This article aimed to describe the applications of homeopathy in women with non-metastatic breast cancer in France. Patients, general practitioner-homeopaths, and oncologists were included based on defined criteria, utilizing a theoretical sampling strategy. Due to evidence and ethics, homeopathy was considered only as complementary in integrative oncology (IO). Data were collected until saturation was reached through individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The analysis employed inductive thematic techniques. Inclusion, interviewing, and coding occurred iteratively. Data are reported according to the COREQ guidelines.
Twenty-eight patients (all women, aged 32-76), 13 oncologists (8 men, aged 30-62), 6 homeopaths (5 women, aged 29-68), 2 gynecologists and 1 nurse (all were women, aged 29-65) participated. The core theme “Supportive Care as a Whole” echoed the concept of “healthcare bricolage” or “the processes by which individuals use multiple resources to address health concerns.” Homeopathy was intended to:
- complement conventional and supportive care,
- be complemented with other supportive therapies,
- substitute for supportive drugs,
- replace other supportive therapies,
- not be suitable to replace all supportive therapies,
- be the only supportive option available in some situations.
The authors concluded that there are several ways of using homeopathy that depend on other conventional and supportive therapies a patient uses. Clinicians should more frequently evaluate the diverse uses of homeopathy in supportive care.
This is really NONSENSE ON STILTS!
What the authors forgot to mention is this:
Which ever way cancer patients use it, homeopathy does not work!
Why does anyone conceive such offensive nonsense and pretends it is science? Perhaps this little note goes some way towards answering the question:
This study was sponsored by Les Laboratoires BOIRON SA. The researchers led the project from design to data analysis. The manuscript was written independently. The authors shared the final manuscript with the sponsor, who reviewed it before publication and suggested typographic corrections and scientific references. The sponsor did not propose changes with regard to the content of the paper.
And perhaps the ‘Declaration of Competing Interest’ of the authors is also enlightening?
GR has no conflicts of interest to declare.
CAV reports a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA that includes conference fees and travel reimbursement for the project.
LBC declares a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA that includes conference fees and travel reimbursement.
JM declares a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA that includes consultation fees, speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement for other projects.
JCK declares a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA
My conclusion:
Clinicians should more frequently discourage the diverse uses of homeopathy.
6 Responses to Homeopathy Use in ‘Integrative Oncology’: NONSENSE ON STILTS
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Keep them separate. Let the oncologists do their thing and the Homoeopaths do their thing.
There is nothing ‘complementary’ or ‘alternative’ about Homoeopathy, it is a stand-alone system of medicine with its own hospitals, pharmacies, doctors and nurses.
“Keep them separate”
Yes, oncology cures cancer and homeopathy is just bullsitting about it.
“oncology cures cancer.”
I know of several people that underwent chemotherapy for cancer. They all died.
I am sorry to hear that; I know of several people who underwent chemotherapy for cancer. Many lived long lives – but eventually, we all die!
True.
It seems that such articles are trending at an ever increasing rate.
Soon poor Edzard will be having to blog twice daily as he heroically battles the tide of ‘bullshit’ coming his way.
Some believers might think that Edzard is a reincarnation of King Canute. Legend has it that he once tried to stop the tide coming in. He failed of course but at least he just got soaked in seawater and not bullshit. To keep standards on this blog to the expected high levels I refer to the English name Canute and not the old Norse name Cnut.
I look forward to the deconstruction of many more similar articles.