homeopathy
I have not often seen a paper reporting a small case series with such an impressively long list of authors from so many different institutions:
- Hospital of Lienz, Lienz, Austria.
- WissHom: Scientific Society for Homeopathy, Koethen, Germany; Umbrella Organization for Medical Holistic Medicine, Vienna, Austria; Vienna International Academy for Holistic Medicine (GAMED), Otto Wagner Hospital Vienna, Austria; Professor Emeritus, Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: [email protected].
- Resident Specialist in Hygiene, Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Außervillgraten, Austria.
- St Mary’s University, London, UK.
- Umbrella Organization for Medical Holistic Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
- Shaare Zedek Medical Center, The Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.
- Apotheke Zum Weißen Engel – Homeocur, Retz, Austria.
- Reeshabh Homeo Consultancy, Nagpur, India.
- Umbrella Organization for Medical Holistic Medicine, Vienna, Austria; Vienna International Academy for Holistic Medicine (GAMED), Otto Wagner Hospital Vienna, Austria; Chair of Complementary Medicine, Medical Faculty, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, Austria; KLITM: Karl Landsteiner Institute for Traditional Medicine and Medical Anthropology, Vienna, Austria.
- WissHom: Scientific Society for Homeopathy, Koethen, Germany.
In fact, there are 12 authors reporting about 13 patients! But that might be trivial – so, let’s look at the paper itself. The aim of this study was to describe the effect of adjunctive individualized homeopathic treatment delivered to hospitalized patients with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Thirteen patients with COVID-19 were admitted. The mean age was 73.4 ± 15.0 (SD) years. The treating homeopathic doctor was instructed by the hospital on March 27, 2020, to adjunctively treat all inpatient COVID-19 patients homeopathically. The high potency homeopathic medicinal products were administered orally. Five globules were administered sublingually where they dissolved, three times a day. In ventilated patients in the ICU, medication was administered as a sip from a water beaker or 1 ml three times a day using a syringe. All ventilated patients exhibited dry cough resulting in respiratory failure. They were given Influenzinum, as were the patients at the general inpatient ward.
Twelve patients (92.3%) were speedily discharged without relevant sequelae after 14.4 ± 8.9 days. A single patient admitted in an advanced stage of septic disease died in the hospital. A time-dependent improvement of relevant clinical symptoms was observed in the 12 surviving patients. Six (46.2%) were critically ill and treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean stay at the ICU of the 5 surviving patients was 18.8 ± 6.8 days. In six patients (46.2%) gastrointestinal disorders accompanied COVID-19.
The authors conclude that adjunctive homeopathic treatment may be helpful to treat patients with confirmed COVID-19 even in high-risk patients especially since there is no conventional treatment of COVID-19 available at present.
In the discussion section of the paper, the authors state this: “Given the extreme variability of pathology and clinical manifestations, a single universal preventive homeopathic medicinal product does not seem feasible. Yet homeopathy may have a relevant role to play precisely because of the number and diversity of its homeopathic medicinal products which can be matched with the diversity of the presentations. Patients with mild forms of disease can use homeopathic medicinal products at home using our simple algorithm. As this Case series suggests, adjunctive homeopathic treatment can play a valuable role in more serious presentations. For future pandemics, homeopathy agencies should be prepared by establishing rapid-response teams and efficacious lines of communication.”
There is nothing in this paper that would lead me to conclude that the homeopathic remedies had a positive effect on the natural history of the disease. All this article actually does do is this: it provides a near-perfect insight into the delusional megalomania of some homeopaths. These people are even more dangerous than I had feared.
“Time to say good-bye? Homeopathy, skeptics and thoughts on how to proceed” is the title of an article by two Swiss homeopaths which is almost touchingly naive. Here is its abstract:
Although homeopathy is frequently used by many health professionals, there are ongoing debates concerning its effectiveness. Currently no unifying explanation how homeopathy works exists. Homeopaths are frequently challenged by skeptics, and in public opinion, the swan song for homeopathy is frequently sung.
