TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  

News:

.
Generalstreik!
Drosten for Kanzler!
SOFORT!
######################################## ### ########################################

Thalia-Chef Michael Busch will eins auf die Schnauze
TOTALBOYKOTT BEI THALIA!
######################################## ### ########################################

Manfred Doepp: im Fernsehen.
Seine Patienten: im Grab.
######################################## ### ########################################
Männer sind blöde.
Hier ist der Beweis.
######################################## ### ########################################

Geisteskranke Homöopathie-Anhänger sind eine ernste Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=11953.0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Das Innenministerium muß handeln:
Homöopathische 'Ärzte' als organisierte Kriminalität
Beweisstücke für die Staatsanwaltschaft
######################################## ### ########################################

Krieg! Krieg!

Homöopathen im Krieg!
Binnenkonsens ermordet!

Kriegsbericht von der Postfront:
Ab 6.2.2021 wird zurückstudiert!

######################################## ### ########################################

Was Einem die Vollidioten ohne Masken ins Gesicht pusten:



######################################## ### ########################################

Mindestens jeder siebente Pfaffe im Erzbistum Köln ist ein Täter



Vorsicht vor Pfaffen!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Der Lügner und Fälscher Robert G. Hahn, a.k.a. Robert Hahn aus Schweden  (Read 83 times)

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138

Die Fälscherwerkstatt von Alexander Tournier und Komplizen in London hatte 2019 eine Veranstaltung, bei der auch Robert Hahn auftrat. Ein Video seines verlogenen Vortrags ist bei Youtube eingestellt worden:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVw4ggIYiE

[*quote*]
Professor Robert Hahn | HRI London 2019
•Sep 9, 2019

homeopathyresearch
2.41K subscribers

Inaccurate research is everyone's problem.

At HRI London 2019, keynote speaker Professor Robert Hahn discussed the ‘primary bias’ against homeopathy apparent in influential systematic reviews that have concluded homeopathy is no different to placebo - analyses which ignored the majority of evidence reviewed and/or drew a conclusion based on extrapolated data, rather than providing an objective conclusion based on the actual data.
[*/quote*]


Hahns Dreistigkeit ist weit größer als ich angenommen hatte. Hahn ist nicht nur "so eben, durch einen Zufall" in die Homöopathie-Geschichte reingerutscht, sondern da hat in Schweden schon länger etwas gekocht, und Hahn hatte dabei seine Finger drin.


Hahn spricht den Gegnern der Homöopathie dreist das Fachwissen ab und begeht dabei selber schwere Fehler. Einer der amüsantesten ist in dem Video zu sehen bei "funnel", also Trichter-Effekt. Da behauptet Hahn, diese Art der mathematischen Betrachtung könnte nur gemacht werden bei gleicher Krankheit. Das heißt aber, daß Hahn selber SEINE EIGENEN "statistischen" Betrachtungen mit verschiedenen Krankheiten gemacht hat. Damit widerspricht er sich selbst.

Der Trichter-Effekt, man sieht es im Video, zeigt bei größerer Probandenzahl eine größere statistische Zuverlässigkeit des Ergebnisses, und das bei Studien mit vielen Probanden, die aber, das ist der Haken für die Homöopathen, zeigen, daß Homöopathie wirkungslos ist.

Diese Sache ist alles andere als unbedeutend, weil die Homöopathen andauernd mit Studien mit nur wenigen Probanden angescheppert kommen, und da kann man in das Ergebnis alles hineininterpretieren, vor allem, wenn die Probanden VORHER gezielt ausgesucht waren und nicht repräsentativ sind.

Oben drauf kommt noch ein Knaller: Robert Hahn behauptet, daß man aus ethischen Gründen die Zahl der Probanden klein halten muß. Diesen Irrsinn habe ich in meinem ganzen Leben noch nicht gehört.


Zusammengefaßt:

Hahn lügt, daß sich die Balken biegen. Hahn kann nicht behaupten, daß er fachlich ein Laie ist. Also muß er, zumindest als selbsternannter Experte, der anderen das Fachwissen abstreitet, das Wissen haben für eine korrekte Darstellung. Die aber verweigert er mit den abenteuerlichsten Lügen.

Hahn behauptet, die Homöopathie-Kritiker hätten keine Fachkenntnisse. Das ist eine Lüge.

Hahn behauptet, man müsse aus ethischen Gründen die Probandenzahl klein halten. Das ist eine lüge.

Hahn behauptet, man müßte alle Studien (oder nahezu alle Studien, weil man sonst die Gesamtheit nicht berücktsichtigt) UND DEREN ERGEBNISSE in die Auswertung hineinnehmen. Das ist eine Lüge. Homöopathie besteht aus nichts als Rosinenpickerei ("aber mir hat es geholfen!!!"), und läßt Myriaden von Negativergebnissen unter den Tisch fallen. Genau das läßt Hahn geflissentlich unter den Tisch fallen.

Wäre Robert Hahn ehrlich, würde er die Fehler der Homöopathie zugeben. Aber er ist es nicht. Statt dessen fummelt er mit Mathematik an Studien herum, die bereits im Ansatz falsch sind, so daß Mathematik nichts mehr retten kann.

Während man Robert Hahn am Anfang, 2010-2011, eventuell noch zubilligen könnte, daß er einen wissenschaftlichen Ansatz versucht, ist das Jahre später, wie man in dem Video aus 2019, das ist 7 bis 9 Jahre später, sehen kann, daß sein Auftreten und seine Argumentation die eines Demagogen ist.

Hahn unterstellt Anderen, sie seien voreingenommen. Bei ihm darf man fragen, wer ihn gekauft hat. Oder will man ihn nicht mal geschenkt? Letzteres dürfte wohl am ehesten zutreffen.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2021, 10:27:42 PM by Pangwall »
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138

pics anyone?
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138

Publicerad: 12 November 2012, 07:26 bei DagensMedicin.se ein Aufruf, leider auf Schwedisch, so daß ich ihn mit Google übersetzen ließ.



https://www.dagensmedicin.se/opinion/gastkronika/ipuls-kurs-med-homeopatiforskare-i-jarna/

Sicherheitshalber bei archive.is archiviert:
https://archive.is/QVsqI

Übersetzt mit Google-Translate:

[*quote*]
Source text
4958 / 5000
Translation results

This site is only for you who work in health care.

Sunday24.01.2021

plug

Advertise
Subscribe

News

Specialist areas

Working life

Care management

Opinion

Free jobs

Training

Seminars

search

News

Specialist areas

Working life

Care management

Opinion

Free jobs

Training

Seminars

plug

Advertise

search

Sign in
Start your subscription
Subscribe

Guest chronicle
IPULS course with homeopathy researchers in Järna

Published: 12 November 2012, 07:26

This is an opinion piece

The opinions expressed in the article are the responsibility of the writer (s).

Vidarkliniken and Södertälje Hospital invite you to the culture house in Ytterjärna in November for a theme day about dialogue in healthcare. We all want meaningful conversations with patients, but those who are currently on the IPULS-certified program as speakers and moderators are largely friends of alternative medicine and the only foreign speaker is an anthroposophical professor who seriously researches homeopathic principles.

The main people responsible for the program are Ursula Flatters, head of development at Vidarkliniken, and Robert Hahn, professor of anesthesia and spiritual thinkers, but here in the role of representative of the Academy of Humanistic Medicine at Södertälje Hospital. Professor Karin Dahlberg and Associate Professor Torkel Falkenberg can also be counted among those who are positive about complementary / alternative / integrative medicine. I do not know anything about other Swedish participants.

Vidarkliniken uses homeopathic preparations in the treatment of its patients and Robert Hahn has on his blog more or less defended homeopathy, in any case the homeopaths have perceived it that way and closed Hahn to his chest. On this theme day, after workshops, including rhythmic anthroposophical massage, Professor Peter Heusser will speak on the subject of Science, Medicine and Spirituality.

Peter Heusser is a professor at the German private university in Witten / Herdecke, where, among other things, anthroposophical doctors are trained. Heusser is himself an anthroposophist and has faith in spiritual science as a method for gaining a deeper knowledge of man and his diseases. "One can only understand the organic processes of the embryonic period and childhood from an anthroposophical point of view if one knows that they are primarily an expression of man's etheric body. The etheric body is an invisible force organization which permeates the entire physical body and gives it specific vital attributes. The etheric body cannot be directly investigated by natural scientific means but only by the spiritual scientific ones which Rudolf Steiner has described in detail. "

This is how Heusser writes about why anthroposophical medicine treats cancer with mistletoe therapy: "On the basis of his spiritual scientific investigations R. Steiner recommended mistletoe for cancer therapy and this was first put into practice by Ita Wegman. This occurred without double blind experiments on man and animal but only with the spiritual scientist's intensified and direct capacity of insight into the relation of this special plant to the pathology of the human organism. What this insight reveals is that mistletoe develops a special form of etheric activity which expresses itself in a regular rhythm which is special to the growing rhythms of the rest of the plant world.The special material and botanical characteristics of this plant and its annual rhythms which have been investigated by natural science are the physical results of special life processes which again are only directly accessible to the spiritual scientist. "

However, Peter Heusser must be given credit for conducting scientific reductionist research which, with yeasts or UV spectroscopy, tries to prove that homeopathically diluted solutions have real effects. And neither Heusser's, Flatters' nor Hahn's belief in the unbelievable prevents them from being empathetic physicians who can have something to teach us about how to create a good dialogue with the patient. I hope for comments below from those who attended the theme day.

MATS REIMER

This is an opinion piece

The opinions expressed in the article are the responsibility of the writer (s).

Share the article:
Dagens Medicins newsletter

Do not miss anything from Dagens Medicin! Subscribe to our newsletter for free.
Select newsletter
Take part in Dagens Medicin
Become a subscriber
E-magazine
Advertise
RSS
All subjects
Contact the editors
redaktionen@dagensmedicin.se
Contact Us
Contact customer service
kundservice@dagensmedicin.se
08-409 320 09
follow us
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Dagens Medicin, 113 90 Stockholm

Editor-in-Chief and Editor-in-Chief: Lisa Blohm

Dagensmedicin.se is published by Bonnier Business Media Sweden AB © 2021 Dagens Medicin

Privacy PolicyCookiePolicyAbout ads

We use cookies to improve the functionality of our sites, to be able to direct relevant content and ads to you and for us to be able to ensure that the services work as they should.
Read more
Close
More about this source text
Source text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels

[*/quote*]



Das ungekürzte Original:

[*quote*]
Den här sajten är bara till för dig som arbetar i hälso- och sjukvården.

Söndag24.01.2021

Kontakt

Annonsera
Prenumerera

Nyheter

Specialistområden

Arbetsliv

Vårdens styrning

Opinion

Lediga jobb

Utbildning

Seminarier

Sök

Nyheter

Specialistområden

Arbetsliv

Vårdens styrning

Opinion

Lediga jobb

Utbildning

Seminarier

Kontakt

Annonsera

Sök

Logga in
Starta din prenumeration
Prenumerera

Gästkrönika
IPULS-kurs med homeopatiforskare i Järna

Publicerad: 12 November 2012, 07:26

Det här är en opinionstext

Åsikterna som uttrycks i artikeln står skribenten/skribenterna för.

Vidarkliniken och Södertälje sjukhus inbjuder i november till kulturhuset i Ytterjärna för en temadag om dialogen i vården. Vi vill alla ha meningsfulla samtal med patienter, men de som denna dag står på det IPULS-certfierade programmet som talare och moderatorer är till stor del vännerna av alternativmedicinen och den ende utländske föredragshållaren är en antroposofisk professor som på fullt allvar forskar på homeopatiska principer.

Huvudansvariga för programmet är Ursula Flatters, utvecklingschef på Vidarkliniken, och Robert Hahn, professor i anestesi och andlig tänkare, fast här i rollen som representant för Akademin för Humanistisk Medicin vid Södertälje Sjukhus. Även professor Karin Dahlberg och docent Torkel Falkenberg kan man räkna till dem som är positiva till komplementär/alternativ/integrativ medicin. Övriga svenska medverkande vet jag inte något om.

Vidarkliniken använder homeopatiska preparat i behandlingen av sina patienter  och Robert Hahn har på sin blogg mer eller mindre försvarat homeopatin, i varje fall har homeopaterna uppfattat det så och slutit Hahn till sitt bröst. På denna temadag kommer efter workshops, med bland annat rytmisk antroposofisk massage, professor Peter Heusser tala på ämnet Science, Medicine and Spirituality.

Peter Heusser är professor vid det tyska privatuniversitetet i Witten/Herdecke, där man bland annat utbildar antroposofiska läkare. Heusser är själv antroposof och har tilltro till andevetenskapen som metod för att vinna en djupare kunskap om människan och hennes sjukdomar. "One can only understand the organic processes of the embryonic period and childhood from an anthroposophical point of view if one knows that they are primarily an expression of man's etheric body. The etheric body is an invisible force organization which permeates the entire physical body and gives it specific vital attributes. The etheric body cannot be directly investigated by natural scientific means but only by the spiritual scientific ones which Rudolf Steiner has described in detail."

Så här skriver Heusser om varför antroposofisk medicin behandlar cancer med mistelterapi: "On the basis of his spiritual scientific investigations R. Steiner recommended mistletoe for cancer therapy and this was first put into practice by Ita Wegman. This occurred without double blind experiments on man and animal but only with the spiritual scientist's intensified and direct capacity of insight into the relation of this special plant to the pathology of the human organism. What this insight reveals is that mistletoe develops a special form of etheric activity which expresses itself in a regular rhythm which is opposed to the growing rhythms of the rest of the plant world. The special material and botanical characteristics of this plant and its annual rhythms which have been investigated by natural science are the physical results of special life processes which again are only directly accessible to the spiritual scientist."

Man får dock ge Peter Heusser cred för att han bedriver naturvetenskaplig reduktionistisk forskning som med jästsvampar eller UV-spektroskopi försöker bevisa att homeopatiskt utspädda lösningar har verkliga effekter. Och varken Heussers, Flatters' eller Hahns tro på det otroliga hindrar att de kan vara empatiska läkare som kan ha något att lära oss om hur man skapar en bra dialog med patienten. Jag hoppas på kommentarer nedan från dem som bevistat temadagen.

MATS REIMER

Det här är en opinionstext

Åsikterna som uttrycks i artikeln står skribenten/skribenterna för.

Dela artikeln:
Mer inom ämnet
Sjukhusbibliotekariens Adventskalender: Lucka nummer 7

Gästkrönika­

LCHF med Robinson Crusoe?

Gästkrönika­

Hiv/aids, bykonflikter och kärlek

Gästkrönika­

Andra läser också
”Stoppa försäljningen av 1177 till Kry”

Debatt­

Naturligtvis ska man inte vara både vårdgivare och ansvarig för den centrala sjukvårdsrådgivningen i en region, skriver läkarna Magnus Isacson och Akil Awad. (8 kommentarer.)...
Överdödligheten 2020 tyder på lägre dödstal i covid-19

Infektion

Tusentals svenskar dog av det nya coronaviruset förra året, men inte så många som man kanske tror. Många hade dött i alla fall, fast av...
Blodgrupp 0 åter utpekad som bäst virusskydd

Infektion

Ännu en studie stöder tesen att personer med blodgrupp 0 smittas med det nya coronaviruset i mindre grad än de med andra blodgrupper.
Vaccinerade mot covid-19 blir ändå smittade

Infektion

”Inte konstigt”, säger vaccinforskaren Matti Sällberg. Uppföljningarna visar samtidigt att vaccinationerna ger höga nivåer av antikroppar, precis som förväntat.
Lediga jobb
Forskningskoordinator i ortopedi till Uppsala universitet

Uppsala universitet

Uppsala
Universitetslektor i bild- och funktionsmedicin till Umeå universitet

Umeå universitet

Umeå
Specialist inom patientsäkerhet till Socialstyrelsen

Socialstyrelsen

Stockholm
Enhetschef och biträdande smittskyddsläkare till Smittskydd, Region Stockholm

Region Stockholm

Stockholm
Specialistläkare inom Psykiatri till Psykiatripartners i Östergötland

Psykiatripartners

Linköping/Norrköping

Se alla lediga jobb >>
Dagens Medicins nyhetsbrev

Missa ingenting från Dagens Medicin! Prenumerera på våra nyhetsbrev helt gratis.
Välj nyhetsbrev
Ta del av Dagens Medicin
Bli prenumerant
E-tidning
Annonsera
RSS
Alla ämnen
Kontakta redaktionen
redaktionen@dagensmedicin.se
Kontakta oss
Kontakta kundservice
kundservice@dagensmedicin.se
08-409 320 09
Följ oss
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Dagens Medicin, 113 90 Stockholm

Chefredaktör och ansvarig utgivare: Lisa Blohm

Dagensmedicin.se ges ut av Bonnier Business Media Sweden AB © 2021 Dagens Medicin

PersonuppgiftspolicyCookiepolicyOm annonser

Vi använder cookies för att förbättra funktionaliteten på våra sajter, för att kunna rikta relevant innehåll och annonser till dig och för att vi ska kunna säkerställa att tjänsterna fungerar som de ska.
Läs mer
Stäng
[*/quote*]
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138

[*quote*]
Vidarkliniken and Södertälje Hospital invite you to the culture house in Ytterjärna in November for a theme day about dialogue in healthcare. We all want meaningful conversations with patients, but those who are currently on the IPULS-certified program as speakers and moderators are largely friends of alternative medicine and the only foreign speaker is an anthroposophical professor who seriously researches homeopathic principles.

