From editorial from this week's Lancet

(The full editorial is available free on the Lancet website - www.lancet.com - but you need to register to read it. If you do you can also access the summary of the meta-analysis done by Aijing Shang et al.)

"That homoeopathy fares poorly when compared with allopathy in Aijing Shang and colleagues' systematic evaluation is unsurprising. Of greater interest is the fact that this debate continues, despite 150 years of unfavourable findings. The more dilute the evidence for homoeopathy becomes, the greater seems its popularity.

For too long, a politically correct laissez-faire attitude has existed towards homoeopathy, but there are now signs of enlightenment from unlikely sources. The UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology issued a report about complementary and alternative medicine in 2000. It recommended "any therapy that makes specific claims for being able to treat specific conditions should have evidence of being able to do this above and beyond the placebo effect". Going one step further, the Swiss Government, after a 5-year trial, has now withdrawn insurance coverage for homoeopathy and four other complementary treatments because they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria.

<snip>

Surely the time has passed for selective analyses, biased reports, or further investment in research to perpetuate the homoeopathy versus allopathy debate. Now doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homoeopathy's lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients' needs for personalised care."

Any comments from nosode/homeopathy users?

if that is what they were on about on gmtv... its sounds like the latest research is based on a previous trial and the results just re-hashed.
homeopathy is a very individual treatment, what works for one might not work for another even thou they have the same ailment.  so the results cannot be that conclusive as each treatment is tailored some what to each individual person.
thats just my opinion and what i have found. personally i shall carry on using homeopathy for myself family and dog as i have had good results in the past :-)

The Swiss/UK study examined findings from 110 homeopathy trials and an equal number of conventional medical trials.

Homeopathy is a £32 million business in the UK alone, yet there is not one shred of evidence that it works.

but isnt that down to how they do the testing? conventional and homeopathy work in different ways to each other, so if testing is done on the homeo the same way as conventional then obviously the results will be inconclusive.

If you PM me I can send you a full copy of the paper.

If homeopathy works why shouldn't it be tested by the same controlled double blind studies as conventional medicines?

because as i understand it conventional medicine doesnt work the same way as homeopathy. homeo works by triggering your own imune system to deal with the problem and the triggers (treatment) can vary between people with the same symptoms.

for example lots on here have sworn by cocculus for travel sickness in dogs, but with my kai that particular remedy didnt work but another one ( forget the name ) did. so because cocculus didnt work for him would it be right to say that homeo doesnt work..... even though a different homeo remedy did cure the problem?

Hi just had to say- If you find a natural remedy that is chemical free and it works, why knock it. Everyone has the right to choice. Animals dont know what they are taking, so a what results are concluded from a trial with a placebo !! .

The question asked by the survey was not HOW homeopathy works but IF it works. If it does work that should be susceptible to proof in just the same way as conventional medicine. There are variations but conventional medicianes are usually tested by randomised double blind trials. You take a number of people who definitely have condition X. They are randomly assigned to two groups. Half are given the treatment under test, the other half are given a placebo. The tester does not know who is in the test group and who is in the placebo group and he doesn't know whether he is prescribing the drug under trial or the placebo. That is done so that the tester's attitude doesn't affect the outcome. At the end of the test period the improvement or otherwise in condition X is measured and the results are analysed. If the treatment group have improved significantly more than the placebo group that indicates that the treatment works. In real medicine the results of the trial have to be reproducible and the methodology has to be peer reviewed if the test is to be taken seriously. Homeopathy fails the test every time. Why?

possibly because the homeopathy treatment has not been tailored to any of the individuals in the trials needs.
just a thought here ......
what was condition X? and has homeopathic remedys ever been claimed (by anyone) as being successful in treating that condition... or was a condition picked that homeo has never been used to treat before..

it doesnt matter what you test, if certain companys are paying for the testing then you will always get results that support their claims.
every thing in life can be twisted to suit certain peoples needs and views, you only have to look at the bible and the problems that has caused over the years by certain individuals using it for the own ends. ( no offence to anyone)

