... and other stories.
Papers, listed by lead author: A
A
Aabel, S,. Laerum, E., Dølvik, S., Djupesland, P., (2000) Is homeopathic ‘immunotherapy’ effective? A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the isopathic remedy Betula 30c for patients with birch pollen allergy British Homeopathic Journal Vol. 89 pp. 161–168
Apart from a couple of days there was no statistically significant difference between trial groups although for 10 days out of the 4 week test period the authors felt there was a "clinically interesting" (whatever that means) difference. No mention of randomisation in the abstract or of how blinding was achieved. The staggering conclusion: "treatment with Betula 30c during the pollen season deserves further attention". Wow, I'm so excited I could bake a cake!
Adler, M., (1999) Efficacy, safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis. Adv Ther Vol. 16 no. 2 pp.103-111
An open label, practice based survey, bizarrely referred to as "evidence" by homeopaths...
Adler, R.H., Herschkowitz, N., Minder, C.E., (2005) Letter to the editor European Journal of Pediatrics Vol. 166 no. 5, p. 509
Alibeu, J.P., Jobert, J., (1990) Homeopathic therapy with Aconite for post-operative pain-agitation syndrome Pédiatrie Vol. 45 pp.465-466
Links: [abstract, pub med]
Almeida, R.M.V.R., (2003) A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine. Rev. Hosp. Clín. Vol. 58 no. 6 pp. 324-331
“As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.”
Links: [abstract - pub med ]:[full text - pdf ]:[full text - scielo, html ]
Responses: [Fisher and Dantas (2004)]:[Almeida (2004)]
Responses: [Fisher and Dantas (2004)]:[Almeida (2004)]
Almeida, R.M.V.R., (2004) Homeopathy: do not accept as medicine what has no evidence and contradicts basic science (letter) Rev. Hosp. Clin. vol.59 no.3 [Author’s response to Fisher and Dantas (2004)]
Links: [full text scielo, html]
Altunc, U., Pittler, M.H., Ernst, E., 2007 Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials Mayo Clin Proceedings Vol. 82 no. 1 pp. 69-75
CONCLUSION: The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition
Andersen, H.E., Eldov, P., (1995) Klassisk hom?opati - og dens brugere. Institut for Samfundsfarmaci, Danmarks Farmaceutiske H?jskole. 1995. Andersen, Helle Egebjerg. En unders?gelse af Klassisk Homøpati. Teorier, praksis og brugererfaringer. 1999. ISBN 87-987279-0-7
To illustrate the woeful lack of respect that homeopaths have for evidence, rather than convert it to RationalVetMed house style, I have preserved the layout that the prestigious sounding European Network of Homeopathic Researchers (EHNR) have used for this so called citation which they give as evidence in favour of their arcane art.
Readers will notice several puzzling things about the wording - several of the characters (‘ø’ in the original Danish) have been automatically replaced by a ‘?’ mark by confused character recognition programmes; a full stop has crept in between the words “Homøpati” and “Teorier”, the second word having become capitalised as a result. Also, there are two dates - 1995 and 1999 and the lead author is given at the start as “Andersen, H.E” and then repeated half way through as “Andersen, Helle Egebjerg”. This so-called reference which has been so carelessly copied and pasted is actually two separate works by the same author, a Danish pharmacology PhD student at the time of writing, one of which is simply a rehash of the other.
The citation for the 1995 piece should infact read:
“Klassisk homøopati, - og dens brugere (which translates as “Classical homeopathy - and its users”) by Egebjerg Andersen, Helle; Eldov, Peter”
... while the 1999 work should be:
“En undersøgelse af klassisk homøopati, teorier, praksis og brugererfaringer (which translates as “A study of classical homeopathy, theories, practices and user (or patient) experience”) by Egebjerg Andersen, Helle.
The 1999 work is reported by Royal Library and Copenhagen University Library Information Service as an “Abridged version of the thesis ‘Classical homeopathy - and its users’” ( “Forkortet udgave af specialet ‘Klassisk homøopati - og dens brugere’” ) - i.e., the 1995 work.
This blind copying of multiple errors in the citation is a microcosm of the attitude of the homeopath to evidence - it doesn’t matter what sort of evidence or how sloppy or inaccurate it is as long as someone has written somewhere that “homeopathy is t’riffic” then that’s good enough, slap it in a list, get it online and call it science.
Furthermore this catalogue of revealing linguistic ignorance hasn’t stopped other homeopaths from slavishly copying and pasting the original onto other, pro-homeopathic, web sites obviously without even considering how wrong the citation appears, never mind taking the trouble to read and critique the paper itself. If the EHNR citation is entered in a search engine it is found that exactly the same form of words, question marks, errors, repetition and all, appears in some dozen or so sites all written by people so keen to promote homepathy, but too lazy to check the references they themselves are using.
The irony is that, even if we take the EHNR’s most optimistic interpretation of this study it is still merely a patient satisfaction survey (so no blinding or controls) where 27% of patients said their condition didn't improve after treatment with homeopathy, even when asked by a nice young post-grad researcher! The conditions addressed in the survey all appear to have been diagnosed by the patients themselves (who were already dissatisfied with conventional medicine) rather than a medical doctor and include vague symptoms such as “general pain” and non-symptoms such as “psychical pain”. Even the figure of 73% improvement following homeopathy quoted by EHNS is disingenuous since only 61% of those patients who improved could actually ascribe this improvement to homeopathy and only 18% reported a complete resolution of signs.
Links: [Royal Copenhagen University Library]:[open library (1999 publication)]:[Google books (1995 work)]:[minimum price online bookstore]:[JREF thread]
Attena, F., et al. (2000) Homeopathy in Primary Care: self reported change in health status Complementary therapies in Medicine Vol. 8 no. 1Yet another patient satisfaction survey, purely subjective, no blinding, no controls, which are always more fun when the percentages are looked at the other way round from how the authors present them. In this case a staggering 26.5% of patients reported they hadn't even experienced a moderate improvement in their health status a year after treatment. These were patients who had actually chosen to attend a homeopathic clinic so might be reasonably expected to look favourably on homeopathy but over a quarter of them thought it didn't do any good. Yet this paper is still quoted as positive evidence for homeopathy -
Links: [abstract, science direct]
| History of RVM |
| The Best They Can Do |
| The Usual Suspects |
| How to look at evidence |
| CAM journals and evidence |
| Scepticism about homeopathy |
| Arguments |
| Acupuncture references |