The main people responsible for the program are Ursula Flatters, head of development at Vidarkliniken, and Robert Hahn, professor of anesthesia and spiritual thinkers, but here in the role of representative of the Academy of Humanistic Medicine at Södertälje Hospital. Professor Karin Dahlberg and Associate Professor Torkel Falkenberg can also be counted among those who are positive about complementary / alternative / integrative medicine. I do not know anything about other Swedish participants.
[*/quote*]


In dem Video kommt etwas zum Vorschein, das den Skeptikern, Brett vor dem Kopf, nicht ins Hirn drang:

"Robert Hahn" ist als "in the role of representative of the Academy of Humanistic Medicine at Södertälje Hospital" bei der Veranstaltung. Das Södertälje Hospital ist nach Hahns Angaben rund 20km entfernt, von was auch immer, Stockholm oder der Klinik, wo er arbeitet.

"Ursula Flatters, head of development at Vidarkliniken" ist von den Vidarkliniken. Die Vidarkliniken wurden geschlossen. Warum? Weil Skeptiker die dort "praktizierte" "anthroposophische Medizin" als Pfusch empfanden.

Vidarkliniken war die einzige anthroposophische Klinik in Skandinavien. Also geht es ursprünglich gar nicht um Homöopathie, sondern um die Schließung dieser Klinik. Für die Anthroposophen geht es um alles oder nichts. Da ist es kein Wunder, wenn extra Jemand aus Witten-Herdecke angereist kommt: Peter Heusser, ein Anthroposoph:

[*quote*]
Vidarkliniken uses homeopathic preparations in the treatment of its patients and Robert Hahn has on his blog more or less defended homeopathy, in any case the homeopaths have perceived it that way and closed Hahn to his chest. On this theme day, after workshops, including rhythmic anthroposophical massage, Professor Peter Heusser will speak on the subject of Science, Medicine and Spirituality.

Peter Heusser is a professor at the German private university in Witten / Herdecke, where, among other things, anthroposophical doctors are trained. Heusser is himself an anthroposophist and has faith in spiritual science as a method for gaining a deeper knowledge of man and his diseases.
"One can only understand the organic processes of the embryonic period and childhood from an anthroposophical point of view if one knows that they are primarily an expression of man's etheric body. The etheric body is an invisible force organization which permeates the entire physical body and gives it specific vital attributes. The etheric body cannot be directly investigated by natural scientific means but only by the spiritual scientific ones which Rudolf Steiner has described in detail. "
[*/quote*]


Es geht nicht um Homöopathie, sondern um den Krieg der Anthroposophen gegen die Wahrheit, gegen die Wahrheit, daß Anthroposophie Scheiße ist. Aus der Richtung Anthroposophen darf man also nicht unerhebliche Geldflüsse in diese und weitere Aktionen annehmen, die zwar Homöopathie zu promoten scheinen, in Wahrheit aber den Zielen der Anthroposophen gelten.
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138

In dem Video zeigt Hahn mehrere Artikel. Einer davon ist anscheinend von Homöopathen übersetzt worden. Auf jeden Fall haben ihn Tübinger Homöopathen übersetzt online gestellt. Der Text deckt sich mit dem, was Hahn in dem Video erzählt.

Hahn ist ein arroganter Hochstapler, der den Kritikern der Homöopathie das Fachwissen abspricht und so tut, als seien das alles keine Ärzte:

[*quote*]
Ich fragte mich ernsthaft - wie können Jungs in diesem Alter das wissen? Haben sie
wirklich schon die nötigen Fähigkeiten, Kenntnisse und Reife, die entsprechende
Literatur zu lesen und auch zu verstehen? Mein Fazit ist - Nein, absolut nicht.
Wissenschaftliche Literatur zu lesen ist kompliziert und setzt (in Grenzen) voraus,
dass man selbst professionell mit der medizinischen Wissenschaft arbeitet. Diesen
Jungs war offensichtlich vorher von älteren Mitgliedern der VoF gesagt worden,
was genau sie zu sagen haben.

[*/quote*]

Um die Fehler, die er macht, zu erkennen, muß man kein Arzt sein, man muß noch nicht einmal studiert haben, so gravierend sind seine Fehler.

Hier der Text auf Deutsch archiviert:

https://www.tuebingen-homoeopathie.de/downloads/Artikel%20Robert%20Hahn.pdf

[*quote*]
Suchbegriff bitte hier eingeben...
Wissenschaftlicher Beitrag: "Beweise
für die Homöopathie"
Von Prof. Dr. Robert Hahn,
Forscher an der Universität von Linköping
Der folgende Artikel stammt von Robert Hahn, Forscher und Professor für
Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin an der Universität von Linköping, Schweden.
Hahn hat über 300 wissenschaftliche Artikel im Bereich Anästhesie und
Intensivmedizin veröffentlicht und bereits mehrere Forschungspreise erhalten.
Er hatte bisher nichts mit Homöopathie zu tun. Ihm war jedoch aufgefallen,
dass eine erstaunlich unwissenschaftliche Diskussion über die Beweislage der
Homöopathie geführt wurde. Daraufhin wollte er sich selbst ein Bild davon
machen und studierte die aktuelle Forschungslage. Dabei kam er zu
erstaunlichen Ergebnissen.
Der Artikel ist eine Zusammenfassung Robert Hahn eines Artikels, den er im
Oktober 2013 in der Zeitschrift Forschende Komplementärmedizin
veröffentlichte.



Vor gut 3 Jahren startete die Organisation „Vetenskap och folkbildning (VoF)
(Wissenschaft und Volksbildung) eine Sommerkampagne gegen die Homöopathie.
Während der politischen Woche in Almedalen versah die VoF eine Gruppe
Teenager mit T-Shirts die den Aufdruck "Jag är skeptisk" - (Ich bin skeptisch)
trugen. Diese Gruppe landete durch diese Aktion zusammen mit dem Astronauten
Christer Fuglesang im Fernsehen, wo sie einen Abend lang frei und ungestört gegen
die Homöopathie argumentieren durften. Homöopathie wurde als großer Bluff
dargestellt. Die Teenager sagten einer nach dem anderen, dass es keinerlei
wissenschaftliche Studien gebe, die beweisen könnten, dass Homöopathie
funktioniere.
Ich fragte mich ernsthaft - wie können Jungs in diesem Alter das wissen? Haben sie
wirklich schon die nötigen Fähigkeiten, Kenntnisse und Reife, die entsprechende
Literatur zu lesen und auch zu verstehen? Mein Fazit ist - Nein, absolut nicht.
Wissenschaftliche Literatur zu lesen ist kompliziert und setzt (in Grenzen) voraus,
dass man selbst professionell mit der medizinischen Wissenschaft arbeitet. Diesen
Jungs war offensichtlich vorher von älteren Mitgliedern der VoF gesagt worden,
was genau sie zu sagen haben.

