"Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy" story

Myksyk

I am not arguing that current research has 'proved' Homeopathy.
Rather, I believe it clearly shows that it remains an open question.

Firstly, can I iterate again for all of us that 'proof' of a scientific theory is not possible so we're not after proof. We're after a substantial body of supporting data which demonstrates significant and replicable effects. We would also like a workable, falsifiable and coherent theory to embed data in. We have none of the above.

So, in one way, you can say that it is "an open question" as long as you don't think this means it is as likely to be scientifically valid as not (which I think is your implication). A fair assessment is that the current status of homeopathy is as an almost completely unsupported idea without any workable theoretical base. It is an open question in the same way as any unsupported, unanswered question is 'open'.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

THe skeptic's position should be that it is not impossible for these claims to be correct

Agreed, in theory. However, in practice, this is what the skeptic's position comes across as.

Re: Infinitesimal,

I think it's quite clear that Hahnemann believed that the actions of his high dilutions were an entirely different mode of action than that of the macro doses.

From the Organon, aphorism 16 -
(link)
"..and in like manner, all such morbid derangements (diseases) cannot be removed from it by the physician in any other way than by the spirit-like alternative powers of the serviceable medicines"

bonkey wrote:

The effect of the drugs being used in traditional medicine is biochemical in nature. They work at a molecular level. Quantum effects just don't come into play at those sales.

That's fair enough, but we are not comparing like with like here, as homeopathy is clearly not 'traditional medicine'.

bonkey wrote:

The water memory theory is much more recent, stemming I think from Bienveniste in 1988. He went on to claim that these memories could be transferred thru the internet ... how? well like most of his theories he had no idea.

That's correct, and the transmission via digitisation was one of the more bizarre claims of that time. However subsequent research based on the histamine model employed at the time has been far more conventional.

bonkey wrote:

..The idea that when all molecules of the substance have been removed through the appropriate molecular-level process, there is still some molecular-level effect is, simply put, exceptional.

It is, if you assume that the previous interactions of the substance in the system have left no modification to that system.

myksyk wrote:

Even if a 'memory' existed, how would it effect other macro biological systems? What properties are still 'in effect'?

I am not going to speculate on what properties may remain, sufficient to say that the development of the theory in the past would suggest that some similar properties remain, although they may be in opposition [e.g. inhibitory effects instead of stimulatory ones]

myksyk wrote:

Are all properties still remembered? Does the water and sugar also have all the properties of the original substance?

No, they clearly don't, otherwise they would act identically to the original macroscopic substance.

myksyk wrote:

He never tried to assess (and in fairness was probably unaware of) the impacts of the multitude of psychological, perceptual, social and physical factors which we're aware today will impact a good percentage of people in any clinincal setting.

I don't think it's fair to assume this.

myksyk wrote:

..Instead of this you opt favour the future possibility of an extraordinary new theory of chemistry to explain these simple effects.

I'm arguing the point.

I see a lot of misinformation about why it couldn't possibly work, and a widespread lack of understanding about the claims actually made by the "theory".

I agree that it requires exceptional changes to established science, but I can understand that it possibly might work, given certain additional complexities that may as yet have been elusive.

myksyk wrote:

Firstly, can I iterate again for all of us that 'proof' of a scientific theory is not possible ..

Please note that the punctuation is not accidental.

myksyk wrote:

We would also like a workable, falsifiable and coherent theory to embed data in.

That would be great, unfortunately not always possible.

What I take issue with is your claim that there is 'no shred of evidence', yet there have been multiple positive trials, that, while perhaps not convincingly making the case for Homeopathy, do at least make it very unlikely that an assertion like 'there is no evidence' is true.

Peanut

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin CM. (2004)

"A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of individualised homeopathic treatment (LM potency)
versus placebo concluded that individualised homeopathy is significantly better than placebo
in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and overall health of persons with
fibromyalgia."


Pharmacoeconomic comparison between homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in recurrent
acute rhinopharyngitis in children. Homeopathy. 2005
Trichard M, Chaufferin G, Nicoloyannis N.

"Results showed that homeopathy was significantly better than antibiotics in terms of episodes of
rhinopharyngitis (2.71 vs 3.97, p<0.001), number of complications (1.25 vs 1.95, p<0.001) and quality of life
(global score: 21.38 vs 30.43, p<0.001)"



Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double
blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. European Journal of Paediatrics (2005).
Frei,-H; Everts,-R; von-Ammon,-K; Kaufmann,-F; Walther,-D; Hsu-Schmitz,-S-F; Collenberg,-M; Fuhrer,-K;
Hassink,-R; Steinlin,-M; Thurneysen,-A

"The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions."



An experimental double-blind clinical trial in homoeopathy. British Homoeopathic Journal 1986;
Fisher P.

"In a randomised placebo-controlled trial of patients with fibrositis, only those patients in whom Rhus
toxicodendron was "unequivocally indicated" were admitted to the study. After 1 months treatment,
there were highly significant improvements in objective and subjective parameters."


Homeopathic Arnica montana for post-tonsillectomy analgesia: a randomised placebo control trial
A. Robertson, R. Suryanarayanan, A Banerjee (2006)
ENT Department, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
ENT Department, Arrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK
ENT Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK

"Randomised double blind, placebo controlled trial at a tertiary referral centre. 190 patients over the age of 18 undergoing tonsillectomy were randomised into intervention and control groups receiving either Arnica 30c or identical placebo, 2 tablets 6 times in the first post-operative day and then 2 tablets twice a day for the next 7 days.
..
The results of this trial suggest that Arnica montana given after tonsillectomy provides a small, but statistically significant, decrease in pain scores compared to placebo."



Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Using Homeopathic Preparation of Common Allergens in the
Southwest Region of the US: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.
Ann Pharmacother. 2005 Apr;39(4):617-24. Epub 2005 Mar 1.
Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF.

Double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations from common allergens (tree, grass, weed)
with placebo. 40 patients diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms
were treated over a 4 week period. Results showed significant positive changes in the homeopathy group
compared with the placego group (p<0.05). No adverse effects were reported.


Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm. Res. 2004; 53: 181-188.
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC.

"In a multi-centre study including four research centres in Europe the effect of high dilutions of histamine
(10-30 . 10-38 M) were confirmed. Researchers were able to document that high dilutions of histamine inhibit
human basophil degranulation. Results cannot be explained through molecular theories."

(a previous related trial was -
Davenas, E., Beauvais, F., Amara, J., Oberbaum, M., Robinzon, B., Miadonna, A., Tedeschi, A., Pomeranz, B.,
Fortner, P., Belon, P., Sainte-Laudy, J., Poitevin, B., and Benveniste, J. "Human Basophil Degranulation
Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Against IgE." )



The effect of the homeopathic remedies Arnica montana and Bellis perennis on mild postpartum bleeding—A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study—Preliminary results
Menachem Oberbauma,Narine Galoyanb, Liat Lerner-Gevac, Shepherd Roee
Singera, Sorina Grisarub, David Shashard and Arnon Samueloffb

"Treatment with homeopathic Arnica montana and Bellis perennis may reduce postpartum blood loss, as compared with placebo."



Particularite de l´utilisation de l´homeopathie en production avicole. Annals of th Entretiens Internationaux
de Monaco 2002., 5-6 October 2002.
Filliat C.

In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 % in
turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded.



Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenic-induced toxicity in mice
P Mallick, J Chakrabarti (Mallick), B Guha and AR Khuda-Bukhsh

"Both Arsenicum Album-30 and Arsenicum Album-200 ameliorated arsenic-induced toxicity to a considerable
extent as compared to various controls."



Aspirin at Very Ultra Low Dosage in Healthy Volunteers: Effects on Bleeding Time, Platelet Aggregation and
Coagulation.
Haemostasis, 1990, 20: 99-105.

"Aspirin at very ultra low dosage was tested in healthy volunteers (n = 20) in a randomized, double-blind and
placebo-controlled trial. The results showed a bleeding time reduction (p less than 0.05) in volunteers having
previously ingested aspirin."




Combination of two doses of acetyl salicylic acid : experimental study of arterial thrombosis. Thrombosis
Research 1998; 90: 215.21
Belougne-Malfatti E, Aguejouf O, Doutremepuich F, Belon P. Doutremepuich C.

"The antithrombotic effect of high dose acetylsalicylic acid is well known, and recently, in vitro studies hinted
the potent thrombotic effect of ultra-low dose of acetylsalicylic acid (<1mg/day) showing a significant decrease in bleeding time.
..
Acetylsalicylic acid injected at ultra-low dose (10(-30) mg/kg) had a potent thrombotic properties and
decreased significantly the bleeding time."



Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride
Prof. Louis Rey
Chemin de Verdonnet 2, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland

"Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30 gcm−3)
have been irradiated by X- and γ-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed
to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been
studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro
number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially."



Need to find a link to the paper for this one -
Professor Martin Chaplin
Water and Aqueous Systems Research, London South Bank University,

"The 'memory of water' is a concept by which the properties of an aqueous preparation are held to depend
on the previous history of the sample. Although associated with the mechanism of homeopathy,
this association may mislead. There is strong evidence concerning many ways in which the mechanism of this
'memory' may come about.
There are also mechanisms by which such solutions may possess effects on biological systems which
substantially differ from plain water."




