Science, Pseudoscience and Junk
I’m hosting this video here just in case it disappears from youtube again. This is Dr Charlene Werner butchering physics beyond all recognition and tarnishing the names of Einstein and Hawking along the way. Unlike Werner I won’t be removing the video if the comments become less than complimentary.
I won’t bother giving a critique of the errors in this video, they are all glaringly obvious, I’ll allow you to have the fun of trying to spot them all.
A long time ago I set up a wordpress blog for the reason of following my participation in a trial on some complete bollocks. Nothing really came of it so I’m pearoasting this from it as I forgot it was there.
Following a discussion with a colleague of mine last week and a thread on the the badscience fora I did a little bit of research into the effect of homeopathic Arnica gel on bruising. Basically my colleague, who shall be known as Catherine, was trying to persuade me that Arnica gel definitely aided the healing of bruises as she’d had two bruises on her knee, one which she treated with said gel and one that she didn’t and that one stayed for longer. She wouldn’t accept that this is anecdote, and that maybe that bruise was less severe in the first place etc etc.
Anyway a quick search of PubMed for “arnica bruising” found a grand total of 8 hits. The earliest 2 are general homeopathy reviews[1,2] from Professional Care of Mother and Child (now the Journal of Family Health Care) which not only do I have no access to, but doesn’t even appear in the ISI Journal Citation Reports suggesting it may not be the most well-respected of journals. The 3rd appears to be a well-designed trial,[3] but againI only have access to the abstract which states “The role of homeopathic and herbal agents for recovery after surgery merits further investigation” no more, no less.
The 4th [4] is another randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial and this time I have full access! This investigated the effect of pre and post-operatively applied arnica gel on bruising caused by facial laser surgery. Unfortunately the groups are very small (9 pre-op and 10 post-op) but the results… “No significant difference was found between topical arnica and vehicle [placebo] in the prevention or resolution of bruising”.
Refs 5-7 were another trial on the effect of homeopathic arnica and subsquent letters claiming the invalidity of the trial (the results were negative by the way). As this involves a lot toing and frowing over statistical methods that I don’t fully understand I will refrain on commenting on these.
The final trial was another trial into arnicas effect on post-operatve bruising from facial laser surgery. [8] Those given arnica were found to have smaller ecchymosis on the days they were examined (1, 5, 7 and 10 days after surgery), but this was only statiscally significant on days 1 and 7. Now this seems odd to me, because if arnica gel does have an effect on bruising why does this effect undulate over time? I would be more willing to accept this if it either had an effect at the beginning and then tailed off, suggesting it could only do so much to help, or if its effects were only seen in the latter stages, suggesting persistent usage was needed to see an effect.
So, from this what can we determine? Not a huge amount really, arnica gel appears to have some effect in some cases, but requires larger, well designed trials to determine if it really does.
Now the thing that really pissed me off with the discussion I had with Catherine was that she ended her side of the argument by stating (I’m paraphrasing here) that “well you’re obviously not going to be convinced whatever I say”. Funnily enough I pointed out to her that she’d offered me know evidence and that’s what I form an opinion from rather than using anecdote and basically a belief system. At the end of the day if she wishes to waste her money on buying something that has no proven efficacy then bully for her, just don’t accuse me of being the one acting on faith, I’ll stick to the evidence available at the time.
[1] Prof Care Mother Child. 1994 Aug-Sep;4(6):185-7
[2] Prof Care Mother Child. 1994 Oct;4(7):212-3.
[3] Altern Ther Health Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;8(2):66-8.
[4] Dermatol Surg. 2002 Aug;28(8):686-8.
[5] J R Soc Med. 2003 Feb;96(2):60-5.
[6] J R Soc Med. 2003 Apr;96(4):204; author reply 206-7.
[7] J R Soc Med. 2003 Apr;96(4):204-5; author reply 206-7.
[8] Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006 Jan-Feb;8(1):54-9.
I’m not sure I should really be commenting on this as some may consider it exploitation of someone else’s grief in attempt to prove my argument. If it comes across that way I apologise in advance, it is not intentional I am merely righting this to highlight the dangers that misinformed delusions can produce.
