Homeopaths accuse Scientists of "new fundamentalism"

[Deetee]

Courtesy of badscience I see there is a report in the Times Higher Education supplement about the inaugural "Scientific research in homeopathy" [sic] conference at the University of Westminster.
That would be the same place which promotes CAM as "science".

The comments, both on the THE site and the Badscience thread, are worth a chuckle over.
Our friend Dana Ullman even puts in his 2p worth:

It seems that skeptics of homeopathy define "double-blind" as closing BOTH of their eyes. It is astonishing how unscientific their attitude is towards homeopathy, and yet, they have the chutzpah (and the ignorance) to "defend science."

He does sound like a stuck record.

ETA I see the organiser of the Conference, Jayney Goddard, has said she would let people have copies of all the presentations on request.

I'll try her and see if she complies.
[email protected]

 

[MrPuck]

Does this mean they are actually going to produce some science that back their claims or are they taking their cues from the Disco Institute?

 

[Complexity]

What nasty little people.

[the homeopaths, of course]

 

[wilsontown]

It seems that one of the presentations, by Dr Alex Tournier, is available here.

You'll note that, amongst other things, he talks complete rubbish about the Shang et al. meta-analysis that was published in the Lancet in 2005.

 

[paximperium]

I am a scientific fundamentalist. I believe in the fundamentals of good science and the scientific method.
I consider it an honor to be called that.

Homeopaths are a proud pseudo-science.

 

[leon_heller]

I found something in THE about the Ernst list of universities offering degrees in quackery:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401581

I was relieved to see that Birkbeck, University of London, where I studied, isn't among them.

Leon

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, the hypnotherapist who treated me has a BSc in that from Birkbeck....

Rolfe.

 

[leon_heller]

They don't teach hypnotherapy at Birkbeck. I read psychology there and hypnosis wasn't mentioned once during the four years I was there.

Leon

 

[MattusMaximus]

Does this mean they are actually going to produce some science that back their claims or are they taking their cues from the Disco Institute?

Sounds to me like they're taking a page from the Disco Institute. You can bet that all many of anti-science woosters will be using the same arguments for their pet ideologies as a way of tearing down science.

 

[gdnp]

Probably found a few journals and publish some poorly controlled and/or fraudulent papers that will not stand up when real scientists try to reproduce the results. As with Benveniste's paper 15 or so years ago.

 

[portlandatheist]

OK, I'm sure many of you guys know much more about homeopathy than myself so I have two simple questions:
1. After homeopaths conclude a "proving" do they ever conduct any clinical trials of any sort? Or do they just say "we've created a new medicine, which should work in theory, and therefore in reality and there is no need to verify this"
2. Do they ever recall a medicine? Once a "remedy" is on the market, do they ever take it off the market? Do they say "Opps, this medicine does not work as expected and we are going to remove it"?
If not, this is dogma. A remedy completes a "proving" and therefore it works! Never a need to actually test the theory in the real world, never a need to admit a mistake was made and to have to remove a product from the marketplace.

 

[Mojo]

OK, I'm sure many of you guys know much more about homeopathy than myself so I have two simple questions:
1. After homeopaths conclude a "proving" do they ever conduct any clinical trials of any sort?

No. Some trials are carried out from time to time (and some analyses of them are cited by homoeopaths in the comments to the THE article, despite their claims that they are not an appropriate way of assessing homoeopathy), but they are part of an ongoing attempt to prove that homoeopathy works, and unconnected with actual use of the remedies.

Or do they just say "we've created a new medicine, which should work in theory, and therefore in reality and there is no need to verify this"

Yes. As far as I can tell, producing a new remedy simply involves diluting whatever it is to be made from (and the magic shaking, of course), carrying out a 'proving', and, er, that's it. No testing of efficacy is necessary. And this approach extends to licensing of homoeopathic products by the MHRA, by the way, although they do require some safety data.

2. Do they ever recall a medicine? Once a "remedy" is on the market, do they ever take it off the market? Do they say "Opps, this medicine does not work as expected and we are going to remove it"?

No, and no. If a remedy doesn't work, it is because it is not the right remedy for the particular set of symptoms, not because it is ineffective. The right remedy, by the way, is defined as the last one the patient was given before they showed an improvement.

