In my last post, I reported that there are no rigorous studies of homeopathy for diabetes. This was only partly true: there are no such trials to test homeopathy’s effects on the disease itself, but I did find a study of homeopathy for diabetic complications.
It comes from India and seems to be based on proper preliminary ground-work:
A prospective multi-centric clinical observational study was published in 2013 in the journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’. It was carried out from October 2005 to September 2009 by Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH) at its five institutes/units. Its authors were Patients suffering from diabetes mellitus (DM) and presenting with symptoms of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) were screened, investigated and were enrolled in the study after fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were evaluated by the diabetic distal symmetric polyneuropathy symptom score (DDSPSS) developed by the Council. A total of 15 homeopathic medicines were identified after repertorizing the nosological symptoms and signs of the disease. The appropriate constitutional medicine was selected and prescribed in 30, 200 and 1 M potency on an individualized basis. Patients were followed up regularly for 12 months.
Of 336 patients (167 males and 169 females) enrolled in the study, 247 patients (123 males and 124 females) were analysed. All patients who attended at least three follow-up appointments and baseline curve conduction studies were included in the analysis.). A statistically significant improvement in DDSPSS total score (p = 0.0001) was found at 12 months from baseline. Most objective measures did not show significant improvement. Lycopodium clavatum (n = 132), Phosphorus (n = 27) and Sulphur (n = 26) were the medicines most frequently prescribed. Adverse event of hypoglycaemia was observed in one patient only.
The authors concluded that this study suggests homeopathic medicines may be effective in managing the symptoms of DPN patients. Further studies should be controlled and include the quality of life (QOL) assessment.
As good as their word, they then conducted a more rigorous trial which was published this year:
This study (authored in 2020 by and published in ‘EXPLORE’, an even worse journal than ‘HOMEOPATHY’, in my view) assessed the efficacy of individualized homoeopathic medicines in management of diabetic distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DDSP). It was designed as a multi-centric double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial and conducted by the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy at 6 centres with a sample size of 84. Based on earlier observational studies and repertorial anamnesis of DDSP symptoms 15 homoeopathic medicines were shortlisted and validated scales were used for evaluating the outcomes post-intervention.
The primary outcome measure was change in Neuropathy Total Symptom Score-6 (NTSS-6) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in peripheral nerve conduction study (NCS), World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination (DNE) Score at 12 months.
The data of 68 enrolled cases was considered for data analysis. Statistically significant difference (p<0.014) was found in NTSS-6 post intervention in the Verum group. Positive trend was noted for Verum group as per the graph plotted for DNE score and assessment done for NCS. No significant difference was found between the groups for WHOQOL-Bref. Out of 15 pre-identified homoeopathic medicines 11 medicines were prescribed in potencies in ascending order from 6C to 1M.
The authors concluded that further studies must be taken up with larger sample size and defined parameters for NCS to assess the effectiveness of homoeopathy.
This looks to me as though the trial failed to produce a positive result on inter-group comparisons. The abstract is unfortunately not very clear, and I have no access to the full text (in case someone has, please send it to me). Judging from the abstract, the study has several important flaws. For instance, it was small and we don’t know why only 68 of 84 patients were considered for analysis. Normally, an intention to treat analysis would be needed for analysis of all 84 patients.
So, does homeopathy have anything to offer to patients with diabetes?
As far as I can see, the answer is NO!
I’d be happy to change my mind, provided someone shows me convincing evidence.
According to Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, the answer is most probably ‘no’.
And indeed it is.
Uh-huh. Or perhaps they could just accept the answer it already gave them?
There’s no shame in being wrong about something, only in denying it.
Do you just condemn a study that you did NOT read? Tell me this ain’t so, Joe…tell me!
Tell me that you just didn’t condemn a multi-centric double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial as well as the journal that published it WITHOUT READING IT.
Thanks (again) for showing your true colors. Are you related to Donald Trump? Asking for a friend.
wipe the foam from your mouth and read my post again. you might find that I did not ‘condemn’ anything.