Sie dienten als eine Art Werbebanner für etwas, dass sie weder verstanden noch
beurteilen konnten. Sie vertrauten Personen, die von sich behaupten, dass sie die
öffentliche Bildung und Wissenschaft repräsentieren um dann, mit ihrem eigenen
Namen, öffentlich die Version dieser Personen zu vertreten. Sie nahmen an, das
diese Version stimme und als selbstverständlich in der wissenschaftlichen Welt
akzeptieret werde.
Gibt es Beweis
Homöopathie?
e für die
Dieses beklemmende Faktum veranlasste mich, über die existierende Beweise zu
Gunsten der Homöopathie zu schreiben. Meine drei Blogs zu diesem Thema
weckten im Spätsommer 2011 enorme Aufmerksamkeit. Das Ziel war es, die
wissenschaftlichen Artikel durchzugehen, die sich mit der Frage
auseinandersetzten, ob Homöopathie bei medizinischen Erkrankungen, statistisch
gesehen, effektiver ist als ein Placebo (Globuli oder Dilutionen).
Die Aufmerksamkeit die diesen Blogs zuteil wurde, hatte den Effekt, dass ich
gebeten wurde, sie zusammenzufassen und in einer medizinischen Fachzeitschrift
zu veröffentlichen. Diese wurde im Oktober 2013 unter dem Titel: Homeopathy:
Meta-analyses of Pooled Clinical Data in der Zeitschrift Forschende
Komplementärmedizin (2013; 20: 376-381) veröffentlicht.
Wenn Sie einen Überblick über weitere meiner gut 300 wissenschaftliche Artikel
wünschen, können Sie diese unter folgendem Link
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hahn+rg) anschauen. Dies ist jedoch
mein einziger Artikel zum Thema Homöopathie oder alternative Medizin, aber ich
denke, dass er seine Rolle erfüllt.
Systematische Übersicht und Meta-Analysen
Der Ausgangspunkt für diesen Artikel war die Änderung im Bewertungsansatz
medizinischer Behandlungen, die in der Mitte der 1990er Jahre stattfand. Dieser
war zuvor akademisch. Mit anderen Worten, sollte man den Mechanismus, warum
eine Behandlung funktioniert verstehen, um diese dann akzeptieren zu können.
Dieses Kriterium führt zu Problemen. Viele Behandlungen, deren Wirkungsweise
noch unbekannt ist, werden nämlich trotzdem in Krankenhäusern verwendet.
Lachgas, das üblicherweise während der Geburt verwendet wird, ist ein solches
Beispiel.
Die Medizin ging nun zu dem praktischen Begriff "evidenzbasiert" über, welcher
beinhaltet, dass sämtliche Literatur des entsprechenden Gebietes in Form von
Systematischen Übersichten oder Meta-Analysen herangezogen wurde. Die Frage,
die gestellt wurde, war: Funktioniert die Behandlung oder nicht? In einer Meta-
Analyse werden alle wissenschaftlichen Studien summiert, in der Patienten durch
ein Zufallsprinzip das Studienpräparat oder Placebo (Kontrollgruppe) erhalten.
Wenn das Studienpräparat (in diesem Fall die Homöopathie) ein statistisch
nachweisbar besseres oder schnelleres Heilungsergebnis erzielt als das Placebo, gilt
dies als Beweis dafür, dass es effektiver ist. Um wie viel besser wird mit einem
sogenannten odds ratio angegeben, in dem der Wert "besser als das Placebo" mit
einer Ziffer höher als 1,0 angegeben wird. Dass die Verbesserung statistisch
sichergestellt ist, wird durch ein Konfidenzintervall (CI) ausgewiesen, welches 1,0
nicht umfasst. (Das Risiko, das die Verbesserung durch Zufall erklärt werden kann
liegt bei weniger als 5%).
Der Leser sei an dieser Stelle darauf hingewiesen, dass es nun nicht mehr
erforderlich war, den Mechanismus hinter der Behandlung nachzuweisen. Diese
Änderung brachte erhebliche Probleme für die akademische Medizin
(einschließlich der VoF) mit sich, der es nun immer schwerer fiel, alternative
Behandlungsmethoden abzulehnen. Es kann nun plötzlich passieren, dass diese
funktionieren, obwohl die Wirkungsweise dahinter scheinbar unklar ist, oder die
Methoden (in unserer Zeit) als unvernünftig aufgefasst werden.
Lindes Artikel
Bei Klaus Lindes Meta-Analyse aus dem Jahr 1997 (Referenz 1) handelt es sich um
die erste und ehrlichste Schrift auf dem Gebiet. Linde fand einen odds ratio von
2,45 und einen CI von 2,05-2,93, also einen deutlichen Effekt zum Vorteil der
Homöopathie im Vergleich mit Placebo. Dieses Resultat basiert auf 89 Studien.
Hier konnte man nachvollziehen, wie die Auswahl der einzelnen Studien zu Stande
kam und es gibt eine vernünftige Balance zwischen der Anzahl der
eingeschlossenen Studien und der Möglichkeit, die Effekte statistisch
nachzuweisen. Interessanterweise fügte Linde eine Übersicht bei, die aufzeigt wie
effektiv Homöopathie bei verschiedenen Krankheiten wirkt. Mir scheint es klar,
dass die Homöopathie vor allem bei milderen Erkrankungen, welche mit dem
Immunsystem zu tun haben (Allergien, Heuschnupfen, etc.) ihre Wirkung entfaltet.
Lindes Studie erregte verständlicher Weise Aufsehen in der akademischen Welt.
Nun folgte ein Gegenstrom von Artikeln, die offenbar versuchten, dass Ergebnis zu
widerlegen. Die erste Kritik galt der Qualität der Studie, welche in sogenannte
Jadad score unterteilt werden kann. Als man dies mit Lindes 89 Studien tat, erwies
sich ein Trend, das die Studien mit einem niedrigen Jadad score eine höhere
Wirkung erzielten. Linde zeigte jedoch, dass selbst bei dem höchsten Jadad score
die positive Wirkung der Homöopathie nochmals anstieg (Referenz 2).
Edzard Ernst
Dieses Argument wurde jedoch nicht von dem alternativmedizischen Aktivisten
Edzard Ernst akzeptiert, der die Meinung vertritt, dass man eine Linie zwischen
allen Jadad scores, außer dem höchsten, ziehen sollte, und so den theoretischen
Effekt der besten Studien berechnen kann (Referenz 3). Aus meiner Sicht ist dies
völlig verrückt, da man dabei reale Daten mit virtuellen (theoretisch berechneten)
Daten ersetzt.
Ernst verfasste 2002 eine angebliche Meta-Analyse über Homöopathie, bei der es
sich in Wahrheit jedoch um eine systematische Übersicht handelt (Referenz 4). Ich
gehe in meinem Artikel weiter unten noch auf einige Besonderheiten seiner
Übersicht ein. Ernst pendelt z.B. zwischen dem Ablehnen von Artikeln, die
spezifische Auswirkungen auf Krankheiten zeigen, während er in anderen Fällen
Artikel nicht zulässt, weil sie nicht die spezifischen Wirkungen zeigen. Ich habe
noch nie einen wissenschaftlichen Schriftsteller gesehen, der so offensichtlich
voreingenommen (vorbelastet) war, wie Edzard Ernst.
Cucherats "Typ II-Fehler"
Cucherat (Referenz 5) ist ein im Grunde ehrlicher Schriftsteller, der sich sehr
bemühte, die Homöopathie als Behandlungsmethode schließlich abzulehnen.
Konventionelle meta-analytische Statistiken wurden in diesem Fall nicht
verwendet, stattdessen wurde aus 5 möglichen Methoden die für die Homöopathie
ungünstigste gewählt. Cucherat verfiel des Weiteren auf eine Technik, die Edzard
Ernst in vielen Studien ausnutzte, nämlich die, so gut wie jedes qualitativ
hochwertige Material zu entfernen. Im Falle der Homöopathie reichte es jedoch
nicht aus, 90% der ursprünglich zur Auswertung vorgesehenen Studien zu
entfernen. Die homöopathische Behandlung blieb weiterhin dem Placebo
überlegen. Als der Verfasser jedoch 95-98% aller Studien entfernte, kippte die
Statistik. Es liegt also nicht daran, dass die Behandlungsmethode schlecht ist,
sondern dass Statistiken einfach mehr Material zur Auswertung benötigen. Man
kann sagen, dass der Autor einen "Typ-II-Fehler" bewusst geschaffen hat. Ich bin
äußerst kritisch gegenüber gleich mehreren Punkten, die Cucherat anführt, um die
ausselektierten Studien abzulehnen. Es sind manchmal nur marginale Details, die in
der Regel nicht zum Ausschluss führen.
Zunächst einmal entfernt Cucherat 101 von insgesamt 118 Studien aus seiner
Auswertung. Weiterhin bleibt die Homöopathie im hohen Maße wirkungsvoll. Das
Risiko, das der Unterschied zwischen der Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie und dem
Placebo auf Zufall beruht, lag dabei bei < als 3,6 von 100.000. Auch als er weitere
Studien entfernte und nur noch 9 der allerbesten übrigblieben, zeigte die
Homöopathie weiterhin eine statistisch sichergestellte Wirkung. Als er weitere 4
Studien entfernte, geriet die Statistik jedoch ins Wanken und das Risiko, dass die
Wirkung von Homöopathie gegenüber Placebos mit dem Zufall erklärt werden
könnte, lag bei 8,2 von 100. Die Schlussfolgerung? Cucherat meint, dass
Homöopathie nicht wirksam sei.
Ich meine, Cucherat ist ein Feigling. Auf die Gefahr hin, seine Karriere zu zerstören
und auf Kriegsfuß mit Organisationen wie der VoF zu geraten, wagte er es nicht,
das zu veröffentlichen, was sein Material tatsächlich zeigte. Er erschuf durch das
Ignorieren von mehr als 96% der Studien, welche er zunächst als gut genug für
seine Meta-Analyse befunden hatte, absichtlich einen "Fehler vom Typ II".
Shang selektiert genauso wild
Die nächste Meta-Analyse wurde von Shang verfasst und 1995 veröffentlicht
(Referenz 6). Hier wurden, genau wie bei Cucherat, 96% aller Studien entfernt,
aber leider ohne einen Grund dafür anzugeben. Man drehte den odds ratio hin und
her, bis das Ergebnis, das trotz aller Entfernungen von Studienmaterial zeigte das
die Homöopathie um 13% wirksamer war als das Placebo, umgedreht wurde und so
dargestellt wurde, als sei das Placebo um 13% wirksamer gewesen als die
Homöopathie.
Shang machte auch Gebrauch von dem so genannten "Funnel-Plot", welcher völlig
unangemessen und unwissenschaftlich ist, wenn man wie in diesem Fall,
verschiedene Krankheiten mischt. Der Grund hierfür ist, dass Studien mit hoher
Leistungserwartung (hier z.B. Heuschnupfen) immer weniger Patienten beinhalten,
als Studien deren Leistungserwartungen niedrig eingeschätzt wird. Hierbei handelt
es sich um eine allgemein anerkannte ethische Norm. Ich muss auch anmerken,
dass die Autoren mit welchen Shang zusammenarbeitete, einige Jahre zuvor einen
sehr negativen Artikel über die Homöopathie veröffentlichten, was mich an dem
objektiven Ausgangspunkt dieser Gruppe zweifeln lässt.
Damit beende ich meine Zusammenfassung. Oben aufgeführt sind die 6 wichtigsten
Artikel zu diesem Thema. Meiner Übersicht aus Forschende Komplementärmedizin
enthält insgesamt 22 Referenzen.
Es gibt sicherlich mehr dazu zu sagen, aber dafür reicht der Platz hier nicht aus.
Beweise
 und Glauben
Was also glaubt Robert Hahn? Ich glaube nichts. Es ist nicht meine Aufgabe, noch
von praktischem Interesse, da ich nicht mit Homöopathie arbeite. Was mich
interessiert, ist die tendenzielle und praktische Voreingenommenheit von
Wissenschaftlern aufzuzeigen, die nicht annähernd so objektiv sind, wie sie Ihnen
(und allen anderen) glauben machen wollen, indem sie mit ihren Professor-Titel
winken, um damit ihren persönlichen Glauben zu legitimieren. Das sind diejenigen,
die ahnungslose Jugendliche dazu verleiten ihren ideologischen Lehren zu folgen.
So etwas mag ich nicht und mein Ziel ist es, mich dem zu widersetzen.
Allerdings muss ich gestehen, dass ich kritisch gegenüber dem Ausgangspunkt bin,
der in den hier zitierten Studien angewendet wurde um die Frage zu klären, ob
Homöopathie wirksamer ist als ein Placebo. Diese Frage ist nicht besonders
geschickt gestellt, da die Antworten darauf sowohl auf Krankheiten basiert bei
denen die Homöopathie dem Placebo gegenüber überlegen ist, als auch auf
Krankheiten, bei denen sie es nicht ist.
Um diese Frage voranzubringen, sollte man sich stattdessen besser auf die
Krankheiten konzentrieren die bereits Linde 1997 als für Studien besonders
geeignet erwähnt hatte. Statt das Wissen über die Wirkung der Homöopathie bei
unterschiedlichen Krankheiten zu vergrößern, entstand ein ideologischer Kampf
darüber, ob Homöopathie überhaupt funktioniert. Meine Zusammenfassung dürfte
deutlich gezeigt haben, dass diejenigen, die versucht haben zu beweisen, dass
Homöopathie nicht funktioniert, sich dafür sehr anstrengen mussten.
Wissenschaftler sind stark von ihrer Ideologie beeinflusst
Wem also kann man noch trauen? Wir können damit beginnen Edzard Ernst
auszusortieren. Ich habe einige andere Studien die er veröffentlicht hat gelesen, und
sie sind allesamt unseriös. Seine Arbeit sollte nicht gewertet werden. Sowohl
Cucherat als auch Shang haben absichtlich einen "Typ II-Fehler" durch das
Ignorieren fast aller tatsächlich existierenden veröffentlichten Studien erstellt. Der
Grund? Nun, wenn sie nur ein paar Studien mehr mit einbezogen hätten, und damit
zufrieden gewesen wären "nur" 90% der Unterlagen auszuschließen, so hätte sich
rausgestellt, dass die Homöopathie wirksamer war als das Placebo. Und das will
man doch wohl nicht, oder? So hat man ganz einfach so viel Material
ausgeschlossen, bis man einen "Typ II-Fehler" konstruiert hat.
Ich gehe davon aus, dass die Verfasser einiges ausprobieren/tricksen mussten, um
das zu finden auf das man von Anfang an hinaus wollte - nämlich, dass es der
Homöopathie an Wirkung fehle. Dieses mathematische Spielchen erscheint alles
andere als seriös. So aber konnte man sich seine akademische Reinheit bewahren,
ist weiterhin willkommen in den heiligen Hallen der Wissenschaft, läuft nicht
Gefahr durch Organisationen wie der VoF verspottet zu werden oder öffentlich
lächerlich gemacht zu werden.
Ich bin fasziniert zu sehen, wie sehr die wissenschaftliche Welt durch ihre
Ideologien gesteuert wird. Im Fall der Homöopathie ist es so, dass man sich an das
halten sollte, was die Beweislage offenbart. Und diese sagt, das die Wirksamkeit
der Homöopathie nur dann nicht nachweisbar werden kann, wenn man 95-98%
aller auf dem Gebiet erfolgten Studien entfernt, welche nach geltenden Prinzipien
sehr wohl ausgewertet werden könnten und die neben anderen vorsehen, dass es
eine Placebo-Kontrollgruppe gibt. Oder aber man verlangt nach einer völlig
ungeeigneten Methode wie z.B der funnel plots.
Die Reaktionen der Wissenschaft
Ich möchte Ihnen drei Beispiele von Reaktionen wissenschaftlich ausgebildeter
Personen auf die Homöopathie im Allgemeinen und auf meine Arbeit mit dem hier
erbrachten Nachweis geben.
Ein Kollege schrieb ein Kommentar auf Facebook. Er meinte, er sei sehr
verwundert darüber, dass ich mich für Homöopathie interessiere, da ich doch
ansonsten so wissenschaftlich sei. Homöopathie - Eindeutig ein Tabuthema. Wenn
es die Homöopathie betrifft, darf man nicht mit der Suche oder Auswertung von
Beweisen arbeiten - will man weiterhin als guter und seriöser Wissenschaftler
gelten. Dieser Art von Angst sollte es in der Wissenschaft nicht geben. Aber dass
sie existiert, ist sehr auffällig.
Ein weiteres Beispiel dafür, sinnvollen Meinungsaustausch zum Thema
Homöopathie schon im Keim zu unterbinden, ist die abfälligen Wortwahl, die gerne
benutzt wird. Der Professor für Komplementärmedizin des Karolinska-Institut
unterstützte die VoFs Sommer-Kampagne gegen die Homöopathie im Jahr 2011
dadurch, dass er in den Medien erklärte, dass Homöopathen alles Scharlatane seien,
die nur Humbug verbreiten würden.
Ein drittes Mittel ist ganz einfach zu lügen. In meinem Artikel aus Forschende
Komplementärmedizin erwähne ich unter anderem Dan Larhammars Artikel (ich
erwähnte ihn jedoch nicht namentlich) der in der Zeitung Svenska Dagbladet
während der Sommer-Kampagne 2011 erschien. In diesem führte Larhammer aus,
dass die Homöopathie eine wissenschaftliche Absurdität sei (was so korrekt ist).
Aber er schrieb auch, dass die Wissenschaft festgestellt habe, dass die
Homöopathie keine Wirkung hätte, und bezog sich dabei darauf, dass es lediglich
zwei Studien gäbe, die den Stand der Forschung auf diesem Gebiet
zusammenfassten. Diese beiden Studienberichte sind laut Larhammar, die von
Shang und Ernst verfassten.
Zum einem gibt es bedeutend mehr Studienberichte zu dem Thema. Wenn wir nun
alle oben erwähnten 6 Berichte gelesen haben, dann wird außerdem klar, dass es
sich bei diesen beiden eindeutig um die der Homöopathie gegenüber negativsten
handelt. Beide Männer haben leider sehr fragwürdige Methoden gewählt, um zu
ihren Schlussfolgerungen zu gelangen. Es scheint, als habe Larhammar die
Literatur einer Selektion unterworfen, damit deren Botschaft am Ende der seinen
entspricht.
Ein wirklich ehrlicher Wissenschaftler hätte eine Bewertung aller hier erwähnten
Artikel vorgenommen. Das Bild wäre dann, dass es nicht zweifelsfrei nachgewiesen
werden kann, dass Homöopathie eine "Bluff-Medizin" ist. Die Beweis-Analyse
zeigt vielmehr das Gegenteil. Hier verfällt Dan Larhammar vielmehr der
Versuchung zu lügen, um mit der Ansicht der VoF (sowie seiner privaten), konform
gehen zu können. Er missbraucht damit seine Position als Professor und lässt es zu,
dass seine persönliche Weltanschauung über seiner wissenschaftlichen Botschaft
steht.
Dan Larhammer ist ein Spezialist für alles
Es ist vor allem Dan Larhammer, der ehemalige Vorsitzenden des VoFs, der gegen
die Homöopathie ins Feld zieht. Das hat er bereits viele Male getan. Ich persönlich
bin davon überzeugt, dass Larhammer der Kopf hinter der VoF Sommer-Kampagne
2011 ist. Innerhalb der VoFs-Sphäre benötigt man weder eine spezielle Ausbildung
noch Erfahrung um als Spezialist auf allen Bereichen zu gelten. In der Zeitung
Dagens Nyheter idag (5/1 2014) trat Dan Larhammar als Experte für
Grundschulausbildung auf. Er und andere aus der Akademie der Wissenschaften
haben selbst analysiert und verstanden, was in der Schule schief läuft. Vor ein paar
Jahren trat er in der Dagens Nyheter als Experte für Autismus-Spektrum-Störungen
auf. Im Buch Vetenskap eller villfarelse (Leopard Förlag 2005) wird er als Experte
für Neurokognition benannt. In Wirklichkeit ist Dan Larthammar Apotheker und
betreibt Grundlagenforschung bei Fischen. Ihm fehlt das Expertenwissen in
sämtlichen Bereichen, in denen er als Sachkundiger mit seinen Professorentitel in
Petto erscheint. Er erinnert mich damit an Gustav Gans, der Figur aus Donald
Duck. Der war auch Experte für alles. Omnipotenz ist eine schwer zu tragende
Bürde.
Leider ist es mir aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen nicht möglich meinen kompletten
Artikel über Homöopathie ins zu Internet stellen. Unter folgendem Link
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200828) finden Sie das Abstrakt zu
meinem Artikel.
Wenn Sie den gesamten Artikel lesen möchten, müssen Sie diesen leider online
käuflich erwerben (ca. €5.-). Daran ist wie oben erwähnt das Urheberrecht des
Verlages schuld. Leider kann ich da nichts machen.
Referenzen
1. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB.
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-
controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834–43.
2. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melcart D, Jonas WB. Impact of
study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin
Epidemiol 1999;52:631–6.
3. Ernst E, Pittler MH. Re-analysis of previous meta-analysis of clinical trials of
homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1188.
4. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin
Pharmacol 2002;54:577–82.
5. Cucherat M, Haugh MV, Gooch M, Boissel J-P. Evidence for clinical efficacy of
homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56:27–
33.
6. Shang A, Huwiler-Münterer K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Egger M.
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of
placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005;366:726–32.
- Mehr unter: http://roberthahn.nu/2014/01/05/min-vetenskapliga-artikel-om-homeopati/#sthash.GBpiJtin.dpuf
Der Autor:
Prof. Dr. Robert G. Hahn
Research Director, Södertälje Hospital
Professor of Anaesthesia, Linköping University
Associate Professor, Karolinska institutet
Zum Orginalartikel, folgen Sie diesem Link
*******************************************************************
*
Dieser Artikel wurde auf www.interhomeopathy.org publiziert
Fotos: © shutterstock: table with the text Homeopathy on the display - Zerbor,
© shutterstock: Child receiving homeopathic medication granules - closeup - Ilike,
© shutterstock: homeopathic globules - hjschneider
Kategorie: wissenschaftlicher Artikel
Kommentare
Text
[*/quote*]
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138

Der im vorigen Post archivierte Text von Hahn enthält einen Link zu seinem Blog. Der verlinkte Artikel

http://roberthahn.nu:80/2014/01/05/min-vetenskapliga-artikel-om-homeopati/

ist aber verschwunden. Anscheinend ist alles vor 2019 gelöscht worden. 

Das Web-Archiv war aber so freundlich und hat ihn gespidert und archiviert.


http://web.archive.org/web/20140125135742/http://roberthahn.nu:80/2014/01/05/min-vetenskapliga-artikel-om-homeopati/

Sicherheitshalber bei archive.is archiviert:
https://archive.is/pyIsF

Übersetzt mit Google Translate:

[*quote*]
Translation types
Text translation
Source text
5000 / 5000
Translation results
Robert Hahn

Robert Hahn

    Home »
    Articles »
    Robert Hahn's CV
    Publications
    Links

My scientific article on homeopathy
January 5, 2014 By Robert Hahn 101 Comments


Robert Hahn has summarized the meta-analyzes comparing homeopathy with placebo in a scientific article published in the journal Forschende Komplementärmedizin in October 2013. Robert discusses the background and contains in his article, which is essentially based on three previous blogs.

 

Almost 3 years ago, the association Vetenskap och folkbildning (VoF) ran a summer campaign against homeopathy. During the political week in Almedalen, VoF sent a bunch of guys in their late teens wearing T-shirts with the text "I am septic". They ended up on TV together with the astronaut Christer Fuglesang, who one evening was free to argue against homeopathy. This method of treatment was described as a hoax. The boys said, one after the other, that there is not a single scientific study that shows that homeopathy works.

I wonder how the little boys could know that. Do they have the ability and knowledge sufficient to read and judge the literature? Absolutely not, was my conclusion. Reading and evaluating this literature is actually complicated and requires (almost) that you yourself work professionally with medical science. The boys had of course been told by older members of VoF to say just that. They served as advertising pillars for something they neither understood nor could evaluate on their own. They trusted people who claimed to serve and represent public education and science in order, with their own names, to publicly represent views that they were made to accept as self-evident in science.

 

Is there evidence for homeopathy?

This depressing fact made me blog about existing evidence behind homeopathy. My three blogs on the subject in the late summer of 2011 attracted a huge amount of attention. The aim was to go through the scientific articles that ask the question of whether homeopathy is statistically a more effective treatment than placebo (sugar pills etc.) against medical diseases.

As a result, the attention to these blogs led me to summarize them and publish them in an international medical journal. It was published in October 2013 under the title Homeopathy: Meta-analyzes of Pooled Clinical Data in the journal Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2013; 20: 376-381). If you want an overview of my other more than 300 scientific articles, you can click on this link. This is my only text on homeopathy or alternative medicine, but I think it plays a role.

Unfortunately, I can not post my entire article on homeopathy on the Internet as scientific journals are commercial companies that have copyright on their products. You can read Abstract on PubMed via this link. I attach links to my previous blogs, where the essentials appear (Blog 1, Blog 2, Blog 3) but I also summarize my comments below.

 

Systematic reviews and meta-analyzes

The starting point for the article is the change in the approach to valuing medical treatments that took place in the mid-1990s. It had previously been academic. In other words, one should understand the mechanism behind why a treatment works to accept it. That criterion created problems. Lots of treatments were used in hospitals whose mechanism is still unknown. Nitrous oxide, which is widely used in childbirth, is one such example.

Medicine now moved on to the practical concept of evidence-based, which means that all literature is collected in the area in the form of systematic reviews or meta-analyzes. The question is where is: does the treatment work or not? A meta-analysis summarizes all scientific studies in which patients have been drawn to receive study preparations or placebo (control). The fact that the study preparation (in this case homeopathy) creates a statistically better or faster cure of the disease says that this is more effective than placebo. How much better is stated by an odds ratio, where "better than placebo" is stated with a number greater than 1.0. That the improvement is statistically significant (the risk is less than 5% that the improvement can be explained by chance) is indicated by a confidence interval (CI) that does not include 1.0.

The reader should be made aware that there was no longer a requirement to be able to demonstrate a mechanism. This change has created major problems for academic medicine (including VoF) that are finding it increasingly difficult to dismiss alternative therapies. In fact, they may work, even though the mechanism seems unclear or the treatment (in our time) is perceived as unreasonable.

 

Translation types
Text translation
Source text
Lindes artiklar

Klaus Lindes meta-analys från 1997 (Referens 1) är den första och mest ärligt skrivna. Linde fann ett odds ratio på 2.45 och ett CI 2.05-2.93, alltså en alldeles tydlig effekt till fördel för homeopati jämfört med placebo baserat på de bästa 89 studierna. Här kan man följa hur urvalet av artiklar har skett och det finn
5000 / 5000
Translation results
Linde's articles

Klaus Linde's meta-analysis from 1997 (Reference 1) is the first and most honestly written. Linde found an odds ratio of 2.45 and a CI 2.05-2.93, ie a very clear effect in favor of homeopathy compared to placebo based on the best 89 studies. Here you can follow how the selection of articles has taken place and there is a reasonable balance between the number of included studies and the possibility of being able to demonstrate effects with statistics. Interestingly, Linde attaches a map of how effective homeopathy is in various disease states. To me, it seems clear that homeopathy exerts its effect, especially in milder diseases that have to do with the immune system (allergies, hay fever, etc.).

Of course, Linde's study touched on the academic world, and now followed a countercurrent of articles that apparently sought to invalidate the results. The first criticism concerned the quality of the study, which can be grouped according to a so-called Jadad score. When doing so with Linde's 89 studies, there was a trend that studies with lower Jadad scores showed a stronger effect. However, Linde showed that the positive effect again increased at the highest Jadad score (Reference 2).

