The impact of antivaccination lobbying
Here’s an excellent news report from Australia on the human costs of the anti-vaccine movement:
The video features Viera Scheibner, who has nothing good to say about vaccines and thinks that vaccines are dangerous and infectious diseases in childhood are good. It also features the stories of children who caught vaccine-preventable diseases. This is how it’s done.
Posted in: Science and the Media, Vaccines
Leave a Comment (181) ↓
Chris:
I stated: “Funny, I didn’t get my money back from McNeil Pharmaceuticals for putting my life at risk over a goddamn pain killer. Not even a “we’re sorry” card. They just pocketed the money and ran.”
You stated “Logic fail.”
Zomax was only removed when McNeil Pharmaceuticals could not keep the lid on the drug’s serious side effects.
Did you not read the story on Zomax? I provided you the information about how the company protected itself through the courts to suppress information about the damage the drug was causing. They continued to sell a drug THEY KNEW WAS DANGEROUS. No one went to jail. No fines were levied. Just another day at the office.
If you want to have a real discussion that’s fine, but if you just want a YouTube-esque experience you’ve got the wrong person.
@libby,
““The celery is not to blame”
Ergo, homeopathy is not to blame.”
The homeopathic remedy itself is not to blame. The false beliefs of the person who chose it over effective treatment are to blame.
HH:
“…you reject the scientific studies that have been done on homeopathy so far.”
Absolutely. They should be an embarrassment to science.
“What if studies were designed that met all your specifications for good science and they consistently showed that homeopathy didn’t work?”
I think that this would not happen.
In any case, the better question is, why hasn’t this been done? Why has so much money been put into blatantly faulty studies?
“Would you change your mind?”
Can’t answer that because if I know it works for me then how could a legitimate study come to a false conclusion.
“What if you yourself were submitted to an n=1 double blind placebo controlled trial and found that you couldn’t tell the placebo from the real thing?”
I don’t think that’s possible in my case because I had many failures, including homeopathic remedies, that didn’t work, before I finally found the one thing that worked with no ill effects. What didn’t work at all was looking up a homeopathic remedy in a book and then taking that.
It was when I went to a recommended homeopath who gave me the appropriate dosage of a remedy designed for the pollen in my area. Even then I had no confidence in it, until my symptoms vanished. I had to admit then that things were not what they seemed.
It would be very hard to match that experience in a study that would not allow for failures.
“Would you change your mind? Personal experience is very compelling, but it regularly leads people to false conclusions. Do you think you are somehow exempt?”
I’m not recommending homeopathy to anyone, and I have not done so on this board. I’m only telling you what I have experienced.
@libby,
So in essence, you are saying that you know a truth (that your homeopathic remedy is effective for you) and that you can predict what scientific testing would show, or that if it didn’t show what you wanted you would reject it. I can imagine medieval blood-letters saying exactly the same kind of thing: they had strong, direct, repeated personal experience that blood-letting was effective for treating fevers and other conditions and even for saving lives. They were wrong, and you could be too. The scientific method requires acknowledging that we might be wrong and testing our hypotheses to ask whether they are correct. There are many examples of people who were just as convinced by their experience as you are but who were proven to be wrong. Either you fail to understand this concept or you think you are somehow exempt.
HH:
“The homeopathic remedy itself is not to blame. The false beliefs of the person who chose it over effective treatment are to blame.”
Yes. We all make choices everyday. Having been subjected to several drugs that turned out to be less than perfect, to put it mildly, has altered my perception of the drug industry, questioning their motives, the structure in place, the effectiveness of the regulatory bodies, etc.
If the system had transparency I would be less harsh in my criticisms. I did not actively and consciously turn away from our legal drug culture without reason. It simply failed to live up to my standards.
Oooh, science fail. Just because science can’t explain something right now doesn’t mean it can never be explained. Creationists think so, but they are morons who are motivated to ignore reality in favour of a preconcieved notion.
Have you read any of the posts that discuss cognitive biases (specifically confirmation biases) and scientific control? We’ve got an explanation for how homeopathy “works” and it doesn’t require rewriting the laws of physics and chemistry, it merely notes the effects of a lengthy consultation and the human ability to fool itself.
Done, please provide me your home address and I will begin labelling lactose pills in preparation.
Keep in mind that good science involves testing something neutrally, not confirming what you want to believe. Science is about method and rigor, not results.
Do your methods involve applied kinesiology? I really, really hope so.
We do know how Zomax and Hismanal turned out – when rare side effects appeared, they were withdrawn from the market. Yay for post-marketing surveillance!
And here’s the rub. Nothing is perfect. There will always be side effects to medications because they are imprecisely-targeted molecules. There’s no mendacity or duplicity on the part of companies here, we simply have an imperfect understanding of the body, which is itself designed by evolution and thus a combination of woefully flawed and cunningly jury-rigged. Libby, you’re asking for perfection which we will never have, and if we forced the kind of studies for rare outcomes you seem to be demanding then medications would be far more expensive and there would be fewer of them. You probably see that as a bad thing, but I prefer that when I am older and have cancer, they’ll have new drugs that are effective. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Also, you never responded to my post above. What herbal remedies will you use to treat blood clots, AIDS, smallpox and Huntington’s disease? Because apparently every single disease that exists has a plant-based cure. Because apparently plants exist solely to treat human illness.
Libby, did Zomax work for you? What toxicity symptoms did you have from zomax? What basis do you have for feeling that zomax is toxic or potentially harmful?
Why do you accept scientific evidence for one thing and not for others?
