Homeopathy studies cited by UK Dept of Health

Ashles · 15th April 2005, 06:58 AM

In the Test Your MP thread we have received a response from a candidate that they would follow Department of Health guidelines:

Quote:

You may be aware of the Department of Health guidance that was issues some time ago, and which recognises the use of complementary therapies. It can be found on the link below.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/44/24/04014424.pdf

On the link the Document states:

Quote:

"treatment is less likely to be curative, but may be palliative"

(although this is rather generous),

but then it says:

Quote:

Whilst there is evidence of the overall effectiveness of homeopathy,26, 27 specific conditions for which there is the best evidence of effectiveness are those where there is an allergic component e.g. asthma, 28 rhinitis and hayfever. 29 There is also evidence of effectiveness in the treatment of influenza. 30

- - - - - - - - - - - -
References:

26 Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A
meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-43.

27 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991;302:316-23.

28 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet
1994;344:1601-6.

29 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C et al. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of
homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet 1986;2(8512):881-6.

30 Papp R, Schuback G, Beck E et al. Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a
placebo controlled double blind evaluation. British Homeopathic Journal 1998; 87:69-76.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Influenza treatment?

Does anyone know offhand any more about these studies, bearing in mind they are DoH guidelines for use of these therapies and are being quoted by politicians?

Matabiri · 15th April 2005, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashles
28 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet
1994;344:1601-6.

Quote:

Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?

Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Carter R, Stevenson RD.

University Department of Medicine, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, UK.

We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a complement to their unaltered conventional care. A daily visual analogue scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p = 0.003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p = 0.0004). Is the reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof of the clinical trial's capacity to produce false-positive results?

(From PebMed )

There seems to have been a lot of correspondence following it up. Unfortunately, I can only access back to 1996 on-line...

Edit to add: The Lancet website is also not currently accepting new registrations, so I can't check the more recent paper either.

Quasi · 15th April 2005, 07:09 AM

Hi,

This was covered in another thread a while back. I actually wrote to the UK government who proceeded to put me (and several other JREFers) in a beurecratic holding pattern so they never had to really substantiate their claims. It is pretty awful that they are validating the anti-vaccination and CAM crowd by claiming homepathy can treat influenza (which is a total lie.) BTW, oscillococinum is a bacterial tincture made from puree of duck liver. The problem is no one has ever verified that this bacteria even exists

Seriously, the whole thing is entirely fiction. Second, you do not treat a specific allopathic disease homeopathically, so this is totally irrelevant to homeopathy. They simply homogenized duck liver, diluted it and gave it to the patients. Nothing to do with homeopathy whatsoever except in the name of the duck water. And here is the UK government recommending it for children and the elderly as an alternative to flu shots. Pretty sick stuff. It is sort of hard not to troll here, but I know there is some rationing in the UK for health services, so people are suffering so homeopathy can be paraded around as a cure all.

geni · 15th April 2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashles

26 Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A
meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-43.

27 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991;302:316-23.

I'll leave it to Rolfe to cover these

Quote:

28 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet
1994;344:1601-6.

Claimed that non equerlent studies were equivelant and the diganosis of those taking part was questionable in many cases. Finaly this was test of isopathy rather than homeopathy.

Rolfe · 15th April 2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geni
I'll leave it to Rolfe to cover these....

This post here covers most of it.

It doesn't cover Reilly explicitly, but his papers are included in all the relevant meta-analyses. In fact it was probably giving too much credence to Reilly that got Linde into the hole in the first place.

As Geni said, Reilly keeps claiming he's replicated himself, too bad nobody else can. And he's not doing homoeopathy anyway, his treatments are isopathy.

And if my recollection of a TV programme about his work shown about the time when Kleijnen first went into print is correct, his clinical effects amounted to about two coughs less per week in the treated group. A good claim to join the one that Oscillococcinum can shorten the duration of an attack of the flu by six hours!

Rolfe.

Ashles · 15th April 2005, 07:34 AM

This is all very interesting - thanks.

Rather concerning what the DoH considers evidence, and what they are prepared to spend money on.

Rolfe · 15th April 2005, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashles
Rather concerning what the DoH considers evidence, and what they are prepared to spend money on.

Worst case of Emperor's New Clothes known to modern science.

Rolfe.