By now, after more than two hundred years of failure, any single study that finds a positive effect for homeopathy can be blindly rejected.
Please wake me up if multiple independent studies carried out by reputable scientists (NOT homeopaths or other deluded fools) find the same effect for a particular homeopathic treatment or substance. Or when someone (a homeopath or otherwise) can consistently tell a homeopathic dilution from plain water.
I find it interesting to note how our eminent friend regularly appears on a Friday and writes dribble that could easily be interpreted as affected by advancing insobriety. He usually carries on, in a mostly incoherent manner, into the weekend to suddenly pop up on a successive Friday, again.
Oh Bjorn…once again I question your abiilty to think and to put together sentences that make sense. I also question your intelligence and your math skills. For instance, you KNOW that I live in California…and so, what may seem like “Friday night” to you is Friday MORNING to me in California.
Your repeated assertions to ignore the SUBSTANCE of what I wrote and then feign “concern” that I am not sober simply shows the bankrupt and “placebo” response to your comment. It is therefore clear that you too have not even read this report.
So, thanks for proving your sheer stupidity. I write this on a Saturday morning. Will you now claim that I use vodka in my oatmeal (or some other insane idea)?
And for the record, I have NEVER been much of a drinker of alcohol, even in my college days. A beer or glass of wine or a single cocktail is as far as I go. In contrast, it seems that you are suffering from that same disease from which Trump suffers: completion projection of your pathology onto others.
You don’t drink and post, Dana?
So what are you under the influence of? There’s got to be some chemical influence which makes you come out with the laughable incoherent nonsense that you spout.
delusional people need no booze
Once again, you can only spout ad homs as just one of many ways that you have avoided saying whether you read the article (or not). So typical.
Are you sure that you’re not in the Trump family?
Dana’s high on himself, Lenny.
1. I never said it was Friday ‘night’ and I never said “in California”
2. I find it interesting not worrying or ominous or disgusting or some other negative notion
3. I never mentioned you, Dana, I said “our eminent friend”. I am glad you took the compliment to heart
4. I did not claim you were unsober, when I said “…could easily be interpreted as affected by advancing insobriety.” I was referring to the comments. If I had intended to accuse you of advanced insobriety, I would have said so in so many words
5. The humorous smiley’s at the end were meant to indicate good humour and jest. I find it interesting how homeopaths do not seem to appreciate satire.
6. I wonder if “Saunguis Homeopathis” 30C would help? Could you do a proving?
Actually, I take all of your comments in jest and satire.
The fact that I got you to walk back everything you said made it all worthwhile…
Ernst, you’re pathetic.
coming from you, this must be one of the nicest compliments I received for a while!
Take a pill Ernst!
The Nobel Prize for medicine was announced this week. What a shock that, given all this ground-breaking research published by homeopaths, that one of them wasn’t nominated for it. As ever, tooth-fairy science shows itself to be just that when the proper scientists look at it.
Lollypop. Do us a favour and post links to two full-text papers:
1) One which, to your mind, most convincingly and unarguably demonstrates the in vitro experimental effects of homeopathy and
2) One which, to your mind, most convincingly and unarguably demonstrates the in vivo clinical effects of homeopathy.
They’ll make interesting reading
Ok, Lenny…for starters, here’s a study (the FOURTH in a series!…two of which were published in the BMJ and one in the Lancet):
Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. (This review of FOUR studies on the homeopathic treatment of people with respiratory allergies)
It is additionally curious that you insisted upon access to the full article. I’m so sorry that you don’t have access to this weird thing called a LIBRARY. Yeah, I’m asking so much from you.