@HH
Agreed, with an overall point of us not so much speaking different languages as living in (literally) different universes. Ours have rules independent of belief, hers apparently does not.
libby refused to say if she was harmed. Hence her whinging about not getting a refund was a logic fail.
I used to take the antihistamine Seldane, it was also removed from the market. I was not personally harmed and I never expected a refund.
It is also a logic fail for her to whine about “ethics” in pharmaceuticals, yet continue to tout the benefits of homeopathy, and ignore the actions of Viera Schreibner.
She obviously lives on the same planet at Th1Th2: Htrae (also known as Bizarro World). As such she should be ignored, or just reminded to stay on topic and present real data. Anytime she mentions Zomax she will be asked if she was harmed.
Chris:
“She obviously lives on the same planet at Th1Th2: Htrae (also known as Bizarro World)”
I warned about such nonsense.
Goodbye.
HH:
“So in essence, you are saying that you know a truth (that your homeopathic remedy is effective for you) and that you can predict what scientific testing would show, or that if it didn’t show what you wanted you would reject it.”
I don’t see any other explanation other than that it works for me. It’s happened consistently over 6 years, and when I forget to take the remedy, the symptoms return.
I can’t predict a scientific study. There were 2 studies in BMJ 1 year apart, the first showing increased risk of breast cancer by consuming grapefruit, and the second reversing that conclusion.
I think reject is too strong. A study that followed protocol for homeopathy that showed it a failure would lead me to believe that what I am experiencing is a very rare positive reaction.
“I can imagine medieval blood-letters saying exactly the same kind of thing: they had strong, direct, repeated personal experience that blood-letting was effective for treating fevers and other conditions and even for saving lives. They were wrong, and you could be too.”
This is valid. But we have to agree that blood-letters were offering their services to mostly uneducated illiterate people who could be easily swayed, possibly by the insertion of the notion that it is
God’s will, or that the ‘bad blood’ must be drained (possibly a link to the etymology of the phrase). Science has made our society less vulnerable to medieval-like belief systems.
“The scientific method requires acknowledging that we might be wrong and testing our hypotheses to ask whether they are correct. There are many examples of people who were just as convinced by their experience as you are but who were proven to be wrong. Either you fail to understand this concept or you think you are somehow exempt.”
I wish I had an explanation for what I’m experiencing.
daedalus2u
Libby, did Zomax work for you? What toxicity symptoms did you have from zomax? What basis do you have for feeling that zomax is toxic or potentially harmful?
By extension, if I managed to make it on foot across a busy 12 lane highway you would then claim that this activity was safe and an appropriate place for children to play.
“I wish I had an explanation for what I’m experiencing.”
Here is one explanation: Obecalp.
“Just because science can’t explain something right now doesn’t mean it can never be explained.”
Exactly. Why are you not applying that to homeopathy.
“Exactly. Why are you not applying that to homeopathy.”
Why not apply that to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc?
My last post was addressed to WilliamLawrenceUtridge
weing:
“Why not apply that to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc?”
A child’s belief system is not applicable to this topic.
weing:
“Here is one explanation: Obecalp.”
Doubtful.
Why would placebo be doubtful. It’s much more the likely explanation. Do you think you are immune to placebo effects? I have seen a patient have an anaphylactic reaction after taking a test medications. When we checked afterward, the patient had received a placebo. I would call that a nocicebo effect. There are patients, like you, who experience side effects from medications just because they don’t like pharmaceuticals, but will not experience them if they think that they are “natural”, homeopathic, etc.
@Libby
“Libby, did Zomax work for you? What toxicity symptoms did you have from zomax? What basis do you have for feeling that zomax is toxic or potentially harmful?
By extension, if I managed to make it on foot across a busy 12 lane highway you would then claim that this activity was safe and an appropriate place for children to play.”
Of course we wouldn’t claim that; and no one has suggested that Zomax is harmless. You believe that Zomax is toxic not because of any direct personal experience but because you read that the drug company covered up information about side effects. You are willing to accept the drug company’s evidence that it is harmful. Yet you are not willing to accept favorable evidence about drugs when it comes from drug companies. Isn’t this a double standard?
Presumably Zomax performed as intended and relieved your pain, and you were not personally harmed.
By extension of your highway argument, if you get away with rejecting dilating drugs for eye exams and with substituting herbal remedies and homeopathic placebos for effective medicines (crossing the highway safely), that doesn’t mean that what you are doing is wise or that the highway is safe.
“A child’s belief system is not applicable to this topic.”
How so? Homeopathy is a child’s belief system.
@libby,
“I don’t see any other explanation other than that it works for me.”
The fact that you can’t think of an explanation doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. The rest of us see an explanation.
Medieval blood-letters didn’t see any other explanation for their observation that blood-letting worked other than the balancing of the four humors.
“we have to agree that blood-letters were offering their services to mostly uneducated illiterate people who could be easily swayed… Science has made our society less vulnerable to medieval-like belief systems.”
We do not have to agree and we do not agree. Unfortunately that is simply not true. Many counterexamples have been offered on our pages. Just think of all the educated modern victims of electrodermal testing that I wrote about 3 days ago. Think of all the modern educated people who believe in dowsing, astrology, ghosts, and other superstitions.
Me:
Crap, HTML fail. Libby’s comment was “Exactly. Why are you not applying that to homeopathy” and everything that follows is my reply.
Can editors adjust comments? It’d be nice if someone fixed my blockquotes tags (or we could preview our comments or we could edit our comments!)
HH:
“We do not have to agree and we do not agree. Unfortunately that is simply not true.”
Medieval Europe was populated by an educated, literate society? That’s news to me.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge
“Because homeopathy has been explained – placebo.”
