The ‘Dunning Kruger Effect‘ (DuKE) has been discussed here before. The DuKE means that, the less you know, the less able you are to recognize how little you know, and the less likely you are to recognize your limitations. Consequently, your confidence in yourself is inflated and you believe you are more competent than your opponent. Expressed differently:
- Incompetence prevents the recognition of incompetence.
- Too stupid to doubt.
A recent paper brilliantly shows the DuKE in action; here is its abstract
There is widespread agreement among scientists that genetically modified foods are safe to consume and have the potential to provide substantial benefits to humankind. However, many people still harbour concerns about them or oppose their use. In a nationally representative sample of US adults, we find that as extremity of opposition to and concern about genetically modified foods increases, objective knowledge about science and genetics decreases, but perceived understanding of genetically modified foods increases. Extreme opponents know the least, but think they know the most. Moreover, the relationship between self-assessed and objective knowledge shifts from positive to negative at high levels of opposition. Similar results were obtained in a parallel study with representative samples from the United States, France and Germany, and in a study testing attitudes about a medical application of genetic engineering technology (gene therapy). This pattern did not emerge, however, for attitudes and beliefs about climate change.
As I have stated before, I suspect the DuKE can explain much of what is going on in the realm of SCAM (so-called alternative medicine). So much so that I am tempted to re-write part of the above abstract as follows:
As extremity of belief in SCAM increases, objective knowledge about science and medicine decreases. In parallel, perceived understanding of science and medicine increases. Extreme believers in SCAM know the least, but think they know the most. Moreover, the relationship between self-assessed and objective knowledge shifts from positive to negative at high levels of SCAM-belief.
Yes, yes, I know. You are absolutely correct: this is little more than speculation! And I also realise, of course, that not everyone can have a full understanding of SCAM, medicine and science; however, if someone has a strong interest in (plus a strong opinion of) these matters, it would be advisable to read up about at least the most basic facts.
In case you disapprove, please do have a look at some of the recent comments on this blog or assess what some of the most famous proponents of SCAM tell the public, and I am confident that you will begin to suspect that my speculation might be not that far off the mark.
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common reason for spine surgery. Several non-surgical LSS treatment options are also available, but their effectiveness remains unproven. The objective of this study was to explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of three non-surgical interventions for patients with LSS:
- medical care,
- group exercise,
- individualised exercise plus manual therapy.
All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat.
Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. The primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes).
A total of 259 participants were allocated to medical care (n = 88), group exercise (n = 84), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (n = 87). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care or group exercise. Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates.
The authors concluded that a combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity.
In many ways, this is a fairly rigorous study; in one important way, however, it is odd. One can easily see why one group received the usual standard care (except perhaps for the fact that standard medical care should also include exercise). I also understand why one group attended group exercise. Yet, I fail to see the logic in the third intervention, individualised exercise plus manual therapy.
Individualised exercise is likely to be superior to group exercise. If the researchers wanted to test this hypothesis, they should not have added the manual therapy. If they wanted to find out whether manual therapy is better that the other two treatments, they should not have added individualised exercise. As it stands, they cannot claim that either manual therapy or individualised exercise are effective (yet, I am sure that the chiropractic fraternity will claim that this study shows their treatment to be indicated for LSS [three of the authors are chiropractors and the 1st author seems to have a commercial interest in the matter!]).
Manual therapy procedures used in this trial included:
- lumbar distraction mobilization,
- hip joint mobilization,
- side posture lumbar/sacroiliac joint mobilization,
- and neural mobilization.
Is there any good reason to assume that these interventions work for LSS? I doubt it!
And this is what makes the new study odd, in my view. Assuming I am correct in speculating that individualised exercise is better than group exercise, the trial would have yielded a similarly positive result, if the researchers had offered, instead of the manual therapy, a packet of cigarettes, a cup of tea, a chocolate bar, or swinging a dead cat. In other words, if someone had wanted to make a useless therapy appear to be effective, they could not have chosen a better trial design.
And why do I find such studies objectionable?
