Hypericum perforatum (St John’s wort) is often recommended as a remedy to relieve pain caused by nerve damage. This trial investigated whether homeopathic Hypericum leads to a reduction in postoperative pain and a decrease in pain medication compared with placebo.
The study was designed as a randomized double-blind, monocentric, placebo-controlled clinical trial with inpatients undergoing surgery for lumbar sequestrectomy. Homeopathic treatment was compared to placebo, both in addition to usual pain management. The primary endpoint was pain relief measured with a visual analog scale. Secondary endpoints were the reduction of inpatient postoperative analgesic medication and change in sensory and affective pain perception.
The results show that the change in pain perception between baseline and day 3 did not significantly differ between the study arms. With respect to pain medication, total morphine equivalent doses did not differ significantly. However, a statistical trend and a moderate effect (d = 0.432) in the decrease of pain medication consumption in favor of the Hypericum group was observed.
The authors concluded that this is the first trial of homeopathy that evaluated the efficacy of Hypericum C200 after lumbar monosegmental spinal sequestrectomy. Although no significant differences between the groups could be shown, we found that patients who took potentiated Hypericum in addition to usual pain management showed lower consumption of analgesics. Further investigations, especially with regard to pain medication, should follow to better classify the described analgesic reduction.
For a number of reasons, this is a remarkably mysterious and quite hilarious study:
- Hypericum is recommended as an analgesic for neuropathic pain.
- According to the ‘like cures like’ axiom of homeopathy, it therefore must increase pain in such situations.
- Yet, the authors of this trial mounted an RCT to see whether it reduces pain.
- Thus they either do not understand homeopathy or wanted to sabotage it.
- As they are well-known pro-homeopathy researchers affiliated with a university that promotes homeopathy (Witten/Herdecke University, Herdecke, Germany), both explanations are highly implausible.
- The facts that the paper was published in a pro-SCAM journal (J Integr Complement Med), and the study was sponsored by the largest German firm of homeopathics (Deutsche Homoeopathische Union) renders all this even more puzzling.
- However, these biases do explain that the authors do their very best to mislead us by including some unwarranted ‘positive’ findings in their overall conclusions.
In the end, none of this matters, because the results of the study reveal that firstly the homeopathic ‘law of similars’ is nonsense, and secondly one homeopathic placebo (i.e. Hypericum C200) produces exactly the same outcomes as another, non-homeopathic placebo.
22 Responses to The first trial of homeopathic Hypericum C200 generates nothing but hilarity
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
St John’s wort is also a proven antidepressant. So shouldn’t these patients show signs of depression as well as increased pain? I don’t see this mentioned everywhere.
The only noticeable depression here is me despairing of the stupidity of mankind, or at least part thereof … How can these people still consider themselves scientists after presenting fairy tales like this?
How to know when a research report is probably not worth reading? When the first sentence includes “has been used for centuries”.
Monocentric? Since when has homeopathy been monocentric? Last I heard it was individualized medicine. There are hundreds of remedies indicated for post-surgery and for neurological pain. Over and over these trials attempt to support homeopathy by NOT doing homeopathy. Seems like that might be a recipe for failure. Could that be the intention?
@stan
So what you’re basically saying is that at least half of homeopaths are in fact clueless about homeopathy, that every and any OTC homeopathic ‘remedy’ is by definition useless, and that any and every prescription should be individualized, with a highly trained(*) homeopath taking at least several hours per patient(**) to get any and every relevant(***) symptom, in order to arrive at the most effective ‘remedy’?
Then why don’t those
True Scotsmencall out their stupid colleagues who are doing it completely wrong? You will no doubt agree with me that those inept fools falsely calling themselves ‘homeopaths’ are really just charlatans, giving this wonderful healing art a bad name.*: Read: irredeemably deluded.
**: Just picture the scene: complete hospital wards with a homeopath at every bed, trying to gather all of their patients’ symptoms sotto voce for hours on end … And course they have to start all over again when patients suddenly develop new symptoms …
***: Including of course such essential symptoms such as ‘dreams of robbers‘ and ‘cough while playing the piano‘.
Edzard’s attempt, which appears to be an effort, to somehow talk down the positive result of the study causes HILARITY.
Am I mistaken in thinking that the central demand of you skeptics is for significance?
Is everything else suddenly more important now?
Ridiculous attempt at deflection!
“However, a statistical trend and a moderate effect (d = 0.432) in the decrease of pain medication consumption in favor of the Hypericum group was observed.”
What Edzard says reminds me on what he once said:
“There is no single homeopathy at all”.