Content: Regarding the efficacy of homeopathy, several well-designed RCTs, observational studies, case studies, and case reports, have been published, demonstrating its clinical efficacy. Regarding its mode of action, the discovery of the working principle of homeopathy would be a major advance towards a thorough scientific recognition of homeopathy. Basic research has already discovered some milestones, e.g., significant and reproducible effects of homeopathic preparations in plants.
Summary: To overcome the distrust of skeptics and public opinion, the support of basic research is indispensable. Second, homeopaths should continue to design prospective randomized clinical studies in order to create robust clinical evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. Third, they should continue to publish their treatment outcomes, as these publications document clinical effectiveness beyond doubts about its mode of action.
Outlook: These measures will not only support homeopaths in continuing their clinical work, but may lead to a better recognition of this treatment in both the scientific world and the public.
To this, I might add the following comments:
- “ongoing debates concerning its effectiveness”: this debate has been ongoing for 200 years but it has now come to a conclusion, namely that homeopathy is a placebo therapy.
- “no unifying explanation how homeopathy works exists”: we do know, however, that the laws of nature, as we understand them today, must be wrong if homeopathy did work.
- “Homeopaths are frequently challenged by skeptics”: the main challenges currently come not from skeptics but from health experts who rightly insist on sound evidence.
- “several well-designed RCTs, observational studies, case studies, and case reports, have been published, demonstrating its clinical efficacy”: arguably, this might be correct but misses the crucial point that the totality of the reliable evidence fails to show that homeopathy is efficacious for any condition of humans or animals.
- “the discovery of the working principle of homeopathy would be a major advance”: yes, so much so that it would require rewriting whole sections of the textbooks of physics and chemistry.
- “Basic research has already discovered some milestones”: these ‘milestones’ are so imposing that nobody outside the realm of homeopathy has ever recognized them.
- “the support of basic research is indispensable”: not so much indispensable as non-existent, I would say.
- “design prospective randomized clinical studies in order to create robust clinical evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy”: homeopaths believe research to be a tool for creating evidence that supports their creed; I have often tried to remind them that it is a tool for testing hypotheses – to no avail, it seems.
- “publish their treatment outcomes, as these publications document clinical effectiveness”: I have also often tried to explain to them that treatment outcomes can be due to many factors other than the specific effect of the applied therapy – again to no avail.
- “These measures will not only support homeopaths in continuing their clinical work, but may lead to a better recognition of this treatment in both the scientific world and the public”: these measures, if applied rigorously, will merely confirm what we already know, namely that homeopathy does not work beyond placebo.
The UK ‘Advertising Standards Authority‘ (ASA) received a complaint about an advertisement that stated:
“Homeopathy is used throughout the world to keep healthy … People in the UK have been using it to successfully help with migraine, anxiety, chronic pain, woman’s [sic] health issues, depression, eczema, chronic fatigue, asthma, IBS, rheumatoid arthritis, and many other conditions”.
The ‘Good Thinking Society‘ had challenged whether:
- the ad discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, namely migraines, chronic pain, women’s health issues, depression, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis; and
- the claim “People in the UK have been using [homeopathy] to successfully help with anxiety, chronic pain … eczema, chronic fatigue syndrome … IBS” was misleading and could be substantiated.
The response of the ASA has just been published. Here are the key excerpts from the ASA’s assessment:
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional. Among other conditions, the ad referred to “migraines”, “chronic pain”, “woman’s [sic] health issues”, “depression”, “asthma”, and “rheumatoid arthritis”, which we considered were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, and therefore advice, diagnosis or treatment must be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional. We noted that the practice was run by a GMC-registered GP, who we considered was a suitably qualified health professional. However, the individual homeopaths were not registered and did not hold the same qualifications. Therefore, Homeopathy UK had not shown that all treatment and diagnoses conducted at the practice would be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional. Because Homeopathy UK had not supplied evidence that treatment would always be carried out by a suitably qualified health professional, and because reference to the conditions listed in the ad could discourage consumers from seeking essential treatment under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional, we concluded that the ad had breached the Code.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “People in the UK have been using [homeopathy] to successfully help with anxiety, chronic pain … eczema, chronic fatigue syndrome … IBS” to mean that homeopathy could be used to successfully treat those conditions … when we reviewed the evidence provided by Homeopathy UK, we considered that the studies provided did not meet the standard of evidence we required for the types of claims being made, both in terms of adequacy and relevance…
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Homeopathy UK to ensure their future marketing communications did not to refer to conditions for which advice should be sought from suitably qualified health professionals. We also told them to ensure they did not make claims for homeopathy unless they were supported with robust evidence.