Mainly because they deliberately mislead many of us. In the present case, many non-critical observers might conclude that manual therapy is effective for LSS. Yet, the truth could well be that it is useless or even harmful (assuming that the effect size of individualised exercise is large, adding a harmful therapy would still render the combination effective). To put it bluntly, such trials
- could harm patients,
- might waste money,
- and hinder progress.
Benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) affects many men aged 50 and older. It is caused by an enlargement of the prostate resulting in difficulties to urinate and to fully empty the bladder. There are several conventional treatment options, including life-style changes that are effective. In addition, a myriad of alternative therapies are being promoted, most of which are of doubtful effectiveness. Recently, a homeopathy-promoter, Dr Jens Behnke, triumphantly tweeted a trial of homeopathy for BPH allegedly proving that homeopathy does work after all. There is no conceivable reason why homeopathic remedies should have any effect on this (or any other) condition. Therefore, I decided to have a closer look at this paper.
The objective of this 5-centre, three-armed, open, randomised study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Homoeopathic Constitutional remedy (HC) and Homoeopathic Constitutional + Organ remedy (HCOM) in comparison to Placebo (PL) in patients suffering from BPH using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), ultrasonographic changes in prostate volume, post-void residual urine, uroflowmetry and in WHO Quality of Life (QOL)-BREF. Patients were randomised into three groups in 2:2:1 ratio and were followed up for 6 months. The statistical analysis was done with modified intention-to-treat principle (mITT).
Of 461 patients screened, 254 patients were enrolled in the study and 241 patients were analysed as per mITT. The mean changes in IPSS and QOL due to urinary symptoms from baseline to end of study showed a positive trend in all the three groups. However, in the HC group, the changes were more prominent as compared to the other two groups. There was no difference between HC and HCOM groups and they were equally effective in terms of managing lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH. With regard to secondary outcome, there was no difference between the groups. The psychological, social and environmental domains of WHOQOL-BREF have shown positive trend, but there was no statistically significant difference in intervention groups.
The authors concluded that statistical significance was found in the IPSS in all the three groups but only in HC and not in any of the objective parameters.
The paper is so badly written that I struggle to make sense of it. However, the above graph seems clear enough. The changes are perhaps statistically significant (which I find odd and cannot quite understand) but they are certainly not clinically relevant. Most likely, they are due to the fact that this study was not blind, meaning that patients and investigators were aware of the group allocations. This suggests to me that this study
- is dubious in more than one way,
- tests a hypothesis that lacks plausibility,
- yields a result that is clinically irrelevant.
In other words, it does not amount to anything remotely resembling a proof of homeopathy’s efficacy.
I came across an embarrassingly poor and uncritical article that essentially seemed to promote a London-based clinic specialised in giving vitamins intravenously. Its website shows the full range of options on offer and it even lists the eye-watering prices they command. Reading this information, my amazement became considerable and I decided to share some of it with you.
Possibly the most remarkable of all the treatments on offer is this one (the following are quotes from the clinic’s website):
Stemcellation injections or placenta lucchini (sheep placenta) treatments are delivered intravenously (via IV), although intramuscular (IM) administration is also possible. Stem cells are reported to possess regenerative biological properties.
We offer two types of Stemcellation injections: a non-vegetarian option and a vegetarian-friendly option. Please enquire for further details.
Alongside placenta lucchini, Stemcellation injections at Vitamin Injections London contain a range of other potent active ingredients, including: physiologically active carbohydrate, nucleic acid, epithelial growth factor, amino acids, hydrolysed collagen, concentrated bioprotein and stem cells.
Please visit our Vitamin 101 section to learn more about the ingredients in Stemcellation sheep placenta injections.
Renowned for their powerful regenerating properties, Stemcellation injections can stimulate collagen production as well as:
- Remedy cosmetic problems such as wrinkles, discolouration, pigmentation, eye bags and uneven skin tone;
- Can be undertaken by those who are interested in maintaining their physical activity levels;
- Can be undertaken alongside other IV/IM injections.
Vitamin Injections London is headed by skilled IV/IM Medical Aesthetician and Skin Specialist Bianca Estelle. Our skilled IV/IM practitioners will conduct a full review of your medical history and advise you regarding your suitability for Stemcellation injections.