These last two are very recent so have not been replicated yet, to the best of my knowledge -


The 'Memory of Water': an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions
V. Elia, E. Napoli and R. Germano
Dipto. di Chimica, Universita Federico II di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, via
Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy; (May 2007)

" In the last decade, we have investigated from the physicochemical point of view, whether water prepared
by the procedures of homeopathic medicine (leading inexorably to systems without any molecule different from the solvent) results in water different from the initial water?

The answer, unexpectedly, but strongly supported by many experimental results is positive. We used
well-established physicochemical techniques: flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell
electrodes potential. Unexpectedly the physicochemical parameters evolve in time.
...
These new experimental results strongly suggest the presence of an extended and 'ordered' dynamics
involving liquid water molecules. "



The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy
Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R. Bell and Richard Hoover
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
July 2007

"The key stumbling block to serious consideration of homeopathy is the presumed "implausibility" of biological
activity for homeopathic medicines in which the source material is diluted past Avogadro's number of
molecules. Such an argument relies heavily on the assumptions of elementary chemistry (and biochemistry),
in which the material composition of a solution, (dilution factors and ligand-receptor interactions), is the essential consideration.
..
Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet-Visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to
distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and
to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies."

Myksyk

Thanks for the list of references Peanut. I don't feel literate enough in the area to assess them so I had a friend look at your posts and comment. He is a highly regarded academic with a strong interest in this area and these are some of his comments in an email to me:

I note that in posting #49, Peanut cites a set of meta-analyses--I would like to comment on these.

Essentially, one problem with many published meta-analyses is that they are confined to covering published literature, which can--for many reasons--vary in quality. There are basic statistical reasons why poor methodological quality (which undermines statistical homogeneity and so creates spurious variance) would be associated with false-positives (a.k.a. Type II errors) rather than with missed-targets (a.k.a. Type I errors). In other words, poor methodological quality increases the risk of finding something that isn't there to a greater extent than it increases the risk of failing to find something that is there. For example, in relation to acupuncture, Ezzo et al. (2000; Pain, 86: 217-25) showed that the association between poor methodological quality and false positives was so strong as to be statistically significant.

I mention this because most of the meta-analyses cited by Peanut fail to account for such effects, at least explicitly. If one were to examine one of the first reviews on his list (Linde et al., 1997), one would find that these authors found the effects for homeopathy to be loaded onto the methodologically weakest trials. In other words, when Linde et al. confined consideration to the methodologically best trials, the effect for homeopathy weakened. The most conventional interpretation for this type of pattern is that the effect that was reported was an artifact of poor methodological quality--not an outcome of real effects for homeopathy. Linde et al. themselves published a detailed explanation of this in 1999 (J Clin Epidemiology, 52: 631-6). I assume that Peanut didn't mention this because either (a) s/he doesn't undertsand the basic point or (b) s/he isn't aware of the second paper. If the latter, then we might question whether Peanut is actually quite as knowledgable regarding the pertinent literature as her/his lengthy lists of citations might be intended to imply.

To some extent, similar issues pertain to the other reviews as well. This is why the Shang et al. (2005) analysis in Lancet (366: 726-32) was considered so important (and, indeed, so newsworthy). This analysis sought to control for methodological quality by matching a set of 110 homeopathy trials with 110 allopathy trials, where the matched studies had virtually identical methodologies to their homeopathy twins. This allowed the authors to theoretically account for the effects of methodology and methodological quality, such that the comparative difference in variance could be attributed to treatment outcome effects. Surprise, surprise, after doing this the authors found the apparent effects for homeopathy to be so small as to be completely attributable to methodological quality. In other words, the meta-analysis found homeopathy to have no effect beyond the statistical 'noise in the system' that one would expect to find in any trial.

Given that the Shang et al. paper controlled for one of the conventional problems of meta-analysis, it is surprising that Peanut fails to cite it. Its recent publication means that it effectively trumps all meta-analyses that went before.

I note that Peanut subsequently enters into a laborious citation of individual studies (posting #54). This would appear to be pointless. If looking at individual studies was worthwhile, then why have (or discuss) meta-analysis at all? Either one accepts that individual trials are unreliable (which is the justification for meta-analysis) or one does not.

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

"..Researchers have just published what could be the first hard evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support the central idea behind homoeopathy..."

. Rather curiously, he now seems to provide a mind boggling number of other studies which he now claims prove homoeopathy works, although previously he had said that this "could" be the first hard evidence. I'm confused.

If one looks at the evidence produced, it is all non specific and generalised.

Peanut wrote:

" is significantly better than placebo
...was significantly better than antibiotics in terms of episodes of
rhinopharyngitis ... suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ....highly significant improvements in objective and subjective parameters...this trial suggest that Arnica montana given after tonsillectomy provides a small, but statistically significant, decrease in pain scores compared to placebo...significant positive changes in the homeopathy group
compared with the placego group... may reduce postpartum blood loss, as compared with placebo... to a considerable extent as compared to various controls...decreased significantly the bleeding time."

Personally, I am more interested in whether it works or not, and consider it premature to speculate how it works until such times as it is proven if it works. If one reads the quotes above, they mean nothing at all as they all are unquantifiable. "Is significantly better" means precisely nothing, and what we need are facts such as "is 33% better than placebo", and then we need that trial to be replicated a number of times, by different authorities, to assess and all the results subjected to peer review.

The only place where a number is recorded in Peanuts long post was a claim that haemotomas in Turkeys were reduced as follows;

Peanut wrote:

In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 % in
turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded."

It seems quite a claim to make.

Remember the golden rule of homoeopathy, " Homeopathic medicines are prescribed individually by the study of the whole person, according to basic temperament and responses"

And here's something else I don't understand. Did the guys who conducted the trial give all the turkeys the same homoeopathic remedy, or did they give each turkey a different remedy specific to his or her temperament? If the latter, how did they determine the temperament of the turkeys, and if the former and just gave them all the same remedy, surely that's breaking the golden rule of homoeopathy?

Peanut

Myksyk,
Your colleague makes a fair point that factors such as publication bias may be likely to increase the perceived effect size when purported lower-quality studies are included. This is a problem with many trials, not just of homeopathy.

However, it's not quite right to assume that such an effect will invalidate an analysis - after all, the abstract of the Linde study specifically takes this into account ("The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10).").

Incidentally, in relation to the Shang study (triumphantly headlined in the Lancet as "The End of Homeopathy"), a mere 8 Homeopathic trials were actually used in determining the odds ratio for each type of treatment.
Also, as is the case with most of the meta-analysis, we don't actually have information on what studies were included, which makes it rather difficult to verify independently.

jawlie wrote:

Rather curiously, he now seems to provide a mind boggling number of other studies which he now claims prove homoeopathy works, although previously he had said that this "could" be the first hard evidence. I'm confused.

Jawlie please, look at my posts, the quote marks are there to indicate a reference to someone else's material.

And, yet again, my basic point is being mis-represented - I am not claiming that Homeopathy is 'proven' (or even very likely) to be effective, only that the statement that 'There is no evidence of it's effectiveness' is highly unlikely to be true. There is evidence, yet it is contentious.

jawlie wrote:

If one looks at the evidence produced, it is all non specific and generalised.

Not so - although that statement is quite a generalisation itself.

jawlie wrote:

Personally, I am more interested in whether it works or not, and consider it premature to speculate how it works until such times as it is proven if it works.

How can something ever be 'proven' to work if no-one speculates about it, and then tests those assumptions?

jawlie wrote:

If one reads the quotes above, they mean nothing at all as they all are unquantifiable. "Is significantly better" means precisely nothing, and what we need are facts such as "is 33% better than placebo", and then we need that trial to be replicated a number of times, by different authorities, to assess and all the results subjected to peer review.

Oh come on... really...

jawlie wrote:

The only place where a number is recorded in Peanuts long post was a claim that haemotomas in Turkeys were reduced as follows;

Apologies but I thought reposting the entire papers would be a tad too much - I assume people can go look them up themselves, where available, and come to their own conclusions about the numbers involved.

jawlie wrote:

Remember the golden rule of homoeopathy, " Homeopathic medicines are prescribed individually by the study of the whole person, according to basic temperament and responses"

You're not wrong - how do you individualise for a turkey?

But you must remember the underlying purpose for the 'individualisation' is to get the best match of symptoms displayed in the patient vs. symptoms produced by the drug, with particular attention paid to recording even minor details.

This is called the 'totality of symptoms' in the literature, and is the over-arching reason for the individualisation of each diagnosis.

There have been many offshoots and alternative versions of the basic core of Homeopathy since it started in the late 19th century. Some of these will claim that in a disease affecting a large group, a pandemic for example, individualisation for each patient is unnecessary due to the fact that the totality of symptoms may be the same, or very similar, in each case. So as long as the symptoms are the same (including all relevant minor details, 'modalities' etc.), then you can just prescribe one drug for all of them.

This does seem to be a point of contention amongst homeopaths, however.

In relation to in-vitro studies, it again appears difficult how you would reconcile a homeopathic diagnosis to a petri dish. But, if you were approaching it from a conventional perspective, you would obviously be aware of what types of drugs were likely to affect the particular type of specimen you were testing. In a similar sense, the symptomology of a given homeopathic remedy will give pointers on what situations it may be thought to be appropriate to trial it in.