_____________________________
Am I reading this correctly?
The ASA seems to be saying that homeopaths are not suitably qualified health professionals and, as no therapeutic claims are supported by robust evidence, that claims for homeopathy are improper.
Many people believe that homeopathy is essentially plant-based – but they are mistaken! Homeopathic remedies can be made from anything: Berlin wall, X-ray, pus, excrement, dental plaque, mobile phone rays, poisons … anything you can possibly think of. So, why not from vaccines?
This is exactly what a pharmacist specialized in homeopathy thought.
It has been reported that the ‘Schloss-Apotheke’ in Koblenz, Germany offered for sale a homeopathic remedy made from the
Pfizer vaccine. This has since prompted not only the Chamber of Pharmacists but also the Paul Ehrlich Institute and Pfizer to issue statements. On Friday (30/4/2021) morning, the pharmacy had advertised homeopathic remedies based on the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. The Westphalia-Lippe Chamber of Pharmacists then issued an explicit warning against it. “We are stunned by this,” said a spokesman. The offer has since disappeared from the pharmacy’s website.
On Friday afternoon, the manufacturer of the original vaccine also intervened. The Paul Ehrlich Institute released a statement making it clear that a vaccine is only safe “if it is administered in accordance with the marketing authorization.”
The Schloss-Apotheke had advertised the product in question with the following words:
“We have Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19-Vaccine in potentized form up to D30 as globules or dilution (for discharge) in stock.”
The chamber of pharmacists countered with a warming under the heading “Facts instead of Fake News” on Facebook and Instagram:
“Whatever they might contain: These remedies are no effective protection against Covid-19.”
Pharmacy manager, Annette Eichele, of the Schloss-Apotheke claimed she had not sold homeopathic Corona vaccines and stressed that effective vaccines of this kind do not exist. According to Eichele, only an additional “mini drop” of the original Biontech vaccine had been used and “highly potentized” and prepared homeopathically. According to Eichele, Corona vaccinations that had already been administered were thus to have a “better and more correct effect with this supplementary product, possibly without causing side effects … but this is not scientifically proven”. The homeopathic product had been produced only on customer request and had been sold less than a dozen times in the past weeks. Ten grams of the remedy were sold for about 15 Euros. On Twitter, Eichele stated: „Wir haben nichts Böses getan, wir wollten nur Menschen helfen!“ (We have done nothing evil, we only wanted to help people). I am reminded yet again of Bert Brecht who observed:
“The opposite of good is not evil but good intentions”.
On 17/2/2020 I posted this article:
The drop in cases and deaths due to COVID-19 infections in India has been attributed to India’s national policy of using homeopathy. Early in the epidemic, the national “Ministry of AYUSH, recommended the use of Arsenic album 30 as preventive medicine against COVID-19. Its prophylactic use has been advised in states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Maharashtra. The ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHY RESOURCE’ is now claiming that homeopathy is the cause of the observed outcome…
If you click on the link, you will find that the OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHY RESOURCE has now removed the original. No problem! Thanks to Alan Henness, we can still access it; he announced in a tweet that he has archived a copy. So, here is the full article again:
India’s National Policy of Using Homeopathic Medicine To Prevent COVID is Dramatically Working
A dramatic plunge in cases and deaths of COVID in India can be attributed to India’s national policy of using homeopathy.
