opinion highlights the paucity of your arguments.
 
JamesGully said:
Paul Wilson chose to "defend" the Shang/Egger comparison of homeopathic and allopathic studies in the Lancet (2005)...and here was my response...
Click to expand...

My response is posted in the appropriate thread here.

Linda
 
Criticalist said:
<snip>

Now we come onto the statistics. Mr Gully claims this study shows efficacy of homeopathic treatment over placebo. However, 28 day mortality was NOT
significantly different between the two groups (Survival at day 30: 81.8% vs 67.7%, P 0.19 Hom vs Plac). At day 180 there is a significant difference in survival (75.8% vs 50% P=0.043). Now this is rather odd. Why should there be no difference at 30 days, but one at 180 days? Sepsis tends to have an early effect on mortality. Most large scale trials will use 28 day mortality as a primary outcome measure, as by this time the majority of patients will either have died or got better. Average length of stay in ICU's is certainly well under 180 days, and is more in the range of 5-7 days for sepsis. In this trial the medication was ceased upon discharge. So how to interpret this strange finding?

<snip>
Click to expand...

A butterfly flaps its wings...
 
Come on, Dana! I'm beginning to believe that with all your experience and contacts you really don't know af any single case of someone recovering from something we know wouldn't have gone away on its own, with homoeopathic treatment.

Rolfe said:
The things I'd be happy declaring don't go away without treatment would include

Insulin-dependent diabetes (in man)
Addison's disease
Hypothyroidism
Primary hypoparathyroidism
AIDS
glioblastoma multiforme
metastatic prostate cancer
pulmonary carcinoma
pancreatic carcinoma
malignant melanoma
mesothelioma
(.... oh, let's just say quite a lot of carciomas and sarcomas, especially if metastatic, but not necessarily every single one)
dilated cardiomyopathy
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
emphysema

I'm sure there are lots more, and the medics will list some. However, even serious, life-threatening conditions in which a proportion of the patients (even a small one) would be expected to recover spontaneously don't count.
Click to expand...


And so on.

Nobody in that sepsis study could have been said to have been "cured" by homoeopathy, I don't see how you could possibly think so. Sepsis is quite often self-limiting, and in any case these people were also receiving conventional medicine. The presence of control patients is irrelevant, because of the size of the groups and the lack of information regarding clinical presentation, comparability and so on.

Come on, do you not have even one case of a patient diagnosed with one of the above conditions being cured by homoeopathy?

Will you continue to ignore the challenge?

Does your pride, smugness and intellectual dishonesty know no bounds?

Rolfe.
 
Criticalist said:
.
First, this is a small study. Seventy patient were enrolled, which for a sepsis trial in particular is very low. The reason is that sepsis is a very heterogenous condition, and small trials are unlikely to have well matched patients.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that authoritative comment it reinforces with damning weight what I told him previously based on my non-expert reading of the situation.

The mere fact of only getting these published in crap journals is always a big clue.
 
Friends,
It is interesting to note that no one on this list chose to acknowledge that the Shang comparison article is a classic example of data dredging. The only way that Shang would have gotten a negative result against homeopathy is by selecting the parameters he established...and because he previously contacted the Lancet and formally told him that his hypothesis was to prove that homeopathic medicines have no effect, he self-selected his parameters and his data to prove it.
Is it interesting that he chose 98, not 100, subjects as his minimim definition for inclusion...just so that he could include a headache trial with a negative result.
At least one of you above acknowledged that s/he wondered why only 1 of the 3 studies with 300+ subjects was included in the trial. Linda asserted that the study in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine was granted a high rating than the trial in PEDIATRICS. That speaks volumes about the rating system that Shang used. Anyway, because the 3 trials were conducted with the same design, and even though this pooled data was published in a major pediatrics journal, Shang chose to ignore that (whooops).
I loved Dr. Peter Fisher's response to the Shang work:
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/1/145
His assertion below is worthy:
"Shang et al. (1) state that ‘eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract ... indicated a substantial beneficial effect ... sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases that are prevalent in these publications, as shown by our study, might promote the conclusion that the results cannot be trusted’. They state that eight studies is too few to question their conclusion about the whole set of publications. Their conclusion about the whole set, however, was also based on eight studies. Is eight enough for a conclusion or not? Or does it depend on what that conclusion is?"

And yet, Shang's final conclusion are based 8 homeopathic studies and 6 allopathic ones. Remember...the mission of this article was to compare MATCHED studies. Please someone tell me (us) how the final studies were matched in any way? Was one of the allopathic studies a test of a drug for weight-loss (as was done with the homeopathic studies)? Curious minds want to know...

Come on...you folks claim to be good in evaluating data, and you've barely started to provide an adequate review of this comparison article. Go for it...
 
More tedious diversionary tactics from DullMan

Yes, Dana, we can analyse data very well- much better than you and we have a thread for doing just that. This thread is for you to answer a simple question. Your tactics are just the usual pathetic attempt to try to deflect the discussion away from uncomfortable topics. Please take your problems with Shang to the other thread and answer the damn question that this thread was created for.

The funniest thing is that your avoidance of the issue shows just how frightened you are and how fragile your blusteing show really is.

Grade so far: DullMan must try harder.
 
I am by no means an expert in studying testing methods and results, which is why I wish to thank Criticalist for this very well written & readable analysis (and expertise) on this particular study. Well done!

