Apology: "Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts"

[Guest]

Having looked for studies on this, I'm finding it surprisingly difficult- they do not seem to be out there- any time I get to something that looks relevant, I'm getting, as you point out also, requests for payment. ...

Journal articles and reviews are written by academics and professionals for other academics and professionals working within the field. Their main subscribers are universities and other research establishments. The proportion of laypeople who wish to use an online service to access the full text of the articles is relatively small. Publishers do want to make money. Charging research libraries large amounts for a license to provide online full text access is one of the ways in which that's done.

...Surely, studies on important stuff like this that is relevant to people's health and, especially relevant when it comes to debating and making decisions on the issues- they should be available for everyone interested to peruse for free? ...

Not financially viable or attractive. Private individuals with a genuine interest could always arrange to consult the archives of a university library if necessary. Some of the larger public libraries provide current hard copies of The Lancet, Nature and such like, and you'll usually find copies of magazines like New Scientist.

 

Access to the online full text of original journal articles isn't a prerequisite for informed participation in debate or for making informed healthcare decisions. There's plenty of information available online that allows folk to make sensible decisions without resorting to consultation of the original research papers. In this context, Ben Goldacre's site, for example, does an excellent job of distilling the original research to a form that's more accessible to a relatively scientifically ignorant public who, perhaps fairly reasonably, wouldn't know a T cell from a B cell. In more general terms, sites like Cancer Research UK serve a similar role.

...I have serious doubts about whether these studies supposedly done on homeopathy have actually got a decent methodological basis to be relevant- this is why I want to look at some actual studies. ...

The report I linked to above has a section on appropriate methodology and discusses the outcome of studies that have applied that methodology to homoeopathy.

[RichJay]

I have serious doubts about whether these studies supposedly done on homeopathy have actually got a decent methodological basis to be relevant- this is why I want to look at some actual studies.

 

What methodological doubts do you have?

[[Matt]]

Could you direct me to the evidence you're refering to? As mentioned above, I'm having problems even finding the evidence to look at in the first place

...the evidence being the complete lack of evidence that it works....

[onewheeldave]

;6447392']...the evidence being the complete lack of evidence that it works....

 

but your previous post said-

 

;6445278']

 

It is not my belief that homoeopathy is nonsense. The evidence quite clearly says that it IS nonsense...

 

So, which is it? there's a big difference between there being no evidence that homeopathy works, and, there being some actual evidence that it doesn't work.

[onewheeldave]

Journal articles and reviews are written by academics and professionals for other academics and professionals working within the field. Their main subscribers are universities and other research establishments. The proportion of laypeople who wish to use an online service to access the full text of the articles is relatively small. Publishers do want to make money. Charging research libraries large amounts for a license to provide online full text access is one of the ways in which that's done.

 

Not financially viable or attractive. Private individuals with a genuine interest could always arrange to consult the archives of a university library if necessary. Some of the larger public libraries provide current hard copies of The Lancet, Nature and such like, and you'll usually find copies of magazines like New Scientist.

 

Access to the online full text of original journal articles isn't a prerequisite for informed participation in debate or for making informed healthcare decisions. There's plenty of information available online that allows folk to make sensible decisions without resorting to consultation of the original research papers. In this context, Ben Goldacre's site, for example, does an excellent job of distilling the original research to a form that's more accessible to a relatively scientifically ignorant public who, perhaps fairly reasonably, wouldn't know a T cell from a B cell. In more general terms, sites like Cancer Research UK serve a similar role.

 

The report I linked to above has a section on appropriate methodology and discusses the outcome of studies that have applied that methodology to homoeopathy.

 

So, just to summarise- the texts of these studies which seem to be the main ammunition the rationalists are using to discredit homeopathy, are available to scientists in the field, or, those willing to pay to read them, and those with access to university libaries.