What study are you using that explains homeopathy?
“Medieval Europe was populated by an educated, literate society? That’s news to me.”
And you are so much more superior. Yet you believe nonsense just like they did.
“What study are you using that explains homeopathy?”
Since when do you accept studies? I thought personal anecdotes were superior to any studies for you. Do we really have to do studies to show that the Tooth Fairy is not real?
libby:
Followed by a string of comments from you, that do not make any sense. (oh, and physics can explain the phenomena you mentioned, even if you don’t understand it)
You believe in the fairy tale of homeopathy. There is no reason to take you seriously.
@ libby,
“Medieval Europe was populated by an educated, literate society? That’s news to me.”
There were a few educated, literate people even back then, and they were just as likely to accept blood-letting as the illiterate, perhaps even more so because they were able to understand the theory behind it. It wasn’t a matter of simple gullibility. They had no science, no training in critical thinking, and blood-letting was the standard treatment accepted by all doctors, taught in medical schools, and written in the textbooks and was considered plausible because of the 4-humor theory. So they can be excused for believing in it. Modern educated people who have studied science have no excuse for believing in homeopathy.
“What study are you using that explains homeopathy?”
We are not using any single study. We are going on the whole body of published studies and basic scientific knowledge as well as on the knowledge of human psychology and all the reasons people reach faulty conclusions about ineffective treatments. Only science can help us avoid those errors. Either you fail to understand this concept or you think you are somehow exempt.
May I suggest some readings on medieval medicine for libby? I have enjoyed reading the works of Karen Cushman. Her books on old forms of medicine, Matilda Bone and The Midwife’s Apprentice, are good examples of real medicine versus magical thinking.
Hmm, her latest work looks interesting. I shall have to see if the library has it. Oh, it does… I have reserved a couple of her books.
The real problem with medieval life wasn’t literacy or education – the real problem was a system of medicine that wasn’t based on empirical finding. In Europe you had an entire system based on what one (or a couple) dead Greek guys thought about without any substantive testing of the system against what actually existed. In China, they it was a mythical emperor, and so on. Successful outcomes were based on pure chance. Without a means of separating real medical effects from natural healing, your ability to notice real improvements is severely impaired.
Libby, the explanation of homeopathy is based on the bodies of literature on homeopathic preparations , as well as placebos. The biggest “clue” or most relevant finding is that if you do a well-controlled double-blinded test of homeopathic preparations versus placebos, there is no replicable difference. Homeopathic studies are either characterized by a lack of control (X patients with Y condition took Z preparation and two weeks later felt better) or by such a large number of outcome measure that you expect some statistically significant results by pure chance. The real test comes when you repeat the same study and a totally different and unrelated result is now significant. There is no convergence. In the mean time, homeopathy has a large number of placebo-enhancing measures built into it to enhance the perception that it’s helping. It also a large number of logical fallacies built into it such that it can explain away failures and allow time for natural healing to occur.
So when faced with the choice of deciding between an improbable methodology that violates entire bodies of well-established knowledge, or simply noting that it’s effects are compatible with an explanation based on placebo (and actual empirical findings substantiate this point), the choice is easy. If there were genuine evidence that some, or even one remedy had an effect, then scientists would be hugely motivated to investigate. But there’s not.
Again I direct you to the books I recommended above:
Homeopathy:How it Really Works by Jay Shelton, Prometheus Books, ISBN 159102109X (google books: http://books.google.ca/books?id=WlU4AQAAIAAJ)
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell
Trick or Treatment by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst
Because really, what do you have to lose? You may find your self convinced and change your mind, but what is the benefit of consistency if it is harmful or makes your life less enjoyable? They’re fascinating, well-written books that cover a lot of ground in an intensely readable format. Well worth the time spent.
weing:
“And you are so much more superior.”
Thank you. But I don’t think that’s true. Perhaps I’m more opened minded than average.
“Homeopathy is a child’s belief system.”
So there are children discussing homeopathy?
“I have seen a patient have an anaphylactic reaction after taking a test medications. When we checked afterward, the patient had received a placebo. I would call that a nocicebo effect. There are patients, like you, who experience side effects from medications just because they don’t like pharmaceuticals, but will not experience them if they think that they are “natural”, homeopathic, etc.”
Ah so now testimonial evidence is quite sufficient to prove your point. Interesting.
“Since when do you accept studies? I thought personal anecdotes were superior to any studies for you. Do we really have to do studies to show that the Tooth Fairy is not real?”
A simple, no I don’t have any studies, would suffice.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge
“The biggest “clue” or most relevant finding is that if you do a well-controlled double-blinded test of homeopathic preparations versus placebos, there is no replicable difference.”
A general and therefore meaningless statement.
Let’s discuss the Lancet 2005 study on homeopathy which Dawkins promoted as the meta-analysis of meta-analyses, and I can show you an example of a modern scientific atrocity.
HH:
“Modern educated people who have studied science have no excuse for believing in homeopathy.”
Let’s use our words carefully.
I don’t believe in homeopathy. I use it and it works. That has nothing to do with a belief system.
@libby,
“I don’t believe in homeopathy. I use it and it works. That has nothing to do with a belief system.”
Does too. You believe homeopathy works for you. You believe your personal observations constitute proof. You are unwilling to believe that your observations or your interpretation of those observations could be wrong. You are unwilling to accept that we can all be fooled and that science is the only corrective.
