homeopathy
On this blog and elsewhere, I have repeatedly claimed that as early as 2002 I published data to show that UK homeopaths advise their patients against vaccinations.
So sorry, but this not entirely true!
The truth is that I had forgotten about this article published 1995 in the British Journal of General Practice. As it is quite short and reveals several interesting facts, allow me to provide it here in full:
Homoeopathic remedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe. Is homoeopathic advice safe, for example on the subject of immunization? In order to answer this question, a questionnaire survey was undertaken in 1995 of all 45 homoeopaths listed in the Exeter ‘yellow pages’ business directory. A total of 23 replies (51%) were received, 10 from medically qualified and 13 from non-medically qualified homoeopaths.
The homoeopaths were asked to suggest which conditions they perceived as being most responsive to homoeopathy. The three most frequently cited conditions were allergies (suggested by 10 respondents), gynaecological problems (seven) and bowel problems (five). They were then asked to estimate the proportion of patients that were referred to them by orthodox doctors and the proportion that they referred to orthodox doctors. The mean estimated percentages were 1 % and 8%, respectively. The 23 respondents estimated that they spent a mean of 73 minutes on the first consultation.
The homoeopaths were asked whether they used or recommended orthodox immunization for children and whether they only used and recommended homoeopathic immunization. Seven of the 10 homoeopaths who were medically qualified recommended orthodox immunization but none of the 13 non-medically qualified homoeopaths did. One non-medically qualified homoeopath only used and recommended homoeopathic immunization.
Homoeopaths have been reported as being against orthodox immunization and advocating homoeopathic immunization for which no evidence of effectiveness exists. As yet there has been no attempt in the United Kingdom to monitor homoeopaths’ attitudes in this respect. The above findings imply that there may be a problem.
The British homoeopathic doctors’ organization (the Faculty of Homoeopathy) has distanced itself from the polemic of other homoeopaths against orthodox immunization, and editorials in the British Homoeopathic Journal call the abandonment of mass immunization ‘criminally irresponsible’ and ‘most unfortunate, in that it will be seen by most people as irresponsible and poorly based’.’ Homoeopathic remedies may be safe, but do all homoeopaths merit this attribute?
Yes indeed! These findings indicate that there may be a problem with non-medically trained homeopaths in the UK. It is good to see that now (24 years later) the NHS has taken note of it. At the same time, it is not at all good to see that non-medically trained homeopaths and their professional organisations have managed to remain in complete denial of it.
The UK homeopathy sector have issued a joint statement. The reason for this action is a series of allegedly negative press stories about homeopathy. Here is the full statement:
Homeopathy registers including the Society of Homeopaths, Faculty of Homeopathy and Alliance of Registered Homeopaths in conjunction with other homeopathy partners have come together to provide clarification for patients seeking advice and homeopathy treatment.
The joint homeopathy sector statement
“Recent media reports have incorrectly linked homeopathy to the anti-vaccination movement. A registered homeopath provides care according to the guidelines outlined in the Code of Practice of their registering body. This code ensures that the homeopath operates professionally, safely, and within their bounds of competence. Homeopathic medicines are prescribed on an individual basis to match a patient’s specific symptoms. Questions about vaccination from the public to a registered homeopath should be deferred to those medically trained to answer them, such as GPs.”
Emily Buttrum Chief Executive of the Society of Homeopaths commented that she was positive the joint statement would bring the homeopathic community together and protect the future of homeopathy and in turn patient choice. The joint statement reflects the Society’s clear guidance on professional standards.
The Society’s position statements may be viewed here
The Homeopathy sector statement may be viewed here
_____________________________________________________________
When homeopaths try to issue a serious ‘statement’, hilarity is rarely very far. Let me suggest what, in my view, the main reasons for hilarity are in the recent outburst:
- Homeopaths and homeopathic organisations are hubs of anti-vaccination propaganda. To deny this means being in denial.
- The anti-vaccination stance of UK lay homeopaths has repeatedly been demonstrated (we have shown this already in 2002).
- The recent media reports were not incorrect.
- These reports were necessary steps to protect the public from charlatans.