“Practically there are as many homoeopathies as there are homoeopathies” (25). It is true that various schools of homeopathy have developed since Hahnemann. Some of these are quite at odds with each other. This circumstance considerably complicates the evaluation of homeopathy. However, the argument does not hold water when it comes to discrediting homeopathy per se. There are also different orientations in other areas of medicine. It would be the task of any such current to prove its standing. This demand should also be made of homeopathy and its various currents.”
or:
“A new homeopathic study indicates that highly diluted [homeopathic] remedies are
are better than placebos. AND I CAN’T FIND ANY ERROR.”
“I would be very grateful if someone could help me solve this puzzle for me”
which of the findings of the study are positive in your view?
surely not the statistical trend in one variable that was not even the primary outcome measure!
“Am I mistaken in thinking that the central demand of you skeptics is for significance?”
Yes, you are. There is no “central demand,” something is more likely to be true when supported by evidence, reason and prior plausibility. Statistical significance is one of a number of indicators. “Trend” is a weak indicator of a possible effect, not enough in itself to draw a conclusion. “Statistical significance” is a stronger indicator of a real effect, but also not always enough on its own, especially if experimental methods are suspect and what is claimed to have caused the effect defies everything we know about physics (water has memory, for instance). Homeopathy fails skeptical examination because of weak or equivocal evidence and an implausible biological basis that defies reason, not just a lack of statistical significance.
“…and an implausible biological basis that defies reason….”
https://www.homoeopathie-heute.de/aktuelles-archiv/2022/was-hat-der-physik-nobelpreis-2022-mit-der-homoeopathie-zu-tun-1/
“What does the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics have to do with homeopathy?
……what is reality in view of the research results, Zeilinger answers:
“Because it increasingly turns out that our concepts of reality are fundamentally wrong”.
…The argument that “where there is nothing in it, nothing can work” lacks the scientific basis – it thus comes to nothing.””
I knew it!
the moon is made of Cheddar cheese after all!!!
Reminds me of the Douglas Adams quote:
“Ah, that was easy,” says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
@Heinrich Hümmer
From your link, translated:
You homeopaths really should stop telling lies like this.
There is not a single homeopathic preparation 12C+ that shows any consistent effect in any independently replicable study you may care to choose(*).
And yes, I have asked homeopaths (including you, I believe) dozens of times to name JUST ONE such homeopathic substance – but even the most vocal proponents of homeopathy immediately fell silent. So once again: name one such substance plus at least a couple of independently replicated studies by real scientists (not homeopaths) showing those consistent effects. You can’t.
Of course there is also not a shred of evidence for the existence of the ‘like cures like’ principle, nor for the ‘higher dilutions = more potent’ concept. And the practice of ‘proving’ is even worse. Testing if a medicine cures sick people by giving it to just a dozen or so healthy people? Really?
*: In fact, the whole reason why science has relegated homeopathy to the scrapheap of history is exactly because no efficacy for any condition could be found.
Sure, if you can’t prove your point without telling lies (see above), then just invoke ‘quantum’ and ‘Einstein’ to claim that your shaken-water magic somehow could work. In fairy land, no doubt.
This highly fallacious reasoning is simply a variation on “quantum physics is based on some weird phenomena, but it works; homeopathy is also based on some weird phenomena – so that also works”
The big difference of course is that quantum effects have been observed in thousands of independently carried out experiments, with near 100% consistency.
Not a single homeopathic experiment with a positive outcome has ever been successfully replicated by independent researchers.
On Earth, at the scale of human dimensions, gravitational time dilation alone is sufficient to prevent quantum entanglement.
There are, of course, other reasons why quacks invoke quantum flapdoodle[1]; one of which being: because the quack is wholly incapable of understanding quantum mechanics, the quack assumes that their audience is likewise incapable, yet impressed by its invocation.
[1] Physicist Murray Gell-Mann coined the phrase “quantum flapdoodle” to refer to the misuse and misapplication of quantum physics to other topics.
— Stenger, Victor J. (2009). Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness
1) please tell me how to make a Cite, so for you it might be better to see
2) 1. cite : I don´t tell This
3) And yes, I have asked homeopaths…”: You are right, I can´t!
4) “…‘like cures like’ principle…” : I only perceive: I have a remedy, that clinically and repeatedly [!!] worked well with this and that desease –> so it seems to be a good remedy for this and that.
“… ‘higher dilutions = more potent’ concept…”: you are right, not proven!
“… ‘proving’ is even worse…”: In a way, yes!
5) So why do I still believe in homeopathy acting independendly?
a) Observing reactions far beyond the placebo-effect* day by day
* https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/exemplary-case-histories-under-the-aspect-of-the-placebo-thesis-of-homeopathic-effects/
– 10.000ds of cases with replicated positve reactions
You know the story of Marie Curie´s burnt hand by x-rays?