END OF QUOTES
The only Medline-listed paper I was able to locate on the subject of placenta lucchini injections was from 1962 and did not substantiate any of the above claims. In my view, all of this begs many questions; here are just seven that spring into my mind:
- Is there any evidence at all that any of the intravenous injections/infusions offered at this clinic are effective for any condition other than acute vitamin deficiencies (which are, of course, extremely rare these days)?
- Would the staff be adequately trained to diagnose such cases?
- How do they justify the price tags for their treatments?
- What is a ‘medical aesthetician’ and a ‘skin specialist’?
- Is it at all legal for ‘medical aestheticians’ and ‘skin specialists’ (apparently without medical qualifications) to give intravenous injections and infusions?
- How many customers have suffered severe allergic reactions after placenta lucchini (or other) treatments?
- Is the clinic equipped and its staff adequately trained to deal with medical emergencies?
These are not rhetorical questions; I genuinely do not know the answers. Therefore, I would be obliged, if you could answer them for me, in case you know them.
My last post was rather depressive, and I certainly do not want my readers to be under the weather when they go into 2019. For this last post of 2018, I have therefore selected 20 events which gave me hope that perhaps we – those who prefer rationality to nonsense – are making progress.
- It has been reported that New Brunswick judge ruled this week that Canadian naturopaths — pseudoscience purveyors who promote a variety of “alternative medicines” like homeopathy, herbs, detoxes, and acupuncture — cannot legally call themselves “medically trained.”
- The Spanish Ministries of Health and Sciences announced their ‘Health Protection Plan against Pseudotherapies’.
- The medical school of Vienna axed their courses in homeopathy.
- A most comprehensive review of homeopathy concluded that the effects of homeopathy do not differ from those of placebo.
- The UK Pharmaceutical Society has stated that it does not endorse homeopathy and that pharmacists must advise patients considering a homeopathic product about their lack of efficacy beyond that of a placebo.
- A top medical journal has retracted a dodgy meta-analysis of acupuncture.
- A prominent BMJ columnist wrote : Many people seek to make money from those who don’t understand science. Doctors should call out bollocksology when they see it.
- Pharmacare and Bioglan received a ‘Stonky’ for its over-the-counter Melatonin Homeopathic Sleep Formula.
- The Governing Body of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) approved changes that mean NHS funded homeopathy will only be available in exceptional circumstances in the area.
- Health ministers of all German counties have decided that they will start reforming the profession of the Heilpraktiker, the German non-medically trained alternative practitioners.
- The NHS chief, Simon Stevens was quoted saying: There is no robust evidence to support homeopathy which is at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds.
- A systematic review concluded that there is no evidence in the literature of an effect of chiropractic treatment in the scope of primary prevention or early secondary prevention for disease in general. Chiropractors have to assume their role as evidence-based clinicians and the leaders of the profession must accept that it is harmful to the profession to imply a public health importance in relation to the prevention of such diseases through manipulative therapy/chiropractic treatment.
- A Cochrane review did not show any benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on recurrence of acute respiratory tract infections or cure rates in children.
- The French minister of health stated that ‘the French are very attached [to homeopathy]; it’s probably a placebo effect. If it can prevent the use of toxic medicine, I think that we all win. I does not hurt.
- The Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association retracted false accusation against me about their assumption that I had undeclared conflicts of interest.
- The ‘Daily Telegraph‘ published the following statement after misquoting me: Emeritus Professor Edzard Ernst, Britain’s first professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University said that doctors should make it clear to patients that they could not be taking herbal remedies alongside drugs. Prof Ernst said there was no good evidence that they work and that doctors were ‘contributing to disinformation’ by turning a blind eye to the practice.
- A comprehensive overview of the therapeutic options for chronic low back pain showed that chiropractic is not any better than over-the-counter painkillers or exercise, and that patients need to take precautions when seeking out a chiropractor.
Hold on, you promised 20, but these are just 17!!!, I hear my attentive readers mutter.
Yet, this should not depress us. On the contrary, let’s see it as a challenge to get on with out work of fighting for good evidence, ethical standards, rationality and critical thinking.In this spirit, I wish you all a very good, healthy and productive year 2019.