 

For the, as you phrase them, 'scientifically ignorant public', there is limited access, but, they can go through various websites who offer a summary of the papers and, helpfully filter out some of the more complicated bits which would otherwise only confuse the 'scientifically ignorant' member of the public?

 

Presumably these websites make a point of being objective and have no bias or agenda against things like homeopathy?

 

Because the title of the site you mention- "http://www.badscience.net" did, I must confess, set an alarm bell ringing for me.

 

I will look at some of the articles on the website, despite it's obvious bias and total comtempt for homeopathy.

 

In the meantime, i will say that I am concerned at the lack of availability to the general public of the actual content of these studies.

 

This attitude that, as far as the non-scientific general public are concerned, there's no point them knowing the content or the methodology etc, because they are not competant to understand it, i find fairly disgraceful.

 

I'm also wondering what proportion the the 'rationalists' who post on these threads, have themselves actually read the papers/studies they are citing as evidence against homeopathy- I think it's pretty likely that many of them are also happy to leave it all in the hands of the 'experts' and then just assume they've got it right.

 

 

By pushing their product relentlessly with this scientific flim-flam, homeopaths undermine the public understanding of what it means to have an evidence base for a treatment. Worst of all, they do this at the very time when academics are working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research, and when most good doctors are trying to educate and involve their patients in the selection of difficult treatment options.

 

 

A interesting page- http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

 

on the whole very critical of homeopathy and, apologies if I appear to have indulged in 'cherry picking' by pulling out the above quote, but, if academics are indeed "working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research", then they damn well need to get those studies published on the internet and freely available to anyone who wants to read them.

 

Because, most members of the public may not be especially scientific (though many are) and some may even be 'stupid', but what they tend to share is a real dislike of being patronised, and, many of them are going to be (justifiably, IMO) suspicious if that engagement and 'collective ownership/understanding of clinical research' is only in the form of information 'filtered' by the status quo into a form considered suitable for the general public.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with simplified summaries- as long as the full papers are easily and freely available as well.

[onewheeldave]

What methodological doubts do you have?

 

A prime one, especially now I've seen what seems to be a genuine contempt of most scientists towards homeopathy, is that these studies will likely have methodologies designed only to test the chemical/biological effects of homeopathic remedies.

 

I suspect that they will totally omit the diagnosis/patient-practitioner interaction that is an essential aspect of homeopathic treatment.

[anywebsite]

 

I suspect that they will totally omit the diagnosis/patient-practitioner interaction that is an essential aspect of homeopathic treatment.

 

You mean the part where the homoeopath lies about the effects of their potions?

[Guest]

So, just to summarise- the texts of these studies which seem to be the main ammunition the rationalists are using to discredit homeopathy, are available to scientists in the field, or, those willing to pay to read them, and those with access to university libaries...

The full text of many journal articles is available online if you or your institution has the appropriate paid-for subscription, that's right. Hard copies of the full text are available for those with access to an appropriate library, also correct. Some full text articles, and almost all abstracts (which summarise the aim, methods, results and conclusion of the studies) are freely available online, via PubMed or similar, or from the journals' websites.

...For the, as you phrase them, 'scientifically ignorant public' there is limited access, but, they can go through various websites who offer a summary of the papers and, helpfully filter out some of the more complicated bits which would otherwise only confuse the 'scientifically ignorant' member of the public?...

I said relatively scientifically ignorant which, I think, is a fair summary of the public's understanding of science in general given that most aren't educated beyond GCSE level in the subject. I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to maintain that for most people the detail presented in a research paper - a technical article aimed at communicating data within a given predominantly postgraduate field with minimal concession to accessibility - isn't helpful in clarifying the complexities of any subject.

...Presumably these websites make a point of being objective and have no bias or agenda against things like homeopathy?

 

Because the title of the site you mention- "http://www.badscience.net" did, I must confess, set an alarm bell ringing for me. ...