Early in the epidemic, the national “Ministry of AYUSH, (medical alternatives), in its guidelines, issued an advisory to states across India recommending the use of a traditional homeopathic drug, Arsenic album 30 as a form of preventive medicine against COVID-19. Its prophylactic use has been advised in states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Maharashtra and in some places, it has been used in high-risk areas. In places like Bhopal, claims were raised when doctors said that mild COVID cases were successfully treated with homeopathy.” [Times of India]
And now the results of that policy and use are clear, even though scientists in the conventional paradigm are mystified as to why the drop is so dramatic. They know nothing about homeopathy and its history of successfully treating epidemics.
India has a population of 1 billion, 300 million people. Relative to this massive population the number of cases per day and especially the number of deaths per day are now exceptionally low. According to the Daily Mail:
“Scientists are trying to work out why coronavirus cases in India are falling when at one point it looked like the country might overtake the US as the worst-hit nation.
In September the country was reporting some 100,00 new cases per day, but that went into decline in October and is now sitting at around 10,000 per day – leaving experts struggling to explain why.”
But why?
Why did the original disappear?
The reason seems obvious:
Saturday’s official toll recorded another 2,600 deaths and 340,000 new infections in India, bringing the total number of cases to 16.5 million, second only to the US. There have been 190,000 deaths attributed to Covid in India since the start of the pandemic. These figures are dramatic but most likely they are gross underestimates of the truth.
The egg on the face of homeopathy gets bigger if we consider things like the COVID-19 advice from ‘HOMEOPATHY INTERNATIONAL’, or the fact that UK’s biggest provider of homeopathy training encouraged the use of homeopathic potions made with phlegm to protect against and treat Covid-19. The egg finally turns into a veritable omelette, once we learn that the leading academic journal in homeopathy, HOMEOPATHY, promoted the idea that homeopathic have a place in the fight against the pandemic – not just once but repeatedly – and that the leading UK homeopath, Elizabeth Thompson, recommended homeopathy for COVID-19 infections after herself falling ill with the virus.
No, I do not feel the slightest tinge of Schadenfreude, about all this. I am writing about it because I still hope that it will prevent some people from risking their health with useless therapies and perhaps even stop some charlatans to make ridiculously irresponsible claims about them. So, please do me a favor and heed my message:
The promotion of homeopathy and other ineffective therapies costs many lives!
Indian homeopaths aimed at evaluating the efficacy of individualized homeopathy (IH) for atopic dermatitis (AD). They conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term, preliminary trial in an Indian homeopathy hospital. Patients were randomized to either IH (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30) using computerized randomization and allocation. Outcomes were patient-oriented scoring of AD (PO-SCORAD; primary endpoint), Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI) score, and AD burden score for adults (ADBSA; secondary endpoints), measured monthly for 3 months. An intention-to-treat sample was analyzed after adjusting baseline differences.
On PO-SCORAD, improvement was higher in IH against placebo, but nonsignificant statistically (pmonth 1 = 0.433, pmonth 2 = 0.442, pmonth 3 = 0.229). Secondary outcomes were also nonsignificant – both DLQI and ADBSA (p > 0.05). Four adverse events (diarrhea, injury, common cold) were recorded.
The authors concluded that there was a small, but nonsignificant direction of effect towards homeopathy, which renders the trial inconclusive. A properly powered robust trial is indicated.
Thee questions:
- Why use statistics only to ignore its results?
- Why discredit research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in this way?
- Who on earth would publish such misleading conclusions?
This article was published in Complementary Medicine Research which claims to be an international peer-reviewed journal that aims to bridge the gap between conventional and complementary/alternative medicine on a sound scientific basis, promoting their mutual integration. It boasts that “experts of both conventional medicine and complementary/alternative medicine cooperate on the journal’s editorial board, ensuring a high standard of scientific quality”. Its editor is Harald Walach who we have met several times before.
I had a look at the long list of members of the editorial board and was unable to see many ‘experts in conventional medicine’. If that is so, the journal’s peer review process is bound to turn into a farcical procedure where any rubbish will pass.