 

Edzard Ernst

That argument was not accepted by alternative medicine activist Edzard Ernst, who advocated drawing a line between all but the highest Jadad scores and calculating the effect of the best studies theoretically (Reference 3). In my opinion, this is pure spin because you then replace real, real data with virtual (theoretically calculated) data.

Ernst authored an alleged meta-analysis of homeopathy in 2002, but it is in fact a systematic review (Reference 4). In my article, I mention several oddities in this overview. For example, Ernst alternates between rejecting articles that demonstrate specific effects on diseases, while in other cases he rejects articles because they do not demonstrate such specific effects. I have never come across a scientific writer who is as clearly biased as this Edzard Ernst.

 

Cucherats "Type II error"

Cucherat (Reference 5) is a basically honest author who makes a real effort to eventually reject homeopathy as a treatment method. Conventional meta-analytical statistics were not used, but instead the one of 5 methods that most disadvantages homeopathy was chosen. Cucherat further falls into a technique that Edzard Ernst in many studies has fully utilized, namely to remove almost all material with reference to some quality factor. For homeopathy, however, it is not enough to remove 90% of all the data, for the treatment is still superior to placebo. If, on the other hand, the author removes 95-98% of all study data, the statistics will crack. This is not because the treatment is poor but because the statistics require a larger basis. It can be said that the author deliberately creates a "Type II error". I am critical of several reasons given by Cucherat for rejecting studies. These are sometimes marginal details that do not normally render exclusion.

Cucherat first removes 101 of the total of 118 studies in its material. Homeopathy is still highly effective, with a risk of less than 3.6 per 100,000 that the difference from placebo should be explained by chance. When he scales away even more, and retains 9 of the very best studies, homeopathy still has a statistically significant effect. When he removes another 4 fours, however, the statistics end up on the margins, with a risk of 8.2 out of 100 that the difference between homeopathy and placebo can be explained by chance. The conclusion? Cucherat believes that homeopathy has no effect.

I mean, Cucherat is a coward. With the risk of disrupting his career and getting in trouble with organizations of the VoF type, he simply does not dare to publish what his material actually shows. He deliberately creates a Type II error by overlooking just over 96% of the studies he initially identified as good enough for a meta-analysis.

 

Translation types
Text translation
Source text
Lindes artiklar

Klaus Lindes meta-analys från 1997 (Referens 1) är den första och mest ärligt skrivna. Linde fann ett odds ratio på 2.45 och ett CI 2.05-2.93, alltså en alldeles tydlig effekt till fördel för homeopati jämfört med placebo baserat på de bästa 89 studierna. Här kan man följa hur urvalet av artiklar har skett och det finn
5000 / 5000
Translation results
Shang selects just as wildly

The next meta-analysis is authored by Shang et al. and was published in 1995 (Reference 6). Here, just like Cucherat, 96% of all studies have been removed, but unfortunately without clearly stating the reasons. The odds ratio has been turned upside down so that, despite all the exclusions, it shows that homeopathy is 13% better than placebo, it was presented as being 13% worse. Shang has further used a so-called "Funnel plot", which is completely inappropriate and unscientific when mixing different diseases. The reason is that studies with a high expectation of effect (here, eg hay fever) always include earlier patients than those with low expectations of an effect. This is a generally accepted ethical requirement. I must also add that the authors of Shang have already several years earlier published a very negative article on homeopathy, which makes me doubt that the group's starting point was objective.

Thus, I end my review. The 6 most important articles are mentioned above, but my overview in Forschende Komplementärmedizin contains a total of 22 references. There is more to say, but not everything fits here. If you want to read the whole article, you unfortunately have to buy it online (it may cost a fiver). There's nothing I can do about it.

 

Evidence and faith

What then does Robert Hahn think? I do not believe anything. It is not my task nor of practical interest as I do not work with homeopathy myself. What interests me is to tell about tendentious and biased scientists who are not at all objective in the way you (and everyone else) think when they wave their professorships to give legitimacy to personal beliefs. They are the ones who trick unsuspecting young people into doing their ideological affairs. I do not like that, and to counteract it is my mission.

However, I must admit that I am critical of the starting point used in these studies cited, which of course evaluates the question of whether homeopathy is a better treatment than placebo. That question is not very gifted because the answer will confuse diseases where homeopathy is superior to placebo and diseases where it is not superior. In order to take the issue forward, one should instead have focused on the diseases that Linde already in 1997 pointed out as beneficial to try.

Instead of increasing knowledge about the effects of homeopathy in various diseases, an ideologically colored struggle has arisen over the principle that homeopathy works at all in any disease. My review has clearly shown that the academics who have tried to disprove that homeopathy works have really made an effort to succeed.

 

Scientists strongly influenced by ideology

Who can you trust then? We can start by sifting out Edzard Ernst. I have read some other studies he has published, and they are not serious. His work should be left there. Both Cucherat and Shang have deliberately created Type II errors by ignoring almost all published studies that can be found at all. The reason? Well, if they had included just a few more studies, and thus contented themselves with excluding 90% of the data, homeopathy would have appeared to be more effective than placebo. And you did not want that, did you? You have simply excluded until you have created a Type II error.

I assume that the authors played around a lot with their exclusions to find what they have decided to find from the beginning, namely that homeopathy has no effect. The mathematical game does not appear to be serious. But through it, they have saved their academic room cleanliness, are still welcome in the academy's fine rooms, and you do not have to be ridiculed and persecuted by organizations such as VoF and get fooled on the head as the Deceiver of the Year or something similar.

I have been fascinated by academia so strongly influenced by ideology. In the case of homeopathy, it is obvious that one should stick to what the evidence evaluation says. And it says that homeopathy has no effect only if you remove 95-98% of the studies in the area that according to current principles should be able to be evaluated, which among other things means that a placebo control occurs. Or a rejection requires the use of completely unsuitable models, such as e.g. funnel plots.

Academics' reactions

I will give three typical examples of academically educated people's reactions to homeopathy in general and my work with this evidence evaluation.

A colleague commented on me on Facebook. He said he was surprised that I was interested in homeopathy as I am otherwise so scientific. Taboo signal! Evidence evaluation in this area must not be worked on if you want to be a good and serious scientist. This kind of fear should have nothing to do with science. But now the fear is there, and it is very palpable.

Another example is the use of derogatory expressions to suppress all sensible exchange of views on the issue. Karolinska Institutet's professor of complementary medicine who supported VoF's summer campaign against homeopathy in 2011 by explaining in the media that homeopaths are charlatans who engage in hoaxes.

A third example is that you simply start lying. In my article in Forschende Komplementärmedizin, I mention Dan Larhammar's (with several) articles in Svenska Dagbladet during the summer campaign 2011 (though without mentioning him by name). There, Larhammar argued that homeopathy from a scientific point of view is unreasonable (which is correct). But he also wrote that science has established that homeopathy has no effect and then refers to the fact that there are only two articles that summarize the state of research. The two articles are, according to Larhammar, the ones written by Shang and Ernst. First of all, they are significantly more. If we read all 6 articles above, it also becomes obvious that these two articles are unequivocally most negative about homeopathy. Unfortunately, they have both used dubious methods to reach that conclusion. Larhammar has thus subjected the literature to a selection in order for the message to fit his message.

An honest scientist had weighed all the articles I described here. The picture then becomes that it has not been established at all unequivocally that homeopathy is a "fake medicine". An evaluation of evidence rather shows the opposite. Here, Dan Larhammar falls for the temptation to lie to trump VoF's and his own private opinion on the issue. It is to abuse his position as a professor to let ideology guide his scientific message.

 

Dan Larhammar is a specialist in everything

It is mainly Dan Larhammar, VoF's former chairman, who has campaigned against homeopathy. He has done this many times. I am personally convinced that Larhammar is the main mastermind behind the VoF summer campaign 2011.

In VoF's sphere, you do not need education or experience to be a specialist in all areas. In Dagens Nyheter today (5/1 2014), Dan Larhammar appears as an expert in primary school education. Together with others from the Academy of Sciences, he himself has analyzed and understood what went wrong at school. About a year ago, he appeared in Dagens Nyheter as an expert on autism spectrum disorders. In the book Vetenskap eller villfarelse (Leopard Förlag 2005) he appears as an expert on neurocognition. In fact, Dan Larthammar is a pharmacist and conducts basic research on fish. He lacks expert knowledge in all areas where he appears as an expert with his professorship at the highest level.

It reminds me of Ludwig von Anka, a character I read about as a child in Kalle Anka & C: o. He was also an expert on everything. Omnipotence is a heavy burden to bear.

 

References

1. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43.

2. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melcart D, Jonas WB. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.

3. Ernst E, Pittler MH. Re-analysis of previous meta-analysis of clinical trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1188.

4. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 577–82.

5. Cucherat M, Haugh MV, Gooch M, Boissel J-P. Evidence for clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33.

6. Shang A, Huwiler-Münterer K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726–32.

 
Filed Under: Association VoF, Healthcare, Science
Comments

Translation types
Text translation
Source text
Lindes artiklar

Klaus Lindes meta-analys från 1997 (Referens 1) är den första och mest ärligt skrivna. Linde fann ett odds ratio på 2.45 och ett CI 2.05-2.93, alltså en alldeles tydlig effekt till fördel för homeopati jämfört med placebo baserat på de bästa 89 studierna. Här kan man följa hur urvalet av artiklar har skett och det finn
5000 / 5000
Translation results
Joacim Jonsson says:
January 6, 2014 at 7:51 am

"I am personally convinced that Larhammar is the main brain behind VoF summer campaign 2011."

In fact, I was the one in charge. Larhammar was not even in the planning group. I simply wanted to do the same thing that Belgian and British skeptics have already done because they have succeeded so well.
Respond
Marina Szöges says:
January 6, 2014 at 09:55

Joacim Jonsson.
What exactly do you expect to happen when you stand and "overdose" homeopathy on the streets and squares? Homeopathy does not work that way, pouring in a lot of pills and then "dying from the overdose"

And that Belgian and British skeptics "succeeded well" was too good for them. But when Christer Fuglesang and other Swedish skeptics were to overdose, it was a flop.

Fuglesang then sat at the debate at 20.00 in Almedalen and slurred and waved wildly with his arms. There are videos on youtube where you can clearly see that Fuglesang can not talk properly. And the reason for that is that he was affected by the homeopathic remedy Coffea Alfaplex.

We homeopaths have always said that it is not possible to overdose on homeopathic pills, so I was surprised when I saw the result. But the explanation that Christer Fuglesang was affected was probably that some of the funds in Coffea Alfaplex, which is a composite fund, are individually suitable for Fuglesang.

It is unfortunate for you skeptics that you took a complex remedy and not a single remedy. Because probably the more people who engage in overdosing on homeopathy and choose a compound remedy, the greater the risk that some remedy is suitable. And that the effect became so noticeable on Fuglesang was unfortunate for you, but good for homeopathy. For now, we have both a lot of studies that show that homeopathy works and also image evidence that shows that homeopathy is more than just placebo. Check out videos here: http://dagenshomeopati.se/2012/10/03/christer-fugelsang-sluddrig-efter-overdos-av-homeopatiskt-somnmedel/
Respond

    Joacim Jonsson says:
    January 7, 2014 at 02:32

    I expected to get attention, which went much better than expected. I already knew what objections homeopaths had made and what they would answer. But this was a demonstration / action, not a scientific test. Not that it really matters much, we already know that homeopathy does not work. But it is at least a test of homeopaths' ingenuity in terms of ex-post explanations.

    So nice that you know how we who were there were affected. I realize that you have the ability to say what has an effect on someone completely without knowledge of the person or the situation in general. This even though you do not know what happened before or after, just a few seconds here and there. Do you advocate this blind way of making a diagnosis? I thought homeopaths would gladly find out everything they could about the person before doing so.

    As for the campaigns abroad, it would be good if you could clarify a few things first: is there a greater chance that someone will be affected the more people who take compound homeopathy? Does your surprise mean that it is still possible to overdose (because you obviously did not know what would happen according to yourself)?

    Is an anecdote enough to prove an effect? We were about 10 other anecdotes in place, including myself, which overdosed without effect (which you could also see on TV). Is image evidence enough to prove a homeopathic effect? Is there under any circumstances something that can show that homeopathy does not work? What do you think is the point of scientific tests when they are still not needed to show that it works?

    One last question: a person takes sleeping pills. A while later, the person collides with a lamppost. Is it because it took sleeping pills?
    Respond
        Robert Hahn says:
        January 7, 2014 at 11:05 am

        Jonsson's post is a wonderful example of VoF's problematic attitude to science.

        Here I am writing a long article in the scientific press, which is reported in a short version in this blog, which shows that you have to remove 95-98% of all randomized trials of homeopathy (ie you have to deliberately create a statistical type II error) to be able to say that homeopathic therapy at 5% significance level does not have a better effect than placebo.

        It is therefore sufficient to consider 10% of the literature to come to the conclusion that homeopathy is superior to placebo. It really is not very much. This is very convincing for any objective assessor.

        Jonsson ignores all this. He does not see it but "knows", just like VoF, that homeopathy has no effect. He knows this as surely as the Inquisition of the Catholic Church in the 16th century knew that the earth is flat.

        The next course VoF holds at the university should be held at a faculty of religious studies. The difference between VoF and a sect is marginal.
        Respond

            Perra J says:
            January 7, 2014 at 11:51 am

            I also read Jonsson's post and was putting my morning coffee in the wrong throat.
            Not even I thought it was that bad.
            Just like RH says. There is thus a thorough scientific series of articles performed by someone who does not work with homeopathy himself and may be considered unequal, and who is also a scientist and knowledgeable in the procedures that occur. Nevertheless…

            If we then leave homeopathy, and look at Ralf Sundberg's work in the diet / pharmaceutical industry, and where we find exactly the same tendency as RH describes, to exclude important studies to obtain "desired" results, what does Jonsson say about this? But that may not be an idea. Jonsson has probably not even read all the way here.

            It is said that the Catholic priests were offered by the scientists of Galilee's time to look in the periscope and ascertain the fact themselves, but that they refused…
            Respond
                Perra J says:
                January 7, 2014 at 11:54 am

                the telescope I meant… :-)

Anders Gustafsson says:
January 6, 2014 at 11:25 am

"And the reason for that is that he was affected by the homeopathic remedy Coffea Alfaplex."

But please Marina, the only effect the pill has is that you can get a little "sugar pile". Rather believe that Occam's razor is applicable. The party had probably been via some suitable bar before.
Respond
Helge says:
January 7, 2014 at 03:40

Robert Hahn's article is interesting as always when Robert Hahn writes about science.
I also believe, like RH, that the issue of homeopathy should be decided scientifically.
The waffles who do not need science, because they "already know" they would rather go to Visby to conduct propaganda against everything and everyone who does not share their faith.
For vofs favorite favorite seems to be rumor-mongering. This is very clear in campaigns such as "Do Scientologists write leaders in DN?"
Respond
Thomas2 says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:21 am

The Catholic Church has hardly asserted the flatness of the earth. Stop repeating this fact period.
Respond

    Robert Hahn says:
    January 7, 2014 at 1:39 am

    This is an aphorism that alludes to believing something, and asserts this with emphasis, instead of finding out the facts. To counteract this should be VoF's purpose, but when it comes to homeopathy, it is a dead end. Here you play the backwards game, you are convinced from the beginning and do not care much about the literature. Or you select the literature until the conclusion is the one that suits your preconceived notion.
    Respond

nanowire says:
January 7, 2014 at 03:45

Robert, you who have really been involved in the issue of scientific assessment of homeopathy and on several occasions criticized that individual studies have been sorted out for quality reasons, can you not highlight an individual positive clinical study that you consider to be of high quality? I think it would interest many.
Respond

    Robert Hahn says:
    January 7, 2014 at 08:09 am

    An example that you can read is:

    Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC. Randomized controlled trial of homeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal 2000; 321: 471-6.
    Respond
        nanowire says:
        January 8, 2014 at 10:51 am

        Yep, it seems to be a well-done feasibility study (only 27 + 24 participants) that showed a certain effect of homeopathy, 21% better with passing on a breath test through the nose.
        It is now 14 years since it was published and the authors themselves write that the results need to be verified in a larger study. The question that arises is; why has it not been repeated if the result is interesting and the authors themselves believe that this should be done?

        Taylor et al come to the conclusion that their study of homeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis “has failed to confirm our original hypothesis that homeopathy is a placebo.” 1 Unfortunately, the statistics do not prove that.

        The basis for the study was a prestudy power calculation that required 120 patients to prove the hypothesis with a 5% significance and an 80% power.In fact, the authors only recruited 51 patients but analyzed the results as if they had the required number. Their only conclusion was that they did not have enough data to make a conclusion.

        If we accept the availability of only 51 patients at the outset, what are the relevant calculations? The power calculation is only 43%, and to maintain the power calculation at 80% the P value becomes 34%. The only conclusion is that the trial is not able to prove anything. ”
        Respond
            nanowire says:
            January 8, 2014 at 11:27 am

            “BMJ. 2001 January 20; 322 (7279): 169. ”
            Failed to insert ref to quote.
            Respond
            Agneta says:
            January 8, 2014 at 11:38 am

A probable reason why the study was not repeated and that most studies are so small (few participants) is the cost. Since homeopathy is not a substance you can patent, there is no money to be made from studies for those who manufacture and sell homeopathy. Studies today are (probably) paid for mainly by donated funds. Then perhaps one must remind that homeopathy does not affect as a substance but is a so-called energy therapy one can also call it information therapy. Something that all skeptics would need to try to understand and understand what it is, instead of shouting so loud that it can not work with diluted medication !!!
Incidentally, I agree with RH that it would be more constructive for everyone if the debate and research on homeopathy could be more about WHAT homeopathy is actually effective for and thus when it can be best used. And if you could get more knowledge about how it actually affects the individual. The debate with the skeptics could be skipped altogether, I think they are not interested in knowing more or learning more they seem rather like they think they already know everything.
Respond

    Anders Gustafsson says:
    January 8, 2014 at 02:57

    @Agneta
    "Because homeopathy is not a substance you can patent, there is no money to be made from studying for those who manufacture and sell homeopathy."