15th April 2005, 06:58 AM	#1
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,694	Homeopathy studies cited by UK Dept of Health In the Test Your MP thread we have received a response from a candidate that they would follow Department of Health guidelines: Quote: You may be aware of the Department of Health guidance that was issues some time ago, and which recognises the use of complementary therapies. It can be found on the link below. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/44/24/04014424.pdf On the link the Document states: Quote: "treatment is less likely to be curative, but may be palliative" (although this is rather generous), but then it says: Quote: Whilst there is evidence of the overall effectiveness of homeopathy,26, 27 specific conditions for which there is the best evidence of effectiveness are those where there is an allergic component e.g. asthma, 28 rhinitis and hayfever. 29 There is also evidence of effectiveness in the treatment of influenza. 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - References: 26 Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-43. 27 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991;302:316-23. 28 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994;344:1601-6. 29 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C et al. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet 1986;2(8512):881-6. 30 Papp R, Schuback G, Beck E et al. Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a placebo controlled double blind evaluation. British Homeopathic Journal 1998; 87:69-76. - - - - - - - - - - - - Influenza treatment? Does anyone know offhand any more about these studies, bearing in mind they are DoH guidelines for use of these therapies and are being quoted by politicians?
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell It is obvious to any scientist that the bumblebee can fly because experiment proves it. - Zetie 1996

15th April 2005, 07:09 AM	#2
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,732	Re: Homeopathy studies cited by UK Dept of Health Quote: Originally posted by Ashles 28 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994;344:1601-6. Quote: Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Carter R, Stevenson RD. University Department of Medicine, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, UK. We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a complement to their unaltered conventional care. A daily visual analogue scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p = 0.003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p = 0.0004). Is the reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof of the clinical trial's capacity to produce false-positive results? (From PebMed ) There seems to have been a lot of correspondence following it up. Unfortunately, I can only access back to 1996 on-line... Edit to add: The Lancet website is also not currently accepting new registrations, so I can't check the more recent paper either.
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

15th April 2005, 07:09 AM	#3
Quasi Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 424	Hi, This was covered in another thread a while back. I actually wrote to the UK government who proceeded to put me (and several other JREFers) in a beurecratic holding pattern so they never had to really substantiate their claims. It is pretty awful that they are validating the anti-vaccination and CAM crowd by claiming homepathy can treat influenza (which is a total lie.) BTW, oscillococinum is a bacterial tincture made from puree of duck liver. The problem is no one has ever verified that this bacteria even exists Seriously, the whole thing is entirely fiction. Second, you do not treat a specific allopathic disease homeopathically, so this is totally irrelevant to homeopathy. They simply homogenized duck liver, diluted it and gave it to the patients. Nothing to do with homeopathy whatsoever except in the name of the duck water. And here is the UK government recommending it for children and the elderly as an alternative to flu shots. Pretty sick stuff. It is sort of hard not to troll here, but I know there is some rationing in the UK for health services, so people are suffering so homeopathy can be paraded around as a cure all.
Quasi Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 424

15th April 2005, 07:10 AM	#4
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 28,209	Re: Homeopathy studies cited by UK Dept of Health Quote: Originally posted by Ashles 26 Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-43. 27 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991;302:316-23. I'll leave it to Rolfe to cover these Quote: 28 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994;344:1601-6. Claimed that non equerlent studies were equivelant and the diganosis of those taking part was questionable in many cases. Finaly this was test of isopathy rather than homeopathy.

15th April 2005, 07:17 AM	#5
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	Re: Re: Homeopathy studies cited by UK Dept of Health Quote: Originally posted by geni I'll leave it to Rolfe to cover these.... This post here covers most of it. It doesn't cover Reilly explicitly, but his papers are included in all the relevant meta-analyses. In fact it was probably giving too much credence to Reilly that got Linde into the hole in the first place. As Geni said, Reilly keeps claiming he's replicated himself, too bad nobody else can. And he's not doing homoeopathy anyway, his treatments are isopathy. And if my recollection of a TV programme about his work shown about the time when Kleijnen first went into print is correct, his clinical effects amounted to about two coughs less per week in the treated group. A good claim to join the one that Oscillococcinum can shorten the duration of an attack of the flu by six hours! Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

15th April 2005, 07:34 AM	#6
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,694	This is all very interesting - thanks. Rather concerning what the DoH considers evidence, and what they are prepared to spend money on.
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell It is obvious to any scientist that the bumblebee can fly because experiment proves it. - Zetie 1996

15th April 2005, 07:36 AM	#7
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	Quote: Originally posted by Ashles Rather concerning what the DoH considers evidence, and what they are prepared to spend money on. Worst case of Emperor's New Clothes known to modern science. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.