The journal reminds authors that “published research must comply with internationally-accepted standards for research practice and reporting.” I believe that the internationally accepted standards of research reporting include something about not misleading the public by claiming that the absence of an effect is a small effect in favor of homeopathy. By revealing that there was no significant effect, the authors of this study demonstrate that IH was not effective as a treatment of AD. It is in my mind unethical to try to disguise this result by making it look like a small positive effect or claiming the result was inconclusive.
High standard of scientific quality?
No, quite the opposite!
In staunch defiance of the evidence and common sense, Prince Charles has long defended homeopathy. Apparently, he not only uses it himself but also employs it for his animals. Claiming that his cattle don’t know about placebo effects, he seems convinced it works better than a placebo. Homeopaths are naturally delighted to have his royal support, not least the ones from India where homeopathy has been hugely popular for many years.
From the beginning of the pandemic, many Indian enthusiasts have claimed that homeopathy can effectively prevent and treat COVID-19 infections. In parts of India, homeopathy was thus employed on a population basis in an attempt to prevent the spread of the disease. There were voices that warned of a disaster but the Indian enthusiasm for homeopathy as an effective anti-COVID-19 therapy won the day.
When Prince Charles fell ill with COVID-19, Indian officials did not hesitate to claim that his quick recovery was due to the homeopathic treatment he had received. Charles’ officials denied this but in India, the story was reported widely and lent crucial support to the myth that homeopathy would provide a solution to the pandemic. Subsequently, Indian officials began to rely even more on the alleged power of homeopathy.
Today, the consequences of these actions are becoming tragically visible: With more than 15 million confirmed cases, India is experiencing a catastrophic tsunami of COVID-19 infections. Its healthcare system is close to collapse, and the high prevalence of the virus provides dangerously fertile grounds for the development of mutants. One does not need to be a clairvoyant to predict that, in turn, these will cause problems on a global basis.
Why am I telling you all this?
I think this depressing sequence of events shows in exemplary fashion what damage ill-informed VIP support for an ineffective therapy can do. Many people tend to feel that Charles’ passion for homeopathy might perhaps be laughable but is essentially harmless. I beg to differ. I am not saying that Charles instructed Indian officials to employ homeopathy the way they did. I am even emphasizing that Charles’ officials denied that homeopathy had anything to do with his speedy recovery after his illness. But I am saying that Charles’ life-long promotion of homeopathy combined with his quick recovery motivated Indian officials, even more, to ignore the evidence and decide to heavily rely on homeopathy.
This decision has cost uncounted lives and will cause many more in the near future. I submit that the seemingly harmless promotion of unproven or disproven treatments such as homeopathy can be a deadly dangerous game indeed.
In Germany, homeopathy had a free ride for a very long time. In recent years, however, several doctors, pharmacists, scientists, etc. have started opposing the fact that the public has to pay for ineffective treatments such as homeopathics. As a consequence, homeopaths have begun to fight back. The weapons they chose are often not the most subtle. Now they seem to have reached a new low; the Board of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians (DZVhÄ) has sent an open letter to the Board of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM) and to the participating colleagues of the 127th Congress of the DGIM from April 17 – 20, 2021 in an attempt to stop an invited lecture of a critic of homeopathy.
Here is my translation of the letter:
Dear colleagues on the board of the DGIM,
We were very surprised to read that an ENT colleague will speak on homeopathy at the 127th Congress of Internal Medicine. Dr. Lübbers is known up and down the country as a media-active campaigner against homeopathy. His “awakening experience” he had, according to his own account, when he had to fish homeopathic pills out of the ear of a child with otitis, since then he is engaged – no: not for better education, in the mentioned case of the parents or other users – against the method homeopathy (which was certainly not “guilty” of the improper application!).
It has surely not escaped you that in all media again and again only a small handful of self-proclaimed “experts” – all from the clique of the skeptic movement! – are heard on the subject of homeopathy. A single (!) fighter against homeopathy is a physician who completed her training in homeopathy and practices for a time as a homeopath. All the others come from non-medical and other occupational groups. In contrast, there are several thousand medical colleagues throughout Germany who stand on the ground of evidence-based medicine, have learned conventional medicine, implement it in their practices, and have completed a recognized continuing education program in homeopathy.