Libby:
You are apparently rather selective about which you are open minded. Open minded means being willing to change one’s mind, and you don’t seem willing to even discuss it. You’re also either ignorant of, or not open-minded regarding the scientific method
It’s pretty specific actually – when homeopathic treatments are compared to placebos, no difference is found. If a statistically significant finding occurs in one study, a second study that uses the same methodology does not produce the same finding. What’s general about this? If you want specifics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21733480 – “The database on studies of homeopathy and placebo in psychiatry is very limited, but results do not preclude the possibility of some benefit.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20486620 – “Several published outcome studies and some randomized controlled trials have shown that there may be a role for homeopathy in symptom relief and improving quality of life in patients touched by cancer. Such effects have not been demonstrated unequivocally…”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610 – “The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223686 – “The limited evidence available does not demonstrate a statistically significant effect of homeopathic medicines for insomnia treatment. Existing RCTs were of poor quality and were likely to have been underpowered.”
Do you have any clinical trials that support homeopathy? Have you analyzed them according to scientific quality? The main criteria are, placebo controls, randomization, stratification, a sufficiently large number of patients, publication in a high-impact (or at least in a journal not involving the words “homeopathy” or “alternative” in the title), clearly defined outcome measures, and not an excessive number of them. That’s the criteria for a single trial, but for a program of research, you would look for replication of results across multiple trials.
Again, consistency over time, an accumulation of results, convergence on a single finding or set of findings. Compare the results of any accepted medical finding over time versus homeopathy. For instance, it took perhaps 20 years to go from basic science to treatment of H. pylori regarding ulcers. In contrast, homeopathy has existed for over 200 years and in that time it has split rather than converged.
““And you are so much more superior.”
Thank you. But I don’t think that’s true. Perhaps I’m more opened minded than average.”
ROFLMAO
– your observations or your interpretation of those observations could be wrong.
To be clear, the observations may be correct — they have several plausible explantions.
It is the how they are interpreted that is mainly in dispute, and If I recall correctly Libby herself has elsewhere allowed that she is not sure what they mean, even mentioning the possibility of placebo responses.
We are dealing with different levels of sophistication in what we like to call “science”. Libby has performed a primitive scientific experiment and drawn certain conclusions.
She illustrates how compelling those experiences can be and why therapeutic oddities like homeopathy may never die out.
“She illustrates how compelling those experiences can be and why therapeutic oddities like homeopathy may never die out.”
I think you are right. Superstitious behavior persists. Such is the power of variable interval reinforcement. Well-nigh impossible to extinguish.
HH:
“You believe homeopathy works for you.”
You believe that corporate executives hold your health as a top priority over all other considerations.
That’s a belief system.
Under the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for libby to keep using her homeopathic remedy. I only wish she would say she “believes” it works for her rather than claiming to “know” it is effective. And I wish she knew enough about science and about psychology to recognize that she could be wrong. At least she isn’t extrapolating from her personal experience to claim that homeopathy “works” for everyone and everything. She makes more sense than Dana Ullman.
@libby,
“You believe that corporate executives hold your health as a top priority over all other considerations.”
NO I don’t! I never suggested any such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth!!
pmoran:
“To be clear, the observations may be correct — they have several plausible explantions.
It is the how they are interpreted that is mainly in dispute, and If I recall correctly Libby herself has elsewhere allowed that she is not sure what they mean, even mentioning the possibility of placebo responses.
We are dealing with different levels of sophistication in what we like to call “science”. Libby has performed a primitive scientific experiment and drawn certain conclusions.
She illustrates how compelling those experiences can be and why therapeutic oddities like homeopathy may never die out.”
I would add that I am not promoting homeopathy as an alternative to other choices, but am only relating my own experiences, which could be singular in nature.
I also would add that conclusions drawn from scientific study can, on occasion, be modified to accommodate other exigencies.
I always enjoy your input.
HH:
I stated: “You believe that corporate executives hold your health as a top priority over all other considerations.”
You stated: “NO I don’t! I never suggested any such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth!!”
You mean you are actually admitting that corporate executives are operating studies on their products without placing our health as a top priority?
HH:
“At least she isn’t extrapolating from her personal experience to claim that homeopathy “works” for everyone and everything.”
That would be a ludicrous position.
Perhaps this is a clearer way to express my position.
There is a temporal link between taking the homeopathic remedy and a substantial improvement in my condition, an event repeated many times.
It cannot be said that there is a causal link, due to the size of the group.
So how would homeopathy work for pertussis?
And how is Viera Schreibner ethical?
“You mean you are actually admitting that corporate executives are operating studies on their products without placing our health as a top priority?”
Is this a surprise? Even hospitals show 25-33% higher quality when they are run by physicians. http://www.amandagoodall.com/SS&MarticletJuly2011.pdf
weing:
I stated: “You mean you are actually admitting that corporate executives are operating studies on their products without placing our health as a top priority?”
You stated: “Is this a surprise?”
The surprise is that you and others on this board would put your health in the hands of those who consider your health less than top priority. A secondary surprise is that you wouldn’t actively support the SLA that would disallow court protected suppression of safety issues.
I am starting to piece together the puzzle as to why the system of conventional medicine is so flawed and perhaps dangerous.
I appreciate HH’s and weing’s candidness.
To sum up the present point:
Throughout a drug’s development, testing, approval by the regulatory board and marketing process, the health of the patient is never a top priority for those in a position of power in a pharma company.
Good information to have confirmed.