Oh, and here’s another which is the THIRD in a series of studies on the use of single and individually prescribed medicines for one of the most serious public health problems in the world, according to WHO: childhood diarrhea (which is known to lead to dehydration):
Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
Just look at the news from the period from 2000 to 2019, where gradually the mass media tended to put more negative notes damaging the public reputation of homeopathy and announcing bans, persecutions and censorship. Given the noisy and contaminated context of “skeptical” journalists and broadcasters sold, it is not surprising that the Nobel Committee is reluctant to nominate someone for a nobel Prize. Now the amount of favorable evidence for homeopathy is overwhelming. Because there is no Nobel category for homeopathy, I hope that in years to come it will be normal to see nominations for the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry and physiology.
the media merely tend to reflect the evidence.
If that’s the best you can come up with, it’s a bit shit. The first is from twenty years ago.
Twenty years, Dana. Lots of time for the results to be replicated and homeopathy to be accepted as a front-line treatment for allergic rhinitis.
Hasn’t happened, has it?
Almost as if it was a load of specious nonsense which was recognised by medicine for the twaddle it was.
And your series of papers on diarrhoea. From even further back if I recall from the last time you waved them around before slinking off with your tail between your legs following those papers being trashed by the experts on this blog. It’s a short memory you have, Dana.
You really are pathetic.
Grow up you stupid little man. Links to non-paywalled full articles, not abstracts.
Oh…so “science” doesn’t count when it is over 20 years old.
And oh, my comments are “bit shit.” You ARE very funny in your dementia.
This will be my last comment to you…because you simply are not worth my and anyone else’s time.
So there we go.
With another of his fatuous arguments demonstrated to be false and ripped to bits, Dana does a flounce.
Of course, Dana, you could’ve shut me up and proved me to be wrong by showing how those results were replicated and how homeopathy has been accepted as a front-line treatment for allergic rhinitis.
But you haven’t.
Because neither has happened.
So Dana, you’re wrong. As ever. And have to to resort to some spluttering and name-calling.
Mr Uncredible strikes again.
Bye, Dana. Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on your way out.
Media are prone to manipulation. Until more than 20 years ago the positive news of homeopathy was more than the negative. This trend changed suspiciously when the “skeptical” lobby began to spread the stupid idea of being “the nanny State” and New verifiers like Newtral, who expose obvious nonsense, stand up as new panoptics. You, Ernst, should know it well, there are hundreds of interviews with luminaries like Ben Goldacre, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, etc., who are people who at the research level are irrelevant but sell, while there are few or no interviews with excellent and rigorous scientists like Alexander Konovalov, F. A. Popp, Jean Louis Demangeat, Luc Montagnier, Robert Hahn, Alexander Tournier, Jennifer Jacobs, among others. I know from a good source that journalists who dare to challenge the establishment are afraid of reprisals and that the owners of large newspapers often reject their notes informing research about homeopathy. But not all is lost, given the trend of increasing evidence, it is obvious that “skeptical” lobbies have the battle lost in the years to come.
When are we going to see it, then? The tripe you’ve come up with so far from Konovalov, Popp, Demangeat and all the rest has hardly set the World of science on fire, has it? Are the chemists and biologists re-writing the textbooks on the back of their discoveries?
It’s curious but Young-Earth Creationists and Flat-Earthers make the same whinges and the same claims. With the same results.
They get laughed at.
Homeopathy’s had two hundred years to prove itself and has repeatedly and reproducibly failed to do so. Why is this going to change in the next few years, Popsie?
It’s got nothing to do with the work of skeptics and everything to do with harsh scientific reality. We’re plainly not going to alter your delusions by neither are your delusions going to alter reality.
Leny, are you always that stupid? Robert Leslie Park, author of Voodoo Science, said that the biophoton was a fantasy and accused of irreproducible findings the work of A. Wurgitsch, while Stephen Barrett rejected the hormesis and ancient authors of the time of Oliver Wendel Holmes came to say that the paradoxical effects of a drug were magic and superstition. Currently, biophoton and hormesis are phenomena that are normally mentioned in articles and scientific reviews of the last 5 years. The memory of water and the model of cellular interaction proposed by J. Benveniste is another example that follows this trend and in the last two years has been mentioned with corrections more often thanks to the works of Luc Montagnier and other great scientists such as Dr. Roberto Germano, Dr. Gerald Pollack and Dr. Igor Jerman. Your comparison with the Flat-Earthers is stupid.
