News

The latest on everything that matters to student life, from UCD’s campuses and from around the country

Otwo

The University Observer’s award-winning arts and culture supplement features the best in new music, film and fashion

Features

Peek behind the scenes of student life and gain a deeper insight into the matters shaping academic life

Science & Health

Thoughts, debate and commentary on the latest breakthroughs and discoveries about the wider world

Sport

Catch up with the latest UCD sports news and read opinion, debate and analysis on all things athletic

Home » Science & Health

Medical science fiction?

Contributed by Seán Mc Kernan on Tuesday, 28 April 20094 Comments

As the number of people using complementary therapy increases, Seán McKernan looks at just how effective these treatments really are.

Complementary therapy has been a keen topic of debate in the medical world for the past ten years. Its popularity has increased highly, with many practitioners setting up shop in Dublin. The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has also moved recently to regulate and provide complementary therapy in its practices. But is it all smoke and mirrors or does complementary therapy convey health benefits?

Complementary therapy is made up of many practices such as yoga, homeopathy and spiritual healing. Some of these therapies have been practiced for thousands of years, predating modern medicine itself. Some therapies such as yoga and acupuncture have been shown to improve a patient’s wellbeing and even improve treatment effectiveness when given in conjunction with modern medical treatment.

On the other hand some complementary treatments are based upon unscientific methods and it is therefore difficult to assess their effects. Homeopathy is an example of this, as although it has been shown improve a patient’s wellbeing there is no scientific explanation for how it works.

The methodology behind homeopathy is that if you administer the substance that makes you sick in a diluted form, it can cure you. For example if you are stung by a bee, a diluted sample of bee venom will cure you. These substances are commonly diluted to the extent that there is statistically no cure in the medicine. In fact the dilution is similar to pouring a cup of the substance into all the world’s oceans!
Some sceptics of the homeopathic effect have offered a $1 million prize if the effect can be scientifically proven. So far no evidence of the homeopathic effect has been found.

The results seen from homeopathy are believed to result from the placebo effect, whereby if a patient is given a pill they will feel better than a patient who is given nothing. This phenomenon has been tested and it has been shown that those given a larger or coloured pill will feel better than those given a small white pill even when the contents are the same.

Acupuncture is the process of inserting needles into the skin in order to unblock Qi or energy channels. It has been studied for many years but has shown conflicting results. Many reports state that it can relieve muscular pain associated with diseases.

Crystal healing is defined as pseudoscience by most scientists and is based upon the belief that crystals have the power to heal diseases. It is scientifically unproven and has even been criticised by the British Veterinary Foundation due to the number of animals living in pain as their owner’s refusal to use any other method of treatment on their pets.

In contrast to these, modern medicine is based upon evidence-based treatment. Due to the inability for complementary medicines to scientifically prove that they can work, they are largely regarded as pseudoscience by medicine.

Essentially whether you use complementary medicine or not is up to you. Over 70 per cent of Americans claim to have used it in the past. Its wide popularity among those who are terminally ill and has had a positive effect as in many cases it improves their quality of life and reduces pain.

Although there are mixed opinions, complementary therapy is becoming more accepted by those in the medical profession. Anything that increases a patient’s quality of life should be welcomed but not at the expense of treatments that have been scientifically proven to work. Although saying that next time I have a hangover I won’t be diluting my aspirin or trying to cure it with positive thought.

4 Comments »

  • ScepticsBane said:

    This article lacks credibility, documentation, and apparently was not well researched.

    A famous meta analyis, supposedly showing that Homeopathy was no better than placebo was published in the Lancet in 2005. The author “forgot” to publish details of his analysis but provided them after some months delay. Supposedly this analysis was based on 110 trials – it was, but most of them were discarded until the author had manipulated the data to suit his predetermined conclusion that Homeopathy was no better than placebo. Astoundingly, this article based its conclusion not on the original 110 trials, but on 8 (eight!!) trials that were left after the questionable exclusionary criteria were applied.
    A recent Journal of Clinical Epidemiology article completely trashed this meta-analysis as essentially worthless. The article also failed to mentioned several other meta-analyses which had appeared in the Lancet clearly showing that Homeopathy performed well above placebo.

    Regarding the high dilution solutions used in many Homeopathic remedies, ongoing research, in particular by pharmacology researcher M. Ennis, has shown that high dilution solutions with no molecules apparently remaining can still stimulate biological effects as though the stimulant were still present (Inflammation Research vol 53, p181). Her experiments have been repeatedly confirmed and the scientific explanation remains unknown and under research. But the Homeopathic curative effect, sometimes even for deadly diseases for which no standard medical cure will avail, is well documented and has been saving people for well nigh on two centuries now.

    The article also paints a confused picture of Acupuncture, makes halting and uneducated conclusions about the efficacy of its treatments and the author clearly needs to do more research before posting articles of this type.

    - 28 April 2009 at 1:03 pm
  • Spanky said:

    ScepticsBane, you make a good point. How come then that no homeopath has claimed the US$1m on offer for simply showing that it works better than placebo? The BBC tried to win it and failed miserably. Maybe you should try to win the money? It seems really easy.
    Let me know how you go, there’s a good chap.

    - 28 April 2009 at 4:10 pm
  • ScepticsBane said:

    A documentary by the BBC in 2001 purportedly “repeated” the Ennis experiment with negative results. Curious, she spent some weeks trying to contact them and eventually learned from their researcher who conducted the TV experiment that they had not followed her experimental protocols, and had added aluminum chloride, a chemical known to kill the cells under test thus rendering their experiment worthless. This is all reported by Ennis and emails from the producers – search for “Ennis” and “Wayne Turnbull” and Homoepathy.

    The million dollar prize, in my opinion, a mere publicity stunt from the “Amazing” Randi, has no scientific credibility nor worth whatsoever. A well known Greek Homeopath, George Vitoulkas, spent an incredible 5 years “negotiating” with Randi on just what would be an acceptable experiment. When the “negotiations” finally reached a serious stage and Dr. Vitoulkas had actually reserved space and resources at a Greek hospital to perform the test, Randi suddenly became “ill” and was unreachable for several months and he was the only one with whom the negotiations could be concluded and the test begun. After his “recovery” Vitoulkas was incredulous when he discovered a brief note sent to him indicating that Randi wished to discard all of the negotiations and start again at ground zero. Equally astounding, Randi published at his web site that it was Vitoulkas who had “withdrawn” from the negotiations!!

    This was all reported at Vitoulkas’ website. It is clear that the negotiations can be dragged on or delayed forever until the applicant either gives up or else Randi is certain that no possible valid experiment can be performed – have you accounted for the influence of cosmic rays in you experiment??

    Anyone who mentions Randi in any scientific or serious context whatever is deluding themselves into mistaking a publicity stunt for scientific research.

    - 28 April 2009 at 6:11 pm
  • ScepticsBane said:

    To Spanky!

    No response to my riposte, eh?

    Understandable.

    Perhaps reading some real scientific articles instead of make believe from the “amazing” Randi’s “educational” foundation will help.

    - 11 May 2009 at 11:43 pm