    I do not know how many times that mantra is repeated by those who advocate homeopathy, herbal medicine and other things, but that is simply not true. There are companies like Nelson's and Boiron that earn very well. They could well spend a little money on research, but instead they do as "Big Pharma" and invest in lobbying.

    It is also not particularly expensive to do good studies. Many homeopathy studies I have seen could easily have been done correctly and at the same cost. Doing re-studies is very common in science, but in homeopathy it does not seem to occur at all? Why?

    Another problem is the publishing bias, which is a problem in science, but which has adopted galloping proportions in CAM. Negative studies are put in the drawer and never published.

    You are welcome to develop what you mean by "energy therapy", however.
    Robert Hahn says:
    January 8, 2014 at 04:10

    Comment to Anders
    When it comes to studies in medical subjects, we usually assume that the average cost is SEK 2 million. I can hardly imagine that a study on homeopathic preparations would be cheaper. Just writing an ethics application takes a few days and costs in Sweden SEK 5,000 in fees, SEK 15,000 if there are several trial sites involved. Then a permit from the Medical Products Agency because homeopathy is classified as a medicine. Again a couple of days application, much more detailed this time, The fee at the Medical Products Agency is SEK 15,000. The start fee can probably be guessed, with working hours and fees, is SEK 50-70 thousand just to get OK. This is hardly easy or cheap. To run this, you must have both funding and access to suitable patients as well as methodology / equipment for evaluation. None of this is free. Buy the statistics program SPSS on the open market (the most used in medical research in Sweden) and it costs SEK 20,000, then an annual fee.

    Studies are seldom repeated in an identical way in school medicine. The concept always changes slightly, the selection of patients changes slightly, and everyone is looking for some kind of development from previous studies. In fact, I have never seen a carbon paper layout. Studies are often done in homeopathy at least on a similar issue / disease problem. If you look at the dialogue below about the study of Taylor, there is a meta-analysis with four studies of respiratory problems (usually allergic rhinitis). Linde's meta-analysis from 1997 contains 4 studies of rheumatology, 2 of labor pains, etc. An overview of the good effects of homeopathy in rheumatic diseases can also be found in Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2000; 26: 117–23.

    That selection bias would matter is an assumption and partly a myth. Already Linde (meta-analysis 1997) introduced statistical correction for publication bias, but still a statistically assured advantage of homeopathy over placebo remained. Since about 2006, however, publication bias is prevented by reporting all randomized trials, before they begin, to a Clinical Trials Gov database, and the results are always reported even if the study is not published otherwise. All journals I know of require a registration number from such a database to even consider publishing randomized trials. When searching for material for meta-analyzes, you must of course also screen these databases.
    nanowire says:
    January 8, 2014 at 5:51 am

    "That selection bias would matter is an assumption and partly a myth."

Strange statement from a qualified and well-published researcher like you…

You say that you do not know of any journal that publishes without a registration number. This is fortunately true nowadays for the serious magazines, such as BMJ or Lancet, but does not apply at all to journals where homeopathy and other alt medicine are normally published, e.g. Homeopathy.
Wondering why, what do you think Robert?
Robert Hahn says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:42 am

Yes, just because Nonowire made this statement, and also provided the desire for a comment from me, I looked in the author instructions for Homeopathy. Then it turns out that database registration of randomized trials is certainly required for publication in this journal, just as for others. This is expressed by the following standard phrase:

Homeopathy has adopted the proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) which require registration in a public trials registry (www.icmje.org). …. A clinical trial is defined as any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome. ”

This requirement means that selection bias is eliminated for clinical trials intended to be published in Homeopathy.

Why do you make this claim, Nanowire, and even cite Homeopathy as an example? You can not have checked the matter.
nanowire says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:58 am

@Robert

What Anders thinks is probably that it is not more expensive to do a methodologically good study compared to a substandard one.
This is also illustrated by your examples; the fixed costs do not have to increase for the blind to be performed properly, the license for SPSS is not made cheaper by being careless with the analysis.
nanowire says:
January 9, 2014 at 10:18 am

@Robert,

Well, at first I also thought they required this when I looked for it a few months ago, but when I read their Guide for authors (in Homeopathy) and looked at their interpretation of ICMJE, I did not see that they require registration. I was wrong, it is now clear and probably so even when I read the text, apparently carelessly, last time. A reminder that you should check your primary sources carefully.

But we can look at what it actually looks like with the registration of homeopathy studies:

Of the total of 69 registered homeopathy studies I found at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=homeopathy&pg=4, 67 had not yet been completed, registered afterwards, discontinued or not published in a scientific journal.

These two studies, the only ones that reported in advance and published the results in a scientific journal, remained:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20649979?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20380750?dopt=Abstract
The first concerns how clinical trials of homeopathy should be designed and the second shows that homeopathic treatment was not more effective than placebo.

In the latest free issue of Homeopathy that one can read, I found only one clinical examination: Volume 102, Issue 1, Pages 59-65, January 2013
http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(12)00083-5/fulltext

Please help me, I can not find a registration number for that study but of course may have missed it?

    So not even recent homeopathy studies seem to be registered to any great extent, probably a strong contributing factor to the fact that it is usually old unregistered studies that are highlighted as support for homeopathy.

    Unfortunately, publication bias is a major problem for the entire scientific project of building knowledge, not just in medical research. A kind of built-in system error simply where most things that have been investigated but not given spectacular results are never published. Fortunately, however, this has begun to receive more and more attention, and medical research is actually at the forefront of pushing for change.

    And again, well I think it's one-sided and unserious to only state the power ratio (eg 6 times more) without specifying the power size (eg 19% higher value on the breath test). To draw it to extremes, it does not matter if an effect is ten times larger if it is absolutely infinitely small.

    You write "Nanowire writes that you can" get statistically significant results for anything just by chance "and it indicates that Nonowire does not believe in modern methods of evaluating treatments at all."

    No, it suggests that I realize that the results of an individual study may very well have arisen by chance. In fact, the current level of 95% confidence level means that we should expect the results of, on average, every twentieth study to be due to chance. And then provided that the study is otherwise perfectly methodologically conducted and actually measures what the authors intended. If we add all possible sources of error that actually exist, we naturally end up much worse than that. In the study I skimmed above in search of registration numbers, for example, the effect of homeopathy on PMS had been measured by the participants describing their experience of the same. That e.g. the patient's subjective self-esteem is a fair measure of the effect is not obvious which you can probably agree with?
    Robert Hahn says:
    January 9, 2014 at 10:52 am

    What must be reported to databases are randomized trials. Other things, such as observational studies or retrospective reviews, are never reported, but the reason is that such are not used in meta-analyzes. However, observational studies can be used in systematic reviews. In modern selection instruments (such as GRADE), however, observational studies are included if there is a lack of good randomized trials.

    If you do not find a reference to a database registration in Homeopathy, it means that the study is not a randomized trial. A randomized trial is a big investment and difficult to run, and not at all as simple as VoFare suggests on this site. Then you would like to have the article in a magazine with as high an impact as possible, and then perhaps magazines other than Homeopathy may seem more attractive. Studies on homeopathy can be published in all possible journals. For example, there are a number that contain articles on complementary medicine in general. Or why not a big time shift, such as BMJ?

    The current level of 95% confidence level means that there is a 1 in 20 chance that chance explains the result. There is a dividing line between whether something should be considered statistically certain or not. In most cases, however, the statistical strength is significantly higher than that. In Taylor's study, which we discuss here, the risk is as small as 1 in 1250 that the detected difference is explained by chance. It is clear that you can claim that this 1 in 1250 may occur, but if you invalidate studies published in highly reputable journals for that reason, you are referring to a minority of people who cite philosophical reasons for rejecting research results (in VoF's case, when it suits one's own ideology and preconceived notion). A scientist is expected to accept a result where chance is excluded at level 1 at 1250 because the risk of a wrong conclusion is so vanishingly small that it can be neglected in practice.

    Now, however, I have to report that I do not have time to discuss this further right now. Other things are wasting my time.
    Robert Hahn says:
    January 9, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Statistical methods are available to eliminate publication bias in older literature, and these have e.g. Linde used (which I wrote earlier). This database system has been in place since about 2006, but it must be remembered that it takes several years for a randomized trial from registration to such a database and publication. I have just completed a series of studies in orthopedics, and they took 6 years from idea to final publication. Much of what is in e.g. ClinicalTrialsGov is thus not published yet, but it is not unique to homeopathy but applies to all subject areas m) (look around and you will see). The feature is also that publication in a journal is not necessary, as results from all randomized trials are in the database.

    Referring to presumed publication bias is not a reason to say that studies do not exist, or to invalidate an entire research area on your own (without clear evidence). Then you can distrust any research area, just as it suits, and then we have left the research in favor of the VoF faith. In that situation, as a scientist, one should instead say that one mistrusts the literature and not pretend that the literature does not show the evidence that can actually be read there.
    nanowire says:
    January 9, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Now Taylor's study was one of the better ones and I do not disapprove of the study as such but the claim that it proves that homeopathy works.
    Showing something like this requires much more, but a step in the right direction may be to replicate the study. with an increased number of study objects, as the results that the study suggests are so remarkable. Controversies like these are appropriately resolved just like that; reduce the risk that the results were due to chance, hidden method errors such as inadequate randomization or the like by replicating the study, preferably by independent groups.

    Of course we can break here for this time, thank you for taking the time to respond in detail to my comments. If you still have time left, I would like to see if you have any refs for a more recent study with a control group that should therefore also be registered.

Robert Hahn says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:08 pm

Regarding Nanowire's views on Taylor's study

If you look at Figure 2, it shows that the increase in the maximum airflow in the nose increased 25% after treatment with homeopathy but only by 4% with placebo. Homeopathy is not 21% better, as you write (I assume you take 21 minus 4) but just over 6 times better (you should divide 25 by 4). The difference is statistically significant with flying colors when tested both in the morning and in the evening.

The authors state that larger studies are needed, and this is almost always written. It is a kind of mantra in these contexts. If you work with clear effects, however, you should know that you do not get an ethical permit to make the studies bigger. Ethics states that a study should not be made larger than what is required to obtain significant differences, in this case between treatment and placebo. That's why you can not (like Shang) make a funnel plot where you mix studies with completely different expectations of treatment effect.

But - you ask for a study that shows the effect of homeopathy, and then I give you one. But you're still not happy. However, there are very clear differences between homeopathy and placebo. The main result P <0.0008 means that there is a 1 in 1,200 chance that the difference between homeopathy and placebo is explained by chance.

I do not know what you then quote for text, but the arguments sound strange and quirky. Taylor's original text states that 60 patients would be needed (not 120, as you write) to demonstrate a difference of 15 between homeopathy and placebo. Now the difference was not 15 but larger, about 20, and that means that 60 patients were not needed at all, but they had managed with fewer to demonstrate the desired differences.

Your text makes a number of the power analysis. These power analyzes are performed to prevent you from planning studies that are too small to be able to demonstrate the statistical difference or relationship you are studying. If the result is, however, statistically significant, they have no significance in retrospect, because then the goal has still been achieved. The variance in the measurements can, for example, be smaller than originally thought, which increases the statistical strength of the material.

Power analysis is still an ethical requirement because studies must not be done larger than what is required to demonstrate the difference / connection you are studying. Lack of power analysis is a scientific problem only if you can not demonstrate the difference or effect you are looking for.

The journal that published this article has a very good reputation as a scientific journal (high impact factor).

            There are many studies on homeopathy for allergic rhinitis. I advise you to look through the reference lists of the meta-analyzes I have referred to.

            You should also note that the same work that I referred to (Taylor) contains a meta-analysis of four studies on homeopathy for respiratory problems (ffa. Hay fever) in a total of 253 patients. The same result there - homeopathy is statistically superior to placebo.

            Unfortunately, you get the same favorable outcome if you combine all more than 200 trials of homeopathy, which I showed in my blog. If you only include 10 percent of these, homeopathy still proves to be superior to placebo. Compared to the evidence for many other treatments used in healthcare, these are strong figures.

            My conclusion is that if all these studies touched on something other than just homeopathy
            so this treatment had been accepted long ago.
            Respond
                nanowire says:
                January 8, 2014 at 5:38 am

                No, I have not made a mistake but read beforehand. With 21% better, I meant 21% better results on the "nosebleed test". Compared with the control group, it was 19% units better.
                This is the effect that the study indicates. Comparing and polishing the results from the previous three studies seems strange because they did not do a nosebleed test there?

                The quote about the group size also came from BMJ. Since you can get statistically significant results for just about anything just by chance, especially if you only publish the times you "succeeded", the number of participants in the study is very important. The larger the study and the better the methodology - the worse the outcome regarding the effect of homeopathy.

                No, to overthrow the established biomedicine, biology, chemistry and physics, it probably takes more than 24 people self-reporting that they have managed to blow 19% better in a meter.
                That you then choose to describe the same study as six times better effect from homeopathy does not feel serious.

Anders Gustafsson says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:15 am

@Robert
Nanowire's quote is from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119423/
Respond

    Robert Hahn says:
    January 8, 2014 at 11:12 am

    In response to Nonowire above, in part to Anders G:

    If you (in Taylor's study) look at Table 2, the result is +2.5 over the day for placebo. If homeopathy were 21% better than +2.5, it would be (2.5+ 2.5 * 0.21) = 3.03. With your word choice, you suggest a small effect. But homeopathy showed +22.5, which is 9 times higher than placebo. Is it frivolous? The difference with placebo is expressed as a ratio in meta-analyzes to get past the fact that different studies can have different outcome measures and thus different scales. Only then will it be possible to pool the results. Look in the meta-analyzes I quoted in the blog and you will see. It is also no wonder that Taylor's meta-analysis has different outcome measures. This is often the case, and especially in the meta-analyzes I have described in the blog. The outcome measure must be relevant, but of course differs between e.g. hay fever and rheumatic diseases.

    If you are not satisfied with Taylor's meta-analysis, you can read the overview Ullman-Frass: "A review of homeopathic research in the treatment of respiratory allergies" in Alt Med Rev 2010; 15: 48-58. There is more information to download.

    I have now read the submitter in BMJ 2001; 322 (7279): 169) as you state. This person does not understand at all what a power analysis is. Debate-creating submitters always appear in better newspapers and are included without peer review, but I am surprised that BMJ has included this because it has extremely low quality. A power analysis can never invalidate a statistically significant difference, as the submitter believes, as it is based on predictions about how the result will be. If the difference found (on average) is greater between the drug tested and the placebo than was first assumed, and if the variance in the measurements is lower, then not as many patients are needed as were assumed in their power analysis. In Taylor's study, for example, the difference between homeopathy and placebo is greater than was assumed when the study began. Thus: found statistically confirmed results apply while the power analysis does not apply afterwards because it is based on guesswork.

However, the power analysis is important so that you do not study too few or too many patients, depending on what you want to demonstrate. If you see differences between placebo and homeopathic medicine with 50 patients, it is therefore forbidden to study 500. Therefore, studies with low expectations for effect are always greater than if the expectations for effect are high. This is an important reason why large studies usually report small differences.

    This is not to say that small differences need to be uninteresting. If a drug reduces mortality after a heart attack from 10% to 8%, it is interesting for healthcare. A study may then have to include 10,000 patients. But if you suspect that the drug reduces mortality by 90%, it is completely wrong to study so many.

    Nanowire writes that one can "get statistically significant results for anything just because of chance", so it indicates that Nonowire does not believe in modern methods of evaluating treatments at all. Sure, you can always philosophize about chance, but in the end we have to stick to the tools that are available, and they actually look like Taylor's study. When the VoF guys say on TV that there is not a single study that shows that homeopathy is better than placebo, it is not true. That the VoFs do not want to believe in studies on the basis of nihilistic objections such as "you can prove anything with statistics" is another matter. But then you have to say it, and nothing else.

    In the world of science, there is a study when, after peer review and internal quality review, it is accepted for publication by Editor-in-Chief. If statistically significant differences are reported, you must accept them, including the methods and principles for evaluation and assessment that exist. Otherwise, one can not refer to "science" when arguing, but then the critic may kindly instead state a dissenting opinion vis-à-vis the scientific approach to the evaluation of evidence. But it is by no means the same as claiming that the evidence does not exist, or that anything can be significant even though it is wrong. Then you helplessly become an outsider in these contexts, and that is exactly what I mean that VoF is. This is one of the reasons why they should not hold university courses.

    Finally, you do not have to overthrow biomedicine, biology, chemistry and physics at all to accept what I write in my blog, namely that the majority of published drug trials actually show that homeopathy has an effect that surpasses placebo. It is enough to accept that we do not yet know everything about how healing occurs. An associated advantage is that one can then, without strange restrictions, accept the methodology for demonstrating treatment evidence that exists today.

