The HOMEOPATHY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (HRI) – yes we did discuss its activities before – has just published an ‘update’ on clinical trials of homeopathy. Let me show it to you:
We are pleased to share the results of a recent collaboration with Dr Robert Mathie to update his analysis of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy.
The findings from the 5-year update from 2014-2019 are as follows:
Total number of randomised controlled trials
2014: 189 trials of homeopathic treatment for 100 medical conditions
2019: 221 trials of homeopathic treatment for 115 medical conditions
Placebo-controlled trials only
2014: 104 trials on 63 medical conditions
2019: 129 trials on 77 medical conditions
When considering the balance of positive, negative and inconclusive studies, it is interesting to observe the following shifts in the evidence base for homeopathy over this 5 year period:
Positive trials Up from 41% to 45%
Negative trials Down from 5% to 4%
Inconclusive trials Down from 54% to 51%
__________________________________________________
Impressed?
Me too (but only about the profound ignorance of the HRI)!
One could now point out that the ‘pee counting’ method of reviewing clinical trial evidence is nonsense and leads almost invariably to irrelevant findings. All the positive trials could, for instance, be methodologically invalid, while the negative are rigorous. But this is not even necessary. The triumphant update can be invalidated much more easily.
All we need to do is to remind ourselves of what clinical trials are.
Simply put, they are experiments that test a hypothesis, to be precise, they test the ‘null-hypothesis’: the experimental therapy generates results that are not different from those in the control group. Depending on the data, the null-hypothesis must then be either rejected or accepted by the results of the clinical trial. If it is rejected, the therapy seems to be better than placebo. If it is accepted, the therapy seems to perform just like a placebo.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEITHER REJECTING NOR ACCEPTING!
The results can not say: “We like the null-hypothesis just as much as we dislike it.” Clinical trials always give a YES or NO answer.
This means the category of ‘inconclusive trials’ is entirely an invention of homeopaths and similar wishful thinkers. In their interpretation, it covers those trials where the null-hypothesis was accepted, while the ‘negative trials’ are studies where the control group had better results than the patients treated homeopathically. But trials that accept the null-hypothesis are negative!
So, what does the HRI’s ‘pee-counting’ update really show?
It reveals that, of the 221 RCTs of homeopathy, 45% are positive, i.e. they suggest that homeopathy was better than the control intervention. That is a sizable percentage, but we might ask how reliable these studies were, what control treatments they employed, and whether they all truly used homeopathy (I know, some used isopathy and some employ homotoxicology, for instance).
The majority of the 221 RCTs, however, are trials where the null-hypothesis had to be accepted. These are the studies failing to show that homeopathy works. In other words, the HRI’s triumphant ‘pee-counting’ update confirms what we have pointed out as nauseam for years:
THE MAJORITY OF THE EVIDENCE ON HOMEOPATHY IS NEGATIVE.
49 Responses to HOMEOPATHY: Updated analysis of randomised controlled trials
Leave a Reply to Lollypop Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Love the term ‘pee-counting’ 🙂
I understood one of the motivations behind the development of meta analysis was to avoid that kind of naive approach to combining studies. Presumably HRI are either ignorant or deliberately avoiding it.
or both?
“Interpretation of CIs in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with treatment effects that are not statistically significant can distinguish between results that are ‘negative’ (the data are not consistent with a clinically meaningful treatment effect) or ‘inconclusive’ (the data remain consistent with the possibility of a clinically meaningful treatment effect).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5726092/
1) this was not their main conclusion. the main conclusion was :”Interpretation of CIs is important but occurs infrequently in study reports of trials with treatment effects that are not statistically significant. Increased author interpretation of CIs could improve application of RCT results. Reporting recommendations are provided.”
2) this is the opinion of some but by no means all experts.
3) most of the homeopathic studies in questions do not even report CIs.
I’ve had correspondence in the past where justification was made for this weird 3-way categorisation of trials and precedent was cited but I can’t now remember the source of that precedent. As you say it all turns on creating a rather odd definition of a negative result whereas the rest of us say a trial had a negative outcome if no effect beyond placebo was shown.
To me it betrays the fundamental problem of homeopaths’ approach to trials. They ‘know’ their magic pills work, so if that effect isn’t shown in a trial it’s the trial’s fault for not showing what they know to be there, it was inconclusive because didn’t support their conclusion.
“it was inconclusive because didn’t support their conclusion” – Simon Baker
“and you’re just a big meanie poopoohead” – all homeopaths, everywhere
It seems that homeopaths understand randomisation to be the selection of what you like from random results?