Many of you will already have heard about the tragic death of 9-month old Gloria Thomas. Briefly, she Gloria died from sepsis which is likely to have been contracted through her cracked skin as a result of improper treatment of severe eczema; eczema that her father, homeopath Thomas Sam, had tried to treat with magic water. It has been announced today that her her parents may face criminal charges over her death.
This demonstrates the awful consequences that can befall those who are too wrapped up in their delusions to realise that proper medical intervention is required. I am sure that Thomas Sam believed he was doing what was best for his daughter when he tried to treat her with magic water, faith healing if you will, which makes this case all the more tragic. Due to his unwavering belief in a practice that has no basis is evidence not only has he lost a daughter but he and wife may lose their freedom and their son may lose his parents, temporarily at least.
Can anybody out continue to tell me that homeopathy is harmless, even for treating ailments that would generally be considered to be self limiting, such as eczema?
I realise that I seem to be posting a lot tonight but boredom, beer and thesis avoidance has led to me following some interesting links. Thanks to the comments on DC’s latest post of homeopathy I’m come across this gem from Peter Chappell.
Those of you who read Bad Science will already have heard of this chap and his supposed ability to cure AIDS with iTunes. Not only can he do that but he cure H5N1 bird flu in humans with it too. You can download a free version of his resonance recordings from that site or you can download it here.*
Now to my, admittedly untrained, ear this just sounds a bit like rather mediocre jazz. Consequently I propose that if we take the Miles Davis back catalogue and use it to cure all ills. Although, as Peter Chappell is a homeopath, we may need to dilute it infinitesimally - Robbie Williams’ swing album should suffice.
Disclaimer
*According to the original download site:
In the event of Bird Flu (avian influenza - H5N1), we will endeavour to sustain pressure on our servers due to any increase in traffic however we are unable to guarantee uptime. Not only failure of the servers that support our site but electricity might fail, other unforseen factors may come in to play. For this reason, it is much wiser if you get supplied now.
Therefore I am mirroring the file here to reduce load on their servers in the event of a H5N1 break out. If the owners of the file wish for me to remove this file contact me at the email address here.
In my previous post I commented on some rather dubious content on the website of an Australian homeopath. This website belongs run by Frances Sheffield, RN, CM, DRM, MHlthSc.Ed., a professional member of the Australian Homeopathic Association. The AHA describes itself as (emphasis mine):
The Australian Homoeopathic Association is the largest and only national association of professional Homoeopaths in Australia, with branches throughout the country.
consequently it has a Code of Conduct (PDF). Section 2.9 of this code of conduct reads thus:
In announcing homoeopathic services, members shall state no more than the place and time of their practice, their qualifications and the services they are offering. The information contained in such announcements shall be factual and explanatory, not in the form of emotionally persuasive advertising, not claiming superior competency or implying cure of any named disease and not offering guarantees of a particular outcome as an inducement.
Now does implying protection from a disease that can not be prevented using conventional medicine contravene these regulations? A complaint may have to be made…
Via Bad Science and Bad Homeopathy I’ve learned that, due to some intervention by the Australian Skeptics, Australian authorities have banned 200C Meningococcal vaccine. There’s a video news report about it at Bad Homeopathy.
Obviously, being Homeopaths, they’re feeling hard done by. They aren’t trying to sell Meningococcal vaccines, they’re trying to sell a homeopathic remedy for side effects of the real vaccine. If you watch the video around about 15 seconds in you’ll see a bottle of the remedy in question. It’s quite understandable that a lay-person could mistake this for an effective vaccine - thank goodness the Aussies have regulated against this misleading and utterly useless piece of crap.
Another thing that struck me about this ‘vaccine’ is that it’s supposed to treat the side effects of the real vaccine. Now if, hypothetically, homeopathy worked and someone was to take both the real vaccine and the 200C version how does the magic water differentiate between the useful effects of the vaccine, i.e. prophylaxis for Meningococcal C, and the potential side effects?
