Homeopathy... Anyone had any experience... saw one today and she said something rather strange....

[poppiesinaline]

she noticed that my children had long curly eyelashes and asked if someone in the family in past generations has ever had TB?

Apparently, if someone in the family has had TB, someone in the 2/3 generation later will have long curly eyelashes

Just rather odd I thought..... What on earth has curly eyelashes got to do with a lung disease!?

Hipmummy - I can answer for myself. It doesn't bother me what people spend their time, money and energy on. Each to their own. It bothers me when claims are made about the non-existent scientific basis of homeopathy - and it's in this context that I queried the statement made earlier. I think that's dumbing-down what science is about and as a scientist I think that's what bothers me. I also "understand" the basic principles of homeopathy, I just don't swallow them. The same way I don't believe in tarot reading, or coffee grounds reading, even if it takes years to fine-tune the art. Or if you like, the way I don't believe in religion. If I accepted the basics of it, the rest would follow easily. It's that first step which I find impossible to take. Only it's more difficult to talk about religion, isn't it?

I don't think it was courgettes, it was crusty bread. They ARE linked to curly eyelashes, and that's a fact. (I read it somewhere on the 'net.)

Sugarmagnolia - I think the scientific community is resourceful enough and imaginative enough to get their heads round different ways of thinking, including measuring outcomes in homeopathy. Why isn't it happening? Now there's a state-funded institute for this too, so can't be lack of will or money.

Actually Christina it is being done. The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital did a survey of over 23,000 patients between 1997 and 2003."More than 70% of follow-up patients, overall, reported clinical improvement following homeopathic treatment." The Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital followed up 100 patients, 81% of whom failed to respond to conventional treatment. "After 1 year 60% of patients improved in the presenting complaint."

There's lots more too - Research in homeopathy

The problem is, I don't think the scientific community, as a whole, is "imaginative" enough. Much of this research would be dismissed as not being "scientific" enough.

By the way, that link is from the joint website of the Faculty of Homeopathy and the British Homeopathic Association. The Faculty is the primary body in the UK for regulating the teaching and practice of homeopathy by medically qualified healthcare professionals (ie any doctor, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, vet or midwife who practices homeopathy should be qualified by the Faculty). The BHA is a charity that promotes research and education.

I couldn't acess the Spence paper, but any trial where improvment of disease/symptom is measured simply by reporting a patient's perception of clinical signs is flawed. I like to see hard evidence - changes in biochemical physiology/histology etc etc.

Sophable - for a genetic heart condition there could be a link to another physical characteristic, be it hooded eyes, stumpy fingers, blonde hair, whatever.

The thing that is bonkers is suggesting that an infectious condition that was widespread 100 years ago is responsible for an outbreak of curly eyelashes in 2007

There are loads of self-report symptom change papers in reputable journals, highlander, for conventional medical issues/therapies. Most of the ones my department has published are of this type. We publish in well regarded medical journals and they can't all be described as 'flawed'. Funding for studies showing changes in histology etc is hard to come by, so most have to go the patient self-report route first.

That should have read - 'for conventional medical issues/therapies too '.

ah you see highlander that's where a omeopath and a conventional doctor disagree completely. We believe that curing somebody means making them actually feel better, not altering some number on a test and still levaing them feeling like crap, often from the side effects of the drugs given to cause the alteration in histology.

Sorry FCandNK, no idea. I'm sure your old homeopath wouldn't mind you calling to ask the details of old treatments though.

prufrock- haveb;t forgotton just haven;t had time to get to it all.

hip- exactly- and something that was said in a Science lecture I once attended. Homeopathy originally became popular because it was better at curing people than the alternative available at the time. Now orthodox medicine is better at curing heart disease - etc -anything involving surgery basically. I don't think its better at "curing" (not supressing symptoms) of many other conditions though- especially viaral ones. It can do pretty much bugger all for glue ear for example and repeated ear infection except grommets (ie surgery) and repeated antibiotics which may or may not (according to literature no better than placebo for most ear infections). I'll try the alternatives thanks.

A big part of homeoptahy training btw is in teaching homeopaths to pass on when their patients needs to consult an orthodox doctor. So for example when the patient may be showing signs of cancer, or another serious condition. Some GP surgeries work with (non medically qualified) homeopaths. It can work well.

Droile - exactly my approach. If something is a) unlikely to cause harm b) affordable for me I'll give it a whirl.

RanToTheHills - are you sure it was a Homeopath you saw? I didn't think homeopaths burned your toes and gave you herbs? Sounds like some other kind of therapist. (Traditional Chinese maybe?)

Highlander - thank you for proving my point.

