FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2080300098> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2080300098 endingPage "164" @default.
• W2080300098 startingPage "163" @default.
• W2080300098 abstract "In this issue, Paris et al.[1] report a clinical trial showing that homeopathy is not better than placebo in reducing morphine consumption after surgery. Proponents of homeopathy would object to this statement. Even though the study was well-made, it did only suggest that a certain homeopathic remedy fails to be effective for a certain type of pain. Other homeopathic medicines might be effective and other types of pain might have produced different results. There are hundreds of different homeopathic remedies which can be prescribed for thousands of symptoms in dozens of different dilutions. Thus we would probably need to work flat out for several lifetimes in order to arrive at a conclusion that fully substantiates my opening statement. This seems neither possible nor desirable. Perhaps it is preferable to simply combine common sense with the best existing knowledge. These two tell us that 1) homeopathy is biologically implausible, 2) its own predictions seem to be incorrect and 3) the clinical evidence is largely negative. Let me explain. The main axioms of homeopathy are that 1) ‘like can be cured with like’ and that 2) less is more. According to the first axiom, a substance that causes certain symptoms in healthy volunteers is a cure for such symptoms in patients. The ‘less is more’ axiom posits that, if we dilute and shake a remedy, it becomes not weaker but stronger. The process is therefore aptly called ‘potentation’ by homeopaths. Homeopaths believe that the most potent remedies are those that have been potentized to the point where no ‘active’ molecule is left. Samuel Hahnemann, the father of homeopathy, might be forgiven for developing these concepts some 200 years ago. Today, however, we know a lot more, and comprehend that they are not in line with much that science has taught us. Yet today's followers of Hahnemann's doctrines seem to prefer mystical thinking to science. Even homeopathy's own predictions seem to be incorrect. In order to know which remedy is effective in which situation and to apply the law of similars, homeopaths need to test each of their medicines on healthy volunteers and minutely record the symptoms it may cause. This process is called ‘proving’. During the last 200 years, many such provings have been reported. A remedy is given to a group of volunteers who then record their experience. One may well ask whether the results are reliable. One could, for instance, investigate whether the symptoms reported are different from those caused by a placebo. Assessing the totality of these provings in a systematic review, homeopaths were recently surprised to find that ‘the central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered’[2]. Another prediction homeopaths believe in is that of homeopathic aggravations. These are acute exacerbations of the patient's presenting symptoms after receiving the optimal remedy. Homeopaths expect these phenomena to occur in ∼20% of all patients. When we scrutinized placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy, however, we found that aggravations did not occur more frequently in the verum than in the control group [3]. The likely explanation seems to be that this prediction is based on a myth. The acid test, of course, is a clinical trial of the type conducted by Paris et al.[1]. Is the patients' response to homeopathy truly more than a placebo effect? Many investigators have asked that crucial question. As one might expect, the answers are far from uniform. Some trials are negative, some are positive, but very few are rigorous. In this situation, it would be foolish to rely on the results of just one or two studies. What is needed is a systematic review of all studies of acceptable methodological quality. Dozens of such reviews are available today. The vast majority of those that are rigorous conclude that homeopathic medicines fail to generate clinical effects that are different from those of placebo [4-6]. Yet many patients swear by homeopathy and homeopaths insist they witness therapeutic success every day of their professional lives·[7]. The discrepancy between the trial and the observational data continues to be hotly debated. Personally, I find this somewhat puzzling. The explanation seems obvious: patients often do improve for a number of reasons unrelated to any specific effect of the treatment we prescribe [8]. Amongst all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one – think, for instance, of the individualized remedies or the long and empathic encounter between patient and therapist. So the conundrum of homeopathy seems to be solved. ‘Heavens!’ I hear the homeopathic fraternity shout. ‘We need more research!’ But are they correct? How much research is enough to show that any treatment does not work (sorry, is not superior to placebo)? Here we go full circle: should we really spend several lifetimes in order to arrive at a more robust conclusion? Perhaps one should ask the proponents of homeopathy and the best minds in medical research to design a comprehensive but finite research programme to determine the truth. As long as both camps agree at the outset to accept the results, this might be a feasible way of ending a 200 year old dispute. Most readers and even many homeopaths will be surprised to learn that that has already happened! During the Third Reich the (mostly pro-homeopathy) Nazi leadership wanted to solve the homeopathy question once and for all. The research programme was carefully planned and rigorously executed. A report was written and it even survived the war. But it disappeared nevertheless – apparently in the hands of German homeopaths. Why? According to a very detailed eye-witness report [9-12], they were wholly and devastatingly negative." @default.
• W2080300098 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2080300098 creator A5074271785 @default.
• W2080300098 date "2007-09-15" @default.
• W2080300098 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2080300098 title "The truth about homeopathy" @default.
• W2080300098 cites W1813387120 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W2024596687 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W2039326996 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W2050247711 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W2078696051 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W2110707035 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W2120379390 @default.
• W2080300098 cites W4239573819 @default.
• W2080300098 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.03007.x" @default.
• W2080300098 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2291211" @default.
• W2080300098 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17875194" @default.
• W2080300098 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2080300098 type Work @default.
• W2080300098 sameAs 2080300098 @default.
• W2080300098 citedByCount "26" @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982012 @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982013 @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982014 @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982015 @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982016 @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982018 @default.
• W2080300098 countsByYear W20803000982019 @default.
• W2080300098 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2080300098 hasAuthorship W2080300098A5074271785 @default.
• W2080300098 hasBestOaLocation W20803000981 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C167729594 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C176762198 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C27081682 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C2777026412 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C2781238097 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C556039675 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C111472728 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C138885662 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C142724271 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C154945302 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C167729594 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C176762198 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C204787440 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C2524010 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C27081682 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C2777026412 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C2781238097 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C33923547 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C41008148 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C556039675 @default.
• W2080300098 hasConceptScore W2080300098C71924100 @default.
• W2080300098 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2080300098 hasLocation W20803000981 @default.
• W2080300098 hasLocation W20803000982 @default.
• W2080300098 hasLocation W20803000983 @default.
• W2080300098 hasLocation W20803000984 @default.
• W2080300098 hasOpenAccess W2080300098 @default.
• W2080300098 hasPrimaryLocation W20803000981 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W1976189817 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W2062666371 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W2073303879 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W2103075780 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W2788937893 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W3176501730 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W4380423093 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W605357409 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W648220535 @default.
• W2080300098 hasRelatedWork W1995270958 @default.
• W2080300098 hasVolume "65" @default.
• W2080300098 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2080300098 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2080300098 magId "2080300098" @default.
• W2080300098 workType "article" @default.