In the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians – the oldest medical professional association in Germany – 146 qualified internists are currently registered as members, in addition to numerous other medical specialists, all of whom are actively practicing medicine.
Question: Why does the German Society for Internal Medicine invite an ENT specialist, of all people, who lectures on homeopathy without any expertise of his own? Why not at least a specialist colleague in internal medicine? Or even a colleague who could report on the subject from her own scientific or practical experience? For example, on the topic of “hyperaldosteronism,” would you also invite a urologist or orthodontist? And if so, why?
Dear Board of Directors of the DGIM: As an honorary board member of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians e.V.. (DZVhÄ) – and a specialist in internal medicine – I am quite sure that we could immediately name several colleagues with sufficient expertise as homeopathically trained and experienced internists, if you are really interested in a solid and correct discourse on the subject of homeopathy. Under the above-mentioned circumstances, there is, of course, rather the suspicion that it should not be about, but rather exclusively against homeopathy.
If it is planned for a later congress, e.g. in 2022, to deal again with the topic of homeopathy in a truly professionally well-founded and possibly even more balanced form: please contact us at any time! As medical colleagues, we are very interested in a fair and unprejudiced professional discourse.
Yours sincerely
Dr. med. Ulf Riker, Internist – Homeopathy – Naturopathy
2nd chairman DZVhÄ / 1st chairman LV Bayern
________________
What are Riker and the DZVhÄ trying to say with this ill-advised, convoluted, and poorly written letter?
Let me try to put his points a little clearer:
- They are upset that the congress of internists invited a non-homeopath to give a lecture about homeopathy.
- The person in question, Dr. Lübbers, is an ENT specialist and, like all other German critics of homeopathy (apart from one, Dr. Grams), does not understand homeopathy.
- There are thousands of physicians who do understand it and are fully trained in homeopathy.
- They would therefore do a much better job in providing a lecture.
- So, would the German internists please invite homeopaths for their future meetings?
And what is Riker trying to achieve?
- It seems quite clear that he aims to prevent criticism of homeopathy.
- He wishes to replace it with pro-homeopathy propaganda.
- Essentially he wants to stifle free speech, it seems to me.
To reach these aims, he does not hesitate to embarrass himself by sending and making publicly available a very stupid letter. He also behaves in a most unprofessional fashion and does not mind putting a few untruths on paper.
Having said that, I will admit that they are in good company. Hahnemann was by all accounts a most intolerant and cantankerous chap himself. And during the last 200 years, his followers have given ample evidence that critical thinking has remained an alien concept for them. Consequently, such behavior seems not that unusual for German defenders of homeopathy. In recent times they have:
- Made the results of the largest investigation into homeopathy disappear because its results were devastatingly negative.
- Went to Liberia to cure Ebola with homeopathy.
- Published lots of untruths and exaggerations.
- Hired a journalist to systematically defame me and other critics.
- Likened critics to Roland Freisler, the infamous judge of the Nazi era.
- Threatened critics with legal action.
- Started a media campaign to promote homeopathy.
- Published libelous statements about me.
Quite a track record, wouldn’t you agree?
But, I think, attempting to suppress free speech beats it all and must be a new low in the history of homeopathy.
Previous studies have shown inconclusive results of homeopathy in the treatment of warts. A team of Indian homeopaths aimed to assess the feasibility of a future definitive trial, with a preliminary assessment of differences between effects of individualized homeopathic (IH) medicines and placebos in the treatment of cutaneous warts.
A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (n = 60) was conducted at the dermatology outpatient department of D.N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30). Primary outcome measures were numbers and sizes of warts; the secondary outcome was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire measured at baseline, and every month up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample.