Although this may have been genuine case of a misunderstanding, worryingly there are Australian homeopaths that claim to be able to protect you against Men. C. Don’t worry though, apparently they are not homeopathic vaccines:
…article regarding homeopathic immunisation - the use of Homeopathy to protect against epidemic diseases. It is important to note that while it is certainly possible to immunise homeopathically, there is no such thing as a homeopathic vaccine or a process known as homeopathic vaccination. Both terms are inaccurate when referring to homeopathic immunisation.
As normal this site contains the usual list of homeopathic half truths; protecting themselves from litigation (surely a 200C dilution of lawyer could do this) whilst slamming evidence-based medicine. Look at the this from the readers questions (my emphasis):
1. Are you telling people not to vaccinate? This could place their lives at risk.
Not at all. Vaccines may be an appropriate option for some people but unfortunately, as acknowledged by their manufacturers and health officials, vaccines do carry risks. I am providing information about another option that is both safe and effective so people can make fully informed decisions on how to best immunise for their situation.
For some, vaccines are inappropriate or even dangerous. They can be contraindicated in those who have severe illness, suppressed immunity, or who have had previous reactions to them. For these people, homeopathic immunisation is a safe and effective alternative - something I am sure they would like to know.
Finally, in the case of meningococcal disease, homeopathic immunisation can also save lives and reduce disability from strains for which there is no vaccine. The following question addresses this issue more fully.
So, in answering one question they manage to criticise EBM and make unsubstantiated claims about homeopathy several times. The Meningococcal vaccine does have side-effects and can’t be given in certain circumstances , this is known due to scienific research; unfortunately it’s the best thing we have for the prevention of meningitis C. Homeopathic immunisation has NO evidence and is NOT effective in the prevention of meningitis. Such unsubstantiated claims are outright dangerous and go further to show that the homeopaths are either too wrapped up in their own delusions to realise how dangerous their advice can be or are unscrupulous quacks profiteering from the anxieties of others. I’ll let you make up your own minds.
A couple of weeks there was a bit of a fuss in the sceptical section of the blogosphere as the Society of Homeopaths tried to silence the Quackometer using bullying tactics. As is to be expected in this day and age bloggers responded and the Society of Homeopaths must have felt rather silly. Le Canard Noir has contacted the Society of Homeopaths regarding this matter but has so far been ignored.
Since the event Quackometer has refused to be silenced and has published another damning article about the Society of Homeopaths. Follow the link and read it. You’ll find it to be a strongly worded but polite article revealing the SoH to be a meaningless organisation who appear to have little interest in regulating their members or in defending their position using rationality and argument. Instead turning to bullying tactics and ignoring their critics.
Recently the Observer has made a few scientific faux pas. In July we had the old MMR-autism chestnut and then we had thoroughly debunked at badscience.
Despite this inability to understand basic science there is an article in today’s Observer that is remarkably sensible - The cranks who swear by citronella oil. The article is a scathing attack on homeopathy, particularly in its use for the treatment of HIV-AIDS. Read it and understand that sometimes science journalism is good.
Unfortunately not everyone at the Observer is as well accustomed with the idea of scientific evidence as Nick Cohen. Dr Deborah McManners, a naturopathic physician and GP at the Hale Clinic, suggests, as a treatment for potentially stress induced hairloss.
Homeopathy could be another option - gelsemium is good for anticipatory anxiety, and arsenicum album is ideal for tense, ambitious perfectionists. A medical homeopath would be able to advise you (www.trusthomeopathy.org).
Looking at the Hale Clinic website it’s hardly surprising, they seem to offer all many of pseudoscientific bullshit.
Below is the post that has been removed from the Quackometer blog due to “legal reasons” see here and here. Due to it coming from googles cache it’s got some weird html formatting that I’ll sort later. Anyway, enjoy.
Due to the wonders of the blogosphere this has also appeared at the following locations:
Quackometer Blog Wrote
The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.
The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.
As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:
48 • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority.
• No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.72 To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.
The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.
Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,
Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.
Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,
Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. … The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs…
Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.
Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,
The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.
This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.
However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that ’she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics’. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.
A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,
introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.
I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for ‘treating’ various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,
is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.
This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.
Let’s remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.
there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.
Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.
Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the ‘immediate priority’ to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?
I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?
It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?
At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?
Recent Comments