    Evidence should not be confused with treatment recommendation. The former is an objective process while the latter is subjective. Those who do not "believe" in a treatment should avoid distorting the evidence but focus on giving reasons for their discomfort when discussing treatment recommendations. One reason may be, for example, that other treatments are better. My tip to VoF is to go for this instead of, as now, claiming that obviously published studies do not exist.
    Respond

M Merlingen says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:09 am

The participants in this autumn's International Homeopathic Conference in Gothenburg, got to take part in the world's first scientific study of medicines, which was done in Germany on homeopathic remedies in 1835. In addition, it is the world's second most common form of treatment.
What applies in Sweden and what is accepted here is unique from a worldly perspective. Backward and snowed in with one of the world's sickest population is what the outside world sees in Sweden, much thanks to VoF and like-minded people.
Respond
Christina Johansson says:
January 9, 2014 at 04:57

@M Merlingen

“What applies in Sweden and what is accepted here is unique from a worldly perspective. Backward and snowed in with one of the world's sickest populations is what the outside world sees in Sweden, ”

Is that so? Where is the information that Sweden has one of the world's sickest populations? Is it in an official statistic, or is it just something that is said? Which countries have a higher life expectancy than Sweden? Japan anyway, but what more?

Can the fact that Sweden has such a sick population be based on treating more diseases here, while in many other countries you have to go and be dragged along with them and therefore not get any statistics? Or where does that task come from and how do you arrive at it?

Asks because I am very curious.
Respond
Christina Johansson says:
January 9, 2014 at 5:19 am

I also have a question for Robert.

I do not enter into discussions about studies, because I admit that I do not understand that subject well enough.

However, I know that there are homeopaths who want to tear up the quack law and get permission to treat cancer. What is your opinion on that?

A homeopath I spoke to also claimed that you support this. Something I have never read anywhere myself. Therefore, I want to know your opinion of yourself before I believe it.

What do you think about people who give advice to someone who has been diagnosed with cancer to wait with the treatment the doctors recommend and try something alternatively six months first, such as homeopathy for example? Should a practicing alternative medicine physician be allowed to do so?

Should we change the Quack Act?
Respond

    Robert Hahn says:
    January 9, 2014 at 11:19 am

    No, I never said that homeopathy can be used for cancer. I have never discussed treatment recommendations at all. This blog, and my article, focus on a limited issue, namely whether there is evidence that homeopathy generally differs from placebo in terms of efficacy in the treatment of medical conditions. In other words - is homeopathy synonymous with placebo?

    What would be more fruitful is to break down the issue of individual ailments and diseases. Tips on which ailments and diseases where homeopathy can be expected to have an effect appear from Linde's study in the Lancet from 1997. From what I can see, one can expect positive effects mainly in milder disorders of the immune system, such as hay fever and rheumatoid ailments. The result in e.g. Shang´'s meta-analysis is strongly distorted by the fact that it includes large studies of ailments where homeopathy clearly has no effect, such as training pain in long-distance runners (see the discussion in J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 1197–1204). However, Shang has excluded, without giving any explanation, the well-done study of Taylor that we discussed on this blog. In my opinion, one should rather immerse oneself in the areas where it makes sense to move on. VoF believes that there are no such areas, but I point out that the scientific literature gives a different picture.

    Linde does not report any studies that have treated cancer. Such serious diseases require powerful treatment, and we can agree that homeopathy is not. However, the patient can certainly, at his own request, receive homeopathy as an adjuvant (additional treatment). I would think that it is common on the continent where homeopathy is much more accepted than in Sweden. However, I have no idea if it occurs in Sweden.

    The Swedish Quackery Act is in turmoil because it will probably in the long run have to be aligned with what exists in the rest of the EU. Court rulings that have occurred in Sweden recently focus mainly on whether the treatment has caused injury, and this includes whether the patient has been deprived of conventional medical help. That was not the case before. A draft of the law with the rest of the EU would in any case not benefit VoF's interests, but rather emphasize the patient's free choice instead of taking the identification from healthcare professionals who offer alternative forms of treatment for those interested.
    Respond
        nanowire says:
        January 9, 2014 at 02:25

        @Robert

        Just as you write, it is important not to compare pears with apples and also to look at the entirety of what has been published in a specific topic, such as hay fever.

        J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 May; 117 (5): 1054-62. "Systematic review of complementary and alternative medicine for rhinitis and asthma."

        This is a review related to hay fever, the area of ​​study we discussed above Taylor 2000.

        This is what they write about homeopathy for hay fever:
        Some positive results were described with homeopathy in good-quality trials in rhinitis, but a number of negative studies were also found. Therefore, it is not possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and further trials are needed. ”
        Respond
        Christina Johansson says:
        January 10, 2014 at 12:46 pm

        Now it is not whether VoF's interests are disturbed that interests me regarding amendments to the Quack Act. If it is rocking due to EU rules, I wonder if it will be better or worse? Should one be allowed to launch a treatment that is effective against cancer based on the current state of research? I think that question is as relevant as if anyone should be allowed to conduct loan operations without transparency from bank inspectors.

        For me, it is at least as important to control those who are responsible for my health as my money.

        I understand that homeopathy is not dangerous if you take it as a complement to effective treatment for cancer. What I wonder, however, is how do you view homeopaths who believe that they should have a legal right to treat cancer and at the same time run tough campaigns so that victims do not submit to effective treatment? Those who try to deter people from radiation and cystostatic treatments.

I have both read about and personally talked to a homeopath who claims that there is convincing evidence that homeopathy is a very effective treatment for cancer. They often refer to you, even if they do not directly point out that you just mentioned cancer. I wonder how you look at it, because I think it's a gross misuse of your name and what you actually have and have not written.

What upsets me is that if someone thinks that it can be good to wait six months for the treatment, to test an alternative instead, it can be a fatal decision.

These are your opinions about the lobby I am interested in and what effects a relief from the Quack Act can have? Sure, it sounds nice to be able to choose for yourself, but is there a risk that the losers will be those who have very low medical knowledge? Like that financially ignorant people are usually the ones who are deceived by financial fraudsters?
Respond

    Marina Szöges says:
    January 10, 2014 at 02:00

    Excuse me for interfering here, but I have to ask you Christina Johansson who is this lobby group of homeopaths "who run tough campaigns so that victims do not submit to effective treatment and discourage people from radiation and chemotherapy" And this group, should also according to you also work to legally treat cancer.

    As far as I know, there is no such lobbying activity in Sweden. And considering that, in your opinion, they would also run "hard campaigns", I should, if they really exist, have heard of them.
    Respond
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.

Pangwall

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138


        Christina Johansson says:
        January 10, 2014 at 04:48

        The lobby I am talking about is informal and can be seen a bit here and there online, not least on sites like Flashback and various blogs around the world. It includes all sorts of alternative medicine, but homeopathy also occurs. You can not deny that you have also written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment. However, I do not claim that you have referred this to Robert. On the other hand, the homeopath I spoke to face to face did.

        If I meet him again, I'll suggest that he can explain himself here. I will not decide if he will do it.

        I have also seen a lot of Flashback posts about this. As I see it, Flashback is Sweden's largest lobby site. But if you think they are frivolous and dissociate themselves from such advice, I think it honors you.

        Since my question is mainly about how Robert sees that the Quack Act can be relaxed regarding methods that are claimed to cure dangerous diseases such as cancer, then I include all dubious alternative methods. Of course also then homeopathy.

        But I apologize for not being clear that with the tough campaign against ordinary cancer treatment, I meant EVERYTHING that can be included in the Quack Act.

        But the question of who actually wins if you ease the quack law remains. Likewise, whether homeopathy, which is still the main topic in the thread, should be able to be launched as an effective cancer treatment based on the current state of research.
        Robert Hahn says:
        January 10, 2014 at 11:32 am

        No, I have never really said that homeopathy is effective against cancer. What you write that "you can not deny that even you have written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment" is completely taken out of the air.

        Honestly, I am not interested in homeopathy and in alternative medicine as such. I am not involved in, and have no interest in, the Quack Act, but flag that it will eventually be forced to harmonize with the rest of the EU in a way that does not benefit VoF's goal of scrapping all non-academic medicine. On the other hand, as some know, I am interested in spiritual philosophy.

        My interest in this particular debate is about an amateurish organization like VoF being given such a large social leeway for a campaign based on lies. Here it is said on TV that there is not a single scientific study that shows that homeopathy is better than placebo. That's wrong. It is written that homeopathy is a fake medicine, and even gets support from politicians (such as Birgitta Rydberg) for it. But this cannot be expressed in light of the fact that the majority of the existing studies actually show that homeopathy is superior to placebo (it appears from the meta-analyzes, which I have referred to in this blog). To write like that is to try to be deceived. But VoF's hatred of alternative methods is so great that you do not hesitate to cheat yourself. Considering that the other party is unreliable is also no reason to act in this way, especially not if you (like VoF) claim to represent science.

VoF considers that it has reason to overlook the results of published studies on the basis of the objections it has to them. But the limitations ("limitations", stated last in a script) do not at all justify claiming that the results do not exist. Then you should write that the results exist, but that you do not believe in them. But that is not how VoF spreads its messages.

    I have learned a lot about how VoF reasons, and the train order in their arguments, both on this current blog and the reasoning we had 3 years ago. I will analyze it in more detail in a later blog. Right now, however, I do not have time to discuss this with you anymore, but have to devote myself to other tasks.
    nanowire says:
    January 10, 2014 at 10:51 am

    As information for those who do not know this, the author of the post above Marina Szöges runs a page, dagshomeopati.se, which in addition to unilaterally and unscientifically lobbying for homeopathy about exactly as far as the law allows, also spreads misinformation about vaccines and healthcare etc.
    nanowire says:
    January 10, 2014 at 3:01 am

    @Robert

    Robert Hahn says: January 10, 2014 at 11:32 am “No, I have never really said that homeopathy is effective against cancer. What you write that "you can not deny that even you have written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment" is completely taken out of thin air. "

    It was obviously not you but Marina who was referred to in your quote.

    Do you still think that the scientific situation for homeopathy hay fever is positive (due to the data from Linde -97) even after the systematic review from 2006 I referred to above and who stated that “Therefore it is not possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis ”?

Anders Gustafsson says:
January 10, 2014 at 10:31 am

@Christina
Also, do not forget the "Whole Children" campaign, which wants to remove the provision that homeopaths may not treat young children.

@Marina
Your silence on issues where homeopathy is used unethically can easily be seen as your agreement. What would it be like if you wrote an article in Dagens Homeopati where you clarify how you approach cancer treatment and to the homeopaths who believe that all medicine is "poisonous" and that cancer patients who take homeopathy as a supplement to chemotherapy should immediately stop using it?

Your credibility as a writer would increase considerably if you clearly pointed out the cheating and fraud that takes place in the name of homeopathy
Respond

    Christina Johansson says:
    January 10, 2014 at 02:01

    @Robert

    "What you write that 'you can not deny that even you have written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment" is completely taken out of thin air. - See more at: http://roberthahn.nu/2014/01/05/min-vetenskapliga-artikel-om-homeopati/#sthash.r87BvgNi.dpuf

    That, like the rest of the latest post, was a response to Marina Szöges. She has written that homeopathy is effective against cancer. I was at least clear in my first post that I have never seen you write anything like that. I have fully accepted your answer that you are not responsible for this and have ever written it.

    So in this I have nothing more to ask.

    But on the other hand, I had completely different questions for you in the post before. Unfortunately, you only answer how you view VoF's actions in this matter, even though I made it clear that this does not interest me.

    What I wonder is whether it would be good or bad if the Quack Act is eased when it comes to how to launch dubious treatment methods as effective? And who can win and lose on this?

    I am not interested in what this means for VoF's interests.

    Also, I wonder what you think of some individuals' way of overinterpreting your views into claiming that homeopathy is a completely proven method of treatment for virtually any disease?

    But if you are not interested in the practical effects that can have if unsuspecting people choose bad, but well-marketed treatment methods, against a life-threatening disease, then I must respect that.

    If you are more interested in discussing an association, then this discussion will be as uninteresting to me as to the vast majority who think that healthcare itself is more important than a particular association.
    Marina Szöges says:
    January 10, 2014 at 5:10 am

    Christina and Anders, it's true that I have written about cancer at Dagens Homeopati, but there are no articles I have invented myself.

    Among other things, I have referred to the following articles:

    > The potentized homeopathic drug, Lycopodium clavatum (5C and 15C) has anti-cancer effect on whole cells in vitro: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972240

    > Improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment:
      http://7thspace.com/headlines/369886/classical_homeopathy_in_the_treatment_of_cancer_patients__a_prospective_observational_study_of_two_independent_cohorts_.html

                Incidentally, it can hardly be wrong to inform about homeopathy and what is happening in homeopathy in other countries. I think it's good that information is coming out and it's also good that Robert Hahn teaches us how to look at scientific studies. When you read his post, it's like a candle lit in the dark. Many people like that light, but others do not.

                (Regardless of what skeptics write next, I will not post more posts that govern from the topic)
                Mats Blomqvist says:
                January 10, 2014 at 5:49 am

                @Marina

                Quote: “By the way, it can hardly be wrong to inform about homeopathy and what is happening in homeopathy in other countries. I think it's good that information is coming out and it's also good that Robert Hahn teaches us how to look at scientific studies. When you read his post, it's like a candle lit in the dark. Many people like that light, but others do not. ” End quote.

                However, I must say that from what Robert has written here does not give much support to what you usually write in Today's Homeopathy and other places, no matter where you get it from. What he explains about studies I do not see as convincing evidence for homeopathy.

                That there are studies that indicate that homeopathy cures cancer, I think he clearly dismisses. We'll see if Robert has any comment on the sources you cite.
                nanowire says:
                January 11, 2014 at 12:25 pm

                @Marina

                "I think it's good that information is coming out and it's also good that Robert Hahn teaches us how to look at scientific studies. When you read his post, it's like a candle lit in the dark. Many people like that light, but others do not. ”

                Glad you learned something about science! Then I hope that in today's homeopathy you will in the future report in a balanced way on the overall scientific state of evidence for homeopathic treatment, e.g. that there is no support for homeopathy for hay fever, instead of the one-sided propaganda and censorship you have dealt with so far?

Helge says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:52 am

Thank you Robert Hahn for your very interesting articles on science! They really are
good examples of public education and thus the exact opposite of what Vof achieves.
See for example: http://sv.vof.wikia.com/wiki/VoF_och_LCHF and http://sv.vof.wikia.com/wiki/Föreningen_Vetenskap_och_Folkbildning
Respond
Mats Larsson says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm

I have long suspected that Robert would be difficult to beat in the homeopathy issue, after reading his blogs on the subject. But I did not think that he would win in the walk over. Where is VoF? Mats Reimer? One thing is for sure, no condescending comments about the "spirit doctor" can be afforded in this situation.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 11, 2014 at 4:19 am

    @Mats Larsson

    By winning the walk over, I hope you do not mean that Robert Hahn with this conviction has proved that homeopathy is an effective method of treatment? As I see it, the debate has mostly been about how to handle statistics in research. After all, he has admitted that much of what is claimed by homeopaths cannot be proven.

    And why do you think he has not been resisted? Does only Mats Reimer count?
    Respond

Mats Larsson says:
January 11, 2014 at 5:15 am

If you read the abstract of Robert's article and the comments he wrote, you will understand that he did not intend at all to show that homeopathy is an effective method of treatment. The question is whether meta-analyzes show that homeopathy can be equated with placebo and the answer in Robert's review article is no. Anyone who wants to show that he has misinterpreted the meta-analyzes must now, in order to be credible, write a comment in the same journal, a comment that will be reviewed by a couple of anonymous referees before it is published.

No, he has not yet received any opposition in the form of scientific criticism of his article. I would guess that the opponents who count for Robert are the ones who ridiculed him as the "spirit doctor" and similar invective. And in that branch, VoF and Mats Reimer should be well placed.

Homeopathy does not interest me, and I will not read Robert's article in its entirety. However, I can easily understand that he probably thought it was fun to write a scientific article outside his own special field.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 12, 2014 at 1:32 am

Only you know if homeopathy really does not interest you. But you wrote in your first post that he would be hard hit in homeopathy. I think the only thing that most people find really interesting is if there are studies that really prove that homeopathy is an effective method.

    He has not done that. He has explained that some studies have given slightly better results compared to placebo. However, these individual studies are not sufficient evidence. If it was about what you wrote here, I think he has received good resistance. But if the compelling evidence that homeopathy really works is subordinate to this discussion, I understand if the interest is not overwhelming.

    After all, it is what most people want to know, more than conceptual philosophical interpretations. When he is asked direct questions about what homeopathy can be cured and if it should be approved, he prefers to discuss an association's interests instead. There are probably not many of you who think that it is more interesting than what an approval as a form of treatment can mean.

    I think he himself kills the discussion by making it uninteresting to other than old sworn warriors. Who at seventeen cares about an internal prestige fight? It is probably the practical consequence in healthcare that people normally care about.

    If you think he won the walk over because there was no pie-throwing with certain specific people, well that's a personal opinion of you. I doubt it is shared by everyone. We'll see if he gets a setback for his publications. Researchers like to take time for such things.

    Better a poor horse than no horse at all.
    Respond

Helge says:
January 13, 2014 at 02:58

Mats Blomqvist Professoe Hahn has written an interesting article about the scientific state of homeopathy. But you focus on pie tossing instead of commenting on the article.
Why?
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 13, 2014 at 01:52 am

    Am I into pie tossing? It was, to say the least, a personal interpretation of you.

    I just wonder why Mats Larsson wonders why he did not resist. What I am saying is just that he admits that homeopathy is not convincingly proven to be effective against all diseases. Only that he believes that some studies give slightly better results than placebo.