- Homeopaths provide care according to guidelines, unless they violate them.
- Violations have happened repeatedly.
- The homeopathic organisations have a long history of failing to adequately address this problem.
- Arguably, homeopaths do not operate within any bounds of competence; if they did, they would not prescribe ineffective treatments.
- Homeopathic remedies are individualised, except in ‘clinical homeopathy’ where they are not.
- Questions about vaccination should be referred to GPs; except they are often not, as the recent evidence has shown.
I am glad to hear that Mrs Buttrum believes that a bunch of pranks, porkies and outright falsehoods will bring homeopaths together. In fact, I am optimistic they will, not lease because, for more than 200 years, homeopathy is being held together by little more than that.
As reported, the Bavarian government has set aside almost half a million Euros for research to determine whether the over-use of antibiotics can be reduced by replacing them with homeopathic remedies. Homeopaths in and beyond Germany were delighted, of course, but many experts were bewildered (see also this or this, if you read German).
While the Bavarians are entering the planning stage of this research, I want to elaborate on the question what methodology might be employed for this task. As far as I can see, there are, depending on the precise research questions, various options.
IN VITRO TESTS OF HOMEOPATHICS
The most straight forward way to find out whether homeopathics are an alternative to antibiotics would be to screen them for antibiotic activity. For this, we would take all homeopathic remedies in several potencies that are commonly used, for instance D12 and C30, and add them to bacterial cultures. To cover even part of the range of homeopathic remedies, several thousand such tests would be required. The remedies that show activity in vitro would then be candidates for further clinical tests.
I doubt that this will generate meaningful findings. As homeopaths would probably point out quickly, they never claimed that their remedies have any antibiotic effects. Homeopathics work not via pharmacological mechanisms (there is none), they stimulate the vital force, the immune system, or whatever mystical force you fancy. Faced with the inevitably negative results of in vitro tests, homeopaths would merely shrug their shoulders and say: ‘we told you so’.
ANIMAL MODELS
Thus it might be more constructive to go directly into animal models. Such tests could take several shapes and forms. For instance, scientists could infect animals with a bacterium and subsequently treat one group with a high potency homeopathic remedy and the control group with a placebo. If the homeopathic animals survive, while the controls die, the homeopathic treatment was effective.
Such concepts would run into problems on at least two levels. Firstly, any ethics committee worth its name would refuse to pass such a protocol and argue that it is not ethical to infect and then treat animals with two different types of placebo. Secondly, the homeopathic fraternity would explain that homeopathy must be individualised which cannot be done properly in animals. Faced with the inevitably negative results of such animal studies, homeopaths would merely shrug their shoulders and say: ‘we told you so’.
CLINICAL TRIALS
Homeopathy may, according to some homeopaths, defy in vitro and animal tests, but it is most certainly amenable to being tested in clinical trials. The simplest version of a clinical study would entail randomising a group of patients with bacterial infections – say pneumonia – into receiving either individualised homeopathy or placebo. Possibly, one could add a third group of patients being treated with appropriate antibiotics.
The problem here would again be the ethics; no proper ethic committee would pass such a concept (see above). Another problem might be that even the homeopathic fraternity would oppose such a study. Why? Because all but the most deluded homeopaths know only too well that the result of such a trial would be devastatingly negative for homeopathy.
Therefore, homeopaths are likely to go for a different study design, for instance, one where patients suspected to have a bacterial infection are randomised to two groups of GPs. One group of ‘normal’ GPs would proceed as usual, while the other group are also trained in homeopathy and would be free to give whatever they feel is right for each individual patient. With a bit of luck, the ‘normal’ GPs would over-prescribe antibiotics (because that’s what they are apparently doing routinely), while the homeopathic GPs would often use homeopathics instead.
Such a study would indeed generate a result alleging that the use of homeopathy reduces the use of antibiotics. Of course, to be truly ‘positive’ it would need to exclude any clinical outcome such as time to recovery, because that might not be in favour of homeopathy.
The problem might again be the ethics committee. Assuming they are scientifically switched on, they will see through the futility of a trial designed to produce the desired result. They might also argue that science is not for testing one faulty approach (over-prescribing) against another (homeopathy) and insist that science is about finding the best treatment (which is neither of the two).
