This blog is closed. For more recent content, visit Chris Clarke's new site Coyote Crossing.
Creek Running North
August 26, 2005
The Lancet versus homeopathy
Not that this will make a difference to those who bravely defy the medical establishment by buying expensive water from wealthy hucksters.
"The researchers found that in small trials which they deemed to be of poor quality, both homeopathic and conventional medicines appeared to fare better against placebos. But in larger trials that were of high quality, there was no credible evidence that the homeopathic treatment worked any better than the placebo.But conventional drugs clearly outperformed the dummy lookalike."
Posted by Chris Clarke at August 26, 2005 04:55 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
0 blog(s) linking to this post:
I tried a homeopatic product only once: at the pharmacist's I once saw a rack of homeopatic liquid vials ... one was for ... well ok, for loosing weight. I thought: ok, why not try it (I do not believe in medicines, special diet products, etc. but for once ...) ... believe it or not: I got itchy and scratchy like if I had a rash! After a couple of days I had to stop taking the drops ... and the itchiness stopped nearly immediately ... unfortunately I have not kept the list of ingredients and I have no idea if it was made in the real homeopatic way ... and of course I kept all the weight I had ;-)Posted by: Yubi at August 28, 2005 12:06 PM
It might actually have worked, Yubi; scratching burns calories.Posted by: Chris Clarke at August 28, 2005 12:35 PM
and I must be getting hungry again: "eating" words and letters in my last posts ... ;-)Posted by: Yubi at August 28, 2005 12:41 PM
In tests of treatments for pain, sometimes as many a 33% claim that the placebo has helped them with their pain.
So, if homeopathy helps as many as a third of the people who try it (placebo usually gets around 20-25% "effectiveness"), well, that is still a lot of people. (Now that I think of it, this explains why so many people vote Republican).
Like Robin Williams said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and jerk the rest off!"Posted by: Robert at August 28, 2005 06:08 PM
Robert: Yes, but how many people are harmed or killed by relying on it instead of going to a doctor and getting actual medicine? I mean, there are chiropractors and naturopaths out there pushing homeopathic vaccines. We won't even talk about all the bogus AIDS, cancer, and heart disease cures out there, homeopathic or not. Quack medicine is not harmless, not in the slightest. And I think it's pretty clear by now that homeopathy falls under that category.Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 08:29 PM
It´s very sad and chaotic to read this article published incredibly by The Lancet, for it shows such a low level of information and seriousness that it looks like a joke, but never an article for an Editorial of The Lancet. How can anybody pretend to have a serious opinion about a medical therapy 200 years old, and with a world wide incredible expansion as Homeopathy has today based on the work of Dr. Eggers.Posted by: Carlos V at August 30, 2005 08:24 PM
Why conventional medicine pretend to draw any conclusion if Homeopahty really works? Before give any conclusion about homeopathy, all those "conventional scientists" should begin to study seriously Homeopathy, and understand that a 200 hundred years old science could not be regard its effects as only placebo effects. If this is true, welcome the placebo effect, but we know, who really have been studying and practising homeopathy for 20 years, that it is imposible to explain the homeopathic "placebo" effect in little children, animals and plants. How Dr. Eager explain the positive effects of the homeopathic treatment in little children, plants and animals?Posted by: Ivan at September 17, 2005 08:26 PM