Damn, son.
Now do “placebo-controlled”. Because how can you tell?
“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEITHER REJECTING NOR ACCEPTING!” – Prof Ernst
“The question is, which is to be master—that’s all.” – Dana Ullman, probably
I wonder if a 50th dilution of bovine poop would be effective in treating…..anything at all.
If Ernst says that the interpretation of clinical trials can only be for or against, then all your clinical trials and reviews where he finds positive evidence in favour of homeopathy, even in high-quality trials, and that refuses under the excuse silly that it does not seem “convincing” must be interpreted that the results were positive. Thanks again to Ernst for showing that even his own rules can be applied to him without any remorse. In the end I have a clear argument that can be used against him and any of his trolls, mostly anonymous, who come to defend any of his follies.
thank you for confirming your ignorance.
“all your clinical trials and reviews where he finds positive evidence in favour of homeopathy, even in high-quality trials”
Let’s see ’em then, Pops. Rather than your usual bluffing and dodging and links to exercises in in vitro abuse of the scientific method which you imagine support your delusions, the high-quality properly-conducted clinical trials which have unarguably demonstrated the effectiveness of homeopathy. If your magic shaken water is so effective, there must be hundreds of them and yet you curiously go all quiet when we ask for them or do a bit of handwaving and claim you’ve already shown them to us.
Remember, it’s not just us on the blog who reject homeopathy as nonsense. It’s all of mainstream western healthcare which recognises it for the nonsense it is. Show me the hospitals where the first person they call for is the consultant homeopath. You can’t. It’s had 200+ years to prove itself and has spent most of that time being laughed at, along with the credulous fools like yourself who continue to believe in it despite all that science and evidence shows us.
Homeopathy is to medicine what rain-dancing is to meteorology.
“High quality studies in homeopathy” are an oxymoron in the best case and an obvious deception in the worst case.
Hi Lollipop!
You’ve not been around for two weeks. Do you now have time to tell us all about the nasty allegations you made against me here?
Thanks to Ernst and the three trolls who responded to me for confirming my point. I’ll skip the irrelevant content of Lenny’s nonsense and focus on his two points:
Lenny is not able to prove that the whole Western world qualifies homeopathy as a “nonsense”. In reality, what I have seen in these years is greater acceptance of the same in several countries, which has provoked the reaction of pathos in the pamphlet “the international” written by a Spanish organization called “APETP”, to which Ernst and his lackeys in the German GWUP and brazilian Institute Questao da Science have given broadcast in some media of payment. The striking thing about this pamphlet is that most of the signatories are concentrated in Spain and the United Kingdom, two of the countries that live naturally in pseudo-skeptical organizations and home to charities such as Sense About Science and Science Media Centre, which was also introduced in the Spanish government a year ago. Moreover, the number of clinical trials of homeopathy amounts to thousands. That Lenny is unable to use a database should not surprise anyone, since he never has arguments.
RPG says:
You are very wrong, I myself told Ernst of the systematic review of Prof. Michael Frass, who has convincingly shown that there is enough evidence, including high-quality, that homeopathy is more effective than placebo. What do you have in return “RPG”?
Alan says:
“Expert panel” https://archive.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/59/pages/plant-science-expert-panel.html
One should wonder how an electrical engineer ended up working for a charity that supposedly advocates for evidence and transparency, when it actually receives money from several large pharmaceutical companies and Monsanto-Bayer.
Why should one wonder?
Oh Lols. Namecalling, sputtering and handwaving? Is that all you’ve got? No links? Nothing to show us?
Burden of proof, Popsiekins. You’re claiming homeopathy has this evidence base which supports it. It’s up to you to show it. And so far you’ve not been able to.
Frass? Famous for his serial exercises in p-hacking and Texas sharpshooting? Whose claims regarding the efficay of homeopathy have been looked at, laughed at and ignored? He has convinced nobody other than the imbeciles who already believe in magic shaken water,
I said mainstream Western healthcare, Plopsie, not “the whole western World”. Your reading skills are becoming a problem. And I can’t prove it, can I? Oh look. Much as I hate to piss on your pathetic little bonfire, there appears to be a Wikipedia page telling us how homeopathy isn’t recognised by mainstream healtcare here.
Namecalling, sputtering and handwaving is all you have, Pops.
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your lack of any critical thinking abilities, Lollypop! You do a great service to this blog.