There are, of course, many other study designs that could be considered. Generally, they fall into two different categories: if they are rigorous tests of a hypothesis, they are sure to produce a result unfavourable to homeopathy. Such studies will therefore be opposed to by the powerful homeopathic fraternity. If, however, studies are flimsily designed to generate a positive finding, they might be liked by homeopaths, yet rejected by scientists and ethicists.
SURVEYS
A much easier solution to the question ‘does the use of homeopathy reduce the use of antibiotics’ might be to not do a trial at all, but to run a simple survey. For instance, one could retrospectively assess how many antibiotics 100 homeopathic GPs have prescribed during the last year and compare this to the figure of 100 over-prescribing, ‘normal’ GPs. This type of ‘research’ is a sure winner for the homeopaths. Therefore, I predict that they will advocate this or a similarly flawed concept.
Most politicians are scientifically illiterate to such a degree that they might actually agree to finance such a survey and then confuse correlation with causation by triumphantly stating that the use of homeopathy reduces over-prescribing of antibiotics. Few, I fear, will realise that there is only one method for reducing the over-prescribing of antibiotics: remind doctors what they all learnt in medical school, namely to prescribe antibiotics only in cases where they are indicated. And for that we evidently need no homeopathy or other SCAM.
It has been reported that pharmacies in New Zealand continue to ignore a code of ethics that requires them to inform customers, if a product has no evidence of efficacy. The code of ethics states: “Pharmacists must advise patients when scientific support for treatment is lacking.”
Eight Auckland pharmacies were visited to enquire about a homeopathic product for sale. Pharmacy staff were asked what they knew about a homeopathic product on their shelves and if it worked. All failed to share information about the lack of scientific evidence showing the product works. Instead, they claimed that homeopathic solution of arnica sold as a treatment for injuries, bruising and post-surgery trauma “works really, really well”, was “awesome” and could also cure headaches. One salesperson checked with the pharmacist whether the product was suitable for swelling post-surgery and was told it was fine as long as no other medication was being taken at the same time.
There is no credible evidence the highly diluted homeopathic remedies sold by pharmacists work better than a placebo. Homeopathy’s effectiveness has been rejected by many scientists and by large government reviews conducted in the UK, Australia and Europe.
Even if a staff member personally believes a homeopathic product works, guidelines referenced by the code of ethics say this should not sway the information given to the customer: “Patients must be made aware of the likely effectiveness of a given therapy according to recognised peer-reviewed medical publications, in spite of your personal beliefs.”
Shortly after the code was changed in March 2018, Newsroom performed the same secret shopper experiment at four pharmacies and found the new rule was not followed. Eighteen months on, nothing has improved.
The chair of the consumer advocate group the ‘Society for Science Based Healthcare’, Mark Hanna, said there was no excuse for pharmacies to sell this kind of thing without warning. “Pharmacists should know better. Full stop. They should not be misleading their patients, they should not be letting their staff mislead their patients. If they don’t know, that’s incompetence. I would expect to be given reasonable, evidence-based advice, possibly some different options with the reason why I might choose one over the other. I wouldn’t expect to be misled and sold something that wouldn’t work.
Asked why the code was not being followed a spokesperson of the NZ pharmacists said a reminder of the code of ethics had been sent to pharmacies in June. It was recommended all staff be made aware of the code: “We encourage you to share this protocol with your entire team – even though it is a protocol for pharmacists, the reasoning also extends to other staff members in the pharmacy and it is important that all staff ensure that the patient has been provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice.”
By Jove, we have discussed this issue often enough. If you are interested, here are a few of my more recent posts on this subject:
- “Pharmacists should not sell or dispense homeopathic products”
- German pharmacists fail their customers when advising them on homeopathy
- Pharmacists put themselves at risk by selling homeopathic remedies
- Pro and Contra: should UK community pharmacists sell homeopathic remedies?
- Pharmacists’ responsibilities vis a vis alternative medicine: the violation of healthcare ethics continues.
