liveonearth (liveonearth) wrote,

Homeopathy Subversion

I've been reading the assigned chapter (chapter 7 of Amy Lansky's book Impossible Cure; The Promise of Homeopathy) and decided to do a little web search to see if anyone else had some thoughts about the way that homeopaths like to present the science about their pet topic. I discovered that I am not the only one who thinks the presentation of the material is biased and that the so-called science is distorted so badly as to not merit the name "science" anymore. But check out the links for yourself, if you're interested. I found these by searching for "Linde 1997 homeopathy", referencing his 1997 meta analysis "proving" that homeopathy is 245% more effective than placebo. Linde's analysis included research in all languages, making it difficult for any non-linguistically oriented individual to directly critique his much-quoted analysis.

First, here's the Linde meta analysis
And a nugget of Linde's work:

If you read Lansky's chapter 7, you read that the government of India said in a press release that "After a period fo 3 to 16 months, many patients gave a non-reactive response to ELISA and some gave negative response to Western blot test [both standard tests for HIV] indicating effectiveness of the therapy" (page 180). Well, so homeopathy cures AIDS? That is the implication, though certainly not the fact. But here's one for the government of India: Homeopathy Gives You AIDS, by Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, September 15th, 2007:

This one is entertaining:
Blog: Journey through a Burning Mind
Ignorance and Stupidity = Homeopath “Specialists” (Part 1)
March 11th, 2008
And here's another slam:
Homeopathy: Wasting Resources for Distributing Water
January 14th, 2008

This one's a bit more scientific and gives more info about the studies that Linde included:
from the blog Bandolier; Evidence Based Thinking about Healthcare
Title: Homeopathy - dilute information and little knowledge

And here's another science-oriented commentary without the sarcasm:

Here's a scientific review of scientific reviews of homeopathy that does NOT recommend its use in medical practice:

Edzard Ernst has some criticisms of Linde's methods:

Annals of Internal Medicine: A Critical Overview of Homeopathy

Magical Thinking in CAM:

In Veterinary Practice:

The Integrator Blog:

in Pharmacy:;col1

The Townsend Letter tries to walk the fine line but shows signs of being a marketing tool:

And Vithoulkas (homeopath by golly) says science is confusing the issue, missing the point:

Homeopathy Swindle

I know there are lots more but I have to get back to studying for midterms.
Tags: homeopathy, magic, nd2, science
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded