Is the Doctor Who Cures Right? Or Should We Look for Black Swans? Complementary Aspects of Homeopathy's Scientific Identity

Abstract

Popper's point of view that a hypothesis can only be proven wrong by finding one counter-instance and that confirmation is unscientific is widely acknowledged. In medicine, however, we can only optimise the probability that a therapy works. For this we have to search for counter-instances for our existing ideas. The inclusion of a medicine in a repertory symptom-rubric when the symptom is seen in a cured case is wrong. This biased idea could be replaced by the Bayesian likelihood ratio (LR).

LR can be assessed by prognostic factor research (PFR) using data collection by homeopathic practitioners. In the past 25 years, several PFR projects have been performed. It appeared that practitioners correct for biased entries in the repertory by finding practical solutions. Such solutions are keynote prescribing, selecting sub-rubrics that semantically confirm the preferred medicine and lowering threshold values for symptoms that confirm the preferred medicine. There is also variation between practitioners in confirming medicine selections by repertorisation. This way the bias of the repertory results in biased data collection. Statistical analysis of biased data results in biased conclusions.

Research protocols should deal with bias in data collection and statistical analysis. Practitioners and researchers involved in data collection should be thoroughly trained. Incoming data should be monitored from the start resulting in adequate feedback to observers.

Keywords

data collection - bias - repertory - PFR - homeopathy

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. Mai 2023

• References

• 1 Taylor F, Huffman MD, Macedo AF. et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. (Review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013 (01) CD004816
• 2 Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2 (08) e124
• 3 Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW. Moons KG al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic Factor Research. PLoS Med 2013; 346 (02) e5595
• 4 Hingorani AD, Windt DA, Riley RD. et al; PROGRESS Group. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research. BMJ 2013; 346 (February): e5793
• 5 Rutten L. Homeopathy deserves its own scientific identity. Homœopathic Links 2020; 33 (01) 24-32
• 6 Rutten L, Manchanda RK, Eizayaga J. Is homeopathy more effective now than a hundred years ago?.   Homeopath Links 2021; 34 (02) 1-7
• 7 Stolper E, Rutten L, Lugten R, Barthels R. Materia medica validation and meta-analysis. Homeopath Links 2004; [phone]
• 8 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, Lugten RFG, Barthels RWJM. Statistical analysis of six repertory rubrics after prospective assessment applying Bayes' theorem. Homeopathy 2009; 98 (01) 26-34
• 9 Bagchi S, Nayak C, Rutten L. et al. Assessment of likelihood ratio for four contact dermatitis symptoms of vinca minor. Homeopathy 2018; 107 (03) 209-217
• 10 Eizayaga JE, Pozzi MI, Canan MC, Saravia L. Prevalence and likelihood ratio of symptoms in patients with good therapeutic response to Lycopodium clavatum. A retrospective study. Homeopathy 2016; 105 (01) 78-83
• 11 Eizayaga JE, Waisse S, Rutten L, Klein-Laansma C, Motura A. Prevalence and likelihood ratio of six objective signs among good responders to Natrum muriaticum: multi-centre observational assessment. Homeopathy 2021; 110 (01) 36-41
• 12 Manchanda R, Chakraborty P, Koley M. et al. Retrospective estimation of prevalence and likelihood ratio of general symptoms of 29 less frequently prescribed homoeopathic medicines by clinical verification. Indian J Res Homoeopath 2019; 13 (02) 72-80
• 13 Koley M, Saha S, Das KD. et al. Prospective evaluation of few homeopathic rubrics of Kent's repertory from Bayesian perspective. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med 2016; 21 (04) 277-281
• 14 Shinde VH, Rutten L, Manchanda RK, Bawaskar R. Prevalence of homoeopathic polar symptoms: a follow-up pilot study conducted in Mumbai in 2017. Indian J Res Homoeopath 2020; 14: 179-188
• 15 Rutten L, Muraleedharan KC, Shinde VH, Manchanda R. What is a homoeopathic symptom, in daily practice and research?. Indian J Res Homoeopath 2017; 11 (01) 11-20
• 16 Rutten L. Data collection: treat every variable as a treasure. Homeopathy 2015; 104 (03) 190-196
• 17 Lamba CD, Gupta VK, van Haselen R. et al. Evaluation of the modified Naranjo criteria for assessing causal attribution of clinical outcome to homeopathic intervention as presented in case reports. Homeopathy 2020; 109 (04) 191-197
• 18 Rutten L, Miglani A, Gold P. et al. Generalizability of homeopathic prognostic factor research outcome in COVID-19 treatment: comparison of data. Homeopathy 2022; 111 (03) 157-163
• 19 Manchanda RK, Miglani A, Chakraborty M. et al. Impact of bias in data collection of COVID-19 cases. Homeopathy 2022; 111 (01) 57-65
• 20 Miglani A, Manchanda RK, Kalsi A. et al. Test of a homeopathic algorithm for COVID-19: the importance of a broad perspective. Homeopathy 2023; 112 (01) 22-29
• 21 Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin books; 2011
• 22 Tomassone D. Homeopathic Eupatorium perfoliatum in the treatment of COVID-19. Homeopathy 2023; 112 (01) 70-72
• 23 Vaishampayan S, Mutreja K, Lambe S, Shah J, Shaikh G. Mercurius solubilis as Genus Epidemicus for the COVID-19 pandemic. Homeopathy 2020; 109 (04) 271-272
• 24 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. Diagnostic test evaluation by patient-outcome study in homeopathy: balancing of feasibility and validity. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15 (06) 1230-1235
• 25 Rutten ALB. Bayesian homeopathy: talking normal again. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (02) 120-124
• 26 Rutten L, Van Wassenhoven M. Clinical verification of homeopathic symptoms: experience and statistics. In: Bonamin L. ed. Signals and Images. Springe Science + Business Media B.V. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. 2008: 151-182