2 ms·

Just to back myself up here: consider childhood ADHD. Homeopathic pills have an effect size over 0.5 (half a standard deviation). Now, sure, maybe it’s a sugar

Just to back myself up here: consider childhood ADHD. Homeopathic pills have an effect size over 0.5 (half a standard deviation). Now, sure, maybe it’s a sugar pill and sure, maybe Ritalin is a better choice. But I think this example shows that homeopathy has an ethical place in human medicine. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3

dr_dshiv 4y ago
- carrotcarrot 4y ago
  It's one of the topics where the grey comments are the only ones with anything interesting to say. The rest are mainly repeating the correct opinion
pif 4y ago
> A limitation of our analysis is, however, that the sample size of the individual studies was generally small [...] Thus, our results can be taken as an encouraging interim finding but should be corroborated by other, long-term studies.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  To be clear, they analyzed 6 studies with an average of 52 patients. So, that’s about 300 or so kids.
- carrotcarrot 4y ago
  All studies mention limitations (or are supposed to...). If the results were statistically significant this aside doesn't negate them.
korm 4y ago
That is a meta analysis conducted by homeopathic doctors, on studies done by some "homeopathic institutes" and other such associations. It's curious how positive results only come from associates in an industry profiting from trying to convince you that their water, chemically indistinguishable from regular water, has magical healing properties through its memory of past events.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Water has memory! Or so says a popular snowman. In case you are curious, here is a rigorous research paper on the topic. It is extremely hard to evaluate. Any researcher who would try to do this sort of research is immediately suspect, so it takes a certain type. But I see no reason to dismiss a priori. See what you think (over 250 cites): Roy, R., Tiller, W. A., Bell, I., & Hoover, M. R. (2005). The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations, 9(4), 98-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2005.11784911 https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2005.11784911
  - korm 4y ago
    I know it does, and that has been cited countless times by homeopathic studies. The problem is that you still need magic for it to have a biological effect. They dismiss this criticism as undiscovered science, in much the same way fairies and leprechauns are undiscovered animals. They'll often cite quantum mechanics and even cosmology, the more esoteric the better, to try to shoehorn science into their beliefs.
    - dr_dshiv 4y ago
      No, but really— try reading the article I shared. It’s pretty interesting.
vhold 4y ago
I wouldn't downvote you, but I think you should be aware that meta-analysis is making the case that homeopathy is better than placebo and has an unknown mechanism of working, which is a much bolder claim than you originally made. I disagree with the results of the risk of bias assessments of the studies involved in that meta-analysis: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3/tables/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3/tables/1 Out of the 6 studies used, only 2 are from general research institutions. The other 4 are all specialists in homeopathy or private practices using homeopathy. Seems like the risk of bias there would be extremely high.

dr_dshiv 4y ago

carrotcarrot 4y ago
It's one of the topics where the grey comments are the only ones with anything interesting to say. The rest are mainly repeating the correct opinion

pif 4y ago

> A limitation of our analysis is, however, that the sample size of the individual studies was generally small [...] Thus, our results can be taken as an encouraging interim finding but should be corroborated by other, long-term studies.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
To be clear, they analyzed 6 studies with an average of 52 patients. So, that’s about 300 or so kids.
carrotcarrot 4y ago
All studies mention limitations (or are supposed to...). If the results were statistically significant this aside doesn't negate them.

korm 4y ago

That is a meta analysis conducted by homeopathic doctors, on studies done by some "homeopathic institutes" and other such associations. It's curious how positive results only come from associates in an industry profiting from trying to convince you that their water, chemically indistinguishable from regular water, has magical healing properties through its memory of past events.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Water has memory! Or so says a popular snowman. In case you are curious, here is a rigorous research paper on the topic. It is extremely hard to evaluate. Any researcher who would try to do this sort of research is immediately suspect, so it takes a certain type. But I see no reason to dismiss a priori. See what you think (over 250 cites): Roy, R., Tiller, W. A., Bell, I., & Hoover, M. R. (2005). The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations, 9(4), 98-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2005.11784911 https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2005.11784911
- korm 4y ago
  I know it does, and that has been cited countless times by homeopathic studies. The problem is that you still need magic for it to have a biological effect. They dismiss this criticism as undiscovered science, in much the same way fairies and leprechauns are undiscovered animals. They'll often cite quantum mechanics and even cosmology, the more esoteric the better, to try to shoehorn science into their beliefs.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    No, but really— try reading the article I shared. It’s pretty interesting.

vhold 4y ago

I wouldn't downvote you, but I think you should be aware that meta-analysis is making the case that homeopathy is better than placebo and has an unknown mechanism of working, which is a much bolder claim than you originally made. I disagree with the results of the risk of bias assessments of the studies involved in that meta-analysis: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3/tables/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3/tables/1 Out of the 6 studies used, only 2 are from general research institutions. The other 4 are all specialists in homeopathy or private practices using homeopathy. Seems like the risk of bias there would be extremely high.