I have no idea jas, but my own thinking is that it was used long before now accepted 'conventional' medicine, long before scientific tests were every dreamed about.  All the studies that are done are financed by the large pharmaceutical companies, which is one of the reason why drugs are so expensive and the running costs of the NHS is so expensive. Having worked for a large pharmaceutical company and seen the way the business is run, I can assure you that the manufacture of the drugs is not what costs the money.
Homoeopathic medicine has always been very cheap.  The manufacturers make a reasonable profit on their costs but do not have the millions that pharaceutical companies have for clinical trials.  Apart from increasing the costs of homeopathy to the rates of pharmaceutical companies, then who would pay for this work?  And we all know that you can prove whatever you want to prove when doing experiments!! ;)
Homoeopathic treatments don't work for everyone, but then nor does conventional medicine, but we don't say it's rubbish.  Brufen, which is taken by millions for pain relief and as an anti inflammatory very successfully, nearly killed my Father as he had a reaction to it despite all the clinical trials that were carried out!  And Doctors bury their mistakes, just like Vets!! :(
And I don't understand how they can say that it only works because of the placebo effect because animals are treated successfully with homoeopathy, as well as magnets and other complimentary things.  Are the animals deluded?
I'm very lucky to have a conventionally trained GP who always tries homoeopathic/herbal/natural remedies first and then moves to drugs if necessary.  That fits in with my thinking perfectly and although I've only had to see him once, I feel very fortunate to have such a broad thinking Doctor.

This study was not financed by a pharmaceutical company.

Edited to add: Just found this - "Total U.S. retail sales of alternative medicine reached $4.4 billion in 2003 <snip> This report focuses on two main sectors of complementary or alternative medicine: homeopathic remedies and herbal medicines."

who was it financed by?
and was it actually a brand new study with new testee's?

i was led to believe (if we r on about the same report) that it was a group of people looking at the results of a previous testing and drew their conclusions from it.
i could be wrong :-)

Yes it was an analysis of 110 trials of homeopathic treatments, most of them done by self-styled homeopathists compared to 110 trials of conventional treatments. If you PM me with an e-mail addy I'll send you a copy of the full study. The Lancet editorial is saying that if 110 trials don't show any benefit there is no point in doing any more or in pretending that homeopathy might work. Seems reasonable to me.

No, you're not wrong Jane. :-)

The study was only a review of 110 previous trials using databases from 1995 to 2003.  They based their conclusions on only 8 homeopathic trials and 6 conventional trials.

Flawed in my opinion. :-(

>Total U.S. retail sales of alternative medicine reached $4.4 billion in 2003 <snip> This report focuses on two main sectors of complementary or alternative medicine: homeopathic remedies and herbal medicines

But that's sales, not profit  and reflects how popular alternatives are.   If homeopathy wasn't at all effective how come so many people benefit from it, even after more than 200 years? :-)

Kath.

I don't believe that people do benefit from homeopathy though they may feel better from visiting an alternative practitioner who has half an hour to spend listening to their complaints. So I'd love to know how this has become a multi-billion $ industry.

It seemed to keep HRH the Queen Mother in good nick for over 100 years !!!!!

& BTW Herbal & Homoeopathic are not one & the same & they should not be lumped together

The study didn't mention herbal treatments. They are more worrying than homeopathic treatments because many herbal preparations ARE pharmocologically active and so can cause undesirable effects and/or interfere with conventional drugs. Herbal remedies are sold as food supplements and so circumvent the testing that conventional drugs require. See http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/licensingmeds/herbalmeds/herbalsafety.htm. Ditto for over the counter vitamins.

>This report focuses on two main sectors of complementary or alternative medicine: homeopathic remedies and herbal medicines<
>The study didn't mention herbal treatments<

??????????????????????????????

>I don't believe that people do benefit from homeopathy though they may feel better from visiting an alternative practitioner who has half >an hour to spend listening to their complaints

Jas, how come I've succesfully treated the dog, cats and cows with homeopathy without their knowledge and certainly without "half an hour visiting a practitioner"?  One occasion was a calf close to death with the vet walking away saying he's tried everything and can do no more for it. I treated it homeopathically and it immediately improved and recovered within a week. Draw your own conclusion but I know what I believe. :-)

>So I'd love to know how this has become a multi-billion $ industry

and I'd like to know how conventional drugs have become a multi-million industry when many of them have proved to be harmful, some lethal? :-(  I've never yet read of a case of death by Homeopathy, unlike conventional medicine.

Anything that has an effect on the body can have side-effects and those can be lethal. Short of drowning, plain water can't, so homeopathic remedies are safe. If you get pneumonia are you going to use antibiotics which may have side-effects or homeopathy?

>Short of drowning, plain water can't,

Actually, there is such a thing as water poisoning.

LOL @ JG. I stand corrected and will begin to worry when homeopathists start 'prescribing' by the gallon. :)

:-D :-D

OK - I could possibly accept the psycho-symatic indications with regard to people - but would you please explain to me how this works with animals?