Lollypop said:
No idea what you think that page has to do with anything but whenever you’re ready to show your chain of thought on your nasty accusations, Lollypop… You know, that one from Sense About Science to me. Or from those pharmaceutical companies to me. Both would be good. If you can, that is.
But please do remember where the burden of proof lies in this: you made the accusations, it’s up to you to substantiate them. I have no work to do here.
I’m all ears…
That means nothing. We “accept” lots of religions with mutually incompatible deities, even though they cannot all be correct. And the religions themselves have lots of members, and love to brag about how many members they have—as if having more members makes them more correct and the others are all wrong. It doesn’t: it just means they’re more popular, for whatever reasons.
So if billions of people today aren’t willing to question their own beliefs in their favorite theistic religion, why should we be impressed if millions of people refuse to question their own beliefs in their favorite pseudomedical one? Your Argumentum ad Populum isn’t worth the paper on which history’s True Believers have written all their victories in other people’s blood. Even your kill rate is dismal in comparison to the abstract-deity cults, if only ’cos most of your holy rollers are the first to defect to the evil “allopathic” medicine when it’s their own mortality on the line. I guess Hahnemann ist großartig just doesn’t have the same ring…
1. Lenny says:
Oh Lenny, I knew I couldn’t miss a single logical reasoning. Since at no time do you present a single argument, but a mere gratuitous disqualification against Professor Frass, I can only conclude that you are an ignorant qualified in the art of deception. It’s a shame I have to put the conclusion of Dr. Frass’s review to you, to which you can’t apply your pathetic “p-hacking”excuse.
Die Auflistung der Studien zur Bedeutung der Veterinär-Homöopathie für die Behandlung von Infektionen erhebt keinen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Auch muss für jede homöopathische Behandlung – gleich wie bei jeder antibiotischen Therapie – klargestellt werden, dass eine Optimierung von Haltung, Management, Fütterung für einen nachhaltigen Therapieerfolg entscheidend ist. Auch die angeführten human-homöopathischen Studien stellen lediglich eine möglichst repräsentative Auswahl dar. Evidenz für die Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie bei der Behandlung von Infektionen ist für weiterführende Forschungen in diesem Bereich hinreichend belegt. Im Kontext, dass ein Cochrane Review zur Wirksamkeit antibiotischer Therapie der Indikation akute Infektionen des Atmungstrakts bei Kindern ein negatives Ergebnis zeigt und trotzdem in der Indikation akute Infektionen des Atmungstrakts in der Humanmedizin am meisten Antibiotika eingesetzt werden, sind weitere Studien im Bereich der Homöopathie absolut notwendig.
2. Lenny says:
Homeopathy is avaliable in some mainstream healthcare services around the world. Poor Lenny, all you have is Wikipedia.
3. Alan Henness says:
I had a suspicion that you would go around to avoid the truth about your serious conflicts of interest with Sense About Science. Now I can confirm that you use circular responses and cheap tricks to create an act of distraction. Poor Alan, in addition to collaborating with a criminal organization you have a charity by the name of Florence Nightingale, ironically a person who accepted homeopathy. You have no humanistic or ethical quality.
4. “Has” says:
That means nothing. We “accept” lots of religions with mutually incompatible deities, even though they cannot all be correct. And the religions themselves have lots of members, and love to brag about how many members they have—as if having more members makes them more correct and the others are all wrong. It doesn’t: it just means they’re more popular, for whatever reasons.
After Leny’s nonsensical comments, yours are still on a scale of nonsensical. You’ll wonder how I know, and the answer is very simple. In no comment I said that homeopathy has efficacy by the number of people who use it, I said that there is scientific evidence of its effectiveness that has been accumulating in more than 200 years. However, you invent a straw man and then you accuse me of committing the fallacy that you did. Understand one thing, to mention that homeopathy is used quite a lot in the world is a sociological fact.
Popsie
That Frass quote ends “further studies in the field of homeopathy are absolutely necessary”
The standard cry of the homeopath when the evidence fails to support their assertions. If you look on Cochrane, you’ll find a number of well-conducted studies by the late Peter Fisher which show no effect beyond placebo and end with the same whine.
More studies are not needed. Homeopathy is a busted flush and always has been. If it wasn’t, you’d be linking to the clinical studies which prove otherwise. You haven’t and you can’t so you dodge and bluff and bluster.
Which is more than you’ve got, Pops. You could, of course, have gone through the page of facts on the use of homeopathy in Western healthcare showing where it was wrong. But you wouldn’t have been able to. So you do a bit of name-calling and run away.