- It is “disappointing that some pharmacists are still stocking homeopathy products”
- Pharmacists: to sell quackery means you are quacks – or have I got that wrong?
- Pharmacists must use their professional judgement to prevent the supply of homeopathic remedies
But pharmacists seem utterly reluctant to change – in NZ or elsewhere. Why? Could it have something to do with money?
If doctors violate their code of ethics, they face being reprimanded by their professional body. It is high time that the same happens with pharmacists, I feel.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued another warning about homeopathy. Here are some of the most relevant excerpts:
… Homeopathic products … are marketed without FDA review and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness, quality and labeling. FDA uses a risk-based approach to monitor these products and to evaluate reports of adverse effects.
… Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations. In addition, some products may be labeled as homeopathic that do not conform to traditional homeopathic principles.
As the homeopathy industry continues to grow at a rapid pace, we want to clarify for both consumers and industry how we assess the potential safety risks of these products. That’s why in 2017, the FDA issued a draft guidance discussing our, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labeled as homeopathic. Today, we are taking two new steps toward clarifying this approach.
First, we have revised the 2017 draft guidanceExternal Link Disclaimer to provide further information around our approach and are asking for public input on the revised draft. The draft guidance details a risk-based enforcement policy prioritizing certain categories of homeopathic products that could pose a higher risk to public health, including products with particular ingredients and routes of administration, products for vulnerable populations, and products with significant quality issues. We encourage the public to review this revised draft guidance and comment before it is finalized. We will consider feedback gathered through this new public comment period, the more than 4,500 comments interested stakeholders submitted on the original 2017 draft guidance, and information gleaned from a 2015 public hearing on the current use of homeopathic drug products. When finalized, this guidance will help provide transparency regarding the categories of homeopathic drug products that we intend to prioritize under our risk-based enforcement approach.
Second, the agency is withdrawingExternal Link Disclaimer the Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400, entitled “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed.” Risk is an important driver of the FDA’s regulatory and enforcement actions for all drug products, including homeopathic drug products. Since the issuance of CPG 400.400 in 1988, the FDA has encountered multiple situations in which homeopathic drug products posed a significant risk to patients, even though the products, as labeled, appeared to meet the conditions described in CPG 400.400. However, CPG 400.400 is inconsistent with our risk-based approach to regulatory and enforcement action generally and therefore does not reflect our current thinking. Therefore, it is appropriate to withdraw CPG 400.400 at this time.
… the FDA has issued warning letters to companies who produce homeopathic drug products for significant violations of current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations and various other violations. So far in 2019, we’ve issued more than 10 warning letters to companies for violations concerning homeopathic products. Recently, we issued warning letters to Kadesh Inc., U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc., Fill It Pack It Inc. and Bershtel Enterprises LLC dba WePackItAll, which had jointly manufactured and packaged eye drops produced in non-sterile conditions which could result in serious eye infections. These warning letters should alert all companies that homeopathic drug products must be manufactured and labeled in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and agency regulations…
_________________________________________________
If you ask me, ‘homeopathic drug products’ is a misleading name. A drug is defined as a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. But highly diluted homeopathics do not contain a substance that has physiological effects.
They should be called
- homeopathics,
- homeopathic pseudo-drugs,
- homeopathic placebos,
- or fake drugs.
And their labels should make it clear that:
- these products contain no active ingredients,
- and have not been shown to work beyond placebo.
That would be the type of honest and transparent information which consumers deserve and have a right to.
The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) is the UK’s professional organisation of lay-homeopaths, therapists who treat patients without having studies medicine. This is what they say about themselves:
Everyone needs a healthcare professional they can trust – one who’s trained to rigorous standards, bound by a strict code of ethics, and subject to independent regulation. That’s what the Society of Homeopaths stands for. We’re the UK’s largest group of professional homeopaths, and the only dedicated register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority, an independent body set up by the government to protect the public.
We work to uphold standards of homeopathic care, support our members in their practices, and help their patients back to good health. We ensure that the letters RSHom are your guarantee of a well-trained, registered and insured professional homeopath.
