Sooky, sooky homeopaths

After the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) fired all of the barrels of their not insignificant scientific armoury at the 16^th Century sugar pills and potions prepared by homeopaths, the logic-dodgers at Homeopathy Plus decided that they would have a darnedgood sook about it.

 

“There were no qualified homeopaths on the panel.” 

 

Off to a lousy start! To imagine that you need to be a ‘qualified’ homeopath to determine the quality of evidence is to equate having to have a ‘qualified’ psychic to test talking to the dead.  The review of studies does not require a party whose studies are being examined, in fact if one was involved there could be a resultant conflict of interest or even a bias that might affect the outcome.

 

So, scratch that from the argument as sour grapes.  Too bad.

 

Then Homeopathy Plus ventures straight into the resort of the woo and nonsense peddlers from almost all pseudo-scientists, the ‘special pleading’. “that homeopathy is practised by very different principles to those of conventional medicine.” Well, how about that. Homeopathy doesn't work via the same principles as ‘conventional medicine’ or as science calls it, ‘medicine’.  They wanted the NHMRC to focus on ‘principles and clinical practice’ instead of double blinded random clinical tests.  What they mean by this is “we’ll show you a bunch of stuff we’ve done with tales from our clients and our ‘specialist’ that make homeopathy shine like a beacon in the dark.” rather than the actual evidence that shows it doesn’t work any better than a sugar pill.  No surprise there because a great proportion of homeopathy is a sugar pill.  

 

Scratch that as “we’re special, you don’t understand us.” 

 

Next they make another attempt to show that homeopathy is special again.  This time by condescendingly pointing out that the NHMRC need to be shown how to understand how to see homeopathy’s effectiveness. “the AHA has recommended the NHMRC take “a more comprehensive approach  so that the evidence for its effectiveness is more easily understood and studied”  A really backhanded slap to the experts at the NHMRC.  They go on to indicate that a lack of this understanding is “This alone has had a negative impact on the NHMRC findings”. Right, that’s all sorted then. 

 

Scratched as more ‘special pleading with a dose of insult.”

 

Homeopathy Plus then calls for the reinforcements from the Australian Traditional Medicine Society (ATMS)  The ATMS is an association of almost every type of pseudo medicine that you can imagine.  If you have the time, click on all of these and see how many contradict the methodologies of any or all of the others. 

 

Acupuncture                                         Counselling                     Reflexognosy 

Aromatherapy                                      Homoeopathy                 Reflexology 

Ayurvedic Medicine                            Hypnotherapy                 RemedialMassage 
Bowen                                                   Kinesiology                     RemedialTherapies

Chinese Herbal Medicine                 MyofascialRelease       Rolfing 

Chinese Massage                               Naturopathy                   Shiatsu 

Chiropractic                                          Nutrition                          Thai Massage 

Complete Decongestive Therapy    Osteopathy                     TibetanMedicine 

Western Herbal Medicine

 

The ATMS reverses the burden of proof, another crappy arguing method used by cranks. “has no compelling evidence of a lack of effectiveness with homeopathy, just a lack of high quality studies” They then think that someone else should prove their nonsense should be tested by anybody except those people who sell it.  Isn’t that just what happened? All the existing decent trials were examined and no sound results were found.  Now they want MORE studies after 250 years, if it hasn’t shown results, my guess is it won’t ever.  And if they want to tout homeopathy they should show its effectiveness before they sell any more. 

 

Scratched.  The burden of proof lies with the claimant or proponent, not anyone else.

 

The “NHMRC exclusion of homeopathic prophylactic studies” The NHMRC wanted proof that homeopathy actually works when applied as described.

 

Scratched.  They really love special pleading. "They won’t listen to our poorly monitored and non blinded ‘tests’"

 

Finally, we have “ooo, it was expensive and took three years”  You would think that Homeopathy Plus would be really pleased that experts whose approval they crave took three years to fund and execute a comprehensive study into the effects of homeopathy.  That is exactly the very thing they have called for in this tantrum.  I believe that no study, however extensive, comprehensive or expensive would ever satisy Homeopathy Plus or the ATMS until it showed that magic shaken water, acupuncture, naturopathy, ayurvedic and all the other nonsense all worked. 

 

Scratched.  We all know that’s NEVER gonna happen.