@libby,
I don’t know what kind of idealistic system you are imagining, but in the real world, companies are made up of humans with all their human failings. Charitable institutions may be formed with a top priority of helping people, but pharmaceutical companies are formed with the top priority of making a profit. Fortunately, their success depends on making a safe and effective product. They will not make a profit if the product has to be recalled, or if it generates lawsuits. In that sense, what’s best for patients is ultimately best for profits. We are well aware of the profit motive. We know that studies funded by drug companies are more likely to be positive. We understand the complexity of the process of deciding when there is a cause-and -effect relationship between a drug and reported adverse effects. We are in favor of total transparency and we deplore any kind of deceptive actions or coverups by drug companies. We have other institutions like the FDA whose top priority is to protect our welfare, but they are also made up of fallible humans who are partly motivated by other factors like job security and politics. The FDA acts to approve drugs before marketing and to take drugs off the market when problems are identified; there are flaws in that process. There are many things about the drug industry that need improvement: Marcia Angell wrote a whole book on the subject: “The Truth about Drug Companies and What to Do About it.”
Clinicians try to take all those factors into consideration when deciding what drugs to use. In most cases, the system works reasonably well. The profit motive stimulates the development of new drugs. Most drugs on the market are safe and effective. We support reform, but we do not advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be a mistake to categorically reject all pharmaceuticals out of suspicion and anger.
So how would homeopathy work for pertussis?
And how is Viera Schreibner ethical?
libby, do you know who Viera is? Prove it by telling us what her doctorate degree is in, and how it pertains to vaccines.
How do you account for recall bias, expectancy effects, confirmation bias, and of course, placebo? If you expect to get better due to taking a homeopathic preparation, chances are you will for a limited number of outcomes. Again, science isn’t simple simply because there are so many ways for humans to fool themselves if you don’t correct for them.
Well duh. We knew that. Every regular reader of this blog knows that. If you didn’t know that before you started reading these comments, then you really aren’t justified in lecturing anyone here.
The regulars on this blog probably don’t put their health in the hands of companies. They put their health in the hands of the government regulatory bodies that monitor companies and the products they sell – specifically the FDA or in my country, Health Canada.
Manufacturers of homeopathic preparations are not monitored as far as I know. Of course, this is because they are selling sugar pills and lies and their practice poses a health risk only to diabetics and people with life-threatening illnesses who refuse to take adavantage of real medicine.
You could start with the human being being the product of evolution, thus being flawed. Add to that the genetic diversity of existing humans. The human genome uses receptors in different ways, depending on what part of the body it is in (which is why SSRIs affect affects our gastrointestinal tract as well as the central nervous system – serotonin receptors are present in both the brain and the intestines). Some side effects are either somewhat, or are incredibly rare, which makes it hard to decide whether to sell a pain medication that has fatal side effects in one out of every million doses. Is it worth the risk? As someone with chronic pain. Industry is motivated to spin their results to make a profit. Monitoring is imperfect. Patients urgently demand new drugs. Cancer is a vicious bastard that evolves in the face of chemotherapy. People’s tolerance of risk is irrational and difficult to predict. So if you’re starting to realize the current system is imperfect, that’s great. If you’re only response is to reject all drugs, then you better start praying you never develop a blood clot. Not that prayer will help.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge
Are you hoping gov’ts will pass laws outlawing homeopathy?
Maybe we should contrast ourselves with CAM by calling ourselves practitioners of AABPM. Above and beyond placebo medicine.
@Libby
No, I’m hoping people become sufficiently educated and acquire adequate critical thinking skills such that homeopathy goes the way of bloodletting and the humoural theory of disease.
I’m hoping that people become sufficiently familiar with cognitive biases, human cognitive limitations and the ability of people to lie to themselves that they trust science more than their own experience when it comes to things like medicine.
I’m hoping homeopaths honestly and critically self-examine their practices and realize they’re acting as unlicensed therapists rather than medical practitioners.
I’m hoping governments and regulators take the threats to human health posed by homeopathy (and most CAM nonsense) seriously and begin placing criminal charges against homeopaths who cause harm by delaying effective treatment in truly life- or injury-threatening circumstances. This includes vaccine-bashing.
I’m hoping homeopathy becomes truly regulated, such that they might actually fucking realize what’s a life-threatening condition and what’s self-limiting.
I’m hoping government-funded health care plans become sufficiently informed that they cease funding all CAM.
If people want to throw away their disposable income on worthless sugar pills, I have no issue with that. I have issue with my tax dollars being spent on it, with people dying because of ignorance and with ideologically-blinded zealots placing themselves, their children, their patients and random strangers in real danger because they’re unfamiliar with doubt.
It’d also be nice if self-important douchebags stopped pretending the current system is irredemably flawed and started trying to improve it rather than pretending there are “natural” cures that work just as well. Smallpox was natural. Fuck nature.
weing:
“Maybe we should contrast ourselves with CAM by calling ourselves practitioners of AABPM. Above and beyond placebo medicine.”
Sounds fine to me.
My point is that if homeopathy is dangerous as professionals here seem to believe, then perhaps it should be outlawed.
@ libby:
Complete straw man. The danger, as repeatedly discussed, is when people avoid REAL medicine in favor of magic water. Nobody claims that homeopathy is in itself dangerous.
And yes, lying to people to extort money out of them certainly ought to be illegal. Homeopaths should be required to tell the truth (“this is just water, it doesn’t actually do anything”) but if people still want to waste their time and money on it after proper disclosure, then that’s their own problem and I see no cause to forbid that.
Scott, don’t forget that homeopaths have been found to actively discourage people from seeking effective treatment including vaccination. It’s not just a matter of the scientifically ignorant skipping over treatment, there is active advocacy against genuinely effective medicine.