For material and physical based studies it's a lot easier - if it is possible to physically differentiate between two homeopathic remedies, or between a homeopathic remedy and a dummy, then we don't need to get involved with clinical diagnoses.

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

Myksyk,
You're not wrong - how do you individualise for a turkey?

This is called the 'totality of symptoms' in the literature, and is the over-arching reason for the individualisation of each diagnosis.

...Some of these will claim that in a disease affecting a large group, a pandemic for example, individualisation for each patient is unnecessary due to the fact that the totality of symptoms may be the same, or very similar, in each case. So as long as the symptoms are the same (including all relevant minor details, 'modalities' etc.), then you can just prescribe one drug for all of them.

This does seem to be a point of contention amongst homeopaths, however.

My understanding of homoeopathy is that homoeopaths believe they treat the cause, and not the symptoms, of a disease. The belief is that the symptoms are manifestations of an underlying cause, and in different people, the cause will be different for the same symptoms. Hence the belief to treat the individual, and the cause, and not the symptoms.

Quite how homoeopaths can believe this and then tell you, with their serious faces on, that homoeopathy "works" ( whatever that means) for animals too is one of those questions which I have never heard explained.

I once had dinner with the owner of a large homoeopathic company. We discussed homoeopathy and he waxed lyrical to the whole table, with his serious face on, about the theory behind homoeopathy and how it was all scientifically based, and this was interspersed with anecdote about how it worked on animals "so it must be more than placebo" and how the Queen Mother used it nod nod wink wink, to imply that it was largely responsible for her longevity.

So I asked him if it was true, in homoeopathy, that less really was more effective for curing disease and that, for example, the 200th potency was actually stronger than the 6th potency? He maintained his serious face and said that this was quite true and, in fact, the 200th potency could be quite "dangerous" as it was very powerful.

So I asked him a question. I asked him if it were true that less is more effective in homoeopathic terms, why did all his boxes of pills say "take two tablets"? Why not say "take one tablet" or "take half a tablet" as he had claimed this would be more effective? Surely his company was not giving medical instructions to its customers which actually made the remedy less effective that he claimed it could be, to merely sell more tablets?

Now his serious face changed to an embarassed face and he mumbled that it was mainly based on "research" that people liked to take two tablets, and that was the reason why they gave those instructions.

Much as those involved in the homoeopathic world might like us to believe otherwise, homoeopathy is a business. It's big business and makes big bucks for those involved.

I am not saying that all homoeopathy should be rubbished because one owner of one company is a charlatan, but I have also noticed that when a homoeopath gets something serious wrong with themselves, such is the strength of their convictions that they rush to the nearest conventional hospital for conventional drugs and conventional treatment.

It is over 160 years since Doctor Samuel Hahnemann has died, and in that time the world has made enormous advances in medicine, transport, communications etc etc, and life expectancey has increased by almost 20 years for us in the west. We have telephones, trains, cars, planes, MRI machines, anti biotics, pain killers, triple heart bypass operations, computers, satellites, moon & mars landings etc etc etc.

In that time homoeopathy has seemed to make no advances whatever and is still selling anecdote, and the biggest advance it seems to make is to come up with a theory ( ie not proven) that water has some sort of memory. Quite how this proves homoeopathy is effective seems unclear.

My guess is that in the next 160 years homoeopathy will still be selling anecdote and will still not have any clear evidence in the form of a double blind independent clinical trial subject to peer review and repeatable to obtain the same levels of evidence for their claims.

It seems incredible that such a large industry has not done this in 160 years, or at least they have never published the results of such a clinical trial if they have. Is it possible that such trials have been undertaken and the results not published by the homoeopathic industry?
Could someone who tells his customers to take two tablets to maximise his profits, (& thus make their medicine less effective by his own admission), choose to not publish results which might be embarrassing for him?

jawlie

As a footnote, the whole theory of water memory, originally proposed by Jacques Benveniste, has an interesting history. Although Benveniste claimed to have scientifically proved that water had this property, & the journal "Nature" published the results, independent scientists who subsequently examined Benvenistes work in his own lab claimed his science was "pseudoscience". Subsequently, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce his results.

Quite why the theory remains to appear to have credibility seems uncertain.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

My understanding of homoeopathy is that homoeopaths believe they treat the cause, and not the symptoms, of a disease. The belief is that the symptoms are manifestations of an underlying cause, and in different people, the cause will be different for the same symptoms. Hence the belief to treat the individual, and the cause, and not the symptoms.

Quite how homoeopaths can believe this and then tell you, with their serious faces on, that homoeopathy "works" ( whatever that means) for animals too is one of those questions which I have never heard explained.

What's the problem with this?

The symptoms are used to select the most relevant medication, not that much different from a conventional diagnosis, except that a wider range of symptoms are considered. You can use mostly the same procedure for an animal, although of course it may be more challenging to get a complete picture.

jawlie wrote:

I once had dinner with the owner of a large homoeopathic company.
...
So I asked him a question. I asked him if it were true that less is more effective in homoeopathic terms, why did all his boxes of pills say "take two tablets"? Why not say "take one tablet" or "take half a tablet" as he had claimed this would be more effective? Surely his company was not giving medical instructions to its customers which actually made the remedy less effective that he claimed it could be, to merely sell more tablets?

Now his serious face changed to an embarassed face and he mumbled that it was mainly based on "research" that people liked to take two tablets, and that was the reason why they gave those instructions.

Saying something like the "200th dilution is stronger" is not the same thing as saying "half a tablet is more effective than two".

The first refers to the preparation process, the second is the dosage of a given "potency".

You understand that many substances (not just high dilutions) can be effective up to a certain dosage, beyond which, taking any more is useless or has little extra effect.

It is generally acknowleged by homeopaths that frequency of dosage is more important than quantitiy of the dose itself, although it does seem essential that there would in fact be a minimum dosage quantity as well.

jawlie wrote:

..
I am not saying that all homoeopathy should be rubbished because one owner of one company is a charlatan, but I have also noticed that when a homoeopath gets something serious wrong with themselves, such is the strength of their convictions that they rush to the nearest conventional hospital for conventional drugs and conventional treatment.

I think it's an unfortunate legacy from the 19th century that causes people to take sides with this on one extreme or the other. The colourful language used by Homeopaths in that period railing against established medicine (at the time) created a perception of antagonism that continues to today.

There is no need to discard conventional medicine - I really don't believe that those from around the time of Hahnemann would deny any modern, effective form of medicine if they were alive today - they were far from stupid people.

jawlie wrote:

...In that time homoeopathy has seemed to make no advances whatever and is still selling anecdote, and the biggest advance it seems to make is to come up with a theory ( ie not proven) that water has some sort of memory. Quite how this proves homoeopathy is effective seems unclear.

I completely agree that there is no current theory that provides a good, easily testable process for investigating the claim.

jawlie wrote:

My guess is that in the next 160 years homoeopathy will still be selling anecdote and will still not have any clear evidence in the form of a double blind independent clinical trial subject to peer review and repeatable to obtain the same levels of evidence for their claims.

I disagree.

I suspect that within 15-20 years, there will be strong evidence for homeopathic efficiacy, the results being identified from physical processes.

I fully understand why people would think otherwise.

jawlie wrote:

Subsequently, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce his results. Quite why the theory remains to appear to have credibility seems uncertain.

I don't think Benveniste ever published a coherent theory of how exactly the claimed effect may have worked. However, the work on Histamine dilutions was continued, with both positive and negative results.

jawlie

Only time will tell whether or not homoeopathy will or will not be able to come up with acceptable proof, beyond anecdote, in the next 15 or 20 years. Having had over 200 years to come up with proof so far, and not having been able to produce any, it seems unclear why you feel the next "15 to 20" years will suddenly yield such proof.

By any measure it is highly strange that out of Boiron and all the other rich and succesful homoeopathic companies the world over, not one has ever published the results of any properly conducted and accepted independent double blind and peer reviewed clinical trials in the way that every single manufacturer of conventional medicine does for every single product.

Might that be because it has never occurred to a single one of them to undertake them? Or could it be because the results might not back up their claims for their products?

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

...Having had over 200 years to come up with proof so far, and not having been able to produce any, it seems unclear why you feel the next "15 to 20" years will suddenly yield such proof.

Yes it's just a subjective opinion, however I think that it's only recently that the means to probe the fine detail needed has become available, or will become available.

The controversial nature of the subject also hinders the process - no-one wants to be labelled a crank.

jawlie wrote:

...Might that be because it has never occurred to a single one of them to undertake them? Or could it be because the results might not back up their claims for their products?

You still believe that there is a conspiracy of a non-research agenda?
Well, I really don't think there is.

By the way, I don't think I replied to your strength comparison properly earlier -

jawlie wrote:

"So I asked him if it was true, in homoeopathy, that less really was more effective for curing disease and that, for example, the 200th potency was actually stronger than the 6th potency?"

There is little or none of the original substance present in a homeopathic potency, so you can't compare strength like you do with conventional drugs.