    What I respond to are Mats Larsson's statements.

    I believe that the questions about which diseases homeopathy can be recommended against are much more interesting to the public than the feud between Hahn and Mats Reimer. Something that Mats Larsson thought was what counts for Robert. Personally, I doubt it.

    But if you think I do pie throwing, can you raise the bar and say if you think homeopathy should be classified and approved as a treatment for serious diseases such as cancer?

    Feel free to explain why you think I'm just throwing pie. How do you go about responding to posts here without it being classified as pie tossing, in your opinion?

    Isn't it pie-tossing to wonder what practical conclusions should be drawn from the studies? As if they are enough for homeopathy to be approved as an effective treatment and against which diseases isf?
    Respond

Helge says:
January 13, 2014 at 02:09

Mats Blomqvist writes: "But if you think that I engage in pie-throwing, can you raise the level and say if you think that homeopathy should be classified and approved as treatment for serious diseases such as cancer?"
Why would I have an opinion about it (My opinion about it has nothing to do with the article)?
I do not practice homeopathy, but I am interested in scientific methodology and research methods.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 13, 2014 at 02:40

    @ weekend

    Quote: “Why would I have an opinion about it (My opinion about it has nothing to do with the article)? I do not practice homeopathy, but I am interested in scientific methodology and research methods. ” End quote

    Can you then understand that some of us are also interested in what practical conclusions can be drawn from the studies? For example, if they are sufficient for homeopathy to be classified as approved and proven studies?

    Why do you think it's pie tossing? Can you specify what is pie tossing and not here, and justify why? What can you not think and ask?
    Respond
        Mats Blomqvist says:
        January 13, 2014 at 02:44

        Edit: "For example, if they are enough for homeopathy to be classified as approved and proven studies?"

        In that sense, I meant treatments, not studies.
        Respond

Helge says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:02 am

@Mats Blomqvist

I think it is clear what conclusions can be drawn from the article on homeopathy. Robert Hahn writes, among other things, about how research on the effects of Homeopathy could go further to improve the evidence. What the results of such investigations will be can not be known in advance. That does not stop many people from believing a lot, but it has nothing to do with the interesting article.

What the article shows is that VoF's way of assessing homeopathy has NOT to do with science. Why does vof deal with it then? The preparations seem harmless (unlike, for example, cigarettes, which kill thousands of Swedes every year. But VoF never takes it up.). VoF does not seem to be involved in issues of public health. On the contrary, in fact. See the attacks on LCHF
for example, although the National Board of Health and Welfare and the SBU have expressed a positive opinion. So if you are thinking about why vof
do as they do, then they seem like they want to benefit the drug companies, and that's okay,
but why pretend it has to do with science?

So those who are interested in the scientific truth about homeopathy should of course advocate MORE research on homeopathy. It's not weirder than that.

At Danderyd's hospital, there are those who practice medical yoga, and there are no objections to that, despite the fact that the evidence is not extensive. However, it is still considered sufficient to be used, BUT Robert Hahn's article is not about treatment recommendations. So I think you're a little off topic in the article.

That was just what I wanted to point out. Maybe my wording was unnecessarily pointed.

It is, of course, the moderator who decides what may be written here, and I will not dwell on that.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 14, 2014 at 02:30

    @helge

    Where have I claimed that one can not proceed with more studies on homeopathy? It is obviously necessary before one can say that there is convincing evidence that it works. Which is clearly shown in Robert's studies. They have not proven homeopathy, only shown that some studies have shown slightly better statistics than placebo.

    I and other writers wonder if these studies are enough for homeopathy to be approved as effective treatment methods for all diseases it is claimed to be effective against. What I point out with my posts is that these studies do not hold up to these claims today.

    What many homeopaths claim is effective is not proven today with these studies.

    I'm still wondering why you say I'm into pie tossing with this?

    Then you can ask yourself why you bring up a lot about vof, lchf and yoga that I did not even have an opinion on, while you claim that I go to the side of the thread? Is that really so
    strange if one wonders what those PRACTICES should have for PRACTICAL significance in healthcare right now.

    Personally, I think that is what most people are most interested in.
    Respond

Helge says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:13 am

@Mats Blomqvist, to clarify further. The discussion on treatment recommendations should, in my opinion, be with the homeopaths, and not with Robert Hahn, because homeopaths are dealing with things that are NOT Robert Hahn. Marina Szöges may be able to advise you on suitable sites.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 14, 2014 at 02:38

    @Helge
    Quote ”@Mats Blomqvist, to clarify further. The discussion on treatment recommendations should, in my opinion, be with the homeopaths, and not with Robert Hahn, because homeopaths are dealing with things that are NOT Robert Hahn. Marina Szöges may be able to advise you on suitable sites. ” End quote

    If you look back, you will see that Marina Szöges has written here and shown links where she refers to homeopathy curing cancer. It was her I replicated first. I would love to see Robert comment on those links. As far as I understand, he does not believe that homeopathy cures cancer.

    Unfortunately, it is difficult to discuss on her side. She also censors relevant issues and objections.
    Respond

Perra J says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:37 am

To get a perspective on all that has been said here, there is on the other hand
any clear evidence of the evidence of a non-homeopathic remedy?

It can also be an interesting discussion. Is the established medicine / care
on a scientifically higher level is homeopathy? And an interesting follow-up question:
If so, does this always mean that the patient gets better?

Because cancer has been discussed: I can very well imagine a cytotoxic drug
gives "effect" that clearly distinguishes it from placebo. But a cytotoxin
is also usually carcinogenic in itself. Despite this, the cytotoxin is considered
be a safer drug than a homeopathic remedy?
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 14, 2014 at 02:46

    I hope that Robert also answers that question.

    Personally, I am fairly convinced that cytotoxic drugs are an effective method against cancer, superior to placebo. Even though I know it's a difficult treatment. But cancer is also a deadly disease.

    If you mean more effective with safer, I think it's safer than homeopathy. But for a healthy person, homeopathy is certainly safer than chemotherapy. If you now understand what I mean?
    Respond
        Perra J says:
        January 14, 2014 at 04:12

        Well, topic of a new thread maybe? It would be interesting to hear what a real doctor
        says. Need, for example, such a study / meta-study (everything that constitutes the scientific basis for a drug's approval)
        also map out side effects? How carefully in that case? Or do these fall outside?

        Robert claims to be open to "traps in science", and I believe that corruption is one such.
        There is a difference between science, and the "mental image of science", which guarantees that you receive the best medicine / care that humanity can offer. The scientifically “objective” can easily be cut off by subjective interests… (which of course can occur in all camps, including homeopathy)
        Respond
            Mats Blomqvist says:
            January 14, 2014 at 7:21 am

            Ben Goldacre has written some books on this that are said to be very good. Including Bad Science and Bad Pharma. I have only seen excerpts from them, but will probably read them in their entirety.

            Research fraud has probably always occurred and better rules against such are probably needed. Just as pure quacks should be cleared away, lousy "real" medicines should also disappear.
            Respond
                Perra J says:
                January 14, 2014 at 10:53 am

                Well, Goldacre is good. Have seen some youtubers with him ..

                Research fraud, yes. Feel free to read my latest blog about just this!

                I fear that it is something much more than something that "occurs",
                rather rule than exception, m a o.
                Mats Blomqvist says:
                January 15, 2014 at 2:03 am

                @PerraJ
                Quote "I fear that it is something much more than something that 'occurs', rather a rule than an exception, m a o." End quote.

                Do you mean that practically most medicines in healthcare are scams, with a few exceptions? Really hope Robert gives his opinion on this.

                What do you think about studies on alternative medicine in that case?
                Anders Gustafsson says:
                January 15, 2014 at 02:25

                I have read both Bad Pharma and Bad Science and the comments about the pharmaceutical industry and also the homeopathic industry are not gracious. The point, however, is that he, as a doctor, focuses on research fraud in the pharmaceutical industry. When was the last time you heard a homeopath criticize the homeopathic industry?

                He also cites the hopeopaths' galloping publication bias as an example of widespread cheating.

                Of course, it is not the case that most medicines are a hoax, but Ben's point is that a doctor does not always have access to all the information she needs to be able to assess which drugs are best in a given case. It is simply a matter of transparency.
                Perra J says:
                January 15, 2014 at 3:30 AM

                I advise you to also check out Ralf Sundberg, who is also a doctor who goes against his own guise. And Swedish (Click on Perra J). Watch the video!

                "Do you mean that practically most medicines in healthcare are scams, with a few exceptions?"

                I'm angry now, after reading Sundberg's book. But of course I have to calm down a bit. Though:
                Most medicines are not scams, but I really mean that most established medicines are NOT meant to CURE. Especially when it comes to our major public diseases (cancer, diabetes).

                No, the medications either only relieve symptoms, or create an imbalance that leads to other diseases.

                But we have become so used to it that we can no longer see it.

                Nor can it be otherwise, since pharmaceutical companies are corporations that must make a profit, and must grow, in order to satisfy their shareholders. It must be ensured that the patient returns. It must be ensured that the growth of new patients is secured. It sounds harsh, but it is.

                So it depends on what you mean, when you ask that question. My father was completely cured of acute kidney failure by a homeopath in the 60's, after having a few months to live on established care. At present, homeopathy has nothing to lose by curing the patient, but if they are allowed to take over the paradigm, it may change…

                Now look, for example, at the galloping diabetes epidemic in the United States. The medicines they receive are designed to allow the patient to live a tolerable life despite the disease. And diabetes creates a flora of other diseases that provide merit.
                nanowire says:
                January 15, 2014 at 04:28

                “Most medicines are not scams, but I really mean that most established medicines are NOT meant to CURE. Especially when it comes to our major public diseases (cancer, diabetes). "

                "The medications they receive are designed to allow the patient to live a tolerable life despite the disease [diabetes]."

                It is interesting that you mention these as they are among the most researched areas in medicine, including the state. What has worked so far is of a curative nature, even though vaccines against both certain types of diabetes and cancer seem promising.

                Do you mean that there is something that actually cures cancer and diabetes in all its forms?
                nanowire says:
                January 15, 2014 at 04:44

                "What has worked so far is NOT of a curative nature…" it would of course be stated above.
                Perra J says:
                January 15, 2014 at 08:43

                Thanks nanowire.
                It is certain that these belong to the most researched areas. But I do not think researchers are honestly dedicated to solving the cancer mystery that people are so eager to believe (and that they want us to believe). They stay within a framework that was founded sometime after the war, perhaps even further back.

                My grandfather died of cancer in 1948. He received basically the same treatment as another relative who died of cancer in 2003 (surgery / radiation / cytotoxic / morphine for the pain).
                During these years, man went to the moon, while it has stood completely still in one of the most researched areas. During all these years. So something is probably wrong.

                The research that is conducted is only allowed to take small steps (so that you get the impression of progress) within the framework that ultimately still ensures continued (and increased) profit. And there is hardly anything on this earth that is as profitable as the cancer industry. The cancer industry (and the entire pharmaceutical industry) is hierarchical. One does not question a higher authority. But those at the top of the hierarchy are not scientists. Instead, they pay for the entire careers of scientists, pay for their professorships, offer great trips abroad and banquets with Russian caviar and well-being girls. In return for arranging a "scientific" alibi for their activities.

                The Catholic Church is another example of how something stood still for many years. That was probably the question of about 1700 years. There we also had hierarchy. One did not question the superior. Those who sat (and sit?) At the top of that hierarchy were not even believers (according to Dostoevsky). And the task of the priests was more to create an alibi for the pope's lust for power than to show "sinful" people the way to God…

                The people who are thoroughly scientifically educated, and experienced in science in the first place, often have a lack of insight into how humans work. And it's dangerous.

                Do you mean that there is something that actually cures cancer and diabetes in all its forms?

                No, I do not know if it does. But I absolutely believe there is potential to solve the cancer and diabetes mystery, and that it could have been done a long time ago. Rigid hierarchical systems and science do not go together.

nanowire says:
January 15, 2014 at 04:44

"What has worked so far is NOT of a curative nature…" it would of course be stated above.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 15, 2014 at 11:30 am

    @PerraJ

    I have to ask you: Do you belong to the category that claims that the research world and the pharmaceutical companies are deliberately slowing down research to find better cures for cancer in order to make as much money as possible from getting as many people as possible to get cancer?

    I really wish Robert would come in and comment on your posts as well. It would be interesting to see what he thinks about everything you write about medicines not being meant to cure, but only to relieve symptoms and create imbalances that create more diseases.

    I wonder what Robert thinks is more confusing? Everything you write, or those who write that there is no research that supports homeopathy?

    Then I wonder if you, PerraJ, think that the alternative industry is not driven by any profit hunger at all and how common is it that they market their products with fake research? Are not alternative companies profitable companies?

    Yes, it happens that doctors criticize their own guild. How often do homeopaths and other alternatives criticize their own guild? What conclusions should we draw from what you write?
    Respond
        Perra J says:
        January 16, 2014 at 10:13 am

        @Mats
The "category" I belong to is the category that is interested in the truth. And you see it best if you avoid polarized thinking. There is no "right side", possibly temporarily! Just because I shrugged off what has become "established medicine" does not mean that I turn on the drum for homeopathy (at the moment I would choose homeopathy / alternative / independent science if I got sick, though). It is only when a system gains power, and a hierarchical structure emerges (and human ego takes over), that the risk of corruption arises. Homeopathy has not yet created really SO rigid systems as, for example, the cancer industry. In Germany, homeopathy may seem to be heading in that direction, so you may have to adapt there. But then there are hopefully other ways.

        And of course, the actual research that is focused on CURE is slowed down. If not directly conscious, then indirectly. You know it is so, but see it as "a necessary evil"…

        I think it's very telling to look at the diabetes epidemic in America. Children become overweight and get diabetes.
        Diabetes is increasingly portrayed as "incurable - but there is hope!", Just like cancer. Diabetes is diabetes. But the doctrine is to avoid fats, which lead to increased cholesterol, so that the powerful sugar industry can continue to contaminate American food. Sugar is beginning to receive increasing attention - by independent science - as an important factor also in connection with cancer.
        Respond
            Mats Blomqvist says:
            January 16, 2014 at 12:54 pm

            @PerraJ

            It is good that you seek to find the truth, but it is important to find the right one as well. It is not enough just to avoid polarized thinking. You have to be right too.

            I do not think we will get that much further here and this track is going far from the side of the subject. In my opinion, not much of what Robert has written about research can lead to your conclusions.

            I hope he also comments on what he thinks of your views on the cancer industry.

            I read what you write about it in your blog. Even if society is rotten, it is not enough proof that researchers and large-scale industry want to preserve cancer for it to be a gigantic source of income.

            And do not forget that anyone can write anything on blogs and make Youtube videos anyway.
            Respond
                Perra J says:
                January 16, 2014 at 3:44 am

                And do not forget that anyone can write anything on blogs and make Youtube videos anyway.

                - And here is probably our hope…

                And when it comes to being right: I have based a large part of my presentation here on Ralf Sundberg's work. Recommend reading his book, which is very well backed by facts and references. Here is another review of it:

                http://newsvoice.se/2013/01/04/recension-av-forskningsfusket-sa-blir-du-lurad-av-kost-och-lakemedelsindustrin/

                But only YOU can ultimately decide who is right.

                We can leave the cancer industry there for this time. There is research in this area which, of course, lacks the enormous financial resources the industry has, but which is independent and focused on BOTA, and therefore more serious. But there are probably some jokers too, unfortunately…
                Mats Blomqvist says:
                January 17, 2014 at 01:56

                @PerraJ
                Yes, that you can not find anything in Ralph Sundberg's book that supports your conspiracy theories that the establishment does not want to find a cure for cancer, I understood and then I understand that you also want to leave the cancer issue there.

                I do not think you will find anything that supports homeopathy in that book, which is still the subject of the thread. But it's clear. Many people use the tactic that if you can find something wrong somewhere in the research, you try to get it to prove that something else is wrong or that any conspiracy theory is true.

                The latest plane crash does not prove that flying carpets work.

                I still hope Robert comments on what he thinks about your cancer conspiracy. If he also thinks that most people in charge of research do not want cancer to be cured for financial reasons?
                Mats Blomqvist says:
                January 17, 2014 at 02:16

I also see that Pia Hallertz, who did the book review in Newsvoice in her final clip, is trying to make the book strike a blow for more alternative medicine instead of school medicine. Something that is hardly Ralph Sundberg's opinion. But a common trick is that when someone calls for better research, they try to make it speak for more alternative medicine.

Much like criticism of the airlines' safety speaks for a return to zeppeliners.
Perra J says:
January 17, 2014 at 10:03 am

@Mats
But gravel fuckers. I just thought this conversation would swell A LITTLE WELL a lot if we also floated out on the cancer issue. Because it's a big topic. That was just why. I felt that now that we have nailed every single study that exists on homeopathy, one could balance it by doing the same thing. established medicine, and came to think of Ralf Sundberg, because he did something in that way.

But OK. I do not know if my explanation of the cancer is particularly conspiratorial. However, I know that the cancer industry - like so much else - consists of limited companies, which must report profits and grow. That they must therefore ensure that patients return and that the growth of new patients is secured.

A commercial industry, among other things. And that is also what Ralf Sundberg describes in his book. I do not know if we need to differ so much in the pharmaceutical and cancer industry in terms of THAT aspect, but I have seen that people have previously called it conspiracy theories when someone hinted at this. the pharmaceutical industry. But now there are very many (including VoF?) Who have begun to admit that the pharmaceutical industry is actually corrupt. Robert Hahn has stated that you can achieve the desired results by withholding certain information. Exactly what Sundberg did. And they are not conspiracy theorists. Or?

