Re:Re:The lack of evidence for integrative medicine
John Cook - are you seriously trying to claim evidence of benefit from homeopathy? The available evidence suggests otherwise. Perhaps you did not read the meta-analysis by Shang et al [1]. IF it worked, then you could argue and investigate the how and why. Let us not forget that for many effective medicines (e.g. aspirin, digoxin) the exact mechanisms of action were not known until there was sufficient advancement in the science of pharmacology.
You also seem to have missed the point that any perceived benefit you have had from homeopathy is nothing more than your perception. However, this can readily be distorted by observer bias, placebo effect and regression to the mean. When homeopathy is investigated to the same rigour as any proven beneficial therapy using randomised controlled trials, it is found wanting for any added benefit over placebo. As for value for many, gram for gram, homeopathic "remedies" cost more than sterling silver! For a bottle of ineffective sugar pills, that is extortionate. I seriously advise you to do some proper investigation into homeopathy. Good starting points would be the websites of Sense About Science [2], the Ten23 campaign [3] and "How does homeopathy work [4].
I am somewhat curious as to why Mark Struthers takes this opportunity to comment about whether statins are efficacious or not, as this is irrelevant to the article written. If he feels so strongly on the subject he should write an article or letter about statins or comment in response to an article on statins. Statins have been shown to be efficacious in some situations but more recent research suggests that they are over-used or incorrectly used in some situations but may have uses in other disease states where they are not currently used. That is the nature of science - if a treatment is found to be ineffective it gets abandoned. Anyone remember EUSOL? Picking on statins is a classic bait and switch tactic. An argument against expenditure on statins is not an argument in favour of an ineffective therapy such as homeopathy. They are separate arguments.
Rapid Response:
Re:Re:The lack of evidence for integrative medicine
You also seem to have missed the point that any perceived benefit you have had from homeopathy is nothing more than your perception. However, this can readily be distorted by observer bias, placebo effect and regression to the mean. When homeopathy is investigated to the same rigour as any proven beneficial therapy using randomised controlled trials, it is found wanting for any added benefit over placebo. As for value for many, gram for gram, homeopathic "remedies" cost more than sterling silver! For a bottle of ineffective sugar pills, that is extortionate. I seriously advise you to do some proper investigation into homeopathy. Good starting points would be the websites of Sense About Science [2], the Ten23 campaign [3] and "How does homeopathy work [4].
I am somewhat curious as to why Mark Struthers takes this opportunity to comment about whether statins are efficacious or not, as this is irrelevant to the article written. If he feels so strongly on the subject he should write an article or letter about statins or comment in response to an article on statins. Statins have been shown to be efficacious in some situations but more recent research suggests that they are over-used or incorrectly used in some situations but may have uses in other disease states where they are not currently used. That is the nature of science - if a treatment is found to be ineffective it gets abandoned. Anyone remember EUSOL? Picking on statins is a classic bait and switch tactic. An argument against expenditure on statins is not an argument in favour of an ineffective therapy such as homeopathy. They are separate arguments.
References
[1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67177-2/fulltext
[2] http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/54/sense-about-homeopathy
[3]http://www.1023.org.uk/
[4] http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/
Competing interests: No competing interests