You can't compare 6c and 200c potencies like you would compare 200mg and 500mg paracetamol, for example, because you are not using the same mode of measurement. You are using mass of a substance (paracetamol) for one expression of strength, and amount of 'processing' for another expression, so to try to equate the two is meaningless.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

I think that it's only recently that the means to probe the fine detail needed has become available, or will become available.

I'm intrigued. What do you mean 'has become available' ... what has become available?

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

I'm intrigued. What do you mean 'has become available' ... what has become available?

Nothing specific, except for modern techniques like using laser, x-ray, supercomputer simulations etc., and other technologies that become available as part of research into other areas.

A page here (non-homeopathy related) details some recent research methods for investigating properties of water.

The reason I mention this is because, if there is a tangible effect created by the homeopathic processing of a solvent, then it is clearly not distinguishable as a large-scale physical characteristic, and will need more detailed investigation.

I am saying that if you believe there is an effect, then it rationally follows that past technology and/or research efforts has not been sufficient to find it.

I am not saying something along the lines of - "the inadequacies of previous research justify a belief that efficacy of homeopathic substances will be found in the future" - that is clearly a non-argument.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

I am saying that if you believe there is an effect, then it rationally follows that past technology and/or research efforts has not been sufficient to find it.

You seem to be putting your money on the former, and not the latter...saying that its the tech that was inadequate, not the research.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

... if there is a tangible effect created by the homeopathic processing of a solvent, then it is clearly not distinguishable as a large-scale physical characteristic, and will need more detailed investigation.

I am saying that if you believe there is an effect, then it rationally follows that past technology and/or research efforts has not been sufficient to find it.

This is an argument you can use without end and which can be used for every inert idea and practice on the planet.

Given that, in 200 years, no discernable effect of homepoathic substances has been demonstrated beyond what is explained by any number of other non-specific factors; surely the only reasonable, rational position to take now is one of cautious pessimism about the validity of the ideas intrinsic to homeopathy. You're holding out hope that some day, new unspecified technologies will explain properties in water which have never even been demonstrated in the first place. Sorry but this strikes me as bemusingly unreasonable and has more in common with the belief dynamics of religion than science.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

You seem to be putting your money on the former, and not the latter...saying that its the tech that was inadequate, not the research.

Yes, to an extent.

Myksyk wrote:

This is an argument you can use without end and which can be used for every inert idea and practice on the planet.

I thought someone might reply with this - this is the reason I prefixed with "If you believe there is an effect" - it is not an objective argument for or against the level of evidence, I think I am very clear when I am saying it's a position you might take if you had already made up your mind in a certain way.

Myksyk wrote:

...surely the only reasonable, rational position to take now rational position to take now is one of cautious pessimism about the validity of the ideas intrinsic to homeopathy.

I think it's fair to say that cautious pessimism is a bit of a euphenism considering some previous comments here.

Myksyk wrote:

Given that, in 200 years, no discernable effect of homepoathic substances has been demonstrated beyond what is explained by any number of other non-specific factors;

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

Yes, to an extent.

So thats alse no - to an extent - then?

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

This comment worries me slightly.

Its not just Myksyk who wants a high level of repeatability. It is the default stance of the scientific community. It is also one of many benchmarks which is set for something to be considered a valid form of medicine.

Apply your comment to something other than homeopathy. Do you think its still reasonable?

You seem to be arguing that anyone should be allowed market anything under any claims they like, and to allow the consumer the freedom of believing whatever they like.

So if I sell tapwater as a potion which delays the onset of male pattern baldness....thats ok in your book? I don't need to be able to show that my snake-oil produces an effect distinguishable from the "background noise". I can just make my claims and fob my product on a public and let them make up their mind.

Where do we draw the line? Can I sell people false hope for terminal illnesses? Can I claim that my bottle of seawater slows the onset of AIDS, even though there's no high degree of repeatability, or indeed anything to distinguish from the Placebo Effect? Is that OK in your book...that I can do this and the objections of the scientific community should only go as far as putting a counter-argument forward, and we both see who the HIV-sufferer chooses to believe?

The standard of "unproven means it shouldn't be banned - let the potential customer decide" is, I would argue, not one I could subscribe to. Its almost asking charlatans to prey on the desperate.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

So thats alse no - to an extent - then?

Mostly the former

bonkey wrote:

Peanut wrote:

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

This comment worries me slightly.

Its not just Myksyk who wants a high level of repeatability. It is the default stance of the scientific community. It is also one of many benchmarks which is set for something to be considered a valid form of medicine.

Yes I agree that repeatable effect should be a strong requirement for considering a particular medicine valid, although it does not have to be an absolute must.

bonkey wrote:

Apply your comment to something other than homeopathy. Do you think its still reasonable?

Yes I believe it is, because I was referring to repeatability in research, not the issue of how it is marketed to the consumer.

For the purposes of your analogy, let's say that the comment was referring to the effectiveness of some new anti-cancer drug.

It's not difficult to imagine that it may not give the same results in each patient in a clinical trial, and you may not be able to say whether it will be effective for a given patient.

Still, you wouldn't abandon research on it just because you got mixed results and didn't understand the mode of action well enough to predict when it would be effective.

I do understand your point however that you wouldn't bring such a drug to market either, however that is a separate question, and not the context I used the comment in.

bonkey wrote:

You seem to be arguing that anyone should be allowed market anything under any claims they like, and to allow the consumer the freedom of believing whatever they like.

No, I don't agree with that.

bonkey wrote:

Where do we draw the line?
...
The standard of "unproven means it shouldn't be banned - let the potential customer decide" is, I would argue, not one I could subscribe to. Its almost asking charlatans to prey on the desperate.

And where do we draw the line in the opposite direction?

Would you ban all non-conventional forms of medicine because they may not have shown a clear remedial effect in all indicated situations, even though in individual cases, they may have provided considerable benefit?

For example, it's not clear whether even something as commonplace as vitamin and mineral supplements are of any benefit to most people, would you ban them because of this?

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

I thought someone might reply with this - this is the reason I prefixed with "If you believe there is an effect" - it is not an objective argument for or against the level of evidence, I think I am very clear when I am saying it's a position you might take if you had already made up your mind in a certain way.

This is the nub of the position. I see that you believe in this whether the evidence supports you or not. I don't know why anyone would take such a position... but that's your perogative.

Peanut wrote:

I think it's fair to say that cautious pessimism is a bit of a euphenism considering some previous comments here.

Well I was rather hoping that's a position YOU might consider taking ... I think based on our available knowledge and evidence that homeopathy is wholesale bunkum.

Peanut wrote:

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

Yep, in matters of medicine I want good evidence before I accept they work. That seems reasonable to me. You seem happy to take strong positions on the effectiveness of putative 'medicine' based on intuition, anecdote and personal interpretations of experience.

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

This is the nub of the position. I see that you believe in this whether the evidence supports you or not. I don't know why anyone would take such a position... but that's your perogative.

Subjectively, according to your interpretation of the evidence.

Myksyk wrote:

Yep, in matters of medicine I want good evidence before I accept they work. That seems reasonable to me. You seem happy to take strong positions on the effectiveness of putative 'medicine' based on intuition, anecdote and personal interpretations of experience.

I think a rational position is to be open when it appears that there is a resaonable level of doubt on a given question.

I believe there are enough reasons to accept that there is a reasonable doubt on this issue - you don't - we are not going to agree.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

Subjectively, according to your interpretation of the evidence.

I'm convinced by the glaring lack of evidence. But let's not be disingenuous, I don't believe for a minute that you are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathy on the basis of research evidence. It's clear you'd believe in it if there wasn't a single paper (good, bad or indifferent) published on it.

I think a rational position is to be open when it appears that there is a resaonable level of doubt on a given question.

This is where i think you are being (literally) un-reason-able. Given that it is not possible to prove something wrong in science and that claims must be shown to be likely true by the accumulation of evidence in their favour, it then holds that ALL inert ideas (not having been 'proven'to be wrongheaded) can be presented as somehow having a reasonable level of doubt about them.

In practice, this means I can think up the most ridiculous new CAM practice with a suitably implausible accompanying theory - let's say that I claim that placing certain-sized pebbles on the crown of your head cures all manner of ailments and can do so by dint of the fact that the physical energies trapped in the pebbles over countless aeons of pressure can 'somehow' (e.g. when rubbed prior to placement by a Master Practitioner) transfer specific wavelengths of energy to brain areas responsible for immune responses and healing. Science can't explain the complex physics involved with its current level of knowledge but 'one day' my theory will likely be demonstrated to be true when we have the right technology.

By default the 'treatment' will be seen to have some effect in some people because of known non-specifics. There is no way that science can prove the theory to be wrong but this does not then constitute 'reasonable doubt' about the theory. I don't see homeopathy as in any way different to this example.

In this regard, we definitely don't agree on is what constitutes a 'reasaonable level of doubt'.

jawlie

Jawlie wrote:

By any measure it is highly strange that out of Boiron and all the other rich and succesful homoeopathic companies the world over, not one has ever published the results of any properly conducted and accepted independent double blind and peer reviewed clinical trials in the way that every single manufacturer of conventional medicine does for every single product.

Peanut wrote:

You still believe that there is a conspiracy of a non-research agenda?
Well, I really don't think there is.

