Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common condition that often frustrates all attempts of treatment. This is an ideal situation for homeopaths who claim to have the solution. Yet the evidence fails to support their optimism. The two systematic reviews on the subject are not encouraging:
- There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations on maternal allergen avoidance for disease prevention, oral antihistamines, Chinese herbs, dietary restriction in established atopic eczema, homeopathy, house dust mite reduction, massage therapy, hypnotherapy, evening primrose oil, emollients, topical coal tar and topical doxepin.
- The evidence from controlled clinical trials therefore fails to show that homeopathy is an efficacious treatment for eczema.
But now, a new study has emerged and it seems to contradict the previous conclusions. This study compared the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) against placebos in the treatment of AD.
In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 6 months duration (n = 60), adult patients were randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos (n = 30). All participants received concomitant conventional care, which included the application of olive oil and maintaining local hygiene. The primary outcome measure was disease severity using the Patient-Oriented Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD) scale; secondary outcomes were the Atopic Dermatitis Burden Scale for Adults (ADBSA) and Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI) – all were measured at baseline and every month, up to 6 months. Group differences were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample.
After 6 months of intervention, inter-group differences became statistically significant on PO-SCORAD, the primary outcome (−18.1; 95% confidence interval, −24.0 to −12.2), favoring IHMs against placebos (F 1, 52 = 14.735; p <0.001; two-way repeated measures analysis of variance). Inter-group differences for the secondary outcomes favored homeopathy, but were overall statistically non-significant (ADBSA: F 1, 52 = 0.019; p = 0.891; DLQI: F 1, 52 = 0.692; p = 0.409).
The authors concluded that IHMs performed significantly better than placebos in reducing the severity of AD in adults, though the medicines had no overall significant impact on AD burden or DLQI.
I was unable to access the full paper, or more precisely unwilling to pay for it (in case someone has access, please post the link in the comments section below). From what can be gleaned from the abstract, this study is rigorous and clearly reported.
So, why is the outcome positive?
Pehaps one clue lies in the origin of the study. Here are the affiliations of the authors:
- 1Department of Materia Medica, Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India.
- 2Department of Pathology and Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
- 3Department of Pathology and Microbiology, Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Howrah, West Bengal, India.
- 4Department of Repertory, JIMS Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Shamshabad, Telangana, India.
- 5Department of Repertory, Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Howrah, West Bengal, India.
- 6Department of Health and Family Welfare, Homoeopathic Medical Officer, Rajganj State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Rajganj Government Medical College and Hospital, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal, India.
- 7Department of Pathology and Microbiology, National Tuberculosis Elimination Program Wing, Imambara Sadar Hospital, Hooghly, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 8Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
- 9Department of Repertory, The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
- 10Department of Health and Family Welfare, East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 11Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
I have previously noted that Indian studies of homeopathy (almost) never report a negative result. Why? Are the Indian homeopaths better than those elsewhere, or are they just less honest?
21 Responses to Individualized homeopathy for atopic dermatitis: a new, seemingly rigorous, and positive study
Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Previously, papers published by some of these authors reported the non-significant effect of homeopathy in certain conditions. At that time you were happy to say that homeopathy doesn’t work. But when the current trial concluded that homeopathy works, and you have nothing to say negative about methodological limitations, you are questioning the credibility of the authors? Wohhoo…
This clearly depicts the limitations of your thoughts and biases against homeopathy. If you are a scientific person, talk scientifically, give scientific reasons. Which we can see, in negative results you become scientific, in positive results you become inquisitive about author’s credibility 😂😂.
You are very interesting sir.
all I did was ask:
Are the Indian homeopaths better than those elsewhere, or are they just less honest?
is that not allowed anymore in the cult of homeopathy?
@Abhijit
Three thoughts:
– Homeopathy is wildly implausible for lots of different reasons, mostly related to chemistry and physics.
– As Edzard already noted, most homeopathy studies from India have positive outcomes, whereas most studies from other countries have negative outcomes – especially the high-quality ones.
– This study outcome can of course be a statistical fluke. If a thousand studies on homeopathy are performed, a few of those will come up false positive. (Unfortunately, there is also still this thing called publication bias, where studies with positive outcomes are publicized and widely used as evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, whereas studies with negative outcomes tend to be forgotten rather quickly, and even fail to be publicized.)
About the researchers’ honesty: there are unfortunately some good reasons for being suspicious; certain groups in India regard homeopathy as a highly prestigious part of their culture and national identity – much like Traditional Chinese Medicine has attained a similar status in China, leading to e.g. virtually 100% of all Chinese studies into acupuncture having positive outcomes. Which is a very strong indication that a lot of those study outcomes are not to be trusted.
I’d say that these things in fact warrant a certain amount of bias against homeopathy. To put it differently: homeopaths/researchers will have to come up with lots of high-quality evidence in order to sway the scientific consensus on homeopathy (i.e. that it doesn’t work for any condition) – and they will have to do this repeatedly.
One study says nothing; if most other studies into the use of homeopathy for dermatitis are negative, then this one positive study may be remarkable, but still has little value unless it is independently replicated several times with a similar outcome.
I’d like to make another point here:
If I were truly unfair, I would simply not have mentioned this study at all.