There really are conspiracy theories. Some are pure arc. Some have a certain truth content. But there are also "conspiracy theories" as a mental concept, to play out when you do not want to have your peace of mind disturbed. A convenient way to sort out disturbing thoughts, and at the same time feel a little intelligent, and critical thinking.
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 17, 2014 at 01:38

Just as Anders Gustavsson writes further down, the discussion has derailed and we will not go any further.

I only state once again that you will not find any support for the cancer conspiracies in Ralf Sundberg's book. But if you snowball into sites like Newsvoice, you can draw any conclusions. It is good that there are people who fight research fraud. Unfortunately, there are always those who try to abuse the spirit to interpret their opinions in support of their own crazy conclusions.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is a limited company. There are many alternative companies as well. Those who are not are usually the most frugal, as limited companies have certain requirements for transparency.

That said, flight safety review does not prove that zeppelin and hot air balloons are better and safer alternatives. Only that the aircraft must be made even safer.

Now, I do not write more about this because I do not believe in the slightest that your authorities support your interpretation of their writings, except Newsvoice.

But from what I can understand from the initial question by Christina J about the studies on homeopathy showing that it can be considered effective against cancer, Robert does not seem to consider that to be the case.

Perra J says:
                January 17, 2014 at 02:44

                Yes, we round off here. Thanks for a rewarding discussion! :-)
                nanowire says:
                January 17, 2014 at 3:53 am

                @Perra J

                Well, your statement that medical research is deliberately limited to not inventing cures is really conspiratorial as it requires a kind of cartel that must involve all researchers and decision makers in the field. It's conspiracy thinking about something.
                Perra J says:
                January 17, 2014 at 5:28 am

                @nanowire:
                Do you think we should spin on the thread?

                I do not think it needs to be so "organized". Ordinary honest corruption rather.
                A kind of disease that occurs in all hierarchical systems. The core of my theory is that
                we are dealing with a hierarchical system, and where the very top does not consist of scientists, but rather businessmen. Science is thus not free.
                Agneta says:
                January 17, 2014 at 06:59

                You definitely have a point where Perra J that it is not just the will to help people to better health that governs the drug manufacturers. Like all large organizations, their own survival becomes most important do not know if you need to call it corruption. It's more like a law of nature!

Helge says:
January 16, 2014 at 1:05 am

Interesting video with the head of Cochranne in the Nordics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1LQiow_ZIQ

(Danish speech with English text.)
Respond

    Perra J says:
    January 16, 2014 at 3:48 am

    Very interesting, will see when I get more time, will return…
    Respond

Anders Gustafsson says:
January 17, 2014 at 08:35

Is there anyone more than me who thinks that the whole thing has derailed and become a collection of conspiracy theories? Shouldn't the discussion be about the scientific state of evidence for homeopathy?
Respond
Agneta says:
January 17, 2014 at 02:48

Do not know how much it is conspiracy that lies behind the fact that there is no good cure for cancer, also think the traditional view of disease in general and cancer in particular is too narrow and too limited? Maybe you need to try to understand more about what makes us sick or rather what it is that makes some people stay healthy and try to understand more about how (self) healing takes place.
Respond

    nanowire says:
    January 17, 2014 at 04:16

    @Agneta

    That's really the case. The old traditional view of disease, which today is represented by alternative medicine, is indeed a dead end. To find a cure for e.g. cancer, as you write, we basically need to understand the organism. The way that has so far been most effective in understanding phenomena at a basic level is scientific research.
    Respond

Christina Johansson says:
January 17, 2014 at 11:39 am

Actually, this thread has derailed, but since a friend of my mother got cancer and thought it was a good idea to try to cure it herself with an alternative method and too late realized that the method did not work, I can not help it to comment on this by saying that researchers do NOT WANT to find better methods,

There is a difference between research cheating and research cheating. The research fraud that most often occurs and is revealed is when a company tries to push an ineffective preparation on the market. Pfizer was revealed for this last year and no one can say with the best will in the world that the alternative hassles would be a bit more moral on that point.

The research cheat that I hardly think occurs is that someone discovers an effective preparation and then does not even want anyone to test it. That you obscure something that works. It would be like saying no to a secure source of income.

Especially when it comes to a social scourge such as cancer that even the directors of medicines and their children can suffer from.

In other words, I think the risk of a company launching a useless cancer medicine with research fraud is a thousand times greater than burning a study on a prescription that can be proven to work.

The classic that no one wants to launch a preparation that can not be patented falls immediately. Patents cost a lot of money through lots of research. Patents do not come in Corn Flakes packages. If pharmaceutical companies could make lots of money on their own variants of paracetamol, they would make even more money on a cancer drug that has already been discovered.

Should any small freezer discover something that cures cancer that cannot be patented, the pharmaceutical companies will not hide it. They start making it, for the same reason that they start making their own variants of paracetamol and other things that the patent is based on.

Some partners in pharmaceutical companies are also partners in banks and insurance companies. They are losing more money on cancer than the pharmaceutical companies are believed to gain from it.

But to be at least one percent topic on this thread;

Unlike some homeopaths, Robert has not advocated homeopathy as effective against cancer.
Respond
ruben says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:42 am

But if one ignores cancer. What does this article say about the studies on homeopathy that have been done. Based on Klaus Linde's meta-analysis from 1997, Edzard Ernst's meta-analysis in 2002, Cucherat's "Type II error", Shang published in 1995.
I have no knowledge of scientific methods other than the little I read. It is obvious that dubious methods want to steer the public into the perception that it is ineffective. It is obvious that one does not want to approve homeopathy despite the fact that it has shown results better than placebo in the studies that have been taken up.
Robert Hahn believes in the article that there is no doubt about the effect, if one interprets the studies scientifically.
Nor can I see any of the critics pointing directly to what scientific errors Robert Hahn makes in the interpretations.
It gives me the conviction that there is a will in some circles to kill homeopathy for reasons unknown to me. If studies clearly show that it has an effect, then still bad or non-existent curiosity is shown in the world of school medicine hugs.
Respond

    Mats Blomqvist says:
    January 18, 2014 at 02:07

    What he has opposed is that, especially some people, have said that there are no studies that show statistically better results than placebo. He has shown in this blog that there are a number who do it. On the other hand, it is also admitted in those studies that more are needed before homeopathy can be proven to be effective. Robert also admits that there is none
    scientific explanation model for homeopathy.

    We should also not forget that there are many, many more failed studies on homeopathy and that many of them with slightly better results are not registered, which means that you do not know how many you have done before with worse results.

    That doctors choose the best-proven methods against dangerous diseases is probably easy to understand. Considering how cheap homeopathy would be, I have a hard time believing that the stingy county council politicians would not rejoice if they found it effective. They decide over the doctors.

    Then we always get to read and hear how school medicine examines and criticizes itself. Most recently, the Medical Products Agency will examine the overconsumption of paracetamol.

    How often do we see any self-criticism from such an "honest" alternative industry?
    Respond
        ruben says:
        January 18, 2014 at 11:10 am

        That larger studies are needed. Is this what you mean that Robert answers?
        “The authors state that larger studies are needed, and this is almost always written. It is a kind of mantra in these contexts. If you work with clear effects, however, you should know that you do not get an ethical permit to make the studies bigger. Ethics states that a study should not be made larger than what is required to obtain significant differences, in this case between treatment and placebo. That's why you can not (like Shang) make a funnel plot where you mix studies with completely different expectations of treatment effect. ”
        Moreover:
        There is no scientific explanation model for homeopathy, no, but it clearly does not need an explanation model (if I have understood correctly). Soon it can probably be explained as well.
        Have no idea how many failed studies have been done in homeopathy compared to failed school medicine.
        Yes, doctors should choose the best proven methods. I think most people agree on that. But keep in mind that healthcare uses many methods that are not proven in scientific studies.

        You also write:
        "Considering how cheap homeopathy would be, I have a hard time believing that the stingy county council politicians would not rejoice if they found it effective. They decide over the doctors. "

        Agree with that, but do not think it is that simple. Even county council politicians are bound by what is considered (right or wrong) political correctness. They oppose alternatives, because their immediate surroundings expect it. They do not want to freeze their feet, which is human.

        Of course, one can wish that the criticism is fair, but I can not judge that. Should read the book Forskningsfusket so maybe I get more "meat on my bones".
        Respond
            Mats Blomqvist says:
            January 19, 2014 at 01:52

            @Ruben

            Quote “Agree with that, but do not think it is that simple. Even county council politicians are bound by what is considered (right or wrong) political correctness. They oppose alternatives, because their immediate surroundings expect it. They do not want to freeze their feet, which is human. " End quote.

            Can you give a more detailed explanation of what immediate environment it is that requires politicians to oppose alternatives, even if they were proven and cheaper?

            Do you mean by freezing your feet that they can lose their places?

            How then do they dare to dismantle the health care system so much that there will be gigantic demonstrations both among the people and the health care employees, ie the voters? If the voters get angry enough, they will really have to freeze their feet.

            So give a good explanation of who decides that they should skimp on the absurd in most things, except to use cheaper care methods (if they would be effective).

            Preferably with good sources so that it does not appear as another uncoated conspiracy theory.

            Feel free to read "Forskningsfusket" but you will not find any support for introducing homeopathy in healthcare there.
            Respond
                ruben says:
                January 21, 2014 at 09:23

                Hello again! Starts responding from the end.
                No, quite right. "Research cheating" gives a little more substance to thoughts that the term "scientific evidence" is not always the "scientific evidence" one refers to.

                I prefer to avoid sources because I do not want to involve anyone to be held accountable for my philosophy on the subject. I guess I'm also a kind of source like you and all the other commentators.

                The explanation of who decides that lansting should save, I can not give with any definite direction. I was not in on it right away. Maybe I was vague?

                Yes, if healthcare is dismantled more, it can probably start to be a troublesome dissatisfaction. It is quite difficult for many county council hospitals, I understand.

                Yes, freezing if the feet, I mean from being uncomfortable in their situation until being able to get the kick.

                There is a general countermeasure that has permeated school and education that homeopathy or other alternatives must not be talked about seriously. You are trained in that perception. From preschool to university. Yet none of those who say so have examined homeopathy / alternatives with curious seriousness. So seriously from my personal point of view, you are rarely taken seriously in some circles if you say that homeopathy cured me. I'm a scam because I claim to be healthy because. homeopathy. So a person's personal testimony can be crushed and declared incompetent. People that critics should follow in the same footsteps for 20 years before judging.

                I do not think many people deliberately oppose, it is in the air not to touch the subject. It is a bit taboo to talk positively about it. It's a kind of indoctrination, I think.
    Ragnvi Kjellin says:
    January 18, 2014 at 10:35 am

    The introduction of evidence-based medicine revolutionized the development of medicine, now it was finally possible to get a clear message about which methods and medicines worked and which did not.
    But the method is not infallible. If you do as Robert Hahn believes you should do, namely not to take into account the reasonableness of the tested hypothesis, you risk ending up very wrong.

    Whatever you research and no matter how crazy the hypothesis is, you will get results. But if the basic premises are incorrect, the results will also be incorrect. Take for example a mathematician who calculates Pi as 4.13, he will get results but of course incorrect ones. The same with the astronomer who thinks that the sun revolves around the earth or the chemist who reckons that hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.1u (should be 1.01u) etc ..

    Studies have shown that a large proportion of existing research reports are flawed and often the conclusions are incorrect. If the tested hypothesis is also unreasonable, the risk of error will be enormous, if not 100%. Therefore, the bar must be set higher when testing unreasonable statements (if you should even test them) DO NOT lower the one that Hahn wants to do.

    That is, it is very likely that the "positive" homeopathy studies are false positive.
    Respond
        Robert Hahn says:
        January 18, 2014 at 11:20 am

        The problem in this story is that a drive, controlled by VoF, is systematically lying about the studies of homeopathy that exist. Believing in scientific studies at all is a different and more philosophical question. But then one should push one's skepticism towards scientific methodology (here: type double-blind randomized trial) in the foreground and stop referring to scientific studies when arguing.
        Respond
            Anders Gustafsson says:
            January 19, 2014 at 02:57

            @Robert
            "The problem with this story is that a drive, controlled by VoF, is systematically lying about the studies of homeopathy that exist."

                I do not want to deny that there is a pretty healthy lie about homeopathy and as I have already pointed out, it is wrong to say that there is a lack of studies and especially RCT ditto about homeopathy, but it is quite uninteresting. Far more interesting is to study the studies systematically as you, Linde and Shang did. Mainly by looking at the quality of each study. The conclusions that most people draw, even those that are positive about homeopathy, such as Klaus Linde, are that one cannot conclude that homeopathy works.

                Even more problematic is the fact that different studies are presented on different homeopathy sites as evidence that homeopathy can cure cancer, AIDS or replace vaccinations or antibiotics. The problem is that several of these sites use your name and title in their marketing. The reader can easily get the impression that you as a person are behind everything that, for example, Marina Szöges writes. Is not this a problem?
                Respond
    Marina Szöges says:
    January 19, 2014 at 7:07 am

    Anders Gustafsson. Where else do you think I used Robert Hahn's name and title as marketing?

    In addition, it is not marketing that Dagens Homeopathy deals with. This is information about homeopathy. And since Hahn writes interestingly about homeopathy, it is of great interest to tell about it at Dagens Homeopati. No wonder.

    But ok Anders Gustafsson, tell me what I, according to you, have written and use Hahn's name and title. Send a link that proves what you claim I did. Up to proof now. But if I have not done something wrong, or alternatively change what is wrong, it is time for you to stop angling and slandering.
    Respond
    Perra J says:
    January 22, 2014 at 01:15

    It is rather pointless to discuss whether homeopathy is proven to work or not. One can always find objections, and the debate leads no one anywhere, it only builds up two severely polarized camps. And then it becomes harder than ever to find the objective truth. What we should discuss is whether a researcher is free to say anything. That is also what emerges from Robert Hahn's description. For example, what drove Cucherat to omit just over 96% of the studies he had available? What led to the omission of the high-quality Taylor study? Was it really the case that these studies were not found to be valid? Or is the truth that the researcher who would present a result in favor of homeopathy can have his career ruined?
    It is a great thing to find a scientific truth. It is an even bigger thing to challenge the current paradigm. When it comes to power, science is out of the question. Galileo was forced into public abdication. Can something similar happen today?
    Respond
        Mats Blomqvist says:
        January 22, 2014 at 02:02

        Yes, what does Robert think of this? Does he think that anyone who would carry out a study that could not be debunked would have his career ruined? Would no other research team dare to repeat it and test it again? Could the same thing apply to other discoveries as well?

        Given Robert's experience as a researcher, I'm really interested in what he's saying about this and ffa a lot of the serious things that have been said before. For example about cancer research. It is also his blog.

        We now know that he does not like VOF and their interpretations, but I think it is sad if he does not also share his views on the other side and their accusations about how it works within his area. Is the research world as false as many claim? There have been many serious allegations here. Are they absolutely right?

        If not here's a new product just for you!
        Respond
        Perra J says:
        January 23, 2014 at 1:14 am

        This blog is like an old volcano. It is thought to be inactive, extinguished… but then suddenly comes a HORRIBLE eruption, and then comes again an eternity of silence.

        I completely agree with you in what you say here, Mats. We'll see if Hahn pleases to answer…

        I read a post on Lars Bern's blog Antropocene, where he illustrates based on his own experience, how science actually works in reality, which obviously does not agree well with how it SHOULD work. Here - in the field of global warming - we again see an example of science that must adapt:

        http://antropocene.se/2014/january/vetenskapens-forfall.html
        Respond
    Helge says:
    January 25, 2014 at 3:21 am

    VoF has nothing to do with science. The leading skeptical body
    James Randis CSI describes ACSH as one:
    "Consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to nutrition, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, environment and health."

    under the heading “Health and Psychology” (http://www.csicop.org/resources)

    "Mother Jones" has a different view based on ACSH's own documents, which were leaked to "MJ": http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising
    , and several of Randi's closest employees are affiliated with ACSH.
    So that the skeptic movement is nothing more than a propaganda organization (Read Advertising Agency) for industrial interests has not changed.
    Respond

Comment
THE EDITOR
My new blog is here!

May 2, 2011 9 Comments

Hey all! Now I switch to roberthahn.nu simply because it will be easier to find the page! What we will be doing in 2011 is i.a. traps in science. Many who wrote to me… Read more
Get an email when the blog is updated
Your email address:
Latest posts

    My scientific article on homeopathy
    Men of Darkness at the University
    Ethics forgotten at the Academic Hospital
    Memories of past lives 5
    My friend killed his parents

File
Latest comments

    Weekend on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Perra J on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Mats Blomqvist on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Perra J on My scientific article on homeopathy
    ruben on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Marina Szöges on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Anders Gustafsson on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Mats Blomqvist on My scientific article on homeopathy
    Robert Hahn on My Scientific Article on Homeopathy
    ruben on My scientific article on homeopathy

Return to top of page

Copyright 2011 Robert Hahn · Prod: sasser.net · Log in
More about this source text
Source text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
[*/quote*]
Logged
Stoppt die deutschen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die österreichischen Massenmörder!
Stoppt die schweizer Massenmörder!

Revolution jetzt. Sonst ist es zu spät.
Pages: [1]