You probably know what yoga is. But what is FODMAP? It stands for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols, more commonly known as carbohydrates. In essence, FODMAPs are carbohydrates found in a wide range of foods including onions, garlic, mushrooms, apples, lentils, rye and milk. These sugars are poorly absorbed, pass through the small intestine and enter the colon . There they are fermented by bacteria a process that produces gas which stretches the sensitive bowel causing bloating, wind and sometimes even pain. This can also cause water to move into and out of the colon, causing diarrhoea, constipation or a combination of both. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) makes people more susceptible to such problems.
During a low FODMAP diet these carbohydrates are eliminated usually for six to eight weeks. Subsequently, small amounts of FODMAP foods are gradually re-introduced to find a level of symptom-free tolerance. The question is, does the low FODMAP diet work?
This study examined the effect of a yoga-based intervention vs a low FODMAP diet on patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Fifty-nine patients with IBS undertook a randomised controlled trial involving yoga or a low FODMAP diet for 12 weeks. Patients in the yoga group received two sessions weekly, while patients in the low FODMAP group received a total of three sessions of nutritional counselling. The primary outcome was a change in gastrointestinal symptoms (IBS-SSS). Secondary outcomes explored changes in quality of life (IBS-QOL), health (SF-36), perceived stress (CPSS, PSQ), body awareness (BAQ), body responsiveness (BRS) and safety of the interventions. Outcomes were examined in weeks 12 and 24 by assessors “blinded” to patients’ group allocation.
No statistically significant difference was found between the intervention groups, with regard to IBS-SSS score, at either 12 or 24 weeks. Within-group comparisons showed statistically significant effects for yoga and low FODMAP diet at both 12 and 24 weeks. Comparable within-group effects occurred for the other outcomes. One patient in each intervention group experienced serious adverse events and another, also in each group, experienced nonserious adverse events.
The authors concluded that patients with irritable bowel syndrome might benefit from yoga and a low-FODMAP diet, as both groups showed a reduction in gastrointestinal symptoms. More research on the underlying mechanisms of both interventions is warranted, as well as exploration of potential benefits from their combined use.
Technically, this study is an equivalence study comparing two interventions. Such trials only make sense, if one of the two treatments have been proven to be effective. This is, however, not the case. Moreover, equivalence studies require much larger sample sizes than the 59 patients included here.
What follows is that this trial is pure pseudoscience and the positive conclusion of this study is not warranted. The authors have, in my view, demonstrated a remarkable level of ignorance regarding clinical research. None of this is all that unusual in the realm of alternative medicine; sadly, it seems more the rule than the exception.
What might make this lack of research know-how more noteworthy is something else: starting in January 2019, one of the lead authors of this piece of pseudo-research (Prof. Dr. med. Jost Langhorst) will be the director of the new Stiftungslehrstuhl “Integrative Medizin” am Klinikum Bamberg (clinic and chair of integrative medicine in Bamberg, Germany).
This does not bode well, does it?
Naturopathy is an eclectic system of health care that uses elements of alternative and conventional medicine to support and enhance self-healing processes. Naturopaths employ treatments based on therapeutic options that are thought of as natural, e. g. naturally occurring substances such as herbs, as well as water, exercise, diet, fresh air, pressure, heat and cold – but occasionally also acupuncture, homeopathy and manual therapies.
Naturopathy is steeped in the obsolete concept of vitalism which is the belief that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things. Naturopaths claim that they are guided by a unique set of principles that recognize the body’s innate healing capacity, emphasize disease prevention, and encourage individual responsibility to obtain optimal health. They also state that naturopathic physicians (NDs) are trained as primary care physicians in 4-year, accredited doctoral-level naturopathic medical schools.
However, applied to English-speaking countries (in Germany, a doctor of naturopathy is a physician who has a conventional medical degree), such opinions seem little more than wishful thinking. It has been reported that New Brunswick judge ruled this week that Canadian naturopaths — pseudoscience purveyors who promote a variety of “alternative medicines” like homeopathy, herbs, detoxes, and acupuncture — cannot legally call themselves “medically trained.”
