No announcement yet.

asthma and H

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • asthma and H

    I just did a google news search using 'homeopathy' and there are many articles that claim that homeopathy remedies had no effect on asthma.

    How can this be? BTW, there were links to many world wide sites. This appears to be valid study - double blind, controlled and lasted for a year.

    How can this be?

  • #2

    "The researchers randomly assigned 93 children between the ages of 5 and 15 to receive up to six sessions of homeopathy or a placebo, in addition to their traditional asthma medications."

    So the children may have been on steroids throughout the period of the study. I don't know what the experts' consensus is on that but it seems to me that the "mixopathy" could have affected the results.


    • #3
      Well, if people practicing H are aware of these rusults, how can they still accept certain premises of H? It seems to me to be more of a 'belief' system than a real treatment.

      I only wish all remedies could be tested in a double blind test.


      • #4
        Check out the discussion of the asthma study at this thread:;f=2;t=007077


        • #5
          Dave & jfw,

          Journals like Nature, Lancet & Br. Medical Journal have put their reputations on the line in publishing Homeopathy research, demonstrating that it meets scientific criteria.
          Notably, Dr David Reilly (Two papers in Lancet).

          It is difficult to know what to believe anywhere else. Go by the reputation of Scientific Journals.

          Instead of Google, Yahoo, etc., use SCIRUS search (only tick "All Journal Sources") to see scientifically proven fact.

          Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?
          Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Carter R, Stevenson RD
          Lancet 1994 Dec 344:1601-6

          Lancet Volume 344 Issue 8937
          MEDLINE, full MEDLINE, related records
          We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a complement to their unaltered conventional care. A daily visual analogue scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p = 0.003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p = 0.0004). Is the reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof of the clinical trial's capacity to produce false-positive results?


          [ 09. April 2003, 19:21: Message edited by: Timokay ]