Homœopathic Links 2012; 25(2): 122-125
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1298501
RESEARCH
Sonntag Verlag in MVS Medizinverlage Stuttgart GmbH & Co. KG Stuttgart · New York

Individualisation and the Practitionerʼs Paradox

Homeopathy and Evidence-Based Medicine Part 2
Georg Ivanovas , Greece
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 July 2012 (online)

Summary

Most randomised trials on homeopathy are based either on a wrong epistemology, or on a misunderstanding of the homeopathic method, or on both. The result is logically irrelevant as seen with the efficacy paradox. In order to design trials appropriate to assess the effect of a homeopathic therapy, a more detailed understanding of the healing process is necessary. This article analyses some frequent mistakes of homeopathic trials.

 
  • References

  • 1 Carter R. Holistic hazards. New Scientist 1996; 151: 12
  • 2 Lewith GT, Watkins AD, Hyland ME et al. Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2002; 324: 520
  • 3 Feder G, Katz T. Randomised controlled trials for homoeopathy. BMJ 2002; 324: 498-499
  • 4 Kiene H. Komplementäre Methodenlehre der klinischen Forschung – Cognition-based Medicine. Berlin: Springer; 2001: 54-55 86
  • 5 Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726-732
  • 6 Russell B. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin; 1930
  • 7 Cook NR, Lee IM, Gaziano JM et al. Low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cancer: the womenʼs health study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 294: 47-55
  • 8 Beck-Bornholdt HP, Dubben HH. Der Schein der Weisen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt; 2003
  • 9 Ivanovas G. Doppelblind bei alternativen Heilverfahren. Dtsch Ärztebl 2001; 98: 822-825
  • 10 Schuck P, Müller H, Resch KL. Wirksamkeitsprüfung: „Doppelblindstudien“ und komplexe Therapien. Dtsch Ärztebl 2001; 98: A1942-A1944
  • 11 Maeseneer JM, van Driel ML, Green LA et al. The need for research in primary care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1314-1319
  • 12 Case E, Else L. We can work it out. New Scientist 2003; 180: 43
  • 13 Särkämö T, Tervaniemi M, Laitinen S et al. Music listening enhances cognitive recovery and mood after middle cerebral artery stroke. Brain 2008; 131: 866-876
  • 14 Sacks O. A Leg to Stand on. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.; 1984
  • 15 Grawe K, Donati R, Bernauer F. Psychotherapie im Wandel – Von der Konfession zur Profession. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1995
  • 16 Frost H, Lamb SE, Doll HA et al. Randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy compared with advice for low back pain. BMJ 2004; 329: 708
  • 17 Detillion CE, Craft TKS, Glasper ER et al. Social facilitation of wound healing. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2004; 29: 1004-1011
  • 18 Ivanovas G. Ist die Homöopathie eine Placebotherapie?. Homöopathie Konkret 2009; 2: 98-102
  • 19 Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003; 327: 741-744
  • 20 Martindale D. What doesnʼt kill you. New Scientist 2003; 180: 38
  • 21 Hildebrandt G, Moser M, Lehofer M. Chronobiologie und Chronomedizin. Stuttgart: Hippokrates; 1998
  • 22 Walach H, Haeusler W, Lowes T et al. Classical homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 119-126
  • 23 Berman BM, Lao L, Langenberg P et al. Effectiveness of acupuncture as adjunctive therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 901-910
  • 24 Diener HC, Kronfeld K, Boewing G et al. Efficacy of acupuncture for the prophylaxis of migraine: a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 310-316
  • 25 Linde K, Streng A, Jürgens S et al. Acupuncture for patients with migraine. JAMA 2005; 293: 2118-2125
  • 26 Scharf HP, Mansmann U, Streitberger K et al. Acupuncture and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 12-20
  • 27 von Bertalanffy L. General Systems Theory. New York: Braziller; 1968: 160
  • 28 Luborsky L, Rosenthal R, Diguer L et al. The Dodo bird verdict is alive and well – mostly. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2002; 9 (1) 2-12 http://mentalhealthpros.com/mhp/pdf/Dodo-bird-meta-analys.pdf