Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Cancer and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients - a prospective observational study of two independent cohