Three days ago, I reported a new study of homeopathy. At the time, I had not seen the full paper. Now, thanks to a kind reader sending it to me, I can report more details.
To recap:
In this double-blind, cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, four parallel arms, community-based, clinical trial, a 20,000-person sample of the population residing in Ward Number 57 of the Tangra area, Kolkata, was randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio of clusters to receive one of three homeopathic medicines:
- Bryonia alba 30cH,
- Gelsemium sempervirens 30cH,
- Phosphorus 30cH,
- or an identical-looking placebo.
The treatment period lasted for 3 (children) or 6 (adults) days. All the participants, who were aged 5 to 75 years, received ascorbic acid (vitamin C) tablets of 500 mg, once per day for 6 days. In addition, instructions on a healthy diet and general hygienic measures, including handwashing, social distancing, and proper use of facemasks and gloves, were given to all the participants.
No new confirmed COVID-19 cases were diagnosed in the target population during the follow-up timeframe of 1 month-December 20, 2020 to January 19, 2021-thus making the trial inconclusive.
The Phosphorus group had the least exposure to COVID-19 compared with the other groups. In comparison with placebo, the occurrence of unconfirmed COVID-19 cases was significantly less in the Phosphorus group (week 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.16; week 2: OR, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.0002 to 0.06; week 3: OR, 0.007; 95% CI, 0.0004 to 0.11; week 4: OR, 0.009; 95% CI, 0.0006 to 0.14), but not in the Bryonia or Gelsemium groups.
The authors concluded that the trial was inconclusive. The possible effect exerted by Phosphorus necessitates further investigation.
When I first blogged about this, I commented with this question: If you conduct a COVID prevention trial, would you not make sure that rigorous testing for COVID of all participants is implemented? Having seen the full paper, The question remains unanswered. Here is all that the authors write about the outcome measures:
(a) Primary outcome—Occurrence of newly diagnosed (confirmed by detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen test) COVID-19 infections as per Government of India records.
(b) Secondary outcome—Occurrence of unconfirmed COVID19 cases as assessed clinically during home visits. It was defined as abrupt onset (within the last 10 days) of fever (100.4°F or 38°C body temperature) with two or more of the following: loss of taste or smell, dry cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, headache, malaise, fatigue, myalgia, limb or joint pain, chest pain or pressure, conjunctivitis, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting, skin rashes, discoloration of fingers or toes.
The timeline was up to 30 days after completing the recommended dosage or once the person reported COVID-19 positive, whichever was earlier. Data were collected weekly by teams of homeopaths from home visits and/or via telephone, whenever required.
I am not entirely sure what this means but I think “as per Government of India records” indicates that they did not bother to systematically measure the primary endpoint of their study. Instead, they relied on the data from occasional unsystematic testing. My suspicion is further confirmed by the authors’ statement in their discussion section: “a manual search of the Government records during the trial phase could not identify a single confirmed COVID-19 positive case belonging to the study population … Enhanced numbers of testing could have changed the outcome of the trial“.
If my suspicion is true, the study is a joke – and not a good one at that. It would mean that considerable funds and efforts have been wasted. It would also mean that the conclusion drawn by the authors “the trial was inconclusive” is inaccurate. It was not inconclusive but it was fatally flawed from its outset.
12 Responses to Disturbing news on the recent trial of homeopathy for COVID prevention
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
We accumulated the clinical results from homeopaths around the world who had treated Covid successfully. We came up with around 50 different remedies. It seemed that in the early stages the individual’s chronic remedy might be the best choice. So a study with 3 remedies is bound to be disappointing.
A circle-jerk of shared delusions which, if published, will be a source of much amusement.
Lenny,
Tell that to the 500,000 cured from non hospital protocol in the USA alone.
Tell that to the 1200 that died from the Pfizer vaccine during the trials or will you dispute actual data from their own documentation?
Best,
BCD
https://c19early.com/
Jeffrey Bloom,
I have followed your link. At the top of the page they say:
Other than that there is no mention of vaccines.
Their analysis does suggest, however, that ivermectin is more effective than mulnopiravir (along with many other rather dubious remedies), which in inconsistent with the studies that I have seen. In the case of ivermectin we know that there is a single large study from Egypt with positive results that turned out to be fraudulent, and when this is excluded from meta-analyses the rest show no benefit.
1200 were NOT killed by the vaccine, Jeffrey. This long-debunked twaddle has been parroted by scientifically and mathematically ignorant antivax loons like yourself for some time. It is horseshit now as it was then.
https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9UC4LE
Such a shame when harsh reality conflicts with your delusions.
@Roger
I started laughing, but then I remembered how dangerous such delusions can be.
Same fact checkers that say Celine Dion never said anything about getting the vaccine, right?
True, but sure seems like most likely did anyways?
https://seed305.bitchute.com/HcR3pLdZtqqE/fOUrCXrb6Ixf.mp4
So who checks fact checkers?
https://www.cms.gov/medicare/covid-19/new-covid-19-treatments-add-payment-nctap
fact check above if you like
or
https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/12/watch-bc-doctor-reviews-shocking-stats-from-released-pfizer-documents/
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle,
I would go with the 500,000+ real world patients that were treated from an ENT, Dr Bowden and Dr Haider more than any study.
Of course, when you give a many supplements at what time, who knows what really worked?
Was it the melatonin?
https://progressiveissuesblog.wordpress.com/2022/01/13/melatonin-significantly-reduces-covid-19-mortality/
Was it zinc and a good ionophore?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8116783/
or a good nasal spray?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262044v1
Vitamin D?
Could have quercetin been just as good as Ivermectin?
who knows, might have been better
That’s because you’re a scientifically-ignorant fool who values anecdote over evidence because the evidence shows you to be utterly wrong, Jeffrey. And you don’t like being shown to be wrong.
Lenny wrote “And you don’t like being shown to be wrong.”
I disagree. I’m sure the trolls love being fed.
Perhaps some of them are from the same sock drawer.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sockpuppet
Jeffrey Bloom,
I don’t doubt it.
Show me the studies showing how good remdesiver is?
Dr Bowden is an ENT and helped over 200,000 herself.
Maybe she is lying ( no motive), as well as those doctors showing how bad the vaccine can be .
Like Clint Eastwood says, “Feeling lucky?”
https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/covid-vaccine-scientific-proof-lethal/