Showing posts with label pseudoscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pseudoscience. Show all posts

Friday, 5 April 2019

Is Homeopathy a system of alternative medicine or just an expensive placebo therapy?

I welcome your valuable comments on this topic or your own experience of using the system of Homeopathy for any ailments.
Please comments below. I may or may not be using your comments or part of your comments (ensured complete anonymity) in a book /paper that I am currently working on. I also given a couple of useful links in the comments section. (Krishna)
----------------------------------------------------
Following a philosophy of ‘like treats like”, German physician and chemist Samuel Hahnemann developed homeopathy in 1796. He restored health by administering highly diluted amounts of substances such as arsenic, belladonna, sepia, nutmeg or chamomile, which, in larger quantities, cause symptoms like those suffered by the patient.
He believed that the water retained a memory of the vital essence of the substance used. Scientists have long questioned the very basis of homeopathy because it seems implausible for such diluted forms of a chemical to have any medical or pharmacological action. In most cases, the final homeopathic preparation does not contain a single molecule of the original herb or mineral.
Most of the developed countries like USA, UK, Australia, Canada, France etc. doesn't approve Homeopathy as a modern system of medicine. Most of the scientific studies suggested that Homeopathy has just a placebo effects. Over the past decade, modern science has dismissed homeopathy as nothing more what it appears to be: sugar pills that do nothing more than give you empty calories.
A major nail in the coffin was an analysis of 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials published in The Lancet in 2005 that concluded “the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects”. It found homoeopathic treatments were not more effective than dummy pills, but allopathic medicine were.
India is among the world’s biggest market for homeopathy in the world, pegged at Rs 1,500 crore and projected to grow by 20% each year. India has 195 homeopathic medical colleges, 51 homeopathic universities and 27 state councils, which train and register thousands of practitioners each year. Why Indian people are relying on this 'system of placebo therapy ' which has no medicinal benefits but purely works on psychological effects.
According to India’s Ministry of Ayush, it is the second most popular system of medicine after allopathy in the country with roughly 10% of the population relying soley on homeopathy for treatment.
Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan put the spotlight on homeopathy when he dismissed it as bogus science, but it’s business as usual for the 2.65 lakh registered practitioners of homeopathy in India.
“No one in chemistry believes in homoeopathy. It works because of placebo effect,” said Ramakrishnan, the India-born President of the Royal Society, who won the Nobel for Chemistry in 2009, speaking at the Panjab University at Chandigarh.
And, now Russia declares Homeopathy a Junk Science and planning to ban this system of alternative medicine.
Russia's Commission against Pseudoscience has called for the Health Ministry to ban homeopathy; however, the psychological effect of the medicine will continue to ensure its popularity (https://sputniknews.com/…/201702121050597972-russia-homeop…/)

Monday, 15 April 2013

Aromatherapy: A pseudoscience ?

Aromatherapy usually involves the application of diluted essential (volatile) oils via a gentle massage of the body surface. The chemist Rene-Maurice Gattefosse (1881-1950) coined the term ‘aromatherapy’ after experiencing that lavender oil helped to cure a severe burn of his hand. In 1937, he published a book on the subject: Aromathérapie: Les Huiles Essentielles, Hormones Végétales. Later, the French surgeon Jean Valnet used essential oils to help heal soldiers’ wounds in World War II.
Aromatherapy is currently one of the most popular of all alternative therapies. The reason for its popularity seems simple: it is an agreeable, luxurious form of pampering. Whether it truly merits to be called a therapy is debatable.
The authors of this systematic review stated that they wanted to critically assess the effect of aromatherapy on the psychological symptoms as noted in the postmenopausal and elderly women. They conducted electronic literature searches and fount 4 trials that met their inclusion criteria. The findings demonstrated that aromatherapy massage significantly improves psychological symptoms in menopausal, elderly women as compared to controls. In one trial, aromatherapy massage was no more effective than the untreated group regarding their experience of symptoms such as nervousness.
The authors concluded that aromatherapy may be beneficial in attenuating the psychological symptoms that these women may experience, such as anxiety and depression, but it is not considered as an effective treatment to manage nervousness symptom among menopausal women. This finding should be observed in light of study limitations.
In the discussion section, the authors state that to the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis evaluating the effect of aromatherapy on the psychological symptoms. I believe that they might be mistaken. Here are two of my own papers (other researchers have published further reviews) on the subject:
  1. Aromatherapy is the therapeutic use of essential oil from herbs, flowers, and other plants. The aim of this overview was to provide an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of aromatherapy. We searched 12 electronic databases and our departmental files without restrictions of time or language. The methodological quality of all systematic reviews was evaluated independently by two authors. Of 201 potentially relevant publications, 10 met our inclusion criteria. Most of the systematic reviews were of poor methodological quality. The clinical subject areas were hypertension, depression, anxiety, pain relief, and dementia. For none of the conditions was the evidence convincing. Several SRs of aromatherapy have recently been published. Due to a number of caveats, the evidence is not sufficiently convincing that aromatherapy is an effective therapy for any condition.
  2. Aromatherapy is becoming increasingly popular; however there are few clear indications for its use. To systematically review the literature on aromatherapy in order to discover whether any clinical indication may be recommended for its use, computerised literature searches were performed to retrieve all randomised controlled trials of aromatherapy from the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CISCOM, and AMED. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad score. All trials were evaluated independently by both authors and data were extracted in a pre-defined, standardised fashion. Twelve trials were located: six of them had no independent replication; six related to the relaxing effects of aromatherapy combined with massage. These studies suggest that aromatherapy massage has a mild, transient anxiolytic effect. Based on a critical assessment of the six studies relating to relaxation, the effects of aromatherapy are probably not strong enough for it to be considered for the treatment of anxiety. The hypothesis that it is effective for any other indication is not supported by the findings of rigorous clinical trials.
Omitting previous research may be odd, but it is not a fatal flaw. What makes this review truly dismal is the fact that the authors fail to discuss the poor quality of the primary studies. They are of such deplorable rigor that one can really not draw any conclusion at all from them. I therefore find the conclusions of this new paper unacceptable and think that our statement (even though a few years old) is much more accurate: the evidence is not sufficiently convincing that aromatherapy is an effective therapy for any condition.