This sounds fine, but is any of this true? Because of their dubious activities endangering public health, the SoH has attracted my attention many times before (for instance here, here and here). Today, they made national headlines.
It has been reported that Linda Wicks, chair of the Society of Homeopaths (S0H), has shared a series of bizarre petitions claiming that childhood immunisations are unsafe, and calling for The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRH) to be disbanded. Mrs Wicks also posted a petition supporting Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced former doctor who falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism. It claimed that the scientific establishment’s rejection of his flawed research was ‘the greatest lie ever told’.
Mrs Wicks, a Cornwall-based lay-homeopath and owner of the Linda Wicks Homeopathy Clinic in Truro, has been an adviser to the society for 16 years. She was appointed to the SoH chair in April. She has used her Facebook account to spread ‘anti-vaxx’ propaganda for years. Mrs Wicks must now consider whether such to resign.
Two other members of the board of directors of the SoH are also under pressure to quit. One of them, Francis Treuherz, used his Facebook feed to share a petition describing Mr Wakefield as a ‘hero’ who ought to be ‘honoured’ with the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2016 Treuherz endorsed a campaign urging the then education secretary Justine Greening to ‘STOP vaccination’ of schoolchildren against flu.
The flu petition was shared on Facebook by a third member of the SoH’s board, Maggie Dixon, who owns a homeopathic clinic in Bath. Mrs Dixon works as a member of the ‘team of practitioners’ at Ainsworths, the homeopathic pharmacy boasting of royal warrants from the Queen as well as Prince Charles.
It seems clear to me that the behaviour of Wicks, Treuherz and Dixon endangers public health and is deeply unethical. Considering what the SoH say about themselves (see above), it looks like a bad joke. In my view, it is incompatible with holding an office in a professional organisation of healthcare professionals.
Homeopathy does not have a good name when it comes to advising the public responsibly. Such behaviour is hardly going to improve this situation. The recent call of NHS leaders to stop the accreditation of homeopaths in the UK seems therefore well-justified.
Mrs Wicks meekly apologised yesterday, saying: ‘I regret my association with these petitions and any confusion this may have caused, and I have removed the page which allegedly showed this historic material.’ Confusion? At this stage, I must conclude that she is joking!
The SoH said it was working to improve communication standards ‘with clearer guidelines’. Improve communication standards. Yes, definitely, they are taking the Mikey!
Mr Treuherz and Mrs Dixon did not comment.
So, should they resign?
Would that save the reputation of the SoH?
Is there any reputation to save?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is, compared to ‘Big Pharma’, a tiny and benign cottage industry – at least this is what we are often told and what many consumers believe. If you are one of them, this report might make you rethink your position.
The global market for SCAM is expected to generate a revenue of US$ 210.81 billion by 2026. It is projected to expand by 17.07% from 2019 to 2026. Factors such as the increasing adoption and usage of natural supplements/wellness medicine coupled with government initiatives to promote SCAM are assumed to be the main causes ot this increase. An increase in the costs of conventional medicine and the trend towards wellness are likely to boost the SCAM market.
Further key findings from the report suggest:
• The market is driven by high adoption of herbal dietary supplements and other wellness therapies like yoga, and acupuncture
• Botanical has become the most prominent form of alternative medicine as the segment was observed to hold the largest market share in terms of revenue 2018
• Europe and Asia Pacific in combination are anticipated to hold a major market share in terms of revenue over the forecast period
• Developing regions such as Latin America and Middle East Africa are set to witness considerable growth in demand over the forecast period driven by high cost of conventional medicine and lack of their availability in certain countries
• Some of the key players and wellness institutes active in the complementary and alternative medicine market are Columbia Nutritional Inc.; Herb Pharm; Herbal Hills; Helio USA Inc.; Deepure Plus; Nordic Naturals; Pure encapsulations, Inc.; and other wellness institutes like Iyengar Yoga Institute; John Schumacher’s Unity Woods Yoga Center; Yoga Tree; The Healing Company; and Quantum Touch Inc.
So, little SCAM turns out to be not so little after all!