I am talking about treating a cat with crystals in the bladder with Cantharsis - which worked (from testing pre and post treatment.    This cat lived to 19, and was not put on a strict "Sciene Choice" type diet - fed normally - and 3 or 4 times a year, would be treated with Cantharsis 30c and Apis Mel.

Treated by a homeopathic vet, who studied homeopathy for an additional year after finishing his "conventional" training.   No other medication was given.

Margot

I've tried it with both me and my dogs, and it made not a ha'porth of difference. I'm very pleased if others have different experiences, but I won't be trying it again.

That seems like a reasonable attitude to me JG!! :)

JG, I've been using it about 12 years with successes but also failures too.  Same results with other types of treatment I've tried, both complementary and conventional. :-)

I think it's best to use what feels right for you.  :-)

>If you get pneumonia are you going to use antibiotics which may have side-effects or homeopathy?

Possibly both!  I'm not against convential medicine I just don't want a (IMO flawed) report slating homeopathy with the result that both options aren't freely available to patients.  :-)

Have you read the paper? If not how can you say its flawed? And if you have read it why do you consider it flawed?

"Freely" is the operative word. NHS money is now going on this and if homeopathists get there way more will go on it. The Lancet editorial is an overdue wake up call. I've no great objection to people puddling about with homeopathy as long as they do no harm, but sometimes they do - eg nosodes - and I do object to my money going on nonsense that is not only unproven but has been shown over and over again to be useless.

>why do you consider it flawed?

Because I don't beleive you can trial Homoeopathy the way you can with convential. Also, as I stated earlier, their findings weren't based on the whole survey, only a small part of it.

Any trial is subject to bias so perhaps all are flawed to some extent. Though Lancet did say they " estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias".

> has been shown over and over again to be useless.

I have to disagree on that, and I'm sure thousands of others who have succesfully used it would too.

The Lancet also hailed thalidomide as a breakthrough treatment for pregnant women to prevent morning sickness & look at what the use of this highly tested/researched drug resulted in

I was reading the Beano not the Lancet in 1956 when thalidomide was first introduced.

Yes, but it did cure morning sickness. (I was lucky - my mother preferred to feel ill.) It is also proving a very valuable tool in the fight against leprosy and certain forms of cancer. Don't write it off.

That isn't the point JG it was tested & worked &ooops caused sideaffects that no one noticed & was later condemned because the so called tests were faulty

The Lancet is not the be all & end all

If homoeopathy was good enough for the old queen, it's good enough for me

BTW I am being successfully treated for a rare form of auto immune disease by a research Doctor from the US & yes it is using homoeopathy as well as a conventional type drug being tested on me. There is no conventional licenced drug for it

"Because I don't beleive you can trial Homoeopathy the way you can with convential."

Why not?

"their findings weren't based on the whole survey, only a small part of it."

They only found a few trials with decent numbers and methodology but they did look at them all. They also looked at classical, clinical and complex homoeopathy. None work.

>Why not?

Because I think there are too many variables, patient and sypmtom picture indiviuality, human error in taking the symptom picture and prescribing etc.  (human error being the reason I think Homeopathy fails in some cases)

>None work.

You're saying Homeopathy didn't work in any of the trials? Where the proof?

Trials of conventioal treatments have exactly the same problems. Why should homeopathy be a special case? Its basic premise defies all the rules of known science - not to mention common sense - so the burden of proof required for it should be greater. Yet its proponents insist on special pleading when homeopathy fails - again - to show any evidence based benefits.

As to proof, well its impossible to prove a negative, but as the Lancet editorial says why are we even trying when homeopathy has 150 years of unfavourable findings?

<< why are we even trying when homeopathy has 150 years of unfavourable findings? >>

if thats the case why is it still being used by thousands of people around the world every day... they obviously feel/think/know that it works despite what experts/scientists say.

at the end of the day does it really matter? Thousands of people use it to good effect including animals (who know not of the placebo effect) if it cures/makes a difference in an ailment/illness without any side effects.... surely the important thing is that it IS making a difference and not why.

although the £32 million being spent on homeopathy has probably got the drug industry choking abit.... after all if homeopathy was no longer available who do you think would benefit? :-)

>animals (who know not of the placebo effect)

I was wondering if there could indeed be a placebo effect with animals, in that they're so good at picking up on their owner's moods. If the owner believes in the efficacy of the treatment, they'll be more relaxed and confident which could beneficially affect the patient.

