A comprehensive analysis of homeopathy science

This article is over 10 years old Homeopathic remedies.

A comprehensive analysis of homeopathy science

The last time we heard him say this was during a TV discussion March where he said that, if one succeeded in scientifically refuting the arguments set out in his paper, one would show the ineffectiveness of homeopathy.

Homeopathy – Science-Based Medicine

Even with careful selection, it remains problematic to compare studies of a pool of for homeopathy vsfor conventional medicine. This factor of already contains asymmetry. We see no good reasons why the asymmetry poses a problem; it does not conceivably impact on the outcome, nor does it bias the results.

In fact, such asymmetries are common is research. We cannot confirm that the table demonstrates such a discrimination, nor do we understand how this would disadvantage homeopathy.

Neither the Summary nor the Introduction clearly specify the aim of the study. It is hardly difficult to transform this into their aim: By using these sub-samples, the results seem to differ between conventional medicine and homeopathy.

This statement discloses a misconception of the approach used in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of all trials found some advantages of homeopathy. When the authors performed a sensitivity analysis with high quality and larger studies, this advantage disappeared.

The sensitivity analysis was to determine whether the overall treatment effect seen in the initial analysis was real or false-positive. In the case of homeopathy, it turned out to be false and presumably for this reason, the authors hardly mention it in their paperwhereas for the trials of conventional medicines, it was real.

Therefore, a direct comparison must not be made from this study.

A comprehensive analysis of homeopathy science

We fail to see the significance in terms of the research question stated by the authors. Even Frass et al use direct comparisons above.

However, there remains great uncertainty about the selection of the eight homeopathy and the six conventional medicine studies: This holds true even if various levels of SE are considered.

Therefore, the selection of larger trials of higher quality is a post-festum hypothesis but not a pre-set criterion. This is not true, Shang et al clearly stated in their paper: We are puzzled by this statement and fail to understand why Frass et al insist that this information should have been in the abstract.

For conventional medicine, the odds ratio was 0. The comment by Frass et al seems to be based on a misunderstanding how science operates.

But the decisive point is that it is unlikely that these six trials are still matched to the eight samples of homoeopathy although each of the in the original was matched. Consequently, one cannot conclude that these trials are still comparable. Further evidence that Frass et al misunderstood the concept of the Shang meta-analysis.

However, the use of funnel plots is also questionable. Funnel plots are thought to detect publication bias, and heterogeneity to detect fundamental differences between studies.Our science courses a comprehensive analysis of homeopathy science are content-rich and an essay on marijuana should it be legalized or not include major areas like biology, anatomy and physiology, astronomy and microbiology.

The meta-analysis does not compare studies of homeopathy vs studies of conventional medicine, but specific effects of these two methods in separate analyses. Therefore, a direct comparison must not be made from this study.

The 'science' behind homeopathy Homeopathic remedies are made by taking an ingredient, such as arsenic, and diluting it down so far that there is not a single molecule left in the dose that you get. The ingredients are selected on the basis of like cures like, so that a substance that causes sweating at normal doses, for example, would be used to .

Our analysis for the first time provides a comprehensive overview of homeopathic literature in the treatment of FMS including a summary of single case descriptions, a review of current observational studies and a meta-analysis of RCTs including 1 RCTs not included in prior reviews.

Upto the end of year , there have been 11 meta-analysis (1 on in vitro study, 1 on combination remedy) published in 10 medical journals (7 integrative, 1 homeopathy and 2 CAM journals). Out of 11 meta analysis, 5 are comprehensive/global, 5 on specific medical condition and 1 on super-avogadro dilution effect.

The 'science' behind homeopathy Homeopathic remedies are made by taking an ingredient, such as arsenic, and diluting it down so far that there is not a single molecule left in the dose that you get.

A comprehensive analysis of homeopathy science