To regard the results as statistically conclusive, one significant finding out of a maximum of three was regarded as the result. The secondary outcomes were disregarded because they had the potential to be outliers and anomalies. For example, for one homeopathic group, say there were two positives and only one negative. The negative result would be disregarded as an anomaly; and the group would be dubbed as “positive”. Overall, this avoids the potential of interpreting a trial as non-conclusive, based on one significant positive or negative result out of many opposing results.
Based on the results on the next page, I was able to manipulate them into a graph in order to analyse the results obtained by the British Homeopathy Association.
These results were taken from the “Clinical Research Evidence in Homeopathy prepare by the BHA.
As you can see, (85%) one hundred and twenty out of a possible one hundred and forty-two randomised controlled trials were controlled by placebos. (15%) Twenty-two RCTs were controlled by a medical device excluding “dummy” drugs. By looking at the overall total result, one can see that the summary finding was 44% for positive, 8% for resulting negatively and 48% resulted in being statistically non-conclusive. As you can see from the pie charts, there are a significant amount of positive results from the RCTs than there are of negative results. Aside from this, there is a high percentage of results that have concluded in statistically non-conclusive. However, this is only true for the control group, using a placebo. For the control group which uses a medical device other than the placebo this is not the case. There is a higher positive result than negative and statistically non-conclusive results. Therefore, this shows that homeopathy is not based on a placebo effect, and actually had a successful result due to the quick efficacy of the drug. However, it is clear that there are lost less negative results in the controlled group using a placebo, possibly suggesting that a placebo it much safer to use. I can conclude that these graphs show that there is a high success rate of homeopathy when comparing the positive and negative results.
In my opinion, this method is appropriate. It has been described by BMJ (international peer reviewed medical journal) as “the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists”. They have many beneficial outcomes to make this an appropriate method to use to manipulate whether homeopathy is an accurate and dependable source of medicine. I believe it to be apposite because there is random allocation to intervention groups; therefore there is a big difference within people of the groups, creating a big range, therefore seeing how the medicine affects different types of people. As well as having such a big range, patients and practitioners remain unaware, concluding in a double-blind trial. This means that neither the patient nor the practitioner will have any influence on the healing process and how will affect the patient. I think that both parties of the trial are unaware of which drug has been given, but such double-blind trials are not always appropriate. They can be very time-consuming. It is a very fair way of testing such medicines as all the groups that are being treated, are done so identically in order to keep a fair test at a constant. This makes me believe, even more so, that it is an appropriate method to use. To ensure confidence in the results and groupings, the analysis of the recordings are focused on manipulating the size of the difference in predefined results between the groups (this is called measuring the confidence interval). On the other hand, there are some opposing connotations to these types of trials. For example, the treatment isn’t only based on the symptoms of the patient. It is also based around the patient’s choice of lifestyle, emotional health, and dietary habits. This means the homeopathic remedy must be customized to suit the patient and if so, RCTs would not be appropriate. Furthermore, exposing patients in an intervention can be often thought unethical. On the other hand, if the patient is not concerned and thinks it’s in fact ethical, then it remains an appropriate method.
One implication of homeopathy is the fact that the government is very indifferent. If the government is unresponsive to the medicine, the advertising of it won’t develop making the medicine publicized and advertised to the minimum. On February 20th 2010, a report was issued on the UK Government’s funding on homeopathy. They concluded in saying that “the government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS; the funding of homeopathy hospitals should not continue; and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths” basically cutting off homeopathy completely, only allowing the availability of homeopathy to those who have a profession in it, excluding chemists. This creates an implication as full advertisement and selling of the medicine will be eradicated. Without promoting the drugs, people will surely forget about this “alternative” medicine and forcefully stop using it. According to MPs “homeopathy is a waste of money”. If this message is being publicized, then it will indoctrinate many people to believe that is in fact a waste of money, and homeopathy will vanish. I believe this to be an economical implication. This is because full funding will be derived from all homeopathy projects. If there is no money going towards homeopathy, then the medicine will not be made for the public, also having an implication socially.
Another implication is that there isn’t a significant amount of evidence that homeopathy truly works. It is based on a placebo effect; to make people only believe they are getting better. There has only been evidence from organizational controlled tests, in which the dummy drug is shown to have a high successful rate. This has an implication socially. I believe it has a social implication because if people are knowledgeable on the fact that it’s a very ambiguous substance, then they will not want to take it as much as a medicine which has had a lot of research and evidence that it works. This will also have a lot of impact, economically, as a lot of money will go into the manufacture, packaging, and creation of each medicine but people could be reluctant to buy a drug with such a lack of research behind it. According to a specialist homeopathy website, “it is impressed heavily on the people’s psyche that homeopathy is extremely slow and with poor efficacy”. This statement highlights the fact that homeopathy is hugely based around the person’s belief towards it. I believe that this will create an implication economically, as it wouldn’t encourage people to use and pay for homeopathy as a medicine and therefore less money would be spent on it.