Just a thought.
:)

>If the owner believes in the efficacy of the treatment, they'll be more relaxed and confident which could beneficially affect the patient.

I agree that can happen in some cases but what about the ones who are sceptical and try it anyway with great success (the "I didn't believe it would work but I was amazed" type cases) and the ones who believe in it and sometimes get no result.

Thousands of people also read astrology columns in the newspaper.

It matters because (1) NHS money is wasted on homeopathy. (2) Serious or life threatening but potentially treatable illness may be missed by the homeopathist. If a Registered Medical Practioner kills you by failing to notice that you have  X until it is too late (s)he is liable to both legal and professional disciplinary action. The homeopathist who does it can whistle merrily to the bank. (3) Belief in nosodes has led to a serious lowering of community immunity to some potentailly life threatening diseases in some countries. This is particularly relevant to a dog board because homeopathic nosodes are claimed - with not one shred of evidence - to be as effective as conventional vaccines against diseases like parvo. Should the level of community immunity to parvo fall below a certain level it will put all of out pre-vaccination pups at risk.

>NHS money is wasted on homeopathy

How can it be wasted when people have used it and it HAS helped them while conventional medicine failed them? People have a right to access a therapy that helps them if conventional fails.

>If a Registered Medical Practioner kills you by failing to notice that you have  X until it is too late (s)he is liable to both legal and professional disciplinary action. The homeopathist who does it can whistle..

If homeopathy on the NHS is by GP referral only then that shouldn't be a problem.

As far as I`m aware re h/pathy & nhs patients, are refered to qualified medical h/pathic Dr`s. This means that qualified drs have then gone on to complete, pass & register as h/paths. Same goes for h/pathic vets I`ve used, they qualified first as vets then went on to qualify for h/pathy.

Vaccines can & do shed the virus they contain, thats a scientific fact. Viscious circle going round & round.............don`t know who`s perpetuating the viruses/bacterien?????

The same as the fact there is absolutely no scientific data to support the giving of annual boosters. If theres none for them & they`re given willy nilly by vets worlwide then I don`t see the need to be any for h/pathy ;)

Me, I wouldn`t let another vax a million miles near my dogs. There again I`m one of those that think outside the box & do my research thoroughly.

Christine, Spain.

Medically qualified homeopathists are still peddling something that there is no evidence for. I object to my tax money going on a discredited nonsense when the hospice movemant to name but one thing is grossly underfunded.

I agree that there is no evidence for annual boosters for viral diseases (lepto is different) and my vet hasn't advised them for years. But there is excellent and irrefutable evidence for puppy vaccination & first booster. IMO anyone who does not give those is selfish, is living off the backs of those who do vaccinate (as Jean Dodds has admitted!) and who do take the small risk of adverse reaction, and is irresponsible both in the care of their own dogs and to the community of dog owners.

My dog completely agrees; whenever she takes a homeopathic remedy she reminds me that it is all hocus pocus and quackery.

We find the placebo effect works very well on us all and have healthy, happy dogs and people with no problems with those conditions triggered by vaccinations such as auto immune diseases.

We hope that fewer people will use homeopathy as it means there are more remedies for us and the homeopaths will have more time at their disposal. :D

I'm glad that your dog is doing well on the placebo effect. What are you going to do when it is seriously ill? Do you take your unvaccinated dogs to shows and other public places and if you do, do you care that they may be meeting people with pre-vaccination pups at home? As you say YOU are taking no risks of side effects from vaccines. You are just putting other dog owners at risk. Have you ever seen a case of parvo? Have you ever seen parvo - or any other life threatening canine illness - successfully treated with homeopathy?

My dog is a PAT dog and if homoeopathic nosodes are good enough for them, and for the shows/trials I enter then they are good enough for me.

Why do you assume that because my dog is unvaccinated it will infect another dog with the disease?

I am not vaccinated against yellow fever etc, does not mean I will give it to anyone else!

So how can I possible be putting any other dog at risk?

Please explain.

By not using live vaccine tohme, your dogs are not shedding to put other dogs in danger.  I commend you. ;)

Unlike yellow fever in this country parvo is common in many areas. The incubation period for parvovirus is between 4 and 14 days. Older dogs, even if infected, often will not develop observable disease symptoms from parvovirus. Distemper has an incubation period of 5 to 7 days. You are taking your unvaccinated dog at a show attented by people who have pre-vaccination pups at home. You are also helping to lower the community resistance to disease

You haven't told me if you are going to treat your dog's pneumonia/heart failure/leptospirosis etc etc with homeopathy?