Saturday, 5 January 2013

Homeopathy - A Placebo therapy?

Should we still need to keep an open mind fallacy?

Homeopathy have been studied for more than one hundred years and nothing come out of this.... no significant clinical effect beyond placebo response, no mechanism that could explain how it work: at biological, physical or chemical point of view. Homeopathy is just based on belief and poor understanding of chemistry . There're hundreds of empirical evidence to suggest that Homeopathy is nothing but a pseudoscience.

The UK Government Science and Technology (2010) Report on Homeopathy recommended that "the Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments."

One can’t help but be perplexed by the bizarre world of homeopathy. From miracle cures to snake oil peddling, from deceptive advertising to FDA warnings, from questionable medical claims to rigorous scientific testing, it’s an uncanny circle of health declarations and assertions. Here I believe a comprehensive overview of the evidence in -at least- seventeen  concise reasons…… Believe it or not!

1) The active ingredient of a homeopathic remedy is diluted to a ratio of: 1 : 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Or to look it another way, combine all the world’s oceans, let one drop of the active ingredient plunge into the middle, stir, and the result is a genuine homeopathic cure. The world’s most powerful microscope would be needed to locate even a single molecule in the average pill or tablet. When two completely different homeopathic remedies with two completely different “healing” agents are compared under a microscope, they are INDISTINGUISHABLE from each other!

2)  Homeopaths claim their pills work because “the water remembers” - the active ingredient has made “contact” with it. This has never been proven in any field of science – chemistry, physics, and molecular biology. Furthermore, many homeopathic remedies are dry tablets or pills. There is no water to remember.

3)  The FDA does not require manufacturers of homeopathic products to prove their efficacy or safety. They are under no obligation to test their products. You have to take their word for it.

4)  Homeopaths advocate the “Principle of Similars”. They assert if you take the substance that made you sick in the first place, and dilute it to almost total invisibility, then ingest it, you will be cured. With a couple of rare exceptions (anti-venom is derived from venom, but contains numerous other elements), this has never been proven scientifically. A comparable is the homeopathic remedy that is supposed to help you fall asleep – the sleeping pill. What is the minuscule active ingredient? Caffeine! Time and again skeptics have publicly ingested several full bottles of “sleeping pills” without exuding even a yawn.

5)  Many homeopathic manufacturers lie when they claim on their product labels that the remedy is FDA approved. Most consumers assume this refers to its efficacy. In fact the FDA has only ratified its safety. These are the exceptions, as most homeopathic products are not sent for any testing to the FDA.

6)  In recent years the FDA has successfully sued several homeopathic companies for making unsubstantiated claims to cure a variety of diseases. However, many companies have found a legal loophole by claiming cures for general illnesses, not specifics. For example, the product will help your “liver problems”, with no mention whatsoever of hepatitis. Also, many homeopaths will make these claims verbally in one-on-one sessions with the patient, where there is no legal liability.

7)  Homeopaths deceive the public when they sell a homeopathic product, usually a tablet or cream, that actually contains a medicinal substance. For example, a homeopathic cream for acne will contain both homeopathic water and tea tree oil, a common conventional aid to fight acne, produced and sold by non-homeopathic manufacturers. The consumer is given the impression that a homeopathic product has helped, when in fact it is the widely used and non-homeopathic tea tree oil.

8)  Most of the apparent success of homeopathy is due to the time and attention given to patients – a holistic approach. A 7 minute doctor visit with a prescription can’t compete with a homeopath’s sixty minute caring and nurturing environment. This is the placebo effect and works frequently for some basic health problems, but not for serious illnesses like cancer. 

Anthony Campbell is the former editor of the British Homeopathic Journal. In a recent book on the subject he wrote: “Most homeopaths like to allow at least 45 minutes for a first consultation and many prefer an hour or more. Second, patients feel that they are being treated ‘as an individual’. They are asked a lot of questions about their lives and their likes and dislikes in food, weather, and so on, much of which has no obvious connection with the problem that has led to the consultation. Then the homeopath will quite probably refer to an impressively large and imposing source of information to help with choosing the right ‘remedy’.” 