What I’d really like to see in general is every single CAM-pusher put their money where their mouth is. If they oppose vaccination, they can take a trip to Nigeria and get sneezed on by a person with acute polio infection. If they blow a blood vesse, they can have acupuncture. If they get cancer, they can see just how effective coffee enemas are (here’s a hint – they aren’t).
That’s still a harm of avoiding real medicine as opposed to the magic water itself, so not what I understood libby to be saying.
Scott:
“…..I see no cause to forbid that (homeopathy).”
I can live with that.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
“….don’t forget that homeopaths have been found to actively discourage people from seeking effective treatment including vaccination.”
Is that actually true?
I have never gone to a homeopath that said this. In fact any of the ones I have gone to said that they prefer to work in conjunction with conventional medicine.
Perhaps there are extreme cases of someone espousing a radical position on the topic, such as Schreibner, but this is hardly representative. That would be similar to claiming that David Duke of the KKK represents the views of all Christians.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
http://littlemountainhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/fear-the-mmr-vaccine-not-the-measles/
http://www.homeopathy.com/clinic/168/homeopathic-flu-vaccine-information-vs-chemical-drug-injections
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/homeopathy.html
http://www.healinglifehomeopathy.com/homeopathic_prophylaxis.htm
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/immu.html
http://www.a-r-h.org/NewsandEvents/21%2009%2009%20Swine%20Flu%20Vaccine.pdf
http://www.a-r-h.org/NewsandEvents/21%2009%2009%20Swine%20Flu%20Vaccine.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043817
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12559777
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11587822
Homeopathic associations bleat about how they support vaccination and that they complement (real) medicine, but there’s definite evidence that patients are actively discouraged from seeking vaccination. Once again you are claiming your personal experience takes precedence over what investigations have indicated – there are homeopaths who indeed do recommend against vaccination.
Regards the “in conjunction with conventional medicine”, the “complementary” part of CAM, means “it’s not actually demonstrated as effective”. Medicine is medicine, CAM is something that’s claimed to be medicine but isn’t actually demonstrated as effective. “Working in conjunction with conventional medicine” means providing the unlicensed therapy I discussed above several times or providing an intervention that has not been proven effective while still charging for it. You rail against the drug companies, but it is actually illegal in the United States to charge for a medication or treatment that is classified as experimental.
Your comparison between the KKK and homeopaths is incorrect. The appropriate comparison would be to claim David Duke’s opinions represent what racists think. In both cases, one extreme nutjob gives voice to what a significant number think but do not say.
And for that matter, on SBM alone:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-wars-the-nccam-drops-the-ball/
A quote by Noam Chomsky sums up my views on why medical scientists and their adherents, although well meaning, seem to have a simplistic view of the nature of the corporate world, and unfortunately, an irrational trust of its activities.
You can read the entire article from the link below.
http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#chomsky
“On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.”
Chomsky [12.9.06]
Medicine is an attempt to address the realities of human biology and infectious disease. Is Chomsky talking about medical problems or social ones? If you want peace between Israel and Palestine, call a politician. If you want to eliminate polio, call a doctor. Within medicine, there are some clearly correct answers, so long as you are talking about empirical results. For instance – how did the complexity of modern life come about? Evolution. Can you replace human blood with kerosine? No. Does vaccination prevent infectious diseases? Properly designed, yes. Is it risk-free? No. Does homeopathy work? Yes – provided by “work” you mean “is an extremely effecitve placebo”.
Though the policy and political implcations of a scientific finding aren’t necessarily obvious, any policy that is based on ideology rather than science will almost certainly be a bad thing – witness the Soviet policy of rejecting the theory of evolution in favour of neo-Lamarckism. And Chomsky himself would, I assume, endorse decisions about linguistics and efforts to understand how language is learned being based on data.
Again, I don’t mind morons chosing homeopathy over real medicine. I do mind tax money being wasted on it. I do mind people dying because homeopaths (and their patients) insisted their disease could be treated with sugar pills and logical fallacies. I do mind when parents kill or maim their child through inaction. I mind even more when this results in an infectious disease, preventible through vaccination, infecting someone whose vaccination was ineffective or who couldn’t get a vaccination in the first place.
Claiming the current regulatory, research and manufacturing environment is imperfect does not justify homeopathy. It also shows an astonishing naivety and double-standard. Do homeopathic manufacturers not make a profit? Do they channel any of that profit into testing their nostroms to ensure they are accurate? Do homeopathic manufacturers provide completely honest summaries of their data, or do they present them in the most promising light possible? Are you being a hypocrite?
According to WilliamLawrenceUtridge, all the researchers below are “morons”. Then again it is doubtful that WLU is even aware that the term “moron” was used to define one of the levels of intelligence in the early, sordid history of I.Q. testing. WLU might want to expand his vocabulary to include “imbecile” and “idiot”, other labels assigned by scientists to classify people, along with words such as “feeble-minded” and “dullness”
Personally, I will stick with the old-fashioned concept that different people have differing opinions.
Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.
Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.
Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.
Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, et al. (2001). A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication Traumeel S in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer, 92:684–690.
Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, et al. (2005). Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. European Journal of Pediatrics, 164:758-767.
No libby, I referred to people who use unproven treatments to address serious illnesses as morons. And criticizing my wording suggests you can’t really address my main points. Researching interventions, even incredibly improbable ones, is a dubious but acceptable use of a researcher’s time, provided they give up on a pet hypothesis when it turns up null.
Funny thing, you cite Jacobs et al. 2003; what do you think of Jacobs et al. 2006?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278?dopt=AbstractPlus
Regarding Vickers 2006, did you read the conclusion? Homeopathy might reduce the duration of illness by perhaps 8 hours?