You’ve got nothing, Lols. Nothing. It’s pathetic, really. And an interesting exercise in revealing the mindset of the homeopathy loon and the levels of self-deception they have to take on board.
It always amuses me when alties call out their critics for setting a low bar…then completely fail to clear it. You would think they’d want to make us work harder for all our filthy pHarma lucre.
More studies are needed and wellcome. You, my dear troll, do not will stop the course of events. More studies in conventional journals are avaliable, the best studies of homeopathy and ironically including the papers by opponents of homeopathy, both clearly and consistently have able to show the efficacy of homeopathy over placebo effect. Remember, James Randi is dead and their legacy must be rewritten talking about of his fraud against Dr. Benveniste, who was the victim of the fraud planned by CSICOP and the former editor of Nature journal, John Maddox. Fortunately, your sloppy campagins are only the symptom of and natural reaction of the pseudoskeptics for their mistake condemmning homeopathy.
“the best studies of homeopathy and ironically including the papers by opponents of homeopathy, both clearly and consistently have able to show the efficacy of homeopathy over placebo”
this is not correct.
“fraud against Dr. Benveniste, who was the victim of the fraud planned by CSICOP and the former editor of Nature journal, John Maddox.”
when you have stopped frothing from the mouth, can you show me the evidence for this assumption, please?
<blockquoteMore studies in conventional journals are avaliable, the best studies of homeopathy and ironically including the papers by opponents of homeopathy, both clearly and consistently have able to show the efficacy of homeopathy over placebo effect.
Bullshit, Pops.
You’re making the claim, it’s up to you to provide the evidence to support it. And so far you’ve been unable to do so. That which is asserted without evidence will be dismissed without it.
Strange how this overwhelming evidence of homeopathy’s clinical effectiveness is so difficult for you to show, Pops.
That which is claimed without evidence can be laughed out the room with equal ease.
Ernst:
Based on what Enrst? in your pathetic books that are refrained from each other?
Dear Ernst, that was proved in 1994 by a physicist named Michel Schiff. Unfortunately his book did not transcend in the media because John Maddox, like you, had influence in the media and took advantage of James Randi’s tricks to distract attention. Today Schiff’s book has become relevant and more with the evidence that homeopathy has effects beyond placebo, including high-quality studies. This only leaves room for James Randi to be a complete fraud and a scammer. What’s worse Ernst? what are you going to let an illiterate like James Randi write a chapter in one of your books or that you, being a CSICOP partner, worship a scammer?
https://edzardernst.com/2017/05/a-method-of-ending-discussions-with-belligerent-twits/
Lenny says:
Lenny, an aggressive guy who has no arguments and only knows how to repeat that this or that is “shit” without further explanation than his personal comment, that is the troll Lenny. No matter how many times you put an insult, Dr. Frass’s review comes to dismantle once and for all the Great Myths constructed by pseudo-skeptics (EASAC report, Australian report, Shang meta-analysis and Ernst review). Lenny, how does it feel to have supported four myths whose fraudulent authors enjoy some impunity? But certainly this should not be the norm and publications like Ernst’s should be retracted.
@lollypop
Look at those little hands of yours! See how they wave!
Shut me up, Popsie. Put me down. Post the links to the killer clinical studies. Not the derisory ramblings of Frass. The clinical evidence. That you so far have been unable to provide.
You can’t.
Because those studies don’t exist. And you know it.
If they did, you could show them to us.
But they don’t. And you can’t.
Shaken water, Pops.
Shaken water.
Really?
You are a troll, Popsie. A very, very stupid one. Whose pathetic arguments have been sequentially dismantled.
Run along, now.
You are amusing, Lollypop! Shall I be charitable to you and help you out here?
You’ve now had several opportunities to explain exactly what ‘conflicts of interest’ you believe there are – why is that?
I’m not the one who is failing time and time again to substantiate their nasty accusations! The ball’s completely in your court there.
You do seem a tad confused – and opening yourself up to defamation. Or ridicule. More likely ridicule.
Nope. That’s quite funny because it’s so easily checked by searching the register of the Charity Commission. Here, let me help you yet again: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search
i
Nopr, but getting stuff wrong seems to be a particular skill of yours, doesn’t it?
You have no humanistic or ethical quality.Awww… bless.
Anyway, now I’ve done all this for you, perhaps you can now get to the nub of your little problem and show your working?
I’m not holding my breath, mind you.