Homeopaths claim it is more than the placebo effect and their remedies actually contain healing properties. Not only has this claim never been proven, but rigorous scientific testing has proven over and over that “there is nothing there”. Essentially, the deception is the cure.

9)   The Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine (Second Edition) is very fair in crediting the few alternative medicine treatments that have been proven to work. On this subject: 

“Homeopathic medicine is popular. However, it lacks good studies to prove its effectiveness. Studies that have been done have generally been small and have produced conflicting results. In general, the scientific community also finds the theories on which homeopathic medicine is based questionable and difficult to accept. These factors have kept it from being widely accepted into mainstream medicine. 

“Because homeopathic medicine mainly involves diluted substances containing little, if any, of their original formulas, the risk they pose is likely minimal. The risks you may be taking are spending money on something that may not work and forgoing proven conventional treatments for homeopathic therapies.”

10) Most homeopaths and users follow a New Age, mystical, philosophical world view. When solid evidence is presented that a treatment or pill is no better than a placebo, they insist the science is wrong, because their religious views cannot be. When irrefutable evidence is presented, advocates claim persecution and fabricate conspiracy theories. 

The Journal of the American Medical Association did an exhaustive study on people’s motivation for using alternative medicines like homeopathy. The overwhelming majority did so because “they find these health-care alternatives to be more congruent with their own values, beliefs and philosophical orientations toward health and life.”

11)  In 2005 the British medical journal The Lancet conducted a meta-analysis of 110 controlled studies of homeopathy and 110 studies of comparable conventional medicine studies. The result was “there was no effect beyond that of a placebo for homeopathy. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16125589)

12) In 2006 the European Journal of Cancer conducted a meta-analysis of 6 studies. The conclusion: “Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16376071)

The American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) and American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT) have jointly released a public statement: “Don't use homeopathic medications, non-vitamin dietary supplements, or herbal supplements as treatments for disease or preventive health measures.” 

13)  What’s the harm in homeopathy? A group of British doctors working among the rural poor across Africa wrote a letter to the World Health Organization. Part of the letter read: "We are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhea, influenza, malaria and HIV. Homeopathy does not protect people from, or treat, these diseases. Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed. When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost." 

14) In Canada a homeopathic product called Mozi-Q is marketed. The claim for this pill is not only that it will keep mosquitoes away, but if you are bitten, itching will be lessened. Chemist Dr. Joe Schwarcz writes: 

“What evidence is provided? There’s talk of how mosquitoes avoid delphinium flowers, which may or may not be true. But what does that have to do with swallowing pills sprayed with an extremely dilute extract of the plant? Are the nonexistent delphinium molecules exuding through the skin? And itching is supposedly relieved because a pill contains a trace of stinging-nettle extract? According to the perverse theory of homeopathy, nettle causes stinging on contact with skin and therefore when diluted is a simple remedy for the same sensation. Simply asinine.”

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-news-quackery/homeopathy-bugs-me-not-bugs

15)  Further proof that homeopathy is merely a placebo is found in the words of practicing homeopaths themselves. Prominent Canadian homeopath Anna Sienicka writes in her web site (She removed the comment in early 2018): 

“It really comes down to what you choose to believe. Whether the example is morphine or Homeopathy, if you believe it is not going to work, it is simply not going to work. By listening to people with negative opinions about Homeopathy and accepting them as true, you are buying into their beliefs and accepting them as your own. Please remember that only you are the one to decide what your experience will be.”    http://www.homeopathiccare.ca/IsHomeopathyaScam2.php

16) For a good bird’s eye perspective on the world of homeopathy, and the authentic amazing power of the placebo, consider this illustration. You’re sitting in your basement formulating hundreds of bottles full of 100% fake sugar pills. When finished, you do some research on what’s ailing people the most. Look, a lot of people are suffering from arthritis. You then label each bottle: “Homeopathic remedy to help alleviate arthritis”. There’s more.    

You have a lot of money to spend on advertising, so you hire professionals to create a slick internet campaign to promote your product. You sell hundreds of bottles! What’s the result? At least 25% and possibly as much as 50% of buyers will send you an unsolicited email telling you: “Thanks, your product helped alleviate my pain.” Welcome to the world of homeopathy!

17)  Some marketers actually sell Homeopathy First Aid Kits. It could be very unhealthy to use a non-existent remedy in an emergency situation. Who knew that certain homeopathic remedies could counteract the "effects of fear"? Just three of the mixtures out of a total of 18 for only $54.99 are:

Aconite (the “queen of poisons”): for colds, flu, sore throats, effects of fear, fright, chicken pox and croup.

Arnica: after injury, mental and physical shock, before and after operations or visits to the dentist. Stops bleeding, aids in the healing of wounds and reduces bruising and swelling.

Arsen alb (arsenic): stomach upsets from food poisoning, diarrhea, vomiting and acute hayfever. Good for some dry skin conditions.