Regarding Taylor, 2000, what do you think about this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18417053
Regarding Frei et al, 2005, what about this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943868
If you’re going to cite the literature, it’s usually good to cite review articles and meta-analyses because there’s less opportunity to be selective and ignore the results you don’t like. The conclusions for these studies are not promising, they’re certainly not support for the use of homeopathy as a form of treatment. As for what I think of these people’s research activities, I think it’s an unfortunate waste of time and money since homeopathy is fairly obvious nonsense, even more so because believers in homeopathy will ignore the evidence in favour of their preconcieved conclusion.
Vaccination works, homeopathy doesn’t.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
I just can’t get my head around the fact that rationalists such as yourself use terms like “moron” and “nazi” against those with whom you disagree, a decidedly irrational approach to a civil discussion.
In any case you do what is typical of many self-proclaimed rationalists. Studies that prove your point you embrace without question and those that negate your irrational beliefs you discard as nonsense, or change the goal of the study to suit your needs, or simply add more studies to the mix in a puerile gainsaying manner.
As Scott Atran has stated, “even good scientists join other people in unreason.”
I agree. I seriously doubt that conventional medical scientists are any less irrational than the rest of us.
It’s because we discuss these topics with people who profess to be rational but don’t seem to understand things like confirmation bias, expectancy effects, placebo, and so forth, then claim their personal experience trumps scientific findings.
Rational means understanding basic scientific findings, understanding how rational thought can go wrong and, oh, I don’t know, changing your mind when the research doesn’t support you. I’ve tried rational discussion and what I get back is cherry-picked results, anecdotes and dodges of my substantive points with conspiracy-mongering and irrelevant quotes from linguists. I’ve cited review articles rather than primary studies, review articles that come after the primary studies you cite, and you claim I’m the one with a problem citing research. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a primary and a secondary study, and that means we really can’t have a science-based discussion.
Scientists indeed are just as rational and irrational as the rest of us, at least in potential. What you’re missing are the numerous key points that make science different from nearly every other human endeavor. Science employs methods to counteract our biases, uses controls to account for regression to the mean, publicizes results for critical scrutiny, abandons ideas when they are unsupported, and above all, relies on empirical data to determine disputes. Science isn’t people, it’s a process. People are wrong, even scientists recognized as brilliant (I highly recommend you look up two Nobel prize winners – Kary Mullis and Linus Pauling). Science, as a process, converges on answers that allow the world to be reliably manipulated. It changes, and your horribly ignorant comment on the other thread seems to indicate you believe this is a flaw. So no, we don’t really have much to talk about because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Libby: Personally, I will stick with the old-fashioned concept that different people have differing opinions.
AND –
I agree. I seriously doubt that conventional medical scientists are any less irrational than the rest of us.
Maybe, yet surely you are not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid i.e. close to truth?
That cannot be true here. Homeopathic remedies either do whatever is being claimed or they don’t.
Yet first there needs to be some precision concerning the claim.
There is very little doubt in my mind that they seem to be able to “serve as medicine” for many clinical and public health purposes, and in most senses of that phrase, given a population that has had time to evolve and retain various useful ways of coping with illness .
That is not the same thing as a medicine “working” in the sense of possessing intrinsic therapeutic activity, and the weight of a vast amount of evidence from many different sources makes that of vanishingly small likelihood for homoepathy and many other “alternative” medical practices.
The evidence you find interesting has other possible explanations, I am afraid.
pmoran:
The first quote was in response to a poster who consistently characterizes his opponents as morons, nutters, etc, and even proclaimed me a nazi. In that context, it is better that the poster thinks of me as having a differing opinion than that I’m involved in fascist war crimes.
But I agree that differing opinions hold different weight.
One attack on homeopathy is the idea that water has memory. What is not told is that this is not an explanation, but speculation. We don’t vilify Richard Dawkins who speculated that kindness to strangers is the result of a misfiring of the brain. However it would be easy to lampoon him for such a statement, although unfair and irrational to do so.
Current views on homeopathy derive from physicians who have been trained on the use of pharmaceutical products as well as from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Do we accept a GM engineer’s views on the safety features of a Ford F150?
The wealth of knowledge against homeopathy is riddled with problems. One remedy given to a large group of subjects with a similar ailment is a formula for failure. If scientists were serious about testing homeopathy justly, they would follow RD’s lead and allow homeopaths to select the appropriate remedy for each individual in a group. To date, homeopaths are not even involved.
Interestingly enough, the concept of treating different patients with individualized therapies within the same clinical trial already exists. In gene therapy studies, subjects are given remedies based on their own personal genetic makeup. The studies, for the most part, are testing the platform for delivery and the technology behind the identification, isolation and development of each biological drug rather than the specific drug itself. In homeopathy, much like gene therapy, treatments are given based on the disease/disorder as well as the patient’s individual needs instead of the traditional “one application one drug” pharmaceutical approach. So, for there to be an effective clinical trial, homeopathy would need to be tested in a similar fashion as DNA/genetic biologics since a system is being tested, not a specific formulation of a specific drug.
Libby, rather than trying to “argue” with you further, I’m just calling you an ignorant moron.
By the way, my actual comment was:
Quick, find an irrelevant quote from Noam Chomsky! Criticize my spelling! Cite some flawed literature and ignore anything contradictory! Hyperfocus on an irrelevant tangent! ANYTHING TO AVOID A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION!!!!
Let’s also observe that “opinion” is completely irrelevant here. An “opinion” that homeopathy is anything more than an elaborate placebo is pretty much equivalent to an “opinion” that a dropped rock will fall up. These are questions of well-established FACT, not opinion.
