The "Conclusion" in the abstract states "Homeopathic immunotherapy is
not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma". The last sentence
of the article itself states "In conclusion, in this double blind,
randomised controlled trial of homeopathic immunotherapy we have failed to
confirm that this treatment is therapeutically efficacious in allergic
asthma.."
These two conclusions are NOT the same.
The conclusion of the article is a reasonable one to make. In THIS trial
WE HAVE FAILED TO CONFIRM captures the point exactly. To extrapolate that
to the conclusion quoted in the abstract suggests that NO homeopathic
immunotherapy is EVER effective in patients with asthma is not logical.
What if a different potency or different frequency of dosing were to show
a difference for example? This trial only used 3 doses of 30c over 24
hours. There are many other different regimes used in practice. This trial
actually doesn't show that those other regimes don't work.
Sadly, this loose use of language then generates front page headlines like
the one on today's BMJ "Homeopathy for dust mite allergies? No, it's a
waste of time." which further extrapolates from the conclusion of the
abstract to claim that ANY USE of HOMEOPATHY in treating dust mite
allergies is "a waste of time". This is an even less defensible position.
So, from article, to conclusion, to conclusion of abstract, to front page
headline we lose the truth and develop generalisations with are not only
wrong but are unscientific.
Rapid Response:
The distortions of language
The "Conclusion" in the abstract states "Homeopathic immunotherapy is
not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma". The last sentence
of the article itself states "In conclusion, in this double blind,
randomised controlled trial of homeopathic immunotherapy we have failed to
confirm that this treatment is therapeutically efficacious in allergic
asthma.."
These two conclusions are NOT the same.
The conclusion of the article is a reasonable one to make. In THIS trial
WE HAVE FAILED TO CONFIRM captures the point exactly. To extrapolate that
to the conclusion quoted in the abstract suggests that NO homeopathic
immunotherapy is EVER effective in patients with asthma is not logical.
What if a different potency or different frequency of dosing were to show
a difference for example? This trial only used 3 doses of 30c over 24
hours. There are many other different regimes used in practice. This trial
actually doesn't show that those other regimes don't work.
Sadly, this loose use of language then generates front page headlines like
the one on today's BMJ "Homeopathy for dust mite allergies? No, it's a
waste of time." which further extrapolates from the conclusion of the
abstract to claim that ANY USE of HOMEOPATHY in treating dust mite
allergies is "a waste of time". This is an even less defensible position.
So, from article, to conclusion, to conclusion of abstract, to front page
headline we lose the truth and develop generalisations with are not only
wrong but are unscientific.
Competing interests: No competing interests