I think it might be reasonable if the large, and highly profitable, homoeopathic companies, such as Boiron, would want to prove that homoeopathy "works". It would be unusual , indeed, for a company who makes the claims they do for their remedies, to continue with doubt and the sort of criticism their claims attract if they have it in their power (and they do) to finally prove it . Quite apart, of course, from the huge surge in business once their claims are proven, and the huge benefits to mankind.

Perhaps you might like to speculate as to why they have never published the results of properly conducted, clinical trials, the results of which are repeatable and subject to scrutiny and peer review?

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

And where do we draw the line in the opposite direction?

Would you ban all non-conventional forms of medicine because they may not have shown a clear remedial effect in all indicated situations, even though in individual cases, they may have provided considerable benefit?

No, I would ban* all forms of medicine - conventional or otherwise - which cannot demonstrate a reproducible, beneficial, effect which is clearly distinguishable from placebo effects and background noise.

* More correctly, I would not allow them to be sold in the same shops, would not allow them to claim medicinal effects in advertising, nor would I allow them to be covered under any medicial insurance scheme or health-care.

For example, it's not clear whether even something as commonplace as vitamin and mineral supplements are of any benefit to most people, would you ban them because of this?

I'd need more information about how you define "most people" and what you mean by "not clear".

Most people who take mineral and vitamin supplements quite possibly don't need them. In such cases, I'd be astounded if the supplements caused any beneficial side effects.

On the other hand, we know that prolonged deficiency in vitamins and minerals does have side-effects.

Therefore, as a preventative measure, I see little harm in taking vitamins and minerals that the individual does not necessarily need (as long as it is measured to not induce problems from excesses).

As a curative measure, I would argue that there is absolute and clear evidence of the efficacy of minerals and vitamins.

Of course, if homeopathy would like to demonstrate something along the lines of a demonstrably efficacious cure for scurvy through the administration of water...I'm open to changing my position.

As for the current standards...I'd be the first to agree that the marketing standards for various mineral and vitamin supplements is too low. However, as a proven curative, I would not see the correction of that issue resulting in a ban of these things.

Zombrex

Peanut wrote:

I believe there are enough reasons to accept that there is a reasonable doubt on this issue

I think the use of the word doubt there is quite telling.

You seem to be saying that until it is demonstrated to you that it doesn't work, you will continue to hold that it might work. That in the doubt of whether or not it does or does not work, it is acceptable for the belief to live that it does actually work

That is actually the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work.

In fact it sounds very much like something a Christian Creationists would say.

One is forced to wonder what is the motivation you have for thinking this stuff might work?

If it has yet to be properly demonstrated that it does work why move from the default position that it doesn't work.

This question goes to the heart of homeopathy. It seems to be something that people hope works, more than anything else, because it provides a solution to various medical problems that is easy and cheap.

But just like the Creationists, hope often clouds people to looking at a topic rationally.

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

I don't believe for a minute that you are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathy on the basis of research evidence.

You're right - I have never said that the research was convincing enough to be conclusive - however this is not the same as saying "it's all hogwash" - I hope you appreciate the difference.

The default skeptic stance, and I am not at all surprised by this, is that there are statements to the effect of taking a hardline position on something that is more nebulous. You effectively ignore any research that doesn't agree with the skeptic hypothesis.

You can't seem to say "We do not believe the weight of evidence suggest that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo", instead it's - "There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective".

Hey, it's not as good a soundbite, but it's your call.

Myksyk wrote:

...There is no way that science can prove the theory to be wrong but this does not then constitute 'reasonable doubt' about the theory.
I don't see homeopathy as in any way different to this example.

Sorry, since when was my argument 'science can not prove it wrong, therefore it could be right' ??!

I thought I spelled this out in previous posts.

If you are referring to my post where I suspected efficiacy would be demonstrated in the medium term future - that is my speculative position, I am not arguing that this represents a critique of the current situation.

Bonkey wrote:

...* More correctly, I would not allow them to be sold in the same shops, would not allow them to claim medicinal effects in advertising, nor would I allow them to be covered under any medicial insurance scheme or health-care.

I would have no problem with that also, few people desire a total nanny-state. I don't particularly like the idea of interfering with insurance schemes however, as it smacks of restricting free trade and enterprise.

An example - the effectiveness of Acupuncture has been considered controversial in the past, however there is now strong evidence that it is at least as effective as drugs in the control of certain types of pain. By your criteria, patients would be deprived of beneficial treatments due to your unreasonable restrictions.

This is the unavoidable fault of a hardline skeptical viewpoint - you wish to protect the public from making bad decisions - if you go too far however, you will end up hurting them instead.

Bonkey wrote:

As a curative measure, I would argue that there is absolute and clear evidence of the efficacy of minerals and vitamins.

Great, so what are your plans for so many years of Vitamin C advertising in relation to colds and flu?

Wicknight wrote:

I think the use of the word doubt there is quite telling.

You seem to be saying that until it is demonstrated to you that it doesn't work, you will continue to hold that it might work. That in the doubt of whether or not it does or does not work, it is acceptable for the belief to live that it does actually work

You can read it whichever way you wish, however doubt is just another word for uncertainty, something seemingly anathemic to some people.

Wicknight wrote:

If it has yet to be properly demonstrated that it does work why move from the default position that it doesn't work.

Who's default position is this?

I'm presuming it's yours as a skeptic, it certainly wouldn't be a homeopaths.
Of course you will argue that your 'default' is a universal default, but that's your right.

You don't like uncertainty, I am willing to accomodate it when I think it's reasonable. I think it is - you don't.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

Perhaps you might like to speculate as to why they have never published the results of properly conducted, clinical trials, the results of which are repeatable and subject to scrutiny and peer review?

They have funded published research, so of course it is subject to
scrutiny.

Whether it is repeatable or not is a separate question, however your
assertion that they do not fund research due to some no-confidence
agenda is not especially compelling.

Some examples,

"Biological activity of some anti-mitotics* in ultra-low doses...This work was funded by the Boiron Research Foundation."

"A comprehensive study on arsenic toxicity and its amelioration by administration of ultra-low doses of homeopathic drugs. . funded by Boiron Research Laboratory ,France "

"The combined results and a meta-analysis of three double-blind clinical trials found that individual homeopathic treatments significantly decrease the duration of acute childhood diarrhea ...The project by Jacobs et al. was funded by the Boiron Research Foundation"

etc...

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

You're right - I have never said that the research was convincing enough to be conclusive

Yet you conclude that homeopathy is effective.

You can't seem to say "We do not believe the weight of evidence suggest that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo", instead it's - "There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective".

The former statement perfectly sums up my position. So does the latter.

Who's default position is this?

I'm presuming it's yours as a skeptic, it certainly wouldn't be a homeopaths.
Of course you will argue that your 'default' is a universal default, but that's your right.

It's the default position of science.

And at least we are aware that your argument has nothing to do with science.

One question (given I can make no sense of the rationale you apply to your judgements in this area) ... what criteria do you apply to judge a therapy ineffective or useless?

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

Yet you conclude that homeopathy is effective.

Did you actually read my posts or just assume what I wrote?

I speculate that it is effective, I don't conclude from the current evidence that it is.

Myksyk wrote:

Peanut wrote:

"We do not believe the weight of evidence suggest that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo"

"There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective".

The former statement perfectly sums up my position. So does the latter.

Yet they are different statements.

If you can't see the difference, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Myksyk wrote:

It's the default position of science.

And what exactly is science do you think?

You reference it as if there is some magical entity out there called 'science' which has a definitive position on all questions. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work, however, I'm sure you are aware of that.

Myksyk wrote:

And at least we are aware that your argument has nothing to do with science.

From your replies (and from others), I don't think you fully understand what my argument is.

I don't mean this in a malicious way, maybe I haven't been clear enough, but it's all there in previous posts.

Myksyk wrote:

One question (given I can make no sense of the rationale you apply to your judgements in this area) ... what criteria do you apply to judge a therapy ineffective or useless?

Consistent lack of apparent benefit across a broad range of trial environments.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

I speculate that it is effective, I don't conclude from the current evidence that it is.

Just to make sure I understand you here...

You said a few posts back you would have no problem with my stance regarding any conventional or alternative medicine, in that it could not claim medicinal effects in advertising which had not been adequately established.

You're going to great lengths to make a distinction between being seen as someone who is saying homeopathy is effective (which you claim you're not) and someone who has said they believe it might be.

So, in general, you agree that homeopathy should not be permitted to be marketed as being beneficial...do I have that right? After all, you agree that the current evidence doesn't lead you to conclude that it is beneficial.

So, if I understand correctly, you think that people should be allowed to choose to use homeopathy, but would agree that a ban on marketing it as being beneficial would be ok given its current status, and that while that status remains that medical insurance / aid should not pay for it. Is that an accurate summation of your position, or have I misunderstood something?

Yet they are different statements.

That depends on which way you look at it. If there is no evidence, then the total weight of evidence is insufficient. Thus, its possible to agree with both statements without a contradiction.

If you can't see the difference, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

You may be a bit hasty here...

It may be a case of thrashing out what constitutes "evidence".

Some people will say that there's tons of evidence in the form of anecdote, for example, where others will say that this doesn't constitute evidence. So from the perspective of those who say anecdote is evidence (even if they admit that its not good evidence) those two statements are irreconcilable, whereas from the perspective of the person who says "its only evidence once its of a certain quality", its still possible to agree to both.