Well homoeopathy is bad science... . Ben Goldacre is a respected medic and science journalist. I think he's biased in favour of presenting the available evidence in a variety of medical and scientific fields fairly, exposing flim flam and misinformation, and furthering the public's understanding of science.

 

As for bias against homoeopathy: if the presented methods, results and/or conclusions are found wanting after examination and evaluation using those standards routinely applied to research within conventional medicine, then failure to support homoeopathy and its assertions is fairly reasonable. That isn't the same as failure to examine the evidence with the same objectivity and with the same standards applied to research within conventional medicine.

...In the meantime, i will say that I am concerned at the lack of availability to the general public of the actual content of these studies. ...

The actual content is available. Its accessibility reflects the market in which it's produced and directed.

...This attitude that, as far as the non-scientific general public are concerned, there's no point them knowing the content or the methodology etc, because they are not competant to understand it, i find fairly disgraceful. ...

I didn't say there's no point in knowing the content or methodology. To clarify: I don't think full text access to original research papers is the most appropriate, useful or accessible means by which a typical layperson might inform themselves about a subject.

...I'm also wondering what proportion the the 'rationalists' who post on these threads, have themselves actually read the papers/studies they are citing as evidence against homeopathy- I think it's pretty likely that many of them are also happy to leave it all in the hands of the 'experts' and then just assume they've got it right.

 

A interesting page- http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

 

on the whole very critical of homeopathy and, apologies if I appear to have indulged in 'cherry picking' by pulling out the above quote, but, if academics are indeed "working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research", then they damn well need to get those studies published on the internet and freely available to anyone who wants to read them.

 

Because, most members of the public may not be especially scientific (though many are) and some may even be 'stupid', but what they tend to share is a real dislike of being patronised, and, many of them are going to be (justifiably, IMO) suspicious if that engagement and 'collective ownership/understanding of clinical research' is only in the form of information 'filtered' by the status quo into a form considered suitable for the general public.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with simplified summaries- as long as the full papers are easily and freely available as well.

Not to labour the point, but the research is published and available in a form appropriate for the field. You just don't have instant free access, in many cases, to anything other than the abstracts. Given that those abstracts provide a summary of the aims, methods, results and conclusions presented in the paper, that's hardly sufficient to engender suspicion.

 

I'm sure very many people outside a given research community are able to absorb the the detail of relevant medical journal articles, and find that those papers adequately inform them about an area of healthcare in which they were previously relatively ignorant. I'm equally sure that very many others appreciate the efforts of organisations and individuals that aim to present scientific, medical and technical information in a way that makes it accessible to the non-expert.

[RichJay]

A interesting page- http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

 

on the whole very critical of homeopathy and, apologies if I appear to have indulged in 'cherry picking' by pulling out the above quote, but, if academics are indeed "working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research", then they damn well need to get those studies published on the internet and freely available to anyone who wants to read them.

 

Because, most members of the public may not be especially scientific (though many are) and some may even be 'stupid', but what they tend to share is a real dislike of being patronised, and, many of them are going to be (justifiably, IMO) suspicious if that engagement and 'collective ownership/understanding of clinical research' is only in the form of information 'filtered' by the status quo into a form considered suitable for the general public.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with simplified summaries- as long as the full papers are easily and freely available as well.

 

There are some open access academic journals on the internet. The thing with any publication is that someone has to pay for it so it's either the reader who pays for a subscription or per article or the authors have to pay.

[PC Brigade]

 

Because the title of the site you mention- "http://www.badscience.net" did, I must confess, set an alarm bell ringing for me.

 

 

 

Ben Goldacre exposes 'bad science' in all its forms - he is most criticial of way in which science stories are presented by the press (usually as either 'scare stories', 'magic cures', or 'wacky scientist' type stories), but also spends a lot of time looking at the claims of the 'big pharma' companies that homeopaths hate so much. Alternative medicine also comes in for scrutiny but it is not his main concern.

 

He is no more biased against homeopathy as he is against anyone making outlandish claims without evidence to support them.