The frontier science of homeopathy?

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

Pulled a section from Orac's dissection of homeopathy, below, which I

think provides an interesting example of how observations can deceive.

In this case the flawed interpretation of the effects of homeopathy on

cholera sustains magical thinking ... even today.

In this case, the control (blood letting, use of toxic metals) had a harmful

effect, and homeopathy (no effect/placebo effect) appeared active in

comparison.

I suppose recognizing the effects of comparator is important in any study.

A control that does harm could lead to a false positive; a control that has

unrecognized positive effects to false negatives ....

~ Karl

==

The " frontier science " of homeopathy?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/the_frontier_science_of_homeopathy.php

" Mr. Goldacre's statement is at odds with the excellent therapeutic results

of homeopathic patients reported at the time of the epidemic:

" In 1854 London was struck by an outbreak of cholera. This gave homeopaths a

chance to show what they could do. Among the patients admitted to the

orthodox hospitals the death rate was 52 per cent, while at the homeopathic

hospital, where 61 patients were admitted, only 10 died (16 per cent). "

(English Homeopathy in the 19th Century; ) Not only is it clear

that homeopathic treatment was successful, but the " Bad Science " author

admits the harm conventional medicine was doing. In this day and age of

prescription drug therapy which is rife with harmful, even leathal side

affects, can we really say conventional medicine is any better than it was

in 1854? Remember the Hippocratic oath: " first do no harm " .

Orac =>Of course, this anecdote is entirely consistent with Mr. Goldacre's

observation. Moreover, this was not a randomized trial. We have no idea if

the two groups were equivalent, and even if they are it's entirely possible

(even likely) that the results could be explained by a harmful effect of

" conventional " medicine that increased the baseline mortality rate from

cholera.

Remember, surviving cholera is a matter of keeping hydrated more than

anything else. Anything that increases the level of dehydration will

increase mortality rates, and any form of bleeding or, as was more common in

the 1850s inducing purging with toxic metals such as antimony, cadmium, or

mercury would certainly have a high likelihood of doing just that. At best,

this anecdote tells us nothing