There are no such risks with how it affects the body as the treatment itself has very little side effects, but one can find risks in the actual concept of the alternative medicine and also the manufacture and how homeopathy is prescribed to people. First of all, in terms of time, to find the correct homeopathic prescription for the patient’s symptoms, it can be very prolonged and the patient must be tolerant of how long it takes. This is because the remedy must match to the patients particular symptoms, where in the body they occur, how it has occur and what heightens the symptoms that patient experience. It is also because there are only 30 or so remedies pre-made, and if the homeopathic the patient needs is not one of the 30, it will be very difficult to obtain, therefore heightening the risk as it could be an unreliable source of medicine. In order to get this exact and give the patient full wellbeing, there must be a lot of time spent in order to make sure the medicine will have actually succeed in effect. Because of this, people might opt for conventional medicine because there is no exact remedy for each symptom, seeing that the medicine is based around the patient as a whole. This can be perceived as a risk as the patient’s illness could get worse within the time of being prescribed and actually taking the drug. On the other hand, the medicine has been around as an alternative medicine for over 200 years and the time it takes for the drug to be matched to the patient cannot be compared to the amount of time it has been present. Since 1938, the U.S Congress told the Food and Drug Administration to set homeopathy aside from conventional drugs. They were regulated under a set of laws. They would be, from then on, be treated the same way as “over the counter” drugs and undergo testing to assess and meet the standards for strength, quality, purity, and packaging. This is of benefit to many people as it is easy to obtain once prescribed. After years of testing, it has also been tested to be safe and, if taken, will benefit the patient. Emphasizing my point further, it is said to be very easy to manufacture on mass level in such large quantities and can be made at short notice. Furthermore, although the solutions can take time to produce, the treatment itself remains constant and the medical conditions in general, remain constant.
Another risk is that at the beginning of taking a course, the patient can feel worse for a small amount of time. This is because the body is momentarily elating symptoms before restoring full health. The patient may feel worse, possibly stopping them from wanting to continue the course. Conventional medicines or alternative medicines, one must always finish the course to avoid risk of the recurrence of a symptom. In my opinion, I believe this to be of risk as some people are unaware that it could make them feel worse for the right reasons. One must always contact their doctor if in doubt but there could be people who are blissfully ignorant ignoring the regulations because they don’t want to feel as bad as they do. There are other people who could be unaware of how not finishing the course could create the repeat and continuity of a symptom. On the other hand, many people will be in contact with their doctor if in doubt and will avoid the risk of not finishing the course. This is an actual risk, rather than a perceived risk. If people were to recognise their doubts and not finish the course, they are in danger of the actual risk that could occur when stopping the course. The perceived risk is the risk that they think is correct. This could make the actual risk even more risky if people take into account the perceived risk. On the contrary, the homeopathic remedies reduce the risk conditions such as colds and flues. If people are willing to feel worse for a short period of time, this medicine will benefit them in the long run, provoking their immune system to become resistant to certain conditions. Overall, homeopathy reduces the risk of many illnesses.
A final risk is that homeopathic liquidised remedies may contain a certain level of alcohol. Although a lot of conventional drugs entail alcohol, homeopathic remedies have been shown to have higher levels of alcohol. This may concern people. There is not a huge risk and in my opinion, the level of alcohol shouldn’t be of concern at all. I believe this because research has shown that the Food and Drug Administration has allowed this amount of alcohol in the remedies, therefore showing that the levels of alcohol have been approved of. Considering it has been approved of, clearly health and safety requirements have been met. My belief is that this is a perceived risk. Noticeably, there are higher levels of alcohol in homeopathic remedies, and this might appear risky to people, possibly making them favour conventional medicine. The amount of alcohol in homeopathy might throw patients off as they believe they are in more risk taking this remedy when there have been no side effects provoked by alcohol. No side effects due to alcohol have been reported to the FDA. If the risks were greater than the benefits, homeopathy would not be as advised as it is today. Overall, I think in all these instances, the benefits outweigh the risks, but as you can see, homeopathy might be excluded as a choice of medicine due to the time, perceived risk, and the potential to feel worse at the beginning of the course. Although the perceived risk seems high, it is the actual risk that has a definite effect, and has proven to be of little risk. The perceived risk only influences people in their decisions.
Before in my issue report, I discussed the implications encountered within the context of the issue. The first implication I looked at was based highly on an economical implication. I discussed how the government was very indifferent and used the report on the funding of it as a source. I discussed how this could lead to people not buying alternative medicine, the eradication of advertisement, and disallowing the availability of the “over-the-counter” drug. Homeopathy is fairly popular in the U.K and I believe that the disallowing of homeopathy can be avoided if the government were to recognise how effective the remedies are. Some general medical practitioners prescribe the remedies and refer their patients for treatment at homeopathic clinics under arrangements made by the NHS, which is funded by the government. It is clear that homeopathy is an option for many practitioners. The government would also have to shut down all four homeopathic hospitals in the UK in order to eradicate the prescriptions given to patients, which will cost a lot of money. This can be avoided if people in the area were to protest, sign a petition or appeal against the abolition of such places. Although I suggested that many people would stop buying the medicine because of what important figures in politics have said, people will also be heavily influenced by positive feedback. Many people will opt for homeopathy because it is also cheaper. If prices were kept at a minimum, it would encourage more people to buy homeopathic remedies. This also shows that there is no ulterior motive in manufacturing and selling. Companies like the NHS do not want to make a profit, as it is a free service. I believe that many people will not stop buying the medicine if available. I believe this because surveys from the report on UK’s funding of homeopathy stated that surveys have revealed a 70% satisfaction rate amid patients who attend homeopathic hospitals. There is a clear popularity with homeopathy and the government will recognise this if the population approach the matter in a correct way.
BHA research clinic - Clinical Research Evidence in Homeopathy
Prepared by
The British Homeopathic Association
Report of UK governments funding of homeopathy
BMJ
Bibliography
[1] http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/
[2] http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/export/sites/bha_site/media_centre/news/BHAxs_submission_to_SxT_select_committee_Nov_09.doc
[3]
[4] http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html
[5]
[6]
[7] http://www.hylands.com/news/regulation.php
[8]
[9]
[10]
