Homeopathy Superior to Conventional in Cancer Trial: BioMed Central StudyThis cleverly designed trial compares homeopathic treatment with conventional cancer treatment. The results show homeopathy patients enjoy a significantly better quality of life.by Heidi Stevenson15 June 2011 
A study reported in the journal BioMed Central Cancer compared homeopathic treatment against conventional treatment for cancer, finding that the homeopathic patients fared better. The primary measurement was quality of life, with fatigue and mental/emotional status also measured. Although they had hoped to do a matched-pair study, their sample sizes, 259 homeopathy patients and 380 conventional patients, was not large enough to form more than eleven matched pairs. So, the study compared the results of the two different groups. Mortality Rates & Cancer TypesBefore continuing, I want to make clear that, though it was not the focus of the study, the authors did record the number of patients who died. The study lasted a year. In the homeopathy group, 23% of the patients died. In the conventional group, 20% died. Of course, knowing the types of cancer patients suffered must also be considered along with other factors. Here's a summary of the information in table form:
The initial diagnosis severity and degree of progression was significantly worse in patients who opted for homeopathic treatment. The claim of homeopaths that they're generally asked for assistance only after all other treatments have failed tends to be borne out by the fact that 50% of those who chose homeopathy in this study had already tried conventional treatment, while only 33% of those entering the study had yet been treated. Patients chose whether to be treated within conventional or homeopathic clinics, but were free to choose the type of treatment they wanted during the year studied, though of course choices were made in consultation with therapists. However, all homeopathy patients of the homeopathy clinic spent one to two weeks in the homeopathy clinic for individualized selection of their remedies. The treatments each patient selected and received, other than the homeopathic remedies, are summarized in the following table:
As you can see, patients who chose to be managed by conventional care standards chose conventional therapies significantly more often. In general, chemotherapy was used 2 to 3 times more often by conventional patients. Other conventional therapies, including hormonal, radiation, and kinase inhibitors, were utilized more evenly. Quality of life, fatigue, and psychological well-being were similar in the two groups at the beginning of the study. However, by the end, the homeopathic group's scores were distinctly better:
Quality of life scores for homeopathically treated patients were higher than conventionally treated ones at the beginning of the study, though they entered the trial with more severe and advanced disease. At the three month marker, both homeopathic and conventional patients expressed significantly improved qualities of life. However, nine months later, at the end of the study, the homeopathic patients' quality of life had continued to improve, while the conventional patients' had deteriorated. The results for several measures of fatigue were also given, and can be seen here (though not as readily decipherable as the above tables). In essence, what they show is that the homeopathy patients did better than the conventional ones. An interesting side note is that patients in both groups used the alternative treatments of vitamins and mistletoe. However, the conventional patients tended to increase their use of them during the year, while homeopathy patients either maintained the same level of use or reduced it. Study Strengths and WeaknessesAs any homeopath will attest, homeopathy cannot be tested by applying the same remedy to a group of people and placebo to another group. The nature of homeopathy requires individualized treatment, so the typical method of trialing pharmaceutical drugs does not adequately demonstrate efficacy or failure for either the remedy or homeopathy itself. This trial's strength was in devising a method that compares homeopathy itself with conventional treatment, rather than trying to force it into the same mold. As the authors point out: It is important to notice that we have not studied the effect of homeopathic remedies, but of homeopathic care. This comprises the whole setting of case taking, individualisation, finding the right remedy and following up on the perceived effects in multiple cycles of feedback and adjustment. It goes without saying that this is an intensive communicative, interactive process that operates via many different pathways, some of which are likely to be psychological and very general in the sense of a meaning[ful] response, some of which might be specific to homeopathic therapy and its usage of the remedies. As the authors noted, a matched pairs study would have been ideal, such that equivalent pairs of homeopathy-conventional patients could be compared. However, that requires a much larger number of subjects. Though they attempted to find matched pairs, they were able to make only 11 pairings, which wasn't adequate. Matthias Rostock and his co-researchers should be applauded for their clever study and rigorous methods. I particularly appreciate their investigation of treatment for the serious disease of cancer, rather than only considering whether homeopathy can help palliate allopathic treatments' terrible adverse effects. They have treated homeopathy with the dignity it deserves, and in so doing, have also demonstrated that its effects should be respected. ***************************************************************************** *****************************************************************************
|
Word of the Day
Word of the Day
provided by The Free Dictionary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||