More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Curnir]

The proper reference is:
"Homeopathy can be an efficient treatment for intractable atopic dermatitis.
Itamura R, Hosoya R. Homeopathic treatment of Japanese patients with intractable atopic dermatitis.
Homeopathy 92 (2): 108-114, Apr 2003.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of intractable atopic dermatitis.

17 patients with this condition were given individualized homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional dermatological therapy for a period varying from 6 months to 31 months. All of the patients had previously been treated with conventional medicine and various psychological interventions but had shown no signs of improvement.

The treatment was evaluated by objective assessments of skin condition and by patients' own perception of their skin, using a 9 point scale.
Over 50% improvement was reported in the following categories: in overall impression and overall skin condition by all patients; in itchiness by 15 patients; in sleep disturbance by 10 patients; in satisfaction with daily life by 9 patients; in fulfilment at work by 7 patients; and in satisfaction with human relations by 10 patients.

Two detailed case studies are reported in this paper."

How did the people in the placebo control group fare?

 

[Curnir]

Homeopathy is individualized to the case and gentle

pure water is rather gentle

as well as curative;

Prove it.

for life, not just 3 months.

Ahh that reminds me of a quote from a newscast regarding the modern HIV treatments:
"the modern HIV treatments can allow you to live 5, 10 years. Maybe even your whole life with a HIV infection"..
If someone drops dead tomorrow...that was the rest of their life!

All cases of cancer cannot achieve cure with homeopathy;

Prove it.

can they with any other system of medicine.?

There is only one type of medicine, the ones that work. That has been proven to work in test after test after test, WITH proper test conditions.

Mmmkay?

Oh and I wish to say hi to the MAS collective.

 

[JJM]

What high quality are you referring to? I do hope not one of these:
"Suit Says Company Promoted Drug in Exam Rooms {snip}

Huh? That does not relate to the topic- h o m e o p a t h y.

 

[Capsid]

Some of you even went off the deep-end by saying that the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE are meaningless (I will be surprised if anyone on this list has gotten a single paper published in NATURE, let alone 13).

I got a something published in Nature! Only a little letter though, does that count?
Still waiting for the killer evidence to show that homoeopathy works.

 

[manioberoi]

Yes, you are a proponent of homeopathy.



So do we all.



Basically, you can't prove a negative. The claimant must provide the evidence.



This is a self-contradiction. Which is it, can you demonstrate that homeopathy works, or not?

Hans

For that we must first agree on a true and fair definition of what is true cure and what is symptomatic cure (suppression).

I repeat that proof in the form of physical (material drug - controls - large numbers of non- homogeneous patients treated with one specific drug )evidence of the type that you are trying to manouevre me into is nothing but intellectual dishonesty; you very well know that homeopathy works with no material above 12C or 24X; further homeopathy is individualized treatment of one person with one or more remedies over time with a view to complete cure.

And this can be proved in thousands of cases recorded - unrecorded cases would run into large numbers since self prescription is possible in homeopathy with much greater safety than conventional medicine OTC drugs.

Even so unsuitable trials of single remedies used on large non- homogeneous persons with a mechanically selected remedy have shown surprisingly good results at times, and expectedly poor results at other times!!

This is as it should be, and cannot in any way be construed as a proof that homeopathy has failed to work consistently in all the trials.

Millions of people on this planet use homeopathy because it works just as the billions who use conventional medicine because it works .

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Admittedly, I'm not at home, so I had to use an online calculator and I'm too lazy (or not willing to commit the time to the poster I was replying to) to do it by hand, so I didn't doublecheck the accuracy....

I got 17+% for exactly 3 and 29+% for 3 or more. You will note that I said "at least 3".

Linda

Ok. Missed the >= bit.

 

[JJM]

These are both highly controversial studies with no controls / trials and have been adequately countered in various fora. {snip}

Are you being deliberately unknowing?

The articles fls (and I) referred you to are reviews of the literature on homeopathy- they do not require controls or separate clinical trials.

The reviews fls cited are not controversial in the world of evidence-based medicine. And that (evidence) is what counts.

 

[manioberoi]

Still you provide no high-quality, definitive, clinical study showing efficacy for any homeopathic remedy, let alone all of their claims.

The drug companies are worst affected by the increasing evidence of efficacy of homeopathy - shall post more on that later- so it is relevant to know how they operate(d)!! I did not denigrate the GUMC. Just telling you that if you allege fraud in homeopathic trials at GUMC the same could well be true of conventional medicine trials controlled by the drug companies or their agents (FDA?).

Next you will denigrate all the conventional medical facilities in India because they provide limited facilities for homeopathic consultation and at times remedy trials.

So lets agree that fraud can be there but would be detected over time - the large majority of trials are expected to be professionally done. If we cannot have this basic agreement there is no point in stating proofs only to be rejected on one flimsy ground or the other.

 

[manioberoi]

Are you being deliberately unknowing?

The articles fls (and I) referred you to are reviews of the literature on homeopathy- they do not require controls or separate clinical trials.

The reviews fls cited are not controversial in the world of evidence-based medicine. And that (evidence) is what counts.

