George Lewith, an honest homeopath?

[Thing]

I don't know what to make of George Lewith.

For those who haven't encountered him before, he's the other UK Professor of Complementary Medicine, funded by the same Laing Foundation as Edzard Ernst. He's done a number of trials of homeopathic actions, always got negative results and always published those negative results, sometimes in collaboration with Ernst. He's also a practising homeopath.

So what goes on in his head? We're always telling homeopaths to look at the science, he's doing it and it's not changing his mind. Can it really just be the money? I don't think so though one should never underestimate the cost of changing a position as a means of preventing that change.

In 1994, BMJ published an exchange of letters between him and the incomparable Rob Buckman (the author addresses are mangled in the online version). Lewith agreed that he'd be happy to have a sign in his surgery saying

As part of your treatment your doctor may prescribe certain drugs which have not--so far--been proved to have a specific action against diseases. Nevertheless, these drugs are completely safe and many patients find them beneficial. If your doctor thinks they may help you, she or he may recommend them to you.

In 2003 he published the results of a proving study on Belladonna, showing no effect. The conclusions said, in part,

Despite this being a clearly negative study for homeopathy, surveys confirm that patients use and continue to use homeopathy [2], and feel satisfied with their treatment [37]. Therefore future research should focus on the ideal approach through which to study homeopathy, with a shift towards understanding those factors such as the therapeutic relationship and the process of the homeopathic consultation [38, 39] that may mediate the apparent success of the homeopathic process.

His unit research all sorts of other sCAM and he use to have a column in SAGA magazine which is collected on his website. This one has a section heavy in unconscious irony

My daughter tells me that bottled water would be better for me than the tap water I’ve drunk all my life. Is she right and, if so, is there anything special I should look for in terms of mineral content and so on?


The use of bottled water seems to me to be a multi-billion pound industry, based on some of the cleverest marketing that I have ever encountered. There is absolutely no evidence that bottled water is any safer, better, or more “energising” than the water you get from the tap. One of the great triumphs of Victorian England was the development of a safe and infection free drinking water supply, and consequently water borne disease are now a rarity in the United Kingdom, although occasionally disasters happen, as it did in Camelford. Equally, disaster may strike bottled water manufacturers; there was a major problem with the phenol contamination of bottled Perrier water some years ago, which had a disastrous impact on Perrier’s premier place as the ‘fizzy bottled water’ on every restaurant table. Tap water provided by the UK water companies is safe, and there is absolutely no clinical trial evidence to suggest that bottled water is any better or safer for you.

Pots and kettles indeed, but I can't fault what he actually says here.

So what's stopped him making Ernst's breakthrough and realising that there's nothing in homeopathy? Or does he realise that there isn't but still sees patients getting better and doesn't want to stop. Is he cynical, stupid, dewy-eyed or some other alternative? What is it with him?

 

[Cuddles]

So what's stopped him making Ernst's breakthrough and realising that there's nothing in homeopathy? Or does he realise that there isn't but still sees patients getting better and doesn't want to stop. Is he cynical, stupid, dewy-eyed or some other alternative? What is it with him?

From those quotes it appears that he knows full well that homeopathy doesn't work, but simply doesn't care:

Despite this being a clearly negative study for homeopathy, surveys confirm that patients use and continue to use homeopathy [2], and feel satisfied with their treatment [37]. Therefore future research should focus on the ideal approach through which to study homeopathy, with a shift towards understanding those factors such as the therapeutic relationship and the process of the homeopathic consultation [38, 39] that may mediate the apparent success of the homeopathic process.

Translation:
"Homeopathy doesn't do anything but people keep giving me money for it, so we should make some stuff up and pretend we're actually doing something."

 

[David Colquhoun]

Lewith’s private clinic has curious standards

This might just be relevant to your question
Lewith’s private clinic has curious standards

 

[Blue Wode]

So what goes on in his head? We're always telling homeopaths to look at the science, he's doing it and it's not changing his mind. Can it really just be the money? I don't think so though one should never underestimate the cost of changing a position as a means of preventing that change.

-snip-

So what's stopped him making Ernst's breakthrough and realising that there's nothing in homeopathy? Or does he realise that there isn't but still sees patients getting better and doesn't want to stop. Is he cynical, stupid, dewy-eyed or some other alternative? What is it with him?

