This study investigated the effects of reflexology and homeopathy as an addition to conventional treatment on different markers of airway inflammation in asthma. Eighty-four patients with asthma were randomized to receive one to three different treatments:
- conventional treatment alone,
- conventional treatment with addition of homeopathy,
- conventional treatment plus reflexology.
The study was a single centre, investigator-blinded, controlled trial with a treatment period of one year.
During the study period, patients regularly consulted their general practitioner for evaluation and asthma treatment. At randomization, and after 6 and 12 months, methacholine challenge test and measurement of exhaled nitric oxide were performed. Blood samples were collected for eosinophil count and measurement of serum eosinophil cationic protein.
No significant differences were found between groups for any of the inflammatory markers were demonstrated. Methacholine responsiveness improved in all three groups but improvements were not statistically significant within and between groups.
The authors concluded that this randomized controlled study of reflexology and homeopathy failed to show significant improvement on selected markers of inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma.
I would argue that the results imply that homeopathy and reflexology are not merely ineffective but have negative effects on the outcome. As this trial followed the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design, one would have expected that the two add on treatments generate a placebo response – at least in terms of subjective endpoints. The only such measure is the medication use in this particular trial; it showed no inter-group differences. To me, this implies that homeopathy and reflexology might have generated slightly detrimental effects on subjective outcomes.
Ah yes, do I hear the fans of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) claim that this study must have been conducted by the enemies of SCAM in order to defame it? For them, this acknowledgement might be enlightening:
This study was supported by The Knowledge and Research Centre for Alternative Medicine, Denmark. The authors thank registered homeopath Anne Hammer Langgaard for homeopathic treatments, registered reflexologists Pia Løbner Jeppesen and Pia Stolarzcyk for reflexology treatments, Pia Pedersen for secretarial assistance and randomization procedure, laboratory technician Anne-Marie Toft for handling blood samples, specialist nurses Anne Dorte Vindelev Kristensen and Jytte Møller Kjemtrup for help with clinical procedures.
10 Responses to Homeopathy and reflexology do not work for asthma; results from a new trial
Leave a Reply to Roger Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Maybe the Con-Med (conventional) treatment interfered with the effect of the homeopathy and reflexology.
Having supposedly spent time working with homeopaths Edzard should know that there are at least 3 ways that conventional medicine could have interfered with the homeopathy:
1) Interfered with the symptomology giving a confused picture on which to prescribe leading to a wrong remedy choice.
2) If the conventional medicine was helping then the homeopath might think her remedy was effective when she should have known instead to change remedies.
3) The Con-Med could have actually antidoted the homeopathic remedy so it didnt act at all.
yes, I know: all negative studies of homeopathy have a methodological defect, and all positive trials are perfect.
Roger
You are quite correct in your inference that the conventional treatment may have inhibited the action of the homeopathic remedy but the observation has to be made that homeopathy has never been able to demonstrate any effectiveness beyond placebo in well-conducted trials and lacks any plausibility whatsoever so Occam’s Razor applies and we can safely disregard your bit of special pleading and conclude yet again that homeopathy is utter bunk and that those who believe in it are deluded. You claim otherwise. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. “I’ve seen it work!” is not any sort of proof. Neither is “Do a proving yourself!”.
or maybe the moon wasn’t full … or too full?
Conclusion: Homeopath Anne Hammer Langgaard has not understood homeopathy, not really.
Okay, some alt-meds need more study. But homeopathy and reflexology? It boggles my mind that money continues to be wasted on this nonsense. Surely there are more important things to study. Here are just two ideas:
1. Boxers or briefs?
2. Does the consumption of beer make you happy? Oh, wait. That’s already been studied. Apparently, it does.
But TCM does
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-chinese-medicine-formula-effective-asthma.html
Since I can’t find a link to an actual journal article (I even tried the HK website) I’m assuming this hasn’t actually been peer reviewed. Color me unimpressed.
True, one would not be surpised to see an added placebo boost here.
For me the results indicate how very effective the conventional medicine is.
For asthma it appears that small placebo benefits do not signify.
I’m reminded of the saga of Elizabeth Thompson’s trial which was, eventually, published.
http://www.dcscience.net/2011/07/27/dr-elizabeth-thompson-of-bristol-homeopathic-hospital-finds-that-pills-that-contain-nothing-have-no-effect-not-even-placebo-effect/