The lawsuit was filed because actual physicians were frustrated that fake doctors were using terms like “medical practitioner” and saying they worked at a “family practice.” This conveyed the false idea that naturopaths were qualified at the same level as real doctors.
The argument from naturopaths was that they weren’t misleading anyone. “There’s not even the slightest hint of evidence that anyone has been misled — or worse, harmed,” [attorney Nathalie Godbout] said. “This mythical patient that has to be protected by naturopathic doctors — I haven’t met them yet.”
However, Justice Hugh McLellan wasn’t buying it. He said the justification for naturopaths using terms such as “doctor” and “family physician” are based on the assumption that “people are attuned to the meaning of words like “naturopathy.” Many patients might read a website or a Facebook ad out of context, he said, and fail to pick up on the difference between “a doctor listing his or her qualifications as ‘Dr. So-and-So, B.Sc., MD,’ as opposed to the listing that might include ‘B.Sc., ND [naturopathic practitioner].’”
“I see a risk here,” McLellan said, “that the words … could, in fact, imply or be designed to lead the public to believe these various naturopaths are entitled to practise medicine.”
Britt Marie Hermes, a former naturopath who now warns people about the shortcomings of the profession, said she was thrilled with the judge’s ruling: “This is a very encouraging step in the right direction toward ensuring public safety. Naturopaths are not doctors. The onus should not be on patients to vet the credentials and competency of someone holding themselves out to be a medically trained physician. Now, patients will have an easier time separating truly medically qualified physicians from naturopathic practitioners. Bravo New Brunswick!”
In view of the many horror-stories that emerge about naturopathy, I am inclined to agree with Britt:
- Naturopaths tend to advise against vaccination.
- Some naturopaths advocate CEASE therapy.
- Many naturopaths use bogus treatments such as homeopathy.
- Some naturopaths claim to able to treat cancer.
- This has resulted in fatalities.
In the context of healthcare the title ‘doctor’ or ‘physician’ must be reserved to those who have a conventional medical degree. Anything else means misleading the public to an unacceptable degree, in my view.
According to the investigators, the primary objective this study (thanks again Dr Jens Behnke) was to evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathic remedies in improving quality of life (QoL) of chronic urticaria (CU) patients.
The study population included patients attending the Outpatient Department of State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Ahmadpur, India. Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) and average Urticaria Activity Score for 7 days (UAS7) questionnaires were filled at baseline and 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th months. The study included both male and female patients diagnosed with CU. Eighteen homoeopathic remedies were used. The individualised prescriptions were based on the totality of each patient’s symptoms.
A total of 134 patients were screened and 70 were diagnosed with CU and enrolled in the study. The results were analysed under modified intention-to-treat approach. Significant difference was found in baseline and 12th month CU-Q2oL score. Apis mellifica (n = 10), Natrum muriaticum (n = 9), Rhus toxicodendron (n = 8) and Sulphur (n = 8) were the most frequently used remedies.
The authors concluded that homoeopathic medicines have potential to improve QoL of CU patients by reducing pruritus, intensity of wheals, swelling, nervousness, and improve sleep, mood and concentration. Further studies with more sample size are desirable.
The primary objective of this study was, I would argue, to promote the erroneous idea that homeopathy is an effective therapy. It cannot have been to evaluate its effectiveness, because for such an aim one would clearly have needed a control group. Without it, the findings are consistent with the following facts:
- Homeopathy is useless.
- CU responds to placebo treatments.
- CU gets better over time.
- Regression towards the mean has contributed to the outcome.
- Homeopaths often have no idea about clinical research.
- Further trials are not needed.
- If someone disagrees with my point 6, the sample size is less important than the inclusion of a control group.
It is time, I think, to express my gratitude to Dr Jens Behnke, a German homeopath employed by the pro-homeopathy lobby group the ‘Carstens Stiftung’, who diligently tweets trials of homeopathy which he obviously believes prove the value of his convictions.
The primary objective of this new study was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathy for women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome. This condition is characterised by:
- irregular periods which means your ovaries don’t regularly release eggs,
- abnormally high levels of male hormones in the body, which may cause physical signs such as excess facial or body hair,
- polycystic ovaries – ovaries become enlarged and contain many fluid-filled sacs (follicles) which surround the eggs.
