Homeopathy in the Telegraph

[Matabiri]

This letter was published in the Daily Telegraph (UK) today:

Sir - Dr Andrew Lawson suggests (letters, Mar 4) that homoeopathy is little better than witchcraft.

In our flock of 150 ewes, disease can overwhelm the most vulnerable at lambing time. Although we vaccinate against pasturella, we still get a number of lambs that are infected. They can catch pneumonia which, if left untreated, will cause death, sometimes within 24 hours. Using solely homoeopathic remedies, the progress of the disease is halted within a couple of hours of intensive treatment. Within two or three days, the lamb has recovered completely. Now, at lambing time, our use of antibiotics is almost nil.

Dr Lawson should ask himself whether a group of livestock farmers would use homoeopathy, witchcraft or anything else if they didn't work.

From:
David Eyles, Calafornia Farm, Swanage, Dorset

("Saving the Lamb" on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...nuItemId=-1&view=SUMMARY&grid=P8&targetRule=0 )

Anyone want to write in with a rebuttal?

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe everybody's said their piece on Homeopathy in Veterinary Medicine in the General Scepticism forum area.

There's no accounting for woo-woo, and people seem even more inclined to attribute amazing effects to animals (who can't tell their side of the story of course) than to themselves.

I only have one criticism of Dr. Lawson. "Little better than witchcraft" understates it. It's pure, unadulterated witchcraft.

Rolfe.

 

[Matabiri]

I meant, "anyone want to write to the Telegraph"...

 

[Rolfe]

Somebody has.

Not me, a colleague of mine. I've seen his letter, and I think it's excellent. Now we just have to wait to see if they print it.

Rolfe.

 

[Matabiri]

Excellent. That's what I wanted to hear.

 

[Quasi]

This letter was published in the Daily Telegraph (UK) today:



("Saving the Lamb" on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...nuItemId=-1&view=SUMMARY&grid=P8&targetRule=0 )

Anyone want to write in with a rebuttal?

I especially like the part where they admit they still have to use antibiotics. Oh, right, antibiotics + homeopathy = homeopathy works, and was the cure. No doubt, the journalists and editors will give a skewed balance to the debate to make it seem like homeopathy is just as legitimate as standard medicine.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm just hijacking this thread to draw attention to this abstract here. I'd dearly love to quote the whole thing, but Pyrrho might cry, so I'll quote some (well, quite a lot) and hope you go read the rest.

RESULTS: Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.

Note the casual demolition of the homoeopaths' pin-up boy (Linde, thought not mentioned by name).

Yeee-hooooooowwwwwww!

Rolfe.

 

[Matabiri]

Oo, that's a fun paper.

(The direct link to the full paper didn't work with my browser, so if anyone else has the same problem, here's one that should:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-87812003000600007&lng=en&nrm=iso )

 

[Kess]

This letter was published in the Daily Telegraph (UK) today:

They also published a letter from the Society of Homeopaths saying that poor old Dr. Lawson had "missed the point" about homeopathy because it is "the right of patients to choose the treatment they feel will benefit them most".

By that logic, why bother with doctors at all? Just let people wander into a pharmacy and choose which medicine they think will work for them...

 

[JamesM]

Did anyone successfully download the PDF version of the Rev. Hosp. Clin. paper that Rolfe gave the link to? I can't get it to do it.

Edit: never mind, I just got it.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The Telegraph didn't publish my reply, so it may as well get an airing among sympathetic readers;

I read with interest Mr Eyles’ experiences with the use of homeopathy. The problems with such superficially simple stories are the concealed depths of complexity and the fraught problems of interpretation. It has been my experience that when bald assertions of homeopathic miracles are questioned more closely then the picture becomes progressively more clouded.

Typically it takes more effort to rebut an anecdote than to put forward the original story. The truth is also that it is in the nature of anecdote that it usually cannot be completely rebutted, because just as a definitive conclusion is incorrectly drawn by its author, neither can it be definitively disproved. The honest sceptic can only say, “I don’t know”, while bemoaning the fact that homeopathy’s proponents persist in advancing such weak evidence to gull the credulous.

It should be needless to point out that clarification of such issues is why the scientific method was developed, but as fringe medicine tries to elbow its way into the mainstream of our culture we find ourselves needing to explain why anecdote should not be taken at face value.

Fortunately Mr Eyles’ tale was brief.

“[We] still get a number of lambs that are infected” How many? It makes a difference to the significance we should attach to the problem, its alleged solution and the reliability of the observations. Is the diagnosis confirmed?

“They can catch pneumonia which, if left untreated, will cause death, sometimes within 24 hours” This is asserting a 100% mortality for an untreated case, but there are no untreated cases and this statement creates a strawman argument. The assertion could only be tested by blinded placebo-controlled experiment to answer how many would succumb if untreated.

“Within two or three days, the lamb has recovered completely. Now, at lambing time, our use of antibiotics is almost nil.” Can one dare to ask whether past over-use of antibiotics has been abandoned and the self-limiting nature of whatever the lambs may really be suffering from is revealed? Have no other management practices altered?

“Dr Lawson should ask himself whether a group of livestock farmers would use homoeopathy, witchcraft or anything else if they didn't work.” Indeed. This does appear to be a question of faith more than objective evidence and the answers presumably lie in the human capacity for superstitious belief. Were a million Aztecs wrong in asserting that human sacrifice was necessary to ensure the next sunrise?