If not, this is dogma. A remedy completes a "proving" and therefore it works! Never a need to actually test the theory in the real world, never a need to admit a mistake was made and to have to remove a product from the marketplace.

Yes.

 

[RationalVetMed]

Do they ever recall a medicine? Once a "remedy" is on the market, do they ever take it off the market? Do they say "Opps, this medicine does not work as expected and we are going to remove it"?

Yuri

 

[Mojo]

Yuri's response was far more appropriate than mine.

 

[gdnp]

Portlandathiest:

The basic technique of homeopathy is to place a substance in water and then perform serial dilutions (1 drop into 1000 cc, shake, take 1 drop into 1000 cc fresh water, shake, repeat) until there is none of the original substance left. I recall seeing one paper where, if you did the calculations, you would have had to have had a quantity of water greater than all the matter in the entire universe to contain a single molecule of the original substance.

So how is this supposed to work? Well, somehow the substance is supposed to imprint itself on the water, with that imprinting being propagated to the other water molecules in each of the subsequent dilutions. Essentially, the water is supposed to have memory for what it used to contain, and be able to transfer that memory to other water molecules.

One does not need to be a particularly skeptical individual to realize that this is utter BS. Any apparent benefit to homeopathic medicines is either secondary to a placebo effect or the observation that lots of disease has a waxing and waning course or gets better on its own. Therefore, as you might expect, advocates of homeopathy shy away from double blind studies where the placebo effect can be controlled, and tend to rely instead on "open label" type trials or simple testimonials of satisfied customers.

 

[RationalVetMed]

OK, I'm sure many of you guys know much more about homeopathy than myself so I have two simple questions:
1. After homeopaths conclude a "proving" do they ever conduct any clinical trials of any sort? Or do they just say "we've created a new medicine, which should work in theory, and therefore in reality and there is no need to verify this"
2. Do they ever recall a medicine? Once a "remedy" is on the market, do they ever take it off the market? Do they say "Opps, this medicine does not work as expected and we are going to remove it"?
If not, this is dogma. A remedy completes a "proving" and therefore it works! Never a need to actually test the theory in the real world, never a need to admit a mistake was made and to have to remove a product from the marketplace.

I don’t think there is much doubt that homeopathy is a dogma or faith based modality. When it comes to the development of new remedies there are no central bodies such as NICE or the FDA who oversee their testing or application.

Homeopaths would see it as a matter of pride that many modern remedies are developed by independent researchers, all part of their quaint, touchy-feely world view. These groups have gone way beyond the original materia medicas into a surreal world where things like the Berlin wall, the house fly, peregrine falcons, storms, venus, sea horses, and anti-matter, have all been commandeered for the cause.

The development of remedies is not for the purpose of treating specific diseases but for determining which symptoms are associated with them. These symptoms give an indication of which remedies may work in certain conditions in individuals of the correct constitution. Once invented there is nothing to prevent or regulate their use.

There is just no mechanism in place for the systematic testing of such things. According to homeopaths because remedies have to be selected following individualisation to the patient clinical trials in the conventional sense are meaningless when it comes to the treatment of disease (or dis-ease as our homeopathic colleagues like to call it - clever, eh?).

To sceptics since all homeopathic remedies are identical in their lack of active ingredients there would be no point in testing individual remedies in expensive clinical trials when so much research has shown that homeopathy in general is ineffective. If all effects of homeopathic remedies are wishful thinking how would you tell whether you were going to be “scared of clams” or “restless at 4.00am” or whatever that day anyway.

For verification homeopaths often rely on ‘outcome studies’ which, for us simple minded reductionists means if patients get better that’s another point chalked up to homeopathy but if there is no improvement that’s the fault of the patient for not trying hard enough or having used a real medication first or having “strong... resistance to the release process”, or the fault of the homeopath for choosing the wrong remedy or actually a good thing as an ‘aggravation’ or ‘healing crisis’ means that, despite appearances, the patient is getting better.

Homeopaths win whatever the outcome and are not generally swayed by logic or rational argument or conventional evidence. Pretty much a textbook description of a faith based ideology.

Yuri