Lord William Thompson Kelvin, mathematician and inventor, President of the Royal Society 1895:
“These rays of Mr. Roentgen will prove to be a fraud.”
“You know the story of Marie Curie’s burnt hand by x-rays?”
Yes, and we also know the story of Prosper-René Blondlot and his “discovery” of N‑rays.
@Heinrich Hümmer
Quotations are defined as follows: <blockquote>[quoted text]</blockquote>
I don’t really care if you personally subscribe to this lie or not. Homeopaths tell this lie as a matter of routine, and that should stop.
Thank you for admitting that the three most basic principles of homeopathy have no supporting evidence. Your honesty is appreciated.
Unfortunately, your observations have no scientific value; formally they are just a lot of N=1 cases (i.e. anecdotal evidence), and they can still be explained perfectly well by the placebo effect combined with several other biases and fallacies.
I am very sorry to inform you that all these tens of thousands of individual cases with positive reactions still contribute nothing at all to the evidence for homeopathy. They are still just tens of thousands of N=1 cases (i.e. anecdotal evidence), and they can still be explained perfectly well by the placebo effect combined with several other biases and fallacies. In any case, just looking at positive outcomes is not a valid way to establish efficacy – it is a fallacy called ‘cherry picking’.
Yes, I do.
So what? This is just the same fallacy as in your previous comment: the fact that a respected scientist was wrong about a newly discovered phenomenon about a hundreds years ago does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean that all of science is wrong about homeopathy now.
Both Einstein’s error and Lord Kelvin’s error were recognized and corrected within a few decades – and by the same science that they themselves were a part of.
Homeopathy has been doubted from its inception, and was proven increasingly wrong in the past 226 years, up to the point that science is now very certain that it is nonsense, and really should be abandoned by now.
@Heinrich Hümmer
To put it a different way:
Suppose that one night, I would sneak into your apothecary(*), and randomly swap the contents of bottles with globules. From the next day onward, you would then treat people with completely wrong ‘remedies’ – without knowing. I might even put in blank globules.
The question is: would you eventually notice? Would you observe unexpected reactions in people? Would your success rate in making people better plummet all of a sudden?
I am 100% certain that you would never notice any difference. You would be just as ‘successful’ and patients would be just as satisfied as they are now.
*: Assuming that you dispense the homeopathic preparations you prescribe yourself.
@Heinrich Hümmer
First about formatting tags: the opening tag is <[tag]> (so the tag between triangular brackets), while the matching closing tag has an extra slash: </[tag]>.
Here what I think is the full list for this blog site:
Blockquotes: <blockquote>[quoted text]</blockquote>
Web link: <a href=”https://example.com/”>example text link</a> example text link
Italics: <i>[italic text]</i> example
Bold: <b>[bold text]</b> example
Strikethrough: <strike>[strikethrough text]</strike>
exampleThen about this non-Hodgkin lymphoma patient: if I understand correctly, this lady received chemotherapy, with homeopathy on the side. From what I can see, chemotherapy is quite effective for this type of cancer, with something like an 85% 5-year survival rate for stage 1. Yet you seriously believe that it wasn’t so much the chemo but your sugar crumbs that sent this patient’s NHL into remission?
And no, the reduced swelling in one lymph node before commencing chemo most certainly was not caused by your inert sugar crumbs:
(my emphasis)
And oh: this too is of course just an N=1 case report, without any scientific value as far as homeopathy goes.
I seriously doubt if you should be allowed to work with cancer patients, given the above.
Now you are channeling Deepak, we must be living in a succussed universe! Quantum entanglement is not relevant to claims made for homeopathy unless your point is that there are things we have yet to discover, and so there is a plausible biological basis for homeopathy, we just haven’t found it yet.
Your approach to homeopathy is truly anti-science in that you claim that homeopathy works, and then grasp at any straw that supports that conclusion. The body of evidence is compelling, the totality of rigorous, high-quality studies indicates no effect beyond placebo and no amount of cherry picking or the waving of a magic quantum wand will change that.
“…unless your point is that there are things we have yet to discover, and so there is a plausible biological basis for homeopathy, we just haven’t found it yet.”
Got it!
And as we say in germany:
Einen guten Rutsch!
Means: Have a good slip (Slide?) into the New Year
George Nikolich,
Eloquently written.
You abuse Anton Zeilinger for unscientific homeopathy without batting an eye. Are you not ashamed of this behavior at all?
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/umstrittenes-heilverfahren-homoeopathie-missbrauchte-studien-1.1267699