In fact, there are billions at stake. And that perhaps might explain why little SCAM often behaves as badly as does the dreaded, much maligned ‘Big Pharma’. Just look at what some German homeopathic firms were up to in the past. One could almost think that their ethics have been homeopathically diluted. The ‘dirty methods’ of little SCAM can be at least as dirty as those of ‘Big Pharma’, in my experience.
But don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans!! The SCAM industry in most other countries is much the same.
And who could blame them?
After all, they are fighting against a Ku Klux Klan of evil sceptics.
The UK-based homeopathic pharmacy AINSWORTH has attracted my attention several times already. Amongst other things, Tony Pinkus, the director of the firm, once accused me of having faked my research and I suspected him of violating the basic principles of research ethics in his study of homeopathy for autism.
Today, THE DAILY MAIL reports about AINSWORTH’s scandalous promotion of the most dangerous quackery.
Tony Pinkus, director of AINSWORTH
In a big article, the Mail informs the reader that:
- AINSWORTH sell a guide (entitled ‘The Mother & And Child Remedy Prescriber’ and decorated with the codes of arms of both the Queen and Prince Charles) informing young mothers that homeopathy ‘will strengthen a child’s immune system more ably than any vaccine’.
- The guide also claims that infections like mumps and measles can be treated homeopathically.
- AINSWORTH sells homeopathic remedies used as vaccines against serious infections such as polio, measles, meningitis, etc.
- AINSWORTH’s guide claim that homeopathy ‘offers the clearest answer as to how to deal with the prevention of disease’.
- The guide claims furthermore that homeopathy is ‘a complete alternative to vaccination’.
- It even lists 7 homeopathic remedies for measles.
- AINSWORTH claim that homeopathy provides ‘natural immunity’.
- AINSWORTH sell products called ‘polio nosode’, and ‘meningeoma nosode’.
The Mail quotes several experts – including myself – who do not mince their words in condemning AINSWORTH for jeopardising public health. The paper also calls for AINSWORTH’s two royal warrants to be removed.
AINSWORTH, Buckingham Palace, and Clarence House all declined to comment.
I must have published well over two dozen articles in the peer-reviewed literature (and many more on this blog) warning of the indirect risks of homeopathy. The most obvious example of such risks is the advice many homeopaths give about vaccinations. Here is, for instance, a quote from an abstract I published in 1996:
… the question whether the homeopath is risk-free in all cases needs discussing. As a case in point, the attitude of some homeopaths towards immunization is quoted as an example of particular concern… the notion of totally risk-free homeopathy is untenable.
Almost a quarter of a century later, it seems that my cautions might finally be heeded. Several of today’s daily papers –THE GUARDIAN, THE DAILY MAIL, THE TIMES and THE DAILY TELEGRAPH – report that the message seems to have reached the higher echelons of the NHS in England. Here are a few short excerpts of what the TELEGRAPH tells its readers.
NHS leaders have gone to war on homeopathy by attempting to have the practice blacklisted amid fears it is fuelling anti-vax propaganda. The chief executive and medical director of NHS England have written to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), the statutory body that oversees healthcare regulation, urging it to strip accreditation from the Society of Homeopaths (SoH). They argue that endorsing the society affords it a “veneer of credibility” that lures vulnerable patients towards “bogus treatments”.
In particular, the health chiefs accuse homeopaths of propagating “mis-information” about vaccines. It follows the release of a major report last week which showed the uptake of pre-school vaccines is declining…
Mr Stevens said last night: “Anything that gives homeopathy a veneer of credibility risks chancers being able to con more people into parting with their hard-earned cash in return for bogus treatments which at best do nothing, and at worst can be potentially dangerous. Whether touted as a miracle cure or as protection from serious diseases – like so-called homeopathic vaccines – homeopathy is no replacement for rigorously tried and tested medical treatments delivered or prescribed by properly-qualified professionals, and by stopping people seeking expert help, misinformation and ineffective remedies pose a significant risk to people’s health.” His letter points out that both the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), take the position that homeopathic remedies are not scientifically valid.
________________________________________________________
What can I say?
I am, of course, tempted to say: I told you so!