I consider this a personal victory that the only response to my post criticizing the methodology used by conventional studies on homeopathy are:
1) Liddy is an ignorant moron,
2) an opinion is not a fact,
3) homeopathy is a placebo.
Explanation:
1) Presumably the author is making a distinction between a knowledgeable moron and an ignorant one. This likely needs some explanation.
In any case, the I.Q. of a moron is 50-69, an imbecile is 20-49, and an idiot is below 20. A rating of 60-70 heads the class, defined as borderline deficiency. Although it is possible that I am a moron, there is no scientific, or otherwise, basis for such a statement. If it were true that I sit below normal re intelligence, it’s hard to imagine why the other classifications were not considered.
2) Even a child’s dictionary will define opinions and facts as different things. It is not certain what defining simple words has to do with anything on a science board.
3) This statement sits at top of the class in relation to numbers 1 & 2. However, saying homeopathy is a placebo is like saying conventional medicine is a drug.
Aside from the semantic shortcomings, the author proceeds to opine (interestingly contradictory since he is already committed to the idea that opinions are suspect) that an opinion that rocks fall up is equivalent to an opinion that homeopathy is effectual. However there have been over 100 unbiased studies on homeopathy in various evidence-based medical journals over several decades, and not one study anywhere in the scientific literature in any field on the idea that rocks fall up.
Clearly, as pmoran has stated, not “all opinions are equally valid”.
I like that you’ve chosen option 4, “Hyperfocus on an irrelevant tangent”. Solid choice. I particularly like how you’re citing the dictionary. Definitely a good way of conveniently ignoring the actual substantive points you’ve dodged. A nice addition is your apparent concession that homeopathy is a placebo, as if you were being reasonable rather than dogmatic. The fact that it essentially undercuts your points seems lost on you, but I think we’ve come to expect that.
By the way, I’m using the term “moron” in an insulting, colloquial, pejorative way, not according to the obsolete medical definition. I actually specifically said “ignorant moron” and if we’re playing with dictionaries then I concede that “ignorant” is more technically correct. I suggest you focus on that instead. Your diction and spelling suggest that your IQ isn’t terminally low, but certainly your failure to grasp, or even be aware of, principles of science backs up the ignorance part. You may want to look up Prometheus’ “arrogance of ignorance post. Your failure to respond to criticisms in reasoning, citation of and flawed grasp of specific facts, and even overall lack of knowledge about the topic you are defending, is both crippling and telling. You don’t seem to understand science, and why homeopathy can, in a flawed test, appear to pass scientific scrutiny. If we’re still comparing to rocks falling up, homeopathy passes scientific test as a medical treatment the same way someone standing on their head can claim rocks fall up.
You can claim this as a personal victory, but as you point out – opinions are not facts. What actually happened is you failed to grasp any of the criticisms aimed at your arguments. For instance, I never stated that homeopathy doesn’t “work”. I said in my comment dated 08 Jul 2011 at 9:30 that it works as a placebo due to its many placebo-enhancing features (getting a pill; elaborate ritual; lengthy consultation; practitioner confidence) and the numerous types of special pleading available to explain away failure (it gets worse before it gets better, until it doesn’t; it was the wrong type; you used the wrong system) until the patient either heals naturally or dies.
If you want criticisms of specific studies, then here are the appropriate conditions for a test of homeopathy. Problems with any of the following indicates the test can not be regarded as reliable, particularly given publication bias:
a) establish test conditions – what type of homeopathy, what type of condition, what constitutes success
b) adequate blinding – the homeopath and patient do not know if they are getting “true” preparations (both placebo and control groups are treated identically but the preparations are dispensed by a machine)
c) adequate number of recipients
d) adequate randomization
e) equivalent drop-out rates
f) no “fishing” – that is, no multiple comparisons and claiming any significant result as a measure of success
Some other points:
a) flaws in the current medical system and pharmaceutical approval mechanisms do not mean homeopathy works (know as an ad hominem
b) personal experience is not a rational means of deciding between medical choices without a blinded challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge protocol
c) ignoring an argument doesn’t make it go away
d) if homeopathy “passes” a single test but fails several others, you don’t get to cherry pick the results you like (see, for instance, this comment)
e) when someone tries, and fails to have a rational discussion with you and starts calling you an ignorant moron, that doesn’t mean you win; in this case, it means they’ve recognized the futility of arguing with you and have decided to approach things in a more entertaining way
This last point is particularly crucial – I don’t argue with ignorant morons like you and Thing (to whom I will add the word “deluded”) to try to convince you; you’re a lost cause and I can only hope the genes that make you susceptible to magical thinking are extinguished to the betterment of mankind. I do it to demonstrate that your arguments are flawed. I’ve gotten well past the point of dealing with your attempts at substance, at this point I just don’t want anyone to think you getting the last word means you’ve said something valid. You haven’t.
By the way, you spelled your username wrong. It’s “libby” with two “b”s.
Also, to keep this on topic, vaccination works.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
My apologies for not reading your post after the 1st sentence.
Realizing that it continued with the same tenor as others you have written, the only aspect that remains consistent, this and future posts are are of no further interest to me.
libby is also an off-topic troll. Trolls tend to starve if you don’t feed them. Please ignore her unless she contributes to the discussion by addressing the following questions that she seems has so far dodged:
So how would homeopathy work for pertussis?
And how is Viera Schreibner ethical?
libby, do you know who Viera is? Prove it by telling us what her doctorate degree is in, and how it pertains to vaccines.