Conventional medicine does not have the license to comment negatively on efficacy of homeopathy by exclusion of evidence published in homeopathic etc journals which are open to publishing comments from critics.

You are putting the shoe on the wrong foot when you use only results convenient to your argument and ignore the vast aggregate of data in hundreds of journals.

 

[Curnir]

Next you will denigrate all the conventional medical facilities in India because they provide limited facilities for homeopathic consultation and at times remedy trials.

Ok so now we have two paranormal claims from Manioberoi.

1. That homeopathy works.
2. That he, Manioberoi, can predict the future.

Oh and say hi to the MAS collective the next time you see them.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This from the Mayo Clinic is even more confusing - what with drug companies touting the latest 100000 dollars chemotherapy EXTENDING LIFE BY ALL OF 3 MONTHS and making the person so ill that she feels more like a zombie than a thinking person:

"Cancer survival rate A tool to understand your prognosis

Mayo Clinic Last Updated: 05/27/2005


What can't cancer survival rates tell you?
Cancer survival statistics can be frustrating because they can't give specifics about you. ... This can be frustrating and for that reason, some people choose to ignore cancer survival rate statistics.

Survival rates have other limitations. For instance, they can't:
• Give you information about the latest treatments. People used in the latest cancer statistics were diagnosed more than five years ago. The effects of any recent treatment discoveries won't impact survival statistics for at least five years.
• Tell you what treatments to choose. .. For some people, the treatment with the greatest chance for remission is the one they'll choose. But many people figure other factors, such as side effects and the treatment schedule, into their decision.


You might choose to ignore cancer survival rates
It's entirely up to you whether you want to know the survival rates associated with your type and stage of cancer. Because survival rates can't tell you about your situation specifically, you might find the statistics are impersonal and not very helpful.

If you have a very localized cancer and you are using statistics that include many people with a more widespread cancer, then that data may not apply to you.

Tell your doctor if you'd prefer not to pay attention to the numbers. "

Homeopathy is individualized to the case and gentle as well as curative; for life, not just 3 months. All cases of cancer cannot achieve cure with homeopathy; can they with any other system of medicine.?

Wow. There's some really big claims being made in this thread. Homeopathy curing Cholera, Syphilis and now Cancer! It there no illness that it cannot be used to treat effectively?

Clearly it fails to treat the symptoms of credulousness, naivety and stupidity which are so often displayed by its proponents. Alas, the only potential cure for these is education and hard work. Even then relief is not guaranteed.

 

[Curnir]

Conventional medicine does not have the license to comment negatively on efficacy of homeopathy by exclusion of evidence published in homeopathic etc journals which are open to publishing comments from critics.

I'm sorry... that sentence made no sense at all. Were you trying to say that Practitioners of real medicine should be prohibited from giving negative comments on qua.. err sorry 'homeopathy', because the don't consider the tosh.. sorry. articles in woo publications credible?

You are putting the shoe on the wrong foot when you use only results convenient to your argument and ignore the vast aggregate of data in hundreds of journals.

Oh but if it worked in those cases... surely it will work during proper test conditions ie double blinded placebo trials?

 

[manioberoi]

Ok so now we have two paranormal claims from Manioberoi.

1. That homeopathy works.
2. That he, Manioberoi, can predict the future.

Oh and say hi to the MAS collective the next time you see them.

Can't predict anything.
Homeopathy works - but not always - just as conventional medicine works only till the patient dies.

 

[fls]

These are both highly controversial studies with no controls / trials and have been adequately countered in various fora.

Controls? That criticism makes no sense.

See the riposte in "Open letter to the editor of The Lancet from the Swiss Association of Homoeopathic Physicians (SVHA)" in Homeopathy. 2006 Jan;95(1):61-2.

I see from that letter and from the rest of your comments that we have now moved on to the next layer of the Homeopathy Cop Out. "Homeopathy cannot be evaluated by methods that reduce the effects of chance and bias." So what you and the rest of the homeopaths are saying is that unless we allow you to make full use of chance and wishful thinking, you will be unable to demonstrate any effect from homeopathy?

Linda

 

[fls]

The proper reference is:
"Homeopathy can be an efficient treatment for intractable atopic dermatitis.
Itamura R, Hosoya R. Homeopathic treatment of Japanese patients with intractable atopic dermatitis.
Homeopathy 92 (2): 108-114, Apr 2003.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of intractable atopic dermatitis.

17 patients with this condition were given individualized homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional dermatological therapy for a period varying from 6 months to 31 months. All of the patients had previously been treated with conventional medicine and various psychological interventions but had shown no signs of improvement.

The treatment was evaluated by objective assessments of skin condition and by patients' own perception of their skin, using a 9 point scale.
Over 50% improvement was reported in the following categories: in overall impression and overall skin condition by all patients; in itchiness by 15 patients; in sleep disturbance by 10 patients; in satisfaction with daily life by 9 patients; in fulfilment at work by 7 patients; and in satisfaction with human relations by 10 patients.

Two detailed case studies are reported in this paper."

Chance and wishful thinking.