SM - I followed your link but I'm not any more reassured. So they find flaws with a review of homeopathic trials published in The Lancet showing that homeopathy is no different to placebo. Now I won't necessarily accept a conclusion just because it's in The Lancet, but on the whole that's far more credible than an unsigned critique on a website. So all they can come up with are two studies that show some effectiveness vs placebo. A good starting point. I wonder how many hundreds others never got published because they showed nothing.

Re glue ear - Last time I was seriously interested in this (a few years ago when DS who is deaf was deafened further by glue ear) the medical recommendations based i think on a Cochrane review were to "do nothing", i.e. no antibiotics or grommets because it's a self-limiting condition. In these circumstances I think anything would "work" as they rely on time which is in fact what "works".

Cristina, you are right the evidence for treating ear infections supports pain relief only and in Holland they haven't used antibiotics for over 35 years. I have lots of family/friends who swear by homeopathy for joint ailments but I wonder sometimes if drs in conventional medicine would be more "popular" if they had hour long consultations! I did some work experience with a homeopath and it horrified me when he suggested and asthmatic child would have to stop all conventional treatment before he could be expected to treat him. I have seen a 10 year old die of asthma after forgetting to take his inhalers on a plane .I am terrified of the thought of homeopaths treating children for serious conditions.

amelia - I too would be horrified at a homeopath that suggested stopping any conventional medicine without first consulting your doctor. Most qualified homeopaths would never dream of suggesting such a thing.

All I can say, one must read the Badscience website and what it says there about Homeopathy...sums it up for me!
CoV...the endresult of a homeopathic remedy is a sugar pearl whith hardly anything else...because appanrelty the weaker the "curing ingredients" the stronger the remedy...hm........

Rubberduck, sorry but the immunology study you quoted wasn't blind. Has been exposed as unsound.

Can anyone point me to the study that shows homeopathy 'works a lot of the time'?

Sugarmagnolia - re: RCTs:- why can't the homeopaths do an intention-to-treat study? This doesn't require that everyone should be given the same treatment. Only that:-

1. everyone recruited should be fully assessed by a qualified homeopath;
2. the homeopath should write a prescription;
3. the homeopath and the patient should agree on what would constitute a worthwhile improvement after an agreed course of treatment (the end-point);
4. the patients should be randomised to receive either what the homeopath prescribed or a placebo, and neither the homeopath nor the patient should know which;
5. after the agreed course the patient and the homeopath should meet again and then each rate whether the end point was achieved.

Surely that should settle the matter to everyone's satisfaction? So why don't they go for it?

badscience on homeopathy, etc

Question for those who consult homeopaths - do they ever say any of the following:-

What you describe is completely normal, nothing to worry about and you don't need treatment

or

What you describe is condition X, it will get better by itself and you don't need treatment

or

What you describe is condition Y, but I can't give you anything that will help so I am going to refer you to someone who can

or

There's nothing wrong with you/your child/your rabbit, please go away and stop wasting my time

?

yes- last time I saw my homeopath she said "you know I think what you describeis a completey normal reaction to the situation you're in, I thoughtit was sepia- but it isn't, it's just that the situation is extreme and you are reating normally, and coping with it".

She has previously told dh that he needed to cut back on working hours and if he didn't then nothing was going to help, and there wasn't really a remedy if he didn't do that, cutting back on work was more important than homeopathy.

Jimjams2, what do you think about the intention-to-treat trial idea?

eemie - i think intention to treat is an excellent idea. Unfortunately I think many homeopaths can be quite evangelical and so would not consider not treating someone to provide proof to a conventional scientific community whose opinion they don't care about anyway. One of teh most frutrating tings I am finding in my studies is how many of my tutors and fellow students don't care about why homeopathy works and are willing to just accept that it does. And many of them can't understand how I can commit to a long study course whilst still being quite cynical about some parts of it.

It would be unlikely that a homeopath would say to somebody "you have consition X so...." as we don't diagnose illnesses, just treat the bodies response to them. (Does that make sense?). But as JimJams said, we are taught right from the beginning to recognize things that need to be referred to a conventional doctor.

It's also unlikely that a homepath would say "ther is nothing wrong with you" because if a patient thinks there is something wrong, then there is a problem, even if that is purely an overactive imagination.

And we also recognize and differentiate between acute and chronic cases - acute being self-limiting conditions. But if a condition is self-limiting it is because the immune system can sort it out - we would aim to give remedies that boost the immune system to sort it out more quickly than if left alone.

my homeopath spent some time working with HIV in Africa (voluntary). I attended a talk she went to. They worked with the orthodox drs. One of the things she mentioned was being able to persuade a very religious couple to start taking conventional drugs (which obviously can work well with HIV). The medics hadn't maaged to persuade them, but she did. It's not fair to suggest that homeopaths will never refer on eemie.

I don't have any problems at all with trials, but I think that until a mechanism is found that "proves" homeopathy works (it obviously doesn't work by molecular means) then many will remain hostile. .

prufrock- I promise to email you tonight with the details!