Read again, fool! https://edzardernst.com/2020/10/homeopathy-for-diabetes/#comment-127047
Thank YOU Lollypop for ripping the back-side of these flat-earthers who are so arrogant that they are literally deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind..
anyone who makes such general statements combined with insults has no concrete arguments against the points raised, it seems.
DU is his own worst detractor ?
Time for Dana to update his profile pic: his grand mal narcissism is now so swollen his head no longer fits in the room.
And it seem obvious that your photo is BLANK…and that you are a placebo.
Thanx for your foolish comment…when you attack without substance, it is because you have no substantative argument.
Dana: “Thank YOU Lollypop for ripping the back-side of these flat-earthers who are so arrogant that they are literally deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind..”
Also Dana: “Thanx for your foolish comment…when you attack without substance, it is because you have no substantative argument.”
Dana gives us all the best irony.
Alas, that’s all Dana gives us.
Protip: If you want a substantive argument, you have to present something more substantial than your own swollen ego and embarrassing lack of self-awareness. Else it’s more fun just to use you as sport.
So just like your mate Lollypopsypoobles
That’s another hole you’ve shot in your own foot, Dana
Remind us all how you manage to eat your dinner without taking your eye out with the fork.
Lenny: “Remind us all how you manage to eat your dinner without taking your eye out with the fork.”
Hah, dumb allopath, yet again proving just how ignorant you are!
So, Dana. I’d say arrogance was thinking a bit of 20 year old unreproduced garbage was “proof” of your idiotic arguments. A “proof” which has been looked ignored by medicine. Because, presumably, all the physicians and surgeons who ignore homeopathy are “deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind”.
Remember, Dana. Flat-Earthers are people who hold an insignificant minority belief which science has shown to be false but who refuse to accept this and continue to spout their twaddle and claim that they have “proofs” for it.
You know, Dana. Like homeopathy freaks. Ignorant fools like yourself who blindly cling to their unevidenced dogma.
If the Arrogant Flat-Earther hat fits, Dana, you’d best wear it.
Again, Dana. For homeopathy to be correct, huge tracts of established scientific knowledge, which it contradicts, would have to be wrong. And whereas that science has already given us the microwave oven, cures for plagues, atomic bombs, and so on, all you lot can provide is grandiose delusions, religious handwavium, and the utter, utter unwillingness to consider even the possibility that you could ever be wrong.
Arrogance thine name is Dana Ullman
How remarkable! As well as agreeing on the number of angels dancing on the pinhead, they are now identifying that some are doing a waltz and some a tango!
I read your “proofs” when you posted them.
No proofs. Nothing. Nada. Laughable twaddle. Shuffling of a house of cards.
Science and medicine continues to laugh at you, Pops.
Beneviste and Montagnier remain the sad cranks they have been ever since their heads were turned. For how long will they beat their dead horse whilst claiming signs of movement?
It’s all rather sad.
I have put the conclusions of several experiments and systematic reviews or meta-analyses. I’ve given you examples that Science Advances not by your pathetic and desesperate laughs. You obviously have a character of sectarianism and arrogance. For good fortune, not for you of course, the evidence is available and the government organizations attent it, not to the delusions of an aggressive guy like you, Lenny.
In twenty years time, homeopathy will presumably be established as a front-line treatment for numerous conditions as a result of a raft of overwhelming proof from numerous RCTs, systemic reviews and meta-analyses and the researchers you cite will be awaiting their Nobel prizes for showing us that so much of what we accepted to be the scientific truth was actually wrong?
And if not, who’s the one suffering from arrogant delusions, my dear Lollywobbles? Because it’s not me.