So, while you may see the existence of tests and results as evidence, Myksyk may disagree that those tests and results constitute evidence because they are of insufficient quality.

And what exactly is science do you think?

What science isn't is speculating that something might be effective whilst agreeing that the evidence doesn't conclude efficacity.

Note - a scientist is perfectly entitled to hold any belief they like. It is these beliefs which often lead them to new breakthroughs.

In broad terms, the argument that something "might be so" is non-scientific.

Consistent lack of apparent benefit across a broad range of trial environments.

Not a lack of consistent benefit?

So if one trial in 100 shows a benefit, but the other 99 do not, there is an inconsistency in the lack of benefit and thats enough for you?

Given you earlier questions to me regarding vitamins - do you extend the same criteria to their usage? That if any trials show a benefit, thats enough to mean we shouldn't write it off? I ask because it seems not.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

...
So, in general, you agree that homeopathy should not be permitted to be marketed as being beneficial...do I have that right? After all, you agree that the current evidence doesn't lead you to conclude that it is beneficial.

Yes I think the current situation is quite fair, in that all homeopathic products have "A homeopathic medicinal product without approved therapeutic indications." marked on them (I believe this is an EU regulation).

I don't really see how anyone can argue that Homeopathy is being unreasonably pushed in the marketplace, given that (at least in this country) there is no mainstream advertising for it at all. If you argue that Homeopaths expressing their favourable opinion towards it is unacceptable, then I really think that is going too far.

bonkey wrote:

So, if I understand correctly, you think that people should be allowed to choose to use homeopathy, but would agree that a ban on marketing it as being beneficial would be ok given its current status, and that while that status remains that medical insurance / aid should not pay for it. Is that an accurate summation of your position, or have I misunderstood something?

That sounds reasonable, except for the medical insurance - I think people should have the same choice in insurance provider offerings as they do when buying other products.

bonkey wrote:

That depends on which way you look at it. If there is no evidence, then the total weight of evidence is insufficient. Thus, its possible to agree with both statements without a contradiction.

You can semantically argue what "evidence" is.

My point is that the effective view being pushed is that there are no positive trial results in favour of homeopathy, which is incorrect. This is what the statement "There is no evidence" implies.

bonkey wrote:

...So, while you may see the existence of tests and results as evidence, Myksyk may disagree that those tests and results constitute evidence because they are of insufficient quality.

Yes, of course. This is the nub of the issue.

bonkey wrote:

What science isn't is speculating that something might be effective whilst agreeing that the evidence doesn't conclude efficacity.

I make no claims that the art of speculation is necessarily scientific

bonkey wrote:

Peanut wrote:

Consistent lack of apparent benefit across a broad range of trial environments.

Not a lack of consistent benefit?

So if one trial in 100 shows a benefit, but the other 99 do not, there is an inconsistency in the lack of benefit and thats enough for you?

Of course not - 99 out of 100 implies a high degree of "consistent lack", assuming that they are actually trialling what they claim to trial.

bonkey wrote:

Given you earlier questions to me regarding vitamins - do you extend the same criteria to their usage? That if any trials show a benefit, thats enough to mean we shouldn't write it off? I ask because it seems not.

You want me to say that if a single trial shows a benefit, then that's good enough?

I am not going to say that, what I will say however is that something should not be banned and/or mis-represented purely because it has a perceived low degree of application.

In this regard, you still haven't answered my question in relation to Vitamin C.

And you seem to have skirted the example of Acupuncture as a demonstration of the inadequacies of the approaches promoted here.

jawlie

jawlie wrote:

I think it might be reasonable if the large, and highly profitable, homoeopathic companies, such as Boiron, would want to prove that homoeopathy "works". It would be unusual , indeed, for a company who makes the claims they do for their remedies, to continue with doubt and the sort of criticism their claims attract if they have it in their power (and they do) to finally prove it . Quite apart, of course, from the huge surge in business once their claims are proven, and the huge benefits to mankind.

Perhaps you might like to speculate as to why they have never published the results of properly conducted, clinical trials, the results of which are repeatable and subject to scrutiny and peer review?

I'm still curious as to why you think this might be? In your earlier answer you didn't say why you think this might be, but just said that they had funded published research and gave some examples.

Do you think it possible they have also funded research thay they have not published?

Are you not curious as to why they have never published results of properly conducted, clinical double blind trials of their products versus placebo, to conclusively prove the efficacy of their products? I am.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

In this regard, you still haven't answered my question in relation to Vitamin C.

I didn't answer it because I gave you my broad position regarding all medicinal claims. If you know (and I suspect you do) where Vitamin C fits in regard to the accuracy of its claims, then you can determine my stance on it.

And you seem to have skirted the example of Acupuncture as a demonstration of the inadequacies of the approaches promoted here.

How? No-one has made a case that my overall stance or the appraoches promoted here don't apply to something such as acupuncture.

On that note, though...are you aware that in a recent test, acupuncture failed to distinguish itself statistically in efficacy from "pretend acupuncture" (aka the placebo effect) ???

davros

bonkey wrote: »

On that note, though...are you aware that in a recent test, acupuncture failed to distinguish itself statistically in efficacy from "pretend acupuncture" (aka the placebo effect) ???

To qualify that statement slightly, the study established that the use of acupuncture needles to treat lower back pain was twice as effective as conventional treatment. It did not matter, however, whether or not the needles were used according to the meridian theory of acupuncture.

So it's true that real and sham acupuncture achieved the same result, but it was still a very positive result and not necessarily explainable by the placebo effect. I would have expected the placebo effect to be equally strong for the conventional techniques explored (drugs, exercise, physical therapy).

jawlie

davros wrote: »

To qualify that statement slightly, the study established that the use of acupuncture needles to treat lower back pain was twice as effective as conventional treatment. It did not matter, however, whether or not the needles were used according to the meridian theory of acupuncture.

So it's true that real and sham acupuncture achieved the same result, but it was still a very positive result and not necessarily explainable by the placebo effect. I would have expected the placebo effect to be equally strong for the conventional techniques explored (drugs, exercise, physical therapy).

How can "sham acupuncture" achieving the same result as "real" acupuncture be a very positive result? Fow whom is it a positive result? Not the "real" acupuncturists, thats for sure!

davros

jawlie wrote: »

How can "sham acupuncture" achieving the same result as "real" acupuncture be a very positive result? Fow whom is it a positive result? Not the "real" acupuncturists, thats for sure!

For the patient.

What I would expect to happen now is that there will be more trials seeking to replicate these findings and, if it is confirmed, needle-sticking will become part of the standard suite of treatments offered for lower back pain. It's not acupuncture any more, it's just one more part of evidence-based modern medicine.

jawlie

davros wrote: »

For the patient.

What I would expect to happen now is that there will be more trials seeking to replicate these findings and, if it is confirmed, needle-sticking will become part of the standard suite of treatments offered for lower back pain. It's not acupuncture any more, it's just one more part of evidence-based modern medicine.

We all know how homoeopathy started. The good doctor gave amounts of different substances to "well" people, noted what he assumed were the results, and them came up with the theory that if someone was suffering the same symptoms, you give then the substance which produced those symptoms in a well person to cure their symptoms.

I wonder how acupuncture started? Did someone just come up with the idea in a eureka moment and then ask his friend if he could see what the effect of inserting a few needels at random might have?

jawlie

I read this article in the Guardian and found it interesting and informative. It's also interesting to click on the original article by Jeanette Winterson which is long on anecdote and short on fact.


http://www.badscience.net/?p=578#more-578

Peanut

Guys..

Ultimately what I am saying is that there are often as many negative consequences in holding a hardline skeptical viewpoint, as there are for being excessively permissive.

People on this forum have in the past called for GPs practicing as Acupuncturists to be struck off the medical register.

Since it turns out, that in all likelihood they were probably providing a benefical service to their patients, it is slightly galling to think of the consequences if the previous sentiment was followed through.


Jawlie, I don't see a reason for your attempts to poke fun at what you think were the origins of a given methodology.

I can only conclude that because they seem alien to you, you feel the need to mock them.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

Guys..

Ultimately what I am saying is that there are often as many negative consequences in holding a hardline skeptical viewpoint....

Jawlie, I don't see a reason for your attempts to poke fun at what you think were the origins of a given methodology.

I can only conclude that because they seem alien to you, you feel the need to mock them.

I find humour in all sorts of things and am sad that you can't see the humour in the idea of acupuncture. However, that's just the difference in our personalities, I guess, and not really important for the purposes of boards.ie

I'm not sure what the difference is between a sceptic and a hardline sceptic. To me, a sceptic is someone who requires proper proof before accepting a claim.

The antithesis of a sceptic is someone who is credulous and believes the claims of others without proper proof.

For instance, many credulous people believe that Uri Gellar has psychic powers and can bend spoons and so on using his psychic powers. Sceptics do not believe Mr Gellar can bend spoons and so on by psychic powers, largely because there is no proper proof to support this.

Wanting to believe in Uri Gellar does not make him able to bend spoons with psychic powers, and wanting to believe in, for example, homoeopathy, does not mean homoeopathy has produced proper proof either.