Attrition rate was 11.6% (IH, 3; placebo, 4). Intra-group changes were significantly greater (all p < 0.05, Friedman tests) in IH than placebo. Inter-group differences were statistically non-significant (all p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney U tests) with small effect sizes-both in the primary outcomes (number of warts after 3 months: IH median [inter-quartile range; IQR] 1 [1, 3] vs. placebo 1 [1, 2]; p = 0.741; size of warts after 3 months: IH 5.6 mm [2.6, 40.2] vs. placebo 6.3 [0.8, 16.7]; p = 0.515) and in the secondary outcomes (DLQI total after 3 months: IH 4.5 [2, 6.2] vs. placebo 4.5 [2.5, 8]; p = 0.935). Thuja occidentalis (28.3%), Natrum muriaticum (10%) and Sulphur (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, homeopathic aggravations, or serious adverse events were reported.
The Indian homeopaths draw the following conclusion: As regards efficacy, the preliminary study was inconclusive, with a statistically non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy. The trial succeeded in showing that an adequately powered definitive trial is both feasible and warranted.
INCONCLUSIVE?
No, the findings are not inconclusive at all! Read the results again: they confirm that homeopathy is a placebo therapy.
So, why is this trial worth writing about?
Surely, we did not expect anything else than a negative outcome from such a study?!
No, we didn’t.
But there is still something quite remarkable about this study: I have previously noted that virtually all studies of homeopathy by Indian researchers report positive results. AND THIS ONE DOESN’T!!!
Alright, it tries to hide the fact that the findings were negative, but this already seems to be a step in the right direction. So, well done, my Indian friends!!!
Perhaps one day, you will be able to admit that homeopathy is a placebo therapy?
In the world of homeopathy, Prof Michael Frass is a famous man. He is the First Chairman of the Scientific Society for Homeopathy (WissHom), the president of the Umbrella organization of Austrian Doctors for Holistic Medicine, and the Vicepresident of the Doctors Association for Classical Homeopathy. Frass has featured on this blog before, not least because he has published numerous studies of homeopathy, none of which has ever failed to produce a positive result.
This is not just remarkable, in my view, it defies logic and the laws of nature. Even if homeopathy were a supremely effective therapy – a very broad consensus holds that it is not! – one would occasionally expect some negative results. No treatment works under all circumstances
… that is no treatment except homeopathy, according to Frass.
Recently Frass amazed even the world of oncology by publishing a study suggesting that homeopathy can prolong the survival of lung cancer patients. Every oncologist I know was flabbergasted.
Can this be true? This is the question, many people have been asking for some time in relation to Frass’s research.
In my quest to shine more light on it, I was recently alerted to an article by the formidable Austrian investigative journalist, Alwin Schönberger. In 2015, he came across a press release announcing that “HOMEOPATHY HAD BEEN PROVEN TO WORK AFTER ALL” (strikingly similar to one issued in 2018). It came from Austria’s leading manufacturer who was giving an award to an apparently outstanding thesis supervised by Frass. Even today, this piece of research has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature.
Yet, after some difficulties, Schönberger managed to obtain a copy. What he found was surprising, and he thus published his findings in the respected Austrian journal ‘Profil’ (2. Mai 2015 • profil 22).
Frass’s student had been given the task to systematically review all the homeopathy trials published between 2008 and 2012. Contrary to the hype of the press release, the meta-analysis merely suggested a very small effect. When digging deeper, Schönberger found several inconsistencies and mistakes in the analysis. They all were such that they produced a false-positive picture for homeopathy. Upon their correction, homeopathy turned out to be no longer significantly superior to placebo. Frass was then interviewed about it and claimed that the inconsistencies were only ‘errors’ but insisted that homeopathy is not a placebo therapy.
Yes, of course, errors happen in research. But if they all go in one direction and if that direction coincides with the interests of the researchers, we have the right, perhaps even the duty, to be suspicious. The questions that arise from this story are, I think, as follows:
- Have the errors been corrected?
- Are there perhaps other errors in Frass’s research?
- Can we trust anything that Frass says?
- Is it time to consider an official investigation into Frass’s studies of homeopathy?