Apart from the obvious conflict of interests, could a big mention in a future Honours List be at the bottom of it all?

This from Asolepius, a consultant clinical scientist who occasionally posts here:

George Lewith has published several studies with Holgate [Stephen, now of HRH’s Integrated Health outfit], mostly negative for sCAM, but that doesn't stop him from running a very lucrative private practice in homeopathy etc.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2386059&postcount=6

And Professor David Colquhoun wrote this lengthy piece on George Lewith back in July 2006:

Lewith’s private clinic has curious standards
http://dcscience.net/?p=131

ETA. Wow. I see Professor Colquhoun has beaten me to it with his link.

 

[Acleron]

Lewith made a submission to the Royal Society of Physicians.

Presumably it describes his beliefs.

It must be safe its natural
Patients perceive CAM as natural, safe and effective. There can be little argument with the statements about overall effectiveness in chronic illness; by and large CAM does work.

From the juxtaposition of these two sentences it would be reasonable to suggest he believes because the patient believes. So even though his own trials show no effectiveness, he believes it is effective.

How can he hold that position in the face of lack of evidence of effectiveness? This, from earlier in his submission gives the answer.

We must also remember that the absence of evidence is just that, and must not be interpreted as evidence of no effect

This is the get out clause of all woo merchants.

Later on he starts being very selective with his facts

Similarly with homeopathy; the quality of the articles in Shang et al’s, review was more rigorous for homeopathy then for conventional medicine

Failing, of course, to mention that Shang's paper showed that homeopathy failed to demonstrate effectiveness and that the more rigorous trials failed more conclusively.

I can never tell if these people are being dishonest but they are certainly woo merchants.

 

[Asolepius]

It's maybe a bit generous to confer on Lewith the title of "the other UK Professor of Complementary Medicine". Yes, he is a visiting professor at the University of Westminster (the famous hotbed of woo), but his day job is at Southampton Medical School. I have heard it said that Lewith likes to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, but it's well documented that he has done rather nicely out of selling homeopathy and other CAMs, eg the deal with Boots.

 

[tkingdoll]

Tono Bungay.

 

[Darat]

What a strange view:

Despite this being a clearly negative study for homeopathy, surveys confirm that patients use and continue to use homeopathy [2], and feel satisfied with their treatment [37]. Therefore future research should focus on the ideal approach through which to study homeopathy, with a shift towards understanding those factors such as the therapeutic relationship and the process of the homeopathic consultation [38, 39] that may mediate the apparent success of the homeopathic process.

Since he's found the homoeopathic element to have no affect why didn't he say:

Despite this being a clearly negative study for homeopathy, surveys confirm that patients use and continue to use homeopathy [2], and feel satisfied with their treatment [37]. Therefore future research should focus on the ideal approach through which to study homeopathy, with a shift towards understanding those factors such as the therapeutic relationship and the process of the homeopathic consultation [38, 39] that may mediate the apparent success of the homeopathic process.

By all means argue not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but when you've found the bathwater to be rather dirty why keep the baby in it?

 

[Thing]

A bit more digging brings up these links:

http://www.dolphin.soton.ac.uk/Dec2000/Feature5.html
http://www.viewpoint.soton.ac.uk/Viewpoint/415/#1
http://www.viewpoint.soton.ac.uk/Viewpoint/416/#22

So anyway, how sound is his research? Are his studies as well designed as they could be?

 

[Thing]

Double post.

 

[Acleron]

A bit more digging brings up these links:

http://www.dolphin.soton.ac.uk/Dec2000/Feature5.html
http://www.viewpoint.soton.ac.uk/Viewpoint/415/#1
http://www.viewpoint.soton.ac.uk/Viewpoint/416/#22

So anyway, how sound is his research? Are his studies as well designed as they could be?

From your first post

Homeopathy, on the other hand, is still a bit of a mystery. ‘We know it works,’ says Dr Lewith, ‘but we don’t know why . . . yet. Once we can pinpoint this, the gauntlet will really be thrown down to modern pharmacology. After all, why consume chemical compounds with potentially nasty side-effects, when a herbal remedy washed down with a glass of water may be just as effective?’

If his studies are at the same level as his knowledge, the answer to your first question is 'not very' and the second 'no'.