Linda

 

[manioberoi]

I'm sorry... that sentence made no sense at all. Were you trying to say that Practitioners of real medicine should be prohibited from giving negative comments on qua.. err sorry 'homeopathy', because the don't consider the tosh.. sorry. articles in woo publications credible?

Oh but if it worked in those cases... surely it will work during proper test conditions ie double blinded placebo trials?

Practitioners of homeopathic medicine are as real as the practitioners of 'real' medicine. They have large following of patients who have been cured and have sent many others to be treated, at first disbelieving and later cured believers - all the hype created by the so called practitioners of real medicine and the poor quality of quite a few homeopaths does cause about half of these to switch to other schools - yoga, naturopathy etc - typically homeopathy begins to work slowly at first and today people want to be cured yesterday - homeopathy is slow gentle and sure footed. Those who stick it out are greatly benefited and often permanently cured. There is no golden shortcut to perfect health in todays polluted environment with contaminated food, water, air etc taking its toll.

 

[Mojo]

These are both highly controversial studies with no controls / trials

You do realise that those are a meta-analysis and a systematic review, don't you?

...and have been adequately countered in various fora.

See the riposte in "Open letter to the editor of The Lancet from the Swiss Association of Homoeopathic Physicians (SVHA)" in Homeopathy. 2006 Jan;95(1):61-2.

OK, so homoeopaths don't like them.

The proper reference is:
"Homeopathy can be an efficient treatment for intractable atopic dermatitis.
Itamura R, Hosoya R. Homeopathic treatment of Japanese patients with intractable atopic dermatitis.
Homeopathy 92 (2): 108-114, Apr 2003.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of intractable atopic dermatitis.

17 patients with this condition were given individualized homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional dermatological therapy for a period varying from 6 months to 31 months. All of the patients had previously been treated with conventional medicine and various psychological interventions but had shown no signs of improvement.

The treatment was evaluated by objective assessments of skin condition and by patients' own perception of their skin, using a 9 point scale.
Over 50% improvement was reported in the following categories: in overall impression and overall skin condition by all patients; in itchiness by 15 patients; in sleep disturbance by 10 patients; in satisfaction with daily life by 9 patients; in fulfilment at work by 7 patients; and in satisfaction with human relations by 10 patients.

Two detailed case studies are reported in this paper."

In view of your complaint, in the immediately preceding post, that a meta-analysis and a systematic review had no controls, perhaps you should tell us how many patients there were in the control group for this trial.

 

[Mojo]

Practitioners of homeopathic medicine are as real as the practitioners of 'real' medicine.

The practitioners of homoeopathy are certainly real; it's just the homoeopathy that isn't.

 

[fls]

This from the Mayo Clinic is even more confusing - what with drug companies touting the latest 100000 dollars chemotherapy EXTENDING LIFE BY ALL OF 3 MONTHS and making the person so ill that she feels more like a zombie than a thinking person:

"Cancer survival rate A tool to understand your prognosis

Mayo Clinic Last Updated: 05/27/2005


What can't cancer survival rates tell you?
Cancer survival statistics can be frustrating because they can't give specifics about you. ... This can be frustrating and for that reason, some people choose to ignore cancer survival rate statistics.

Survival rates have other limitations. For instance, they can't:
• Give you information about the latest treatments. People used in the latest cancer statistics were diagnosed more than five years ago. The effects of any recent treatment discoveries won't impact survival statistics for at least five years.
• Tell you what treatments to choose. .. For some people, the treatment with the greatest chance for remission is the one they'll choose. But many people figure other factors, such as side effects and the treatment schedule, into their decision.


You might choose to ignore cancer survival rates
It's entirely up to you whether you want to know the survival rates associated with your type and stage of cancer. Because survival rates can't tell you about your situation specifically, you might find the statistics are impersonal and not very helpful.

If you have a very localized cancer and you are using statistics that include many people with a more widespread cancer, then that data may not apply to you.

Tell your doctor if you'd prefer not to pay attention to the numbers. "

Nice selective quoting. Interesting that you are willing to refer to data that is gathered following the scientific method when it suits your purpose. Although I can't tell what your purpose is with this, since it seems to have nothing to do with anything.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cancer/CA00049

Homeopathy is individualized to the case and gentle as well as curative; for life, not just 3 months. All cases of cancer cannot achieve cure with homeopathy; can they with any other system of medicine.?

Data gathered without the influence of chance and wishful thinking shows that homeopathy does not cure anyone of cancer.

Linda

 

[manioberoi]

Controls? That criticism makes no sense.



I see from that letter and from the rest of your comments that we have now moved on to the next layer of the Homeopathy Cop Out. "Homeopathy cannot be evaluated by methods that reduce the effects of chance and bias." So what you and the rest of the homeopaths are saying is that unless we allow you to make full use of chance and wishful thinking, you will be unable to demonstrate any effect from homeopathy?

Linda

Not so fast. You missed the part where I said such trials are not appropriate but are being done.

They are increasingly showing (double blind placebo) that they work.

What I am saying is that the so called good journals of your liking do not readily publish the studies.

Then you must accept the studies (double blind placebo) published in ALL journals and not have your way in all things - judge, jury and executioner!!!