The use of homeopathy in oncological supportive care seems to be progressing. The first French prevalence study, performed in 2005 in Strasbourg, showed that only 17% of the subjects were using it. This descriptive study, using a questionnaire identical to that used in 2005, investigated whether the situation has changed since then.
A total of 633 patients undergoing treatment in three anti-cancer centers in Strasbourg were included. The results of the “homeopathy” sub-group were extracted and studied.
Of the 535 patients included, 164 (30.7%) used homeopathy. The main purpose of its use was to reduce the side effects of cancer treatments (75%). Among the users,
- 82.6% were “somewhat” or “very” satisfied,
- 15.5% were “quite” satisfied,
- 1.9% were “not at all” satisfied.
The homeopathic treatment was prescribed by a doctor in 75.6% of the cases; the general practitioner was kept informed in 87% of the cases and the oncologist in 82%. Fatigue, pain, nausea, anxiety, sadness, and diarrhea were improved in 80% of the cases. Hair-loss, weight disorders, and loss of libido were the least improved symptoms. The use of homeopathy was significantly associated with the female sex.
The authors concluded that with a prevalence of 30.7%, homeopathy is the most used complementary medicine in integrative oncology in Strasbourg. Over 12 years, we have witnessed an increase of 83% in its use in the same city. Almost all respondents declare themselves satisfied and tell their doctors more readily than in 2005.
There is one (possibly only one) absolutely brilliant statement in this abstract:
The use of homeopathy was significantly associated with the female sex.
Why do I find this adorable?
Because to claim that any of the observed outcomes of this study are causally related to homeopathy seems like claiming that homeopathy turns male patients into women.
PS
In case you do not understand my clumsy attempt at humor and satire, rest assured: I do not truly believe that homeopathy turns men into women, and neither do I believe that it improves fatigue, pain, nausea, anxiety, sadness, and diarrhea. Remember: correlation is not causation.
It reduced diarrhea in the study of children, published in Pediatrics.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8165068/
Sorry Roger, but I am not going to spend $25 to see how these people messed up their study, or how small the actual effect size was (IIRC, they claim that by day 5, treated children had a 15% higher chance to be free of diarrhoea, which is not very effective at all).
What these children need, is not ‘personalized homeopathy’, but a far cheaper and FAR more effective treatment: oral rehydration solution; see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845864/
And oh, this oldie (1994) is one of maybe a dozen or so studies that you (and many other homeopaths and their fans) come up with all the time. Which tells me that there are hardly any studies of homeopathy with positive results.
No Roger, it didn’t.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/96/5/961
as I have told you before, this study is nothing to write home about
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17285788/
That’s from 1994, Roger.
27 years is plenty of time for the results to be replicated and verified and for homeopathy to become front-line treatment in such cases and for the Nobel prizes to be handed out for the laws of science and medicine being rewritten.
Hasn’t happened, has it?
This is because the study, like all in homeopathy, was recognised for the pointless, laughable toss that it is and rightly ignored.
Homeopaths have continued with their ongoing exercises in self-delusion. The Real World has continued to pay their fatuous claims no heed.
IDEDENDENT replication, that’s what would have been needed.
BUT IS DOES NOT EXIST!