Menopausal symptoms are systemic symptoms that are associated with estrogen deficiency after menopause. Although widely practiced, homeopathy remains under-researched in menopausal syndrome in terms of quality evidence, especially in randomized trials. The efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) was evaluated in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the treatment of the menopausal syndrome.
Group 1 (n = 30) received IHMs plus concomitant care, while group 2 (n = 30) had placebos plus concomitant care. The primary outcome measures were the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) total score and the menopause rating scale (MRS) total score. The secondary endpoint was the Utian quality of life (UQOL) total score. Measurements were taken at baseline and every month up to 3 months.
Intention-to-treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated-measure analysis of variance, primarily taking into account all the estimates measured at monthly intervals, and secondarily, by unpaired t-tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.025 two-tailed. Between-group differences were nonsignificant statistically—GCS total score (F1, 58 = 1.372, p = 0.246), MRS total score (F1, 58 = 0.720, p = 0.4), and UQOL total scores (F1, 58 = 2.903, p = 0.094). Some of the subscales preferred IHMs significantly against placebos—for example, MRS somatic subscale (F1, 56 = 0.466, p < 0.001), UQOL occupational subscale (F1, 58 = 4.865, p = 0.031), and UQOL health subscale (F1, 58 = 4.971, p = 0.030). Sulfur and Sepia succus were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either group.
The authors concluded that, although the primary analysis failed to demonstrate clearly that the treatment was effective beyond placebo, some significant benefits of IHMs over placebo could still be detected in some of the subscales in the secondary analysis.
The article was published in the recently re-named JICM, a journal that, when it was still called JCAM, featured regularly on this blog. As such, the paper is remarkable: who would have thought that this journal might publish a trial of homeopathy with a squarely negative result?
Yes, I know, the surprise is tempered by the fact that the authors make much in the conclusions of their article about the significant findings related to secondary analyses. Should we tell them that these results are all but irrelevant?
Better not!
10 Responses to Homeopathy for menopausal symptoms? No, thanks!
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Gad…a study does not simply use one measure, but multiple ones. The researchers may deem one measure to be of “primary” importance, but it is so typical of skeptics of homeopathy, masquerading as pseudoscientists, to ignore other measurements.
In fact, it would be somewhat predictable that homeopathic medicines would provide more benefit overall quality of life measurements.
Real scientists, as distinct from the author of this blog, look at the entire picture of what is being assessed.
The fact that you consider this study to be entirely negative is simply more of a measurement of your blindness than of any light you bring to the subject.
Sad, but true.
thanks for documenting yet again your lack of understanding of clinical trials.
Masquerading as pseudoscientists?
So being actual scientists, then?
Anyway. Disregarding your inability to put words together in coherent fashion. Let’s look at what the Jacobs studies that you so love measured.
“The treatment group had a statistically significant (P < .05) decrease in duration of diarrhea, defined as the number of days until there were less than three unformed stools daily for 2 consecutive days."
No mention of any other measurements, Dana.
How strange.
Your fatuous, insignificant, self-contradictory and ignorant wibbling remains only a source of amusement, Dana. It's why nobody pays any attention to you.
Mr Ullman, you’re some kid, you really are! I mean, “Real scientists, as distinct from the author of this blog”…. You could scarcely have more effectively paraded your ignorance, and I mean ignorance in the senses both of lacking knowledge and lacking manners.
Mr Ullman why did you tell an outrageous lie in this Blog, claiming that you had “many times” named a laboratory that could distinguish homeopathic water from other water, when you have not once done so?
Please apologise for and correct your lie now, and please name a laboratory that can distinguish homeopathic water from other water. My 65th time of asking the latter.
Edzard and others here might benefit from this bit of wisdom by Robert Malone, PhD (when NATURE published their article about mRNA vaccines, this article highlights the work of Dr. Malone in the first paragraph!
It is THIS new article by Dr. Malone on “scientism” that deserves your attention today:
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-new-inquisition-of-scientism
this is from wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone]:
Starting in mid-2021, Malone received criticism for propagating COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories, including making “dangerous” and misleading claims about the toxicity of spike proteins generated by some COVID-19 vaccines;[4][32][6][33] using interviews on mass media to popularize medication with ivermectin;[34] and tweeting a study by others questioning vaccine safety that was later retracted.[4]
An article published in the august and high-impact journal that is Malone’s Substack.
Malone whining about why scientists laugh at his fatuous claims.
Run along, Dana.
The combination of Dana Ullman and the word “scientism” has occurred on this blog previously.
QUOTE [my bolding]
Should the Royal Warrants of ‘Ainsworths Homeopathic Pharmacy’ be withdrawn?
Published Saturday 24 August 2019
https://edzardernst.com/2019/08/should-the-royal-warrants-of-ainsworths-homeopathic-pharmacy-be-withdrawn/
Dr Tony Pinkus has been featured on this blog before. The reason for this is that he claimed – falsely, of course – I have ‘faked’ research data. Recently, he re-appeared on my radar when he (or another spokesperson of his firm) was quoted in The Telegraph accusing me of ‘ignorance’. Subsequently, Mr Ullman published this letter by Pinkus to the TIMES journalist, Rosie Taylor, in the comments section of my previous blog-post:
@Dana Ullman
Robert Malone has contributed significantly to the first key developments in the technology of mRNA vaccines, well over 30 years ago now. (Although he is not ‘the inventor of’ ….)
With the onset of the COVID pandemic, however, he had not been involved in mRNA vaccine developments for several decades, but instead researched (initially) promising repurposed drugs – among which hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. After a paper on ivermectin he endorsed by the now infamous Pierre Kory was rejected, he went into full crank mode, and started churning out a stream of misinformation, continuing to this day.
Which is kind of sad, really. The man has every reason to be proud of his early work on mRNA vaccines, and could have contributed to the first successful mass application of his early success. Instead, he bet on the wrong horse entirely with his support of HCQ and ivermectin, and went on an anti-vaccine and even anti-science rampage when that turned sour.
All of which is completely off-topic here, of course – but so is your initial reference to this man and his wisdom-turned-folly.
@Dana “Dullman”
Your “expert” Malone was exposed as a conspiracy theorist and loudmouth many months ago. He wanted recognition and very likely money for something he did not do: Namely, the development, commercialization and success of mRNA vaccines.