Download PDF
Homeopathy
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1802339
Commentary Article

The Scientific Doctor

Lex Rutten 
1   Independent Researcher, Breda, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Medical professionals do not sufficiently realise how much scientific responsibility they take when certified science fails. They must make the best choice for the individual patient based on their own experience and that of their colleagues. This ‘next best choice’ requires basic knowledge about heuristic bias and statistics. The best solutions based on experience could then be classified according to their reliability and expected effectiveness. This requires probability and conditional probability calculations that result in Bayesian updating of the likelihood of individual cures. Practitioners could have considerable influence on medical decision-making by applying Bayesian probability. The high quality and large quantity of combined experience can ultimately be translated into treatment algorithms, to be tested in daily practice. To achieve this, we need better scientific training of practitioners and a suitable infrastructure of the professional community.

Keywords

evidence-based medicine - prognostic factor research - statistics - clinical expertise


Publication History

Received: 19 November 2024

Accepted: 05 December 2024

Article published online:
17 March 2025

© 2025. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gaskell H, Derry S, Stannard C, Moore RA. Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 7: CD010692
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York:: Basic Books;; 1959
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?. Mil Med Res 2020; 7: 7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bayes T. An essay towards solving a problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 1763; 53: 370-418
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 McGrayne SB. The Theory That Would Not Die. New Haven/London:: Yale University Press;; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. Diagnostic test evaluation by patient-outcome study in homeopathy: balancing of feasibility and validity. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15: 1230-1235
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Rutten L. Scientific awareness in homeopathic practitioners and their scientific responsibility to develop as “healing scientists”. AJHM 2021; 114: 40-44
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London:: Penguin Books;; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein C. Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgement. Dublin, Ireland:: Harper Collins Publishers;; 2021
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 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: 22-29
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rutten L, Eizayaga JE, Kaur H. et al. How to assess variation in homeopathic prognostic factor research?. Homeopathy 2025: in press
    PubMed