As someone pointed out before, the only intelligent position is that of a sceptic (ie needing proper proof before accepting something as true), and to be credulous is simply not an intelligent position.

Peanut

Sorry, I just didn't find it especially amusing :-p

It's like saying, I wonder how fire was tamed, was it just some guy rubbing sticks together.. Perhaps it was though.

Re: skepticism, it's not really very descriptive to claim you are a 'skeptic' as it's quite a broad term. The devil is in the details.

I don't mean to be rude, but the "either you are with us or you are against us" ethic that you describe is not very useful, as it tends to discount the possibilty of a middle way. This can have unfortunate consequences as opinion is polarised, and emotion overcomes rational debate, a valid example being the acupuncture reference above.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

Re: skepticism, it's not really very descriptive to claim you are a 'skeptic' as it's quite a broad term. The devil is in the details.

.

I tried to define what i mean by sceptic and to avoid the term being misunderstood. It seems quite a specific definition, but you think it's too broad a definition ("a sceptic is someone who requires proper proof before accepting a claim")?

Peanut wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but the "either you are with us or you are against us" ethic that you describe is not very useful, as it tends to discount the possibilty of a middle way.

Are you suggesting that there is an alternative or “middle ground” to either being sceptical or credulous as to whether one believes or not in whether, for example, homoeopathy “works”?

I think the only intelligent position is to be sceptical (ie to want proper proof before accepting a hypothesis as valid). It seems incredible that someone might argue that it is the intelligent position to believe something is valid and “works” without proper proof.

I know people who believe in Feng Shuay, that they are riddled with candidisys, that homoeopathy can cure malaria, that Uri Gellar can bend spoons with his mind and that Una Power on 98FM really has psychic ability.

Where we seem to differ is that I require proper proof before believing in these sorts of phenomena, whereas you seem to be saying that proper proof is not necessary to asses whether these claims are true?

Peanut

jawlie wrote: »

I tried to define what i mean by sceptic and to avoid the term being misunderstood. It seems quite a specific definition, but you think it's too broad a definition ("a sceptic is someone who requires proper proof before accepting a claim")?

Well that is a basic definition. But we don't necessarily agree on what consititutes "proof". Remember that as has been stated here many times, science is not in the business of proof. We just evaluate the evidence the best way we see fit.

jawlie wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there is an alternative or “middle ground” to either being sceptical or credulous as to whether one believes or not in whether, for example, homoeopathy “works”?

Yes of course. If you try to split the world into little boxes that says "works" or "doesn't work", then you will more than likely be throwing away a lot of the fine detail.

For a given specific case, you can more confidently say something works or doesn't work, but to extend this to all generalised cases is bad science.

Like the old joke, if you think gravity is only a theory, try jumping off a cliff.
We can have pretty strong confidence that our concept of gravity will hold true in most situations where we will experience it ourselves.

However, it is an absolutely critical point of scientific inquiry that we do not confuse this with the statement 'Gravity will act the same in all situations'.

Therefore, to say gravity "works" or "doesn't work" is a meaningless over-simplifcation.

jawlie wrote: »

.. It seems incredible that someone might argue that it is the intelligent position to believe something is valid and “works” without proper proof.
..

Again, we are not in the business of proof, so we may have different interpretations of evidence.

If you accept, and I suggest you do, that proof is a concept mostly useful in maths and abstract reasoning, instead of evaluating the physical world, then it logically follows that we absolutely must consider differing degrees of evidence when looking at a subject.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

Well that is a basic definition. But we don't necessarily agree on what consititutes "proof". Remember that as has been stated here many times, science is not in the business of proof. We just evaluate the evidence the best way we see fit.

Peanut wrote: »

Peanut wrote: »

For a given specific case, you can more confidently say something works or doesn't work, but to extend this to all generalised cases is bad science.

Again, we are not in the business of proof, so we may have different interpretations of evidence.

If you accept, and I suggest you do, that proof is a concept mostly useful in maths and abstract reasoning, instead of evaluating the physical world, then it logically follows that we absolutely must consider differing degrees of evidence when looking at a subject.

Obviously we are not going to agree and have different points of view. I think the proof ( or evidence if you'd rather use that word ) relating to homoeopathy is not sufficient to claim that homoeopathy works. (Your view seems to be the opposite, but thats not very clear.) The homoeopathic industry and others claim homoeopathy does work, and I don't accept their proof (or evidence) is convincing.

Peanut

jawlie wrote: »

I think the proof ( or evidence if you'd rather use that word ) relating to homoeopathy is not sufficient to claim that homoeopathy works.

I agree.

jawlie wrote: »

(Your view seems to be the opposite, but thats not very clear.)

The difference is that, while I agree that there is not sufficient evidence to strongly claim that it works, I believe that there is at least some evidence, and that this evidence is being unfairly dismissed, often by very weak arguments such as the perennial 'We don't know how it could work, therefore it can't possibly work'.

My personal opinion is that it does work, in certain situations. This is based primarily on repeated trial and observation, over a long period of time. However, I will of course not argue that this represents any sort of objective evidence.

jawlie wrote: »

The homoeopathic industry and others claim homoeopathy does work, and I don't accept their proof (or evidence) is convincing.

That's completely understandable.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

The difference is that, while I agree that there is not sufficient evidence to strongly claim that it works,

By stating you don't believe there is "sufficient evidence" implies you expect a sufficiency of evidence to be produced at some stage. Homoeopathy has been around now for around 250 years and has still failed to come up with sufficient evidence. How much longer do you think it might take?

Peanut wrote: »

I believe that there is at least some evidence, and that this evidence is being unfairly dismissed, often by very weak arguments such as the perennial 'We don't know how it could work, therefore it can't possibly work'.

From my observation, people who are asking for evidence that homoeopathy works are not concerned by how it works.

The how it works is often introduced by those who either believe homoeopathy works, or by those who have an interest in the subject, to create a smokescreen as to the lack of evidence that it works. (Just as you have done here in fact! )

Peanut wrote: »

I believe that there is at least some evidence, and that this evidence is being unfairly dismissed, ...this is based primarily on repeated trial and observation, over a long period of time.

I believe there is at least some evidence that Una Power on 98FM gets things right...this is based primarily on repeated trial and observation, over a long period of time.

However, this is not the same thing at all to say that she gets it right all the time, or even half the time, or even 10% of the time.

We would expect Una Power, or anyone, to get some things right some of the time by chance alone, just as we would expect "homoeopathy" to appear to cure illness by chance, as we would by rubbing clay into the feet, or waving a magic wand over a patients head. 90% of patients who are ill get cured with no intervention at all, and it is a mistake to ascribe the natural healing powers of the body to homoeopathy, or clay being rubbed into the feet, or waving a magic want over a patients head.

I still hold the view that is seems incredible that, in its almost 250 year history, not one of the homoeopathic companies who make billions a year from selling what they refer to as their "remedies" have produced the results of a double blind clinical trial to back up the claims they make on behalf of their products. It seems unlikely that they have not undertaken such trials, or have overlooked and forgotten to undertake such trials to back up their claims, and opened up the results to peer review.

Could there be a more obvious reason why not one of them has done so?

Peanut

jawlie wrote: »

By stating you don't believe there is "sufficient evidence" implies you expect a sufficiency of evidence to be produced at some stage.

I wouldn't agree that it implies that at all.
But yes, as I stated before, I expect it will happen eventually.

jawlie wrote: »

Homoeopathy has been around now for around 250 years and has still failed to come up with sufficient evidence. How much longer do you think it might take?

How long is a piece of string...
I posted earlier that a very speculative guess would be 15-20 years time.

jawlie wrote: »

From my observation, people who are asking for evidence that homoeopathy works are not concerned by how it works.

Sorry jawlie you just lost me on that one!
I wholeheartedly disagree.

jawlie wrote: »

The how it works is often introduced by those who either believe homoeopathy works, or by those who have an interest in the subject, to create a smokescreen as to the lack of evidence that it works. (Just as you have done here in fact! )

Right.

jawlie wrote: »

....
I still hold the view that is seems incredible that, in its almost 250 year history, not one of the homoeopathic companies who make billions a year from selling what they refer to as their "remedies" have produced the results of a double blind clinical trial to back up the claims they make on behalf of their products.

I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to have somehow missed the methodologically sound trials which showed positive results for homeopathy. Your real problem however is this -

Many people seem to have a naivety about the scope of clinical trials.

Do you think they are a magic wand that can instantly prove or disprove a question, no matter what the case?

To go back to my earlier example of Vitamin C, an extremely common substance that has been chemically isolated for almost 100 years, and its preventative action on scurvy known about for much longer.

Why is there then still confusion as to whether or not it's benefical for colds and flu?

In fact, why is it that we still can't say for sure whether taking multivitamin supplements is actually benefical or detrimental to health?
...

It must be a big conspiracy!

Surely the food supplement companies would have demonstrated this by now, since they could then write ''This product Promotes good health" on their packets. After all, they dwarf the homeopathic manufacturers in terms of size, and available resources.

...
It turns out that the answer is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Recently research has suggested that Vitamin C does not significantly protect people from colds unless they are being exposed to periods of high stress, in which case the risk was reduced by half.

Why did it take over 100 years to find this out?