Criticalist said:
.

I'd certainly like to comment on the severe sepsis study.(Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit: Homeopathy 2005 (94) 75-80.) As background, I am a specialist in intensive care and treat patients with sepsis every day. I am therefore very familiar with the literature in this field and am a reviewer for several ICU journals.

Mr Gully whilst I do not wish to be rude, suggesting that this study is good positive evidence of homeopathy's efficacy suggests that either you have not read it or more likely you do not know enough about the subject.

First, this is a small study. Seventy patient were enrolled, which for a sepsis trial in particular is very low. The reason is that sepsis is a very heterogenous condition, and small trials are unlikely to have well matched patients. As comparisons, recent sepsis trials in the literature randomised 300-500 patients. (Annane et al, Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock, JAMA 2002; Corticus (not yet in press)).
What this means is we have to look very closely at the 2 groups at baseline, and here we see the second major problem. As I mentioned sepsis is very heterogenous. This means outcomes are different for different sites of infection. Urinary sepsis tends to have a good prognosis, whilst intra abdominal is less so. However, the authors do not present this data. Instead in Table 1 they simply give "reason for admission" In this category the majority of patients are classified as just "sepsis" which is meaningless, as all patients would have had sepsis by definition, in order to be included. Thus we have no idea how well the groups were matched in terms of site of infection.
Now we come onto the statistics. Mr Gully claims this study shows efficacy of homeopathic treatment over placebo. However, 28 day mortality was NOT
significantly different between the two groups (Survival at day 30: 81.8% vs 67.7%, P 0.19 Hom vs Plac). At day 180 there is a significant difference in survival (75.8% vs 50% P=0.043). Now this is rather odd. Why should there be no difference at 30 days, but one at 180 days? Sepsis tends to have an early effect on mortality. Most large scale trials will use 28 day mortality as a primary outcome measure, as by this time the majority of patients will either have died or got better. Average length of stay in ICU's is certainly well under 180 days, and is more in the range of 5-7 days for sepsis. In this trial the medication was ceased upon discharge. So how to interpret this strange finding? Well, the sort of standard data for a sepsis trial we need is simply not presented. There is no information on length of stay, time on mechanical ventilation, cumulative inotrope dose, time on dialysis -nothing apart from the baseline information is given. Without this the likeliest reason for the findings at 180 days is just a statistical aberration, in an underpowered study which we have no way of knowing was matched properly.

Frankly if this was a trial of a conventional drug, no reputable ICU journal would publish it in its current form. If a drug rep attempted to convince me to use a conventional med based on this study I would laugh them out of the office. Attempting to trumpet it as a triumph for homeopathy shows an astonishing lack of understanding of the subject and in my opinion highlights the paucity of your arguments.
Click to expand...
 
To clarify, the title of THIS dialogue is having fun with me...it is not what you say it is...and thus, I have the privilege of writing about what I consider to be important.

For starters, I cannot help but notice that no one answers the substantative questions that I've raised about the Shang article. Do you or do you not defend it and if so, why?

As for studies, the critique of the COPD study is simply too weak to have been published in a peer-review journal.

The worst thing that was said about the allergy research by David Reilly et al was that it was "isopathic" rather than homeopathic. For those of you who don't know, homeopathic makes reference to the principle of SIMILARS and isopathic to the principle of SAMENESS. Thus, Reilly and others conducted 4 separate trials on various types of allergic conditions, including asthma, usually using homeopathic doses of the same substance to which the person was allergic.

Though techinically, Rolfe is correct in calling this method of prescribing to be isopathic, the bottomline is that these medicines were homeopathically prepared to the 30C potency (a dose that should have no remaming molecules of the original substance).

After the 4th trial, Reilly concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies don't. Are you going to be so cynical about science to assume the latter now? I hope not.

Others have criticized this set of studies because these conditions are self-limiting. Hmmm. Asthma? Really? Actually, there's an increase in death rates from asthma these days...does a disease that can kill you still make it self-limiting? Hmmm.

I hope that SOME of the people who read this are not so antagonistic to homeopathy to see something might be going on with homeopathy beyond the placebo effect...but the attitude on this list probably scares people from admiting it. My condolences...
 
JamesGully said:
After the 4th trial, Reilly concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies don't. Are you going to be so cynical about science to assume the latter now? I hope not.
Click to expand...

4th trial is missleading they were not equiv.

Others have criticized this set of studies because these conditions are self-limiting. Hmmm. Asthma? Really? Actually, there's an increase in death rates from asthma these days...does a disease that can kill you still make it self-limiting? Hmmm.
Click to expand...

In a number oif cases the diagnosis was questionable.
 
JamesGully said:
To clarify, the title of THIS dialogue is having fun with me...it is not what you say it is...and thus, I have the privilege of writing about what I consider to be important.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there is nothing in the rules of the Forum to stop you looking like a chump, just as there is nothing in the rules of the Forum to stop other readers to see how you want to avoid one very simple question but only want to pick about in the entrails of homeopathy's pathetic research record looking for tiny effects obscured by the statistical noise. Your misconceptions about the Shang paper have been addressed in the appropriate place and I will remind you, yet again, that you have a problem with it only and precisely because the effects you are claiming to exist are utterly trivial.

But, homeopathy claims big impressive effects so;

GIVE ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom