Du vil sannsynligvis ikke få høre om dette studiet så mange steder. Ikke fordi man ikke skriver om negative konklusjoner om homøopati, men fordi dette kan virke mer «obskurt» og fordi det er trykket et mindre prestisjetungt sted enn Lancet eller BMJ. Dette er nemlig fra Homeopathy, og det handler om det klassisk Hahnemannske spørsmålet: […]
Du vil sannsynligvis ikke få høre om dette studiet så mange steder. Ikke fordi man ikke skriver om negative konklusjoner om homøopati, men fordi dette kan virke mer «obskurt» og fordi det er trykket et mindre prestisjetungt sted enn Lancet eller BMJ. Dette er nemlig fra Homeopathy, og det handler om det klassisk Hahnemannske spørsmålet: Hvordan vet en homøopat hva som skal virke mot hva?
«Provings» foretas på friske mennesker for å fremprovosere symptomer som ligner på dem hos syke, med tanken om at fortynnet og «potensert» materiale så kan kurere. Hvilket som vi vet ikke er tilfelle.
Men som i den formative perioden og tiden deretter, viser det seg at undersøkelsene bak utvalget av materien er av lav kvalitet. Abstractet oppsummerer en sørgelig tilstand:
Background
The quality of information gathered from homeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs), also known as ‘provings’, is fundamental to homeopathy. We systematically reviewed HPTs published in six languages (English, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Dutch) from 1945 to 1995, to assess their quality in terms of the validity of the information they provide.
Methods
The literature was comprehensively searched, only published reports of HPTs were included. Information was extracted by two reviewers per trial using a form with 87 items. Information on: medicines, volunteers, ethical aspects, blinding, randomization, use of placebo, adverse effects, assessments, presentation of data and number of claimed findings were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed by an index including indicators of internal and external validity, personal judgement and comments of reviewers for each study.
Results
156 HPTs on 143 medicines, involving 2815 volunteers, produced 20,538 pathogenetic effects (median 6.5 per volunteer). There was wide variation in methods and results. Sample size (median 15, range 1–103) and trial duration (mean 34 days) were very variable. Most studies had design flaws, particularly absence of proper randomization, blinding, placebo control and criteria for analysis of outcomes. Mean methodological score was 5.6 (range 4–16). More symptoms were reported from HPTs of poor quality than from better ones. In 56% of trials volunteers took placebo. Pathogenetic effects were claimed in 98% of publications. On average about 84% of volunteers receiving active treatment developed symptoms. The quality of reports was in general poor, and much important information was not available.
Conclusions
The HPTs were generally of low methodological quality. There is a high incidence of pathogenetic effects in publications and volunteers but this could be attributable to design flaws. Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports. Improvement of the method and reporting of results of HPTs are required.
Ouch. Etter to hundre år.
Men siden pretensjoner til rasjonell vitenskapelig innstilling er en klar mindretallsgeskjeft i profesjonen, blir det nok ikke slutt på sukkervannet med det første.
(F. Dantas et.al. A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy, Volume 96, Issue 1, 2007, Pp 4-16.)