What a wonderfully disengenuous statement. This guy ACTUALLY claims that the results from this trial just happen to be the ONE in ONE THOUSAND TRIALS that had a statistical fluke. However, at present, there are not 1,000 randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials, and when you consider that there are now dozens of high-quality studies that show similar “statistical flukes,” including studies published in The Lancet, BMJ, Cancer, The Oncologist, Pediatrics, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, Rheumatology, Chest, and others.
When will you finally choose to “follow the science” rather than such weak and unproven theories about multiple stastistical flukes?
@Dana Ullman
? Why is my explanation disingenious? Statistical outliers are a real thing, and a far more likely explanation than the idea that shaken water magic all of a sudden works. I also said that the study outcome may be a statistical fluke. The study may also be less rigorous than it appears to be (so far we only have the abstract to judge it by), and/or the researchers may be less than competent. Most believers in homeopathy are after all lousy scientists.
I am following the science – and science says that homeopathy is not effective for treating any condition whatsoever. It is a placebo treatment. The occasional one-off positive study outcome doesn’t change that.
Mr Ullman,
I’ve corrected Richard Rasker on a previous occasion so we should all know this to be incorrect:
See: Why p values can’t tell you what you need to know and what to do about it, by Professor David Colquhoun:
http://www.dcscience.net/2020/10/18/why-p-values-cant-tell-you-what-you-need-to-know-and-what-to-do-about-it/
E.g., if p=0.05 and the prior probability=0.1 then the risk of a false positive result is not 5%, it is 76%.
@Pete Attkins
I once again stand corrected – my apologies for giving Mr Ullman’s pipe dreams still far more leeway than they deserve.
And ANYONE who says that homeopathic medicines are “implausible” is either ignorant or lying (or both). Heck, even Edzard’s recent link to yet another conventional journal in the field of material sciences and engineering provided you with this information. So, which is it…are you ignorant or lying?…or both?
Dana
I think you meant to write “plausible” there.
Anyone who believes in the magic powers of a vial of shaken water which is indistinguishable from similar non-shaken water has to be a gibbering halfwit.
Of course you could shut us up by providing us with the name of the laboratory which could do otherwise but, despite frequent requests, you have refused to do so.
There’s only one ignorant, insignificant, bluffing, blustering, foolish liar here, Dana.
Your nightmare has come true…and published in a reputable material science journal…but once again, you’ve chosen to pretend to be deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind.
“How convenient” and how predictable!
You’ve been busted (again). Everyone is laughing (again).
@Dana Ullman
… that will probably retract it once they realized what an sorry piece of pseudoscientific crap they approved for publication. Have you actually READ this dung beetle feast of a publication? Or is your little reading problem playing up again?
Summarized: a couple of homeopaths constructed a metal detector with which they managed to detect metal particles (mostly metallic iron) in amounts of 1 ppm and higher – only the clowns call those metal particles ‘homeopathic medicine’, and claim that they have now shown to be capable of measuring specific homeopathic dilutions. Which they aren’t for anything non-metallic or in dilutions greater than 6X.
And oh, they even claim totally out of the blue that what they observed is also evidence for the medicinal action of homeopathy. Which is a total non-sequitur.
This is without a shadow of a doubt one of the stupidest papers I have ever read.
Big whoop.
It’s garbage, Dana. And, like all the “research” you so triumphantly crow about, it will be ignored. It will, like you, be of no significance, have no influence and will change nothing.
Show us how many people have taken any of the Langmuir garbage you have been waving around for years, Dana. Show us how it has changed attitudes to homeopathic remedies.
You are howling to an empty room.
… an empty room with a crumbling roof!
You are ignorant. You are lying. Or both.
You do not want to lose your faith in homeopathy, and you do not want to lose a good source of income by selling your ineffective products to gullible people.
Praised be Hahnemann! 😉
“And ANYONE who says that homeopathic medicines are “implausible” is either ignorant or lying (or both). ” No, they are people who actually know chemistry and physics. People who say that homeopathy is medicine or works are either ignorant or lying.
@Dana Ullman
Well, thank you for your concise, clear and above all persuasive comment! It really opened my eyes – I guess it was the ‘lying’ that did it, although ‘ignorant’ really helped.
I shall henceforth dedicate my life to homeopathy!
As in: the eradication of homeopathy, as you once again demonstrate the very basic traits of homeopaths: unsurpassed stupidity combined with massive ignorance, only to be exceeded by colossal arrogance.
Homeopaths should be kept away from sick people as much as possible, because those aforementioned traits truly are a lethal combination (and yes, alas this is fully on-topic here). Also note that this stupid homeopath (excuse the pleonasm) not only failed to follow urgent medical advice, but still denied doing anything wrong, even after killing his child and being convicted of manslaughter through gross criminal negligence.
From the study:
“If you are a scientific person, talk scientifically, give scientific reasons. Which we can see, in negative results you become scientific, in positive results you become inquisitive about author’s credibility ”
No, the opposite is true. Truly scientific folks have been able to discern, due to the total lack of reliable studies, that homeopathy is total [expletive deleted]. Someone correctly dubbed homeopathy the quackery to end all quackeries.
If homeopathy has any credibility at all, everything we know about chemistry, physics & biology is wrong – not bloody likely.
gerhard bahnhof
“….everything we know about chemistry, physics & biology is wrong – not bloody likely.”
Chemistry and Physics are quite definitive. The action input stated always confirms the same outcome.
Can you explain the reason behind NNT?
https://www.thennt.com/home-nnt/
Maybe you can provide the full paper then and he can evaluate it because for now it is based on an abstract only