Homeopathy "Reporting"

This is the first time I have been driven to a post. No, not by an automobile, by bloody fool mindedness. I set my Google News to have Homeopathy section which I'm fairly certain I set just to annoy myself. This piece of Homeopathy reporting appeared in The Guardian's Liberty Voice on 6 April 2014. I was unable to stop myself writing way too many words about this appalling piece of puffery. 

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/allergies-and-use-of-homeopathy/

Sadly it is not reporting at all, merely a pro-Homeopathy sales pitch that is loaded with logical fallacies and flat out assertions which, had I been the reporter would have questioned or at least, pointed out. I will do my best at pointing them out here. Beware, I may snark or rant because Homeopathy is unproven, magical wishing 'medicine'.  If I remove all of the total nonsense that is in this 'article' all that is left are two facts:

1) that if you want effective treatment for allergies, go see a Doctor of Medicine and they may prescribe actual medicine that may let you cope with the symptoms. 

2) Official medicine does not recognize homeopathy as a useful and effective method of disease treatment

Those are the two recommendations I can live with. As for the rest, read it and giggle. 

The black text is the original article, the blue, my comments. 

Allergies and Use of Homeopathy

Modern medicine is rapidly evolving in many areas, 

Yes it is but this is an example of the Red Herring fallacy, The fact that modern medicine is evolving has nothing to do with homeopathy which is based on hypotheses that are over 250 years old and have never been shown to work better than a placebo.

however, more and more people are deciding for the use of homeopathy to fight against allergies. 

This is the fallacy of popularity. People using any method or product does not demonstrate that it actually works.  

Homeopathy uses medicines that are adapted to the individual and tries to capture an overall health status of a person, not just the symptoms. 

Wow that's really impressive. 

Medicine: "a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease." 
I suppose you can call a homeopathic preparation medicine based on that definition, but a sugar pill or water drops that contain no discernible other constituents doesn't meet my criteria for medicine.  "adapted to the individual and tries to capture an overall health status of a person" Sounds really useful, Somehow a homeopath can specially adapt a medicine to you. How a homeopathic 'remedy' is adapted to an individual is through a few questions asked by the Homeopath and their imagination. No two Homeopaths will administer the same medicine to the same person suffering the same symptoms. The 'overall health status ... not just the symptoms" is another go at the red herring fallacy. It proposes that the homeopath does things doctors don't do. One of Homeopathy's main tenets is that 'remedies' are based upon the symptoms that they cause. A doctor will ask you questions about your health, fitness, diet and the symptoms. If they do not, change doctors. 

Homeopath must consider the complexity of the sick person’s symptoms and compare them with similar symptoms,

Making the homeopath sound like a mystic by 'considering the complexity' is just subterfuge. The question I would pose is 'What similar symptoms?' and "What do they have to do with the patients actual symptoms?" Evaluation of a patients symptoms is exactly what a doctor does, except a doctor has been trained at Medical School and anyone can set up a practice and call themselves a Homeopath.  

which could be caused by an individual substance in larger quantities.

Could the individual substance in larger quantities be poisoning then? This is a subtle reference to Homeopathic theory which nonsensically presumes that symptom you are suffering that could be caused by a substance (onions or poison ivy) can be cured by administering minute (none) amounts of the same substance. 

Although many believe that allergies are mostly a problem of modern time, mankind has already faced them in the old civilizations like Egyptian.  There are numerous historical records that talk about allergy to pollen, specific food and animal products. 

The assertion that 'many believe' neither demonstrates or proves that their is any evidence that anyone believes allergies are 'modern' This is another fallacy, the appeal to ancient wisdom. It is a very poor appeal because it only states that mankind has has the problem of allergies for a long time.

Some studies argue that the number of allergies is increasing due to environmental pollution, too stressful life and poorer quality of food and air. 

"Some studies" If you are going to claim that some studies 'argue', not 'show' the number of allergies is increasing, more than the claim is necessary, a citation should be include otherwise this is another simple assertion. Saying something is so without any evidence is neither a valid argument or evidence. 

40 percent of the population has the possibility of an allergic reaction to a substance that is otherwise harmless. 

Very vague numbers. 40% have the 'possibility' of a reaction? This is near to meaningless. A reaction to something shows that it is NOT harmless, it shows it causes allergic reaction. 

Antihistamines and corticosteroids are effective drugs, but especially in the long-term use they have unpleasant side effects. The advantage of treating allergies with homeopathic medicines is the absence of side effects, which is particularly important for most vulnerable groups (children, elderly, pregnant women, athletes, nursing mothers). 

