BMJ 2002;325:41 ( 6 July )

Letters

Randomised controlled trials for homoeopathy

    Providers have much to gain from homoeopathy being accepted
    Studies comparing homoeopathy and placebo are unhelpful
    Language is being distorted
    Study is in effect trying to compare apples with oranges
    When is useful improvement a waste of time? Double positive paradox of negative trials
    Authors' reply

Providers have much to gain from homoeopathy being accepted

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITORDebates generated by the lack of evidence of benefit of screening for breast and prostate cancer are similar to the argument for lack of effectiveness of homoeopathy. How does one show a lack of benefit in the face of wishful thinking by both customers and providers, particularly when the providers have a financial interest in a positive outcome? And, as an anaesthetist and non-user of any of these services, why should I care?

The answer is given by Feder and Katz, who point out that patients can be referred to homoeopathic specialists in the NHS or general practitioners who prescribe homoeopathically.¹ Consumers of these resources should have a duty to show a benefit from any consultations or treatments provided, and the fundholders should have a duty to withhold funds in the absence of such evidence. If the customers then wish to purchase treatment that is not beneficial they . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Patient outcomes and population context affect test accuracy

David Jenkins and Elaine Bentley
BMJ 2003 326: 601. [Extract] [Full Text]

Randomised controlled trials for homoeopathy

Gene Feder and Tessa Katz
BMJ 2002 324: 498-499. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial

G T Lewith, A D Watkins, M E Hyland, S Shaw, J A Broomfield, G Dolan, and S T Holgate
BMJ 2002 324: 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series • Commentary: Larger trials are needed

Morag A Taylor, David Reilly, Robert H Llewellyn-Jones, Charles McSharry, Tom C Aitchison, Tim Lancaster, and Andrew Vickers
BMJ 2000 321: 471-476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Bellavite, P., Conforti, A., Piasere, V., Ortolani, R. (2005). Immunology and Homeopathy. 1. Historical Background. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2: 441-452 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Jenkins, D., Bentley, E. (2003). Patient outcomes and population context affect test accuracy. BMJ 326: 601-601 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Holidays and housing help to

john sharvill
bmj.com, 6 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Sick to the back teeth

Thomas G McPhee
bmj.com, 6 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Withdraw funding for all useless medicaments

John P Heptonstall
bmj.com, 7 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Re: Withdraw funding for all useless medicaments

Thomas G McPhee
bmj.com, 9 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Re: Sick to the back teeth

Peter Morrell
bmj.com, 10 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Re: Re: Sick to the back teeth

Thomas G McPhee
bmj.com, 12 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Homeopathic dose or a dose of good medicine?

Roger K.A. Allen
bmj.com, 12 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Re: Homeopathic dose or a dose of good medicine?

Tony Floyd
bmj.com, 14 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Jibes from the armchair of theoretical medicine?

Peter Morrell
bmj.com, 18 Jul 2002 [Full text]

A simple question

John Hopkins
bmj.com, 19 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Distortion of science?

Brian J Murray, et al.
bmj.com, 5 Aug 2002 [Full text]

Nobody is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time !

Andy G Finucane
bmj.com, 13 Dec 2004 [Full text]

Re: Nobody is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time !

John P Heptonstall
bmj.com, 14 Dec 2004 [Full text]

Re: Nobody is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time !

Peter Morrell
bmj.com, 15 Dec 2004 [Full text]