Your pathethic response to my comment is ridiculous. Alan, you are member of Sense About Science, a lobby linked and financed Monsanto and other megacorporations. In the best case, I hope that you will pay for the damage caused by your troll activities including defamation, misconduct and fraud.
You’re still amusing Lollypop!
Perhaps you could link to Sense About Science’s membership application form or provide details of their membership fees, benefits or something.
And then provide actual evidence that I am a member?
And then we can get on to your other nasty accusations.
Alan, Alan, Alan, that your charity is registered is like saying that Coca Cola cannot commit fraud because it is also registered, and this does not take away that you have severe conflicts of interest with Sense About Science and they are part of a massive campaign of harassment and fraud against homeopaths in the UK, of that there is overwhelming evidence. What is worse in your comment is that you quote me a self-promotional blog where they only talk about a work by Florence Nightingale in a way that is neither professional nor academic. What does it feel to have made the ridiculous by putting a charity with the name of a prohomeopathy?
Lollypop, Lollypop, Lollypop…
I had hoped that by asking you to answer a couple of very simple questions, you’d manage to work it all out for yourself. But you didn’t answer them – did you even try? Not sure I can drop you any more hints without doing all your work for you – please at least try to put some effort into it, will you?
If you don’t, I’m afraid you’ll leave me with little choice but to think you’re a bit thick.
Now, tell me again about Sense About Science, membership thereof and what that has to do with me.
@ Lollypop
your most serious deficit is that homeopathy has no logical or scientific merit.
The whole “like cures like” idea is basically daft and has no basis in fact.
The theory underpinning multiple dilutions and “sucussing” is equally idiotic and again has no basis in reality.
After 200 years we are still waiting for any actual evidence that homeopathy has been successful in treating any actual real disease – how much longer must we wait in anticipation?
Provings are another total farce in motivated reasoning and confirmation bias – you can see “evidence “for anything you want to. It is just a group of blind people in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t even there – except that they find umpteen of them every single time!
If you wish to do science properly you will have to get rid of your cognitive biases first!
Fantastic, another troll whose lack of argumentation is characteristic.
Prof. Frass is Prof. Quackery. His evidence concerning homeopathy has long been refuted. His lecture in the elective subject “homeopathy” at the University of Vienna was cancelled because it was too uncritical.
Sorry, Lollypop, but your key witness has a zero credibility.
Of course homeopathy works, except when it doesn’t.
Remember Tooth-fairy science
Rpg1:
Your biased comment do not discuss the work published by Dr. Frass. You only have used an ad hominem attack. Don’t waste my time with your ridiculous comments at the level of episode presented by Bill Nye’s children program.
“You, my dear troll, do not will stop the course of events.”
this sounds very much as though you are addressing yourself
I do not have to discuss Frass’ nonsense because it is still nonsense afterwards.
By the way: Against your ridiculous aggressive reaction I recommend some valerian. This calms and relaxes.
So do not discuss the evidence because you are waiting for the approval of Uncle Ernst and his lobby. But you have no qualms about using ad hominem against Professor Frass. You’re pathetic.
By the way: It is always amazing (and also a little bit funny) how you can get the homeopaths and their apologists upset with just a few words and sentences. Within a short time they lose any apparent composure and react with aggressive illogical attacks.
Wow, this is an interesting phenomenon. Lenny or you can spend hours and hours insulting anyone who dares to question Ernst’s sacred words, but if I answer you that your answer is pathetic, you become the victim.
I’m not insulting you. You can do that all by yourself with your childish attacks.
I laugh at you. You act like Rumpelstiltskin. This seems to be a normal phenomenon with homeopaths and their followers, whether they are called Dana, Heinrich, Roger or Lollypop.
I should write a paper about it and submit it to a homeopathic journal. That will certainly be a success. 😀
Funny how grown up (one wonders?) people get all fired up and resentful when someone criticises them for pretending to be doctors and scientists and playing with shaken-water soaked sugar pills. Like they think they have some kind of right to be right.
Shaken water can be studied till the sun blows up, it will still be nothing but water. Whatever the shaken-water salesmen try to pretend it is, it’s still just water and has never been proven to be anything else but water.
No Dana! We’ve already told you this several times. The silly, amateurish “Langmuir article” isn’t proof of anything more than particles of contaminants can be found in any water- if you look hard enough 🙂
Whatever the water-shaking research-players think they find in the water, or believe it to have caused, it is still just water and as everyone knows, water has been proven time and again to be without medical efficacy.
It’s WATER, for f’s sake!