Hooray! There is effective treatment for allergies! Antihistamines and corticosteroids. Thank a homeop... Oh, actual medicine. Not developed or administered by homeopaths. 

"Unpleasant side effects." All medicine which has an effect, has side effects. There are NO exceptions to this. Claiming that Homeopathic medicines have no side effect demonstrates that they have no effect. 

Homeopathic treatment of allergies is already recommended in the preventive phase; otherwise the use of powerful pharmaceutical drugs may be necessary. 

If Homeopathic treatment is recommended in the preventative phase, does this mean you should see a Homeopath BEFORE you have any symptoms?  Who recommends homeopathy in this case would be nice to know too.  Sadly there are no sources included. This time 'powerful pharmaceutical drugs' is sounding scary and only to be used when necessary. These are just more assertions not backed up with any references. 

If there is no other option, homeopathy can also be used in the phase of simultaneous treatment with prescription. 

'Simultaneous treatment with prescription'.  This is what is known as 'Piggy backing'. It is not an uncommon ploy. When a patient is using both Homeopathy and actual medicine and improves, Homeopaths claim the success. It is shabby and unprofessional action. 

Homeopathic medicines are based on the assumption that the only effective medicine is the one that causes symptoms similar to the disease that should be treated.

Notice that Homeopathic medicines are only based on the assumption, not the actual evidence. 

Hay fever, caused by pollen is the most common health problem of people with tendencies to allergy. Typical symptoms of pollen allergy are red and watery eyes (conjunctivitis), sneezing, swollen mucous and nasal discharge. For the prevention or mitigation of hay fever, homeopaths recommend medicine which is a special blend of homeopathic allergens that cause allergy to pollen. This medicine is also appropriate when the first symptoms of hay fever occur.

Homeopaths recommend medicine which is a special blend of homeopathic allergens that cause allergy to pollen. This directly contradicts and earlier statement about symptoms caused by an individual substance. This is trying to have it both ways. It is also NOT 'adapted to the individual', but if you got this far, you've probably forgotten this.

An important supplement to treat allergies is also a preparation of black currant, which has anti-inflammatory activity and stimulates the immune system. Herbal preparation is made from the tip of black currant. The young shoots of this plant contain a lot of embryonic tissue which has an effect on the adrenal gland and stimulates the secretion of cortisone. Cortisone is beneficial in reducing inflammatory processes in the body, which includes allergic reactions such as hay fever, conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, hives and eczema.

Finally, this article seems to make a recommendation, but no, it carefully explained that a 'preparation' of black currant is an 'important supplement to treat allergies'. Notice that is not a 'treatment' for allergies, just an 'important supplement'.  This is because Homeopaths are not actually allowed to claim effective treatment. 

It is claimed that black currant shoots contain embryonic tissue and that that tissue has an effect on the adrenal gland so that the adrenal gland excretes cortisone. None of this is demonstrated, referenced or proven. The shoots may contain undifferentiated cells, but only seeds have embryos. The shoot of a plant is about as far from a seed as you can get and still be on the plant.

Homeopathy has a long history of successful allergies treatment and homeopaths have made important contributions to today’s understanding of allergies.

A list of these successes would be effective evidence. Naming the preparations that are used would be useful so you evaluate them, but no. 

Treatment with homeopathy can be used for many different types of allergies. 

Still no mention of which actual allergies Homeopathy can be 'used' for and again it is not allergies that can be cured or even alleviated, just 'used'. 

It can also be used in milder and severe disease conditions, but it cannot be used for diseases which already led to irreversible damage. 

Repeatedly stating an assertion without reference, evidence or even examples is not a useful argument. 

Official medicine does not recognize homeopathy as a useful and effective method of the disease treatment, but more and more individuals are choosing this type of treatment.

So, to finish, they reinforce Homeopathy's inclusion into the field of medicine by introducing the differentiator 'official' to medicine and fall back on the popular fallacy a final time.  Not a single Doctor of Medicine or reputable scientist on the planet would call Medicine "Official". 

Addendum: The morning after I posted this, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council released their draft report into Homeopathy.

My friend Dr Rachel Dunlop has a good post about it on her blog The Skeptics Book of Pooh Pooh. I also to forgot to link to HowDoesHomeopathyWork.com