DR. SATYAPRAKASHAM, Homeopathy

[Mojo]

The JREF has written back and reminded Dr. Satyaprakasham that we will be unable to approve a testing protocol in which the volunteers are asked to cease medical treatments, and that we will not accept any claim that puts the volunteers in danger.

Does Dr. Satyaprakasham actually say that the volunteers have to stop taking their medication? Homoeopaths sometimes claim that medications (or even things like coffee or peppermints) can antidote the remedies (i.e. prevent the homoeopathy from working).

If not, perhaps a test could be suggested in which the volunteers are given homoeopathy or placebo as an adjunct to their regular treatment, and Dr. Satyaprakasham tries to tell which ones have been given which.

 

[IXP]

The test could be done by giving the subjects a remedy or placebo and testing with a peak flow meter before and after to determine if there is an improvement. All double blinded of course.

A peak flow meter is an inexpensive device used for self-monitoring by asthmatic patients.

http://www.drugstore.com/products/p...rxp2=15911&trxp3=1&trxp4=1&btrx=BUY-GFI-0-PLP

IXP

 

[Mojo]

The test could be done by giving the subjects a remedy or placebo and testing with a peak flow meter before and after to determine if there is an improvement. All double blinded of course.

A peak flow meter is an inexpensive device used for self-monitoring by asthmatic patients.

http://www.drugstore.com/products/p...rxp2=15911&trxp3=1&trxp4=1&btrx=BUY-GFI-0-PLP

If Dr. Satyaprakasham wants to use one, fine. Whatever means he wants to use to differentiate the two groups.

 

[IXP]

If Dr. Satyaprakasham wants to use one, fine. Whatever means he wants to use to differentiate the two groups.

Yep, I suppose he could use dowsing rods if he thinks it would work.

IXP

 

[Cuddles]

The test could be done by giving the subjects a remedy or placebo and testing with a peak flow meter before and after to determine if there is an improvement. All double blinded of course.

A peak flow meter is an inexpensive device used for self-monitoring by asthmatic patients.

http://www.drugstore.com/products/p...rxp2=15911&trxp3=1&trxp4=1&btrx=BUY-GFI-0-PLP

IXP

The big problem with this, and the claim in general, is that things like asthma are extremely variable and often self-limiting. For example, I am asthmatic, but I usually have a peak flow reading well above average for a healthy person, and although it will usually be lower when I exercise without medication, even that isn't always the case. In order to test this at all rigorously, large clinical trials would be required, which, as has been discussed many times before, are not at all suitable for the challenge. Even a short trials with few subjects would take days, at the least, while the challenge is usually constrained to a few hours at most.

 

[Mojo]

Check out what homoeopaths themselves say about the effects they claim to observe. They claim rapid and self-evident effects, especially with respect to remedies given in "emergency" situations, which are typically not even individualised, but given according to the type of emergency (e.g. arnica for injuries).

 

[Cuddles]

Check out what homoeopaths themselves say about the effects they claim to observe. They claim rapid and self-evident effects, especially with respect to remedies given in "emergency" situations, which are typically not even individualised, but given according to the type of emergency (e.g. arnica for injuries).

Yes, but that is exactly the problem. The homeopaths' claims are based on anecdotes and occasionally small, poorly controlled trials. It would be rather stupid of the JREF to accept that as a way of testing those claims. The JREF must have a much better test precisely because these are the kinds of illness that are liable to to fool people into thinking quackery works.

 

[Crundy]

Some homeopaths claim they can treat hayfever, so presumably allergies? If so then could we get a number of dustmite / pollen allergy sufferers, provide half with homeopathic remedy and half with placebo, and then perform a skin drop test of the allergen (perhaps before and after?) to see if the response to the allergen changes?

 

[Mojo]

Some homeopaths claim they can treat hayfever, so presumably allergies? If so then could we get a number of dustmite / pollen allergy sufferers, provide half with homeopathic remedy and half with placebo, and then perform a skin drop test of the allergen (perhaps before and after?) to see if the response to the allergen changes?

Is this proposed as a blinded test in which Dr. Satyaprakasham is asked to tell which patients have received remedy and which placebo? Merely observing the responses to see if they differ would probably involve subjective judgment of the response.

 

[Crundy]

Is this proposed as a blinded test in which Dr. Satyaprakasham is asked to tell which patients have received remedy and which placebo? Merely observing the responses to see if they differ would probably involve subjective judgment of the response.

Either that, or measure the size of the bump (which isn't that good an indicator, but if homeopathy did work then against placebo it should be significanly smaller).

Oh wait, do I presume Homeopaths will claim the remedy is not reducing the number of mast cells degranulating or the action of histamine, but is due to something else?

 

[IXP]

The big problem with this, and the claim in general, is that things like asthma are extremely variable and often self-limiting. For example, I am asthmatic, but I usually have a peak flow reading well above average for a healthy person, and although it will usually be lower when I exercise without medication, even that isn't always the case. In order to test this at all rigorously, large clinical trials would be required, which, as has been discussed many times before, are not at all suitable for the challenge. Even a short trials with few subjects would take days, at the least, while the challenge is usually constrained to a few hours at most.

I agree completely, a test that would be equivalent to a clinical trial is out of the question.

But to "prove" homeopathy all Dr. S has to do is realiably distinish patients who go the remedy from those who got the placebo. He should be allowed any means to do this, a peak flow meter would be a rational means, dowsing rods would be an irrational means. Neither should be disallowed.

So it comes down to can he tell with 10 out of 10 or 30 out of 40 or whatever he claims and meets the JREF 1000:1 odds.

IXP

 

[steenkh]

But to "prove" homeopathy all Dr. S has to do is realiably distinish patients who go the remedy from those who got the placebo. He should be allowed any means to do this, a peak flow meter would be a rational means, dowsing rods would be an irrational means. Neither should be disallowed.

Quite true, but the patients will still have to be carefully selected so that they suffer from illnesses that will not endanger them if they take the homoeopathic remedies, possibly without conventional remedies. Even if Dr. S handles all work with the test persons himself (using the "any means"-clause) the JREF must not in any way be responsible for injure to a test person, not even indirectly.

 

[IXP]

Quite true, but the patients will still have to be carefully selected so that they suffer from illnesses that will not endanger them if they take the homoeopathic remedies, possibly without conventional remedies. Even if Dr. S handles all work with the test persons himself (using the "any means"-clause) the JREF must not in any way be responsible for injure to a test person, not even indirectly.

Agreed, JREF is not going to allow any test in which patients on prescribed medication are required to stop it. I guess "by any means" was a little too general. Killing them and determining whether the remedy worked via autopsy, would also likely be excluded!

IXP