Homoeopathic HGH and double-blind tests

[steenkh]

On the NCH board (the Pakistani homoeopaths) Carole Franske has posted some notes on double-blind testing of homoeopathic HGH (Human Growth Hormone).

Clinical Trial Design
Homeopathic drug provings are based on Phase I clinical trials outlined in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) and the European Union (EU) guidelines for clinical research. These guidelines have been used to design this trial.

Clinical Investigators
Proving Director - David Riley, MD
Proving Supervisors - Sally Lenetsky, RN
Proving Coordinator - Anna Bell Romero

Methodology
Data Collecting - Diary/journal format
Study Design - Double group (6X and 6C) with placebo run-in
Method of Binding - Double-Blind
Controls - Intra-individual controls, placebo run-in, placebo controls

Human Growth Hormone - The medication used in this homeopathic drug proving was prepared by Dolisos in the United States according to HPCUS guidelines. This homeopathic drug proving was conducted between December 1998 and February 1999. Subjects were recruited by advertisement.

There are no details of the results, and the data do not seem to be available online.

She also quotes an article by Somlynn Rorie and Susan Colebank that states:

FDA will also be reviewing the research backing the claims being made for homeopathic hGH. Homeopathic hGH has undergone several provings and studies to confirm its claims and benefits. Dr. David Riley, HPCUS board member, conducted an official drug proving through the Integrative Medicine Institute in 1998, and three double-blind, placebo controlled studies were published after peer-review in 1999 (Alt.and Compli. Therapies, 5:6 372-385, Dec. 1999, ). …The FDA requires that claims based upon peer-reviewed and published clinical studies must use the exact product that is being sold.

Do anybody know any details of these clinical studies of homoeopathy?

(I believe that homoeopathic HGH is isopathy, not homoeopathy, but that is debate I will leave to the believers to take!)

 

[Deetee]

I'll dig around, but am not too hopeful.

Perhaps it would help if you searched for studies on David Reilly, which is the name of the UK homeopathic doc - is this the correct surname?

ETA found this about the "three studies" - full text article.

 

[steenkh]

Thanks, Deetee.

I am afraid that the "three studies" are somewhat above my level for me to form an opinion. I notice that they claim to be double-blind studies, but I cannot find anything about the blinding method used. I also notice that they use combinations of, for instance, 6C + 100C + 200C in the same remedy, and I wonder why. To me it is just 6C and well below the Avogadro limit.

However their placebo contains the same amount of HGH; the only difference is that it is not succussed. What does that mean? After each dilution I would expect that some shaking has to be done to ensure a uniform solution. Because that would constitute a succussion, does that mean that they do not mix the dilutions properly whan they are placebo?

And finally, I am not able to evaluate if they actually find a difference that matters between the succussed and non-successed pills.

 

[sionep]

On the NCH board (the Pakistani homoeopaths) Carole Franske has posted some notes on double-blind testing of homoeopathic HGH (Human Growth Hormone).


There are no details of the results, and the data do not seem to be available online.

She also quotes an article by Somlynn Rorie and Susan Colebank that states:


Do anybody know any details of these clinical studies of homoeopathy?

(I believe that homoeopathic HGH is isopathy, not homoeopathy, but that is debate I will leave to the believers to take!)

I did not know that there is such a thing as clinical studies in homeopathy? As far as I have seen, studies are done by mainstream scientists out of curiosity into homeopathy? Sometimes some of those scientists, became misled by their own researches into homeopathy, then became convert themselves to become a homeopathy follower. I have never seen any clinical studies done by homeopathy practitioners, which then publish for peer review. I suspect that the reason is that homeopathy doesn’t get funded for doing research. They claim research done by mainstream scientists as their (homeopathy) research. Imagine who is going to give them such expensive equipments as MRI machines (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), besides such a million dollar MRI machine would be useless for use by homeopathy, since that they would reject the interpretation of the imaging produced by the machine. Mainstream scientists however get access to such machines at hospitals, universities, corporations that manufacture medical equipments, etc... If those scientists become curious about some homeopathy claim, then they would conduct a trial , not because they would believe or accept homeopathy in a normal sense, but mainly to disprove the ridiculous claim. Sometimes when such scientists misinterpret their data in such a way that their findings seem to support homeopathy, then the whole homeopathy community JUMP and sing hallelujah pointing out that such and such University has done a study confirming the validity of homeopathy. What they are forgetting is those studies were done by mainstream scientists (in which they despise) but not by homeopathy practitioners.

I still can't understand the degree qualifications which I often see beside the names of homeopathy practitioners, such as BNHS, BHNS, NMD, BSNH, MAHW, DPTN, ... Anyone who has a clue about these initials?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think the article is tricky. First of all, the author is clearly pro-homeopathy, claiming homeopathy to be well established and describing it as if its doctrines were fact, and not (at best) theories.

I have some difficulty reading the conclusions from the graphs displayed. Actually only aprt of the results were significant, and this is also mentioned. Nevertheless, the conclusion appears to assume that all the results were significant. Tha article also concludes that the law of similars is verified; I cannot see how they reach that conclusion, all they do is compare a "proving" with a "treatment", but since there is no relevant difference between the baseline status of the subjects, and no difference between the remedy administrerd, the distinction between a proving and a treatment appears to be arbitrary, and the fact that they produce the same result merely reflect that they are the same thing.

In all the preparations given, there was an actual amount of active substance. I do not know what is the expected physiological effect of these concentrations of growth hormone.

ETA: I notice that both Benveniste and Ullmann are on the reference list, and that one of the authors is a chiropractor, the other three are employees at companies that could have a commercial interest in this result.

The article is published at a site that publishes alternative research results for free:

[SIZE=+1]Alternative Research Data Vault's Mission [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]"To make available to the general public and health practitioners the latest breakthrough research data."[/SIZE]
This data mostly covers products from the smaller pharmaceuticals and natural health supplements companies and researched treatments not generally available. [SIZE=+1]We will post any valid research data [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]at NO cost. [/SIZE]

All of this information and research data may not have been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Although some of the information are from Phase I and Phase II of FDA approved studies.

Hans

 

[Ririon]

...
However their placebo contains the same amount of HGH; the only difference is that it is not succussed. What does that mean? After each dilution I would expect that some shaking has to be done to ensure a uniform solution. Because that would constitute a succussion, does that mean that they do not mix the dilutions properly whan they are placebo?
...

Most people prefer their placebo shaken, not stirred.