But, on second thought, I prefer: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
…
…
…
And then I am bound to add: next, have a look at some other SCAM providers. Perhaps start with:
In the name of public health, I thank you.
The aim of this update of a Cochrane review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Hold on, the bit about safety is odd here and does not bode well: one cannot possibly assess the safety of an intervention on the basis of just a few trials.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies that compared homeopathic treatment with placebo, other control treatments, or usual care, in adults with IBS were considered for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS as measured by an IBS symptom severity score. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, and adverse events. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess risk of bias.
Four RCTs (307 participants) were included. Two studies compared clinical homeopathy (homeopathic remedy, asafoetida or asafoetida plus nux vomica) to placebo for IBS with constipation (IBS-C). One study compared individualised homeopathic treatment (consultation plus remedy) to usual care for the treatment of IBS in female patients. One study was a three armed RCT comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening or usual care.
The risk of bias in three studies (the two studies assessing clinical homeopathy and the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care) was unclear on most criteria and high for selective reporting in one of the clinical homeopathy studies. The three armed study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care and supportive listening was at low risk of bias in four of the domains and high risk of bias in two (performance bias and detection bias).
A meta-analysis of the studies assessing clinical homeopathy, (171 participants with IBS-C) was conducted. At short-term follow-up of two weeks, global improvement in symptoms was experienced by 73% (46/63) of asafoetida participants compared to 45% (30/66) of placebo participants (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.18; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence).
In the other clinical homeopathy study at two weeks, 68% (13/19) of those in the asafoetida plus nux vomica arm and 52% (12/23) of those in the placebo arm experienced a global improvement in symptoms (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.15; very low certainty evidence).
In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care (N = 20), the mean global improvement score (feeling unwell) at 12 weeks was 1.44 + 4.55 (n = 9) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 1.41 + 1.97 (n=11) in the usual care arm (MD 0.03; 95% CI -3.16 to 3.22; very low certainty evidence).In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 237.3 + 110.22 (n = 60) in the usual care arm (MD -26.86, 95% CI -88.59 to 34.87; low certainty evidence).
The mean quality of life score (EQ-5D) at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.41 (SD 23.31) in usual care participants (MD 5.66, 95% CI -4.69 to 16.01; low certainty evidence). In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 262 + 120.72 (n = 18) in the supportive listening arm (MD -51.56, 95% CI -129.94 to 26.82; very low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.09 (SD 24.38) in supportive listening participants (MD 5.98, 95% CI -8.13 to 20.09; very low certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, or adverse events.
The authors concluded that the results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy for the treatment of IBS can be drawn. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy for IBS compared to placebo or usual care.
[The previous version of this review was published in 2013 and concluded: A pooled analysis of two small studies suggests a possible benefit for clinical homeopathy, using the remedy asafoetida, over placebo for people with constipation-predominant IBS. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of reporting in these trials, high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up, and sparse data. One small study found no statistically difference between individualised homeopathy and usual care (defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet sheets advising a high fibre diet). No conclusions can be drawn from this study due to the low number of participants and the high risk of bias in this trial. In addition, it is likely that usual care has changed since this trial was conducted. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy compared to placebo or usual care.]
This is a thorough review that is technically well-done (no wonder, as it had to comply with Cochrane standards!). However, as with some other Cochrane reviews of homeopathy, acupuncture and other SCAMs, one might object to the phraseology used in the conclusions (the part that most people would focus on). Don’t get me wrong, the conclusions are technically correct; however, they are not as clear as they should be and hide the essence of the evidence, in my view.
Systematic reviews have one main purpose: they need to inform the reader whether there is or is not good evidence that the treatment in question works for the condition in question. This question is not well addressed by stating THE RESULTS ARE UNCERTAIN. The truth is that a firm conclusion can very well be drawn: THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT ANY FORM OF HOMEOPATHY IS EFFECTIVE FOR IBS!
Surely that’s correct and firm enough!!!
Why do the authors not dare to put this clearly?
Probably because some of them are well-known, long-term proponents of homeopathy.
Why does the Cochrane Collaboration allow them to get away with their petty attempt of obfuscation?
Search me!