There’s no cure for PCOS, but the symptoms can usually be treated. As so often in such situations, homeopaths are happy to step into the fray.
This single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted at two research centres in India. The cases fulfilling the eligibility criteria were enrolled (n = 60) and randomised to either the homoeopathic intervention (HI) (n = 30) or placebo (P) (n = 30) with uniform lifestyle modification (LSM) for 6 months.
The menstrual regularity with improvement in other signs/symptoms was observed in 60% of the cases (n = 18) in HI + LSM group and none (n = 0) in control group. Statistically significant difference was observed in the reduction of intermenstrual duration in HI + LSM in comparison to placebo + LSM group. Significant improvements were also observed in HI+LSM group in domains of weight, fertility, emotions and menstrual problems. No change was observed in respect of improvement in the ultrasound findings. Pulsatilla was the most frequently indicated homeopathic remedy.
The authors concluded that HI along with LSM has shown promising outcome; further comparative study with standard conventional treatment on adequate sample size is desirable.
This trial might convince believers (mostly because they do not even need convincing), but it cannot convince anybody capable of critical thinking. Here is why:
- According to its authors, this trial was a pilot study; this means it should not report any results and merely focus on the feasibility of a definitive trial.
- Researchers were not blinded, meaning that they might have influenced the outcome in more than one way.
- The primary endpoint was subjective and could have been influenced by the non-blinded researchers.
- 0% success rate in achieving the primary endpoint in the placebo group is not plausible.
- Compliance to LSM was not checked; as the homeopathy group lost more weight, these patients seemed to have complied better (probably due to being better motivated by the non-blinded researchers).
My conclusion is not very original but all the more true: POORLY DESIGNED STUDIES USUALLY GENERATE UNRELIABLE RESULTS.
For some researchers, the question whether homeopathy works beyond a placebo effect is not as relevant as the question whether it works as well as an established treatment. To answer it, they must conduct RCTs comparing homeopathy with a therapy that has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be effective, i.e better than placebo. Such a drug is, for instance, Ibuprofen.
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of Ibuprofen and homeopathic Belladonna for orthodontic pain. 51 females and 21 males, were included in this study. Cases with non-extraction treatment plan having proper contacts’ mesial and distal to permanent first molar and currently not taking any analgesics or antibiotics were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups; one group was assigned to ibuprofen 400 mg and second group took Belladonna 6C (that’s a dilution of 1: 1000000000000). Patients were given two doses of medication of their respective remedies one hour before placement of elastomeric separators (Ormco Separators, Ormco Corporation, CA, USA) and one dose 6 h after the placement. Pain scores were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 2 h after placement, 6 h after placement, bedtime, day 1 morning, day 2 morning, day 3 morning and day 5 morning.
The comparisons showed that there were no differences between the two groups at any time point.
(Mean visual analogue scale pain score at different time intervals after separator placement in Ibuprofen and Belladonna group)
The authors concluded that Ibuprofen and Belladonna 6C are effective and provide adequate analgesia with no statistically significant difference. Lack of adverse effects with Belladonna 6C makes it an effective and viable alternative.
FINALLY, THE PROOF HOMEOPATHS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR: HOMEOPATHY DOES WORK AFTER ALL!
Not so fast – before we draw any conclusions, let’s have a closer look at this study. Here are a few of its limitations (apart from the fact that it was published in a journal that does not exactly belong to the ‘crème de la crème’ of medical publications):
- Patients obviously knew which group they were assigned to; thus their expectations would have influenced the outcome.
- The same applies to the researchers (the study could have been ‘blind’ using a ‘double dummy’ method, but the researchers did not use it).
- The study was an equivalence trial (it did not test whether homeopathy is superior to placebo, but whether its effects are equivalent to Ibuprofen); such studies need sample sizes that are about one dimension larger than was the case here.
Therefore, all this trial does demonstrate that the sample was too small for an existing group difference in favour of Ibuprofen to show.
So sorry, my homeopathic friends!