The answer is that clinical trials are not easy, especially when humans are the subject material. They are resource intensive, and often complex.

"Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough" - Ibn al-Haytham, Pioneer of Optics

If we have a sufficiently complicated system (this could be, for instance, an eco-system, a financial market, or a biological body), then the number of interactions between parts of the system (dependencies), will usually increase exponentially the bigger and more complex the system is.

This can make it difficult, or even practically impossible to establish a given cause and effect in such a system.

This is not just an academic point - millions of euro are wasted each year because people consistently underestimate the effect of dependencies within complex system. You don't have to look very far for evidence, IT projects are notorious for this very reason - PPARS,
the credit union ISIS system, Garda PULSE system, and now a public services application,
Millions more wasted on key hi-tech projects

And yet, IT projects are arguably a lot less complex than biological systems.

The point is, if you try to look for a quick and easy answer in evaluating something which is inherently not quick and easy, you will just end up chasing your own tail.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that it implies that at all.
But yes, as I stated before, I expect it will happen eventually.


How long is a piece of string...
I posted earlier that a very speculative guess would be 15-20 years time.


Sorry jawlie you just lost me on that one!
I wholeheartedly disagree.


Right.



I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to have somehow missed the methodologically sound trials which showed positive results for homeopathy. Your real problem however is this -

Many people seem to have a naivety about the scope of clinical trials.

Do you think they are a magic wand that can instantly prove or disprove a question, no matter what the case?

To go back to my earlier example of Vitamin C, an extremely common substance that has been chemically isolated for almost 100 years, and its preventative action on scurvy known about for much longer.

Why is there then still confusion as to whether or not it's benefical for colds and flu?

In fact, why is it that we still can't say for sure whether taking multivitamin supplements is actually benefical or detrimental to health?
...

It must be a big conspiracy!

Surely the food supplement companies would have demonstrated this by now, since they could then write ''This product Promotes good health" on their packets. After all, they dwarf the homeopathic manufacturers in terms of size, and available resources.

...
It turns out that the answer is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Recently research has suggested that Vitamin C does not significantly protect people from colds unless they are being exposed to periods of high stress, in which case the risk was reduced by half.

Why did it take over 100 years to find this out?

The answer is that clinical trials are not easy, especially when humans are the subject material. They are resource intensive, and often complex.

"Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough" - Ibn al-Haytham, Pioneer of Optics

If we have a sufficiently complicated system (this could be, for instance, an eco-system, a financial market, or a biological body), then the number of interactions between parts of the system (dependencies), will usually increase exponentially the bigger and more complex the system is.

This can make it difficult, or even practically impossible to establish a given cause and effect in such a system.

This is not just an academic point - millions of euro are wasted each year because people consistently underestimate the effect of dependencies within complex system. You don't have to look very far for evidence, IT projects are notorious for this very reason - PPARS,
the credit union ISIS system, Garda PULSE system, and now a public services application,
Millions more wasted on key hi-tech projects

And yet, IT projects are arguably a lot less complex than biological systems.

The point is, if you try to look for a quick and easy answer in evaluating something which is inherently not quick and easy, you will just end up chasing your own tail.

I have read and read your post and find myself baffled as to what vitamin c, the garda pulse system, unspecified IT projects etc etc have to do with whether or not homoeopathy "works".

On the one hand you seem to be saying that you hope there will be proof in the future, and you further hope it may be in 15-20 years time.

However, in the absence of this proof which you say you hope to see, you seem to be quite happy that, in the meantime, claims are made for homoeopathic "remedies" for which you say we may not have proof for another 15 - 20 years.

Additionally, you seem to imply that, while clinical trials are all very well for the makers of non homoeopathic medicines, there is something about homoeopathy which means the claims made on its behalf can't be similarly tested.

It seems like an unusual world where manufacturers, who make billions from the sale of products for which they make quite specific claims on the one hand, then also say that their claims can't actually be properly tested on the other hand.

Until such times that I see double blind clinical trials subject to peer review I will not believer the claims made by those who represent the vested interests of the homoeopathic industry.

That others choose to believe in homoeopathy, or Una Powers predictions on 98FM, or Uri Gellar's claims that he bends spoons by special psychic powers which he has, is their right and their choice. But belief it is and it is no more credible than a belief in the tooth fairy.

Peanut

Please read it again, the point is that you underestimate the time and resources that are often required to establish the action of a substance, or a chain of cause and effect, in a complex system.

jawlie wrote:

Additionally, you seem to imply that, while clinical trials are all very well for the makers of non homoeopathic medicines, there is something about homoeopathy which means the claims made on its behalf can't be similarly tested.

I am not saying that whatsoever.

My point is that you seem to require a form of instant gratification in terms of research, that does not even apply to commonplace substances such as vitamins.

I'll say it again.
In 1970, nobel laureate Linus Pauling published "Vitamin C, the Common Cold & the Flu.".

38 years later we are still debating the question.

By your rationale, the lack of clarity in that time must be due to a massive cover up by the vitamin and supplement manufacturers.

Acupuncture, at least 2000 and possibly 5000 years old. Widespread consensus only last year that "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions".(ref)

jawlie wrote:

Until such times that I see double blind clinical trials subject to peer review I will not believer the claims made by those who represent the vested interests of the homoeopathic industry.

Sorry jawlie, but it's pointless arguing with you if you continue to bizarrely claim that either :-

a) There are no positive clinical trial results,

or

b) That these must solely come from the manufacturers, in order to placate your odd conspiracy theory ideas.

pH

Peanut wrote: »

Why is there then still confusion as to whether or not it's benefical for colds and flu?

There isn't any confusion. Most studies have shown no benefit, and in those that have shown a benefit it's been in the form of a small single percentage decrease in symptom duration. So the answer is if it has any benefit then it's so small as to be not worth bothering about.

In fact, why is it that we still can't say for sure whether taking multivitamin supplements is actually benefical or detrimental to health?
...

It must be a big conspiracy!

We know that taking multivitamin supplements makes no major difference one way of the other.

We know the RDA for each vitamin, and we know that someone eating a reasonably balanced first-world diet will have no problem getting the RDA from their food.

You're right in saying that maybe if lots of money was spent on it we might find a 0.01% benefit in health or perhaps a small decrease, but for all practical purposes it doesn't matter - the effect of taking a daily vitamin pill on healthy people in the 1st world eating a reasonable balanced diet is so tiny it's almost impossible to measure.

Pick anything we eat at any dose, eating it or not eating it on a regular basis when you get into enough detail must have either a positive or negative effect on health. If these effects are so small as to be swamped by millions of other things then we don't waste millions of Euro trying to find out if at the 10th decimal place the effect is positive or negative - we just say "Whatever effect it's having, it's too small to worry about, let's move on".

So let's imagine that taking a multivitamin pill every day for you life on average increased your lifespan by one day.

The amount of money, time and effort you'd need to spend to find a positive result this small would be huge. Even then the chances are you might miss it in the statistics or experimental failings would cause it to be missed.

But let's say that you can devise a coarser experiment, that can cheaply and quickly determine that taking a multi-vit everyday does not increase or decrease your life expectancy by more than 1 week.

You conclude that whatever effect they're having is tiny (less than a week either way) and that any extra work on pinning down the actual effect would be a huge waste of money - the big picture is "No measurable effect".

I hope this answers your question.

Peanut

pH wrote: »

There isn't any confusion. Most studies have shown no benefit, and in those that have shown a benefit it's been in the form of a small single percentage decrease in symptom duration. So the answer is if it has any benefit then it's so small as to be not worth bothering about.

Really, you are saying that there has been no controversy?
Why are cold and flu remedies still advertised as containing Vitamin C?

The point is that there has been confusion for a significant amount of time.
I really don't see how you can credibly argue with that.

Please see here. ("Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold")

.."The role of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for 60 years, but is widely sold and used as both a preventive and therapeutic agent.
...
It reduced the duration and severity of common cold symptoms slightly, although the magnitude of the effect was so small its clinical usefulness is doubtful. Nevertheless, in six trials with participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical or cold stress or both (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C reduced the common cold risk by half."

pH wrote: »

We know that taking multivitamin supplements makes no major difference one way of the other.

That's interesting, because according to this ("based on data on nearly 300,000 men"),

"..The risk of advanced prostate cancer is 32% higher in men who take multivitamins more than once a day than in those who do not take them at all. Risk of fatal prostate cancer was almost double."

Granted, this is above average multivitamin usage, but it's still not exactly a .01% difference.

pH wrote: »

Pick anything we eat at any dose, eating it or not eating it on a regular basis when you get into enough detail must have either a positive or negative effect on health. If these effects are so small as to be swamped by millions of other things then we don't waste millions of Euro trying to find out if at the 10th decimal place the effect is positive or negative - we just say "Whatever effect it's having, it's too small to worry about, let's move on".

The point is that the effects may not be so small as you believe they may be.

pH wrote: »

...
The amount of money, time and effort you'd need to spend to find a positive result this small would be huge. Even then the chances are you might miss it in the statistics or experimental failings would cause it to be missed.
...

You're predicating this on the assumption that the effect will be small, however, it's dangerous to assume this unless you actually test it.

pH wrote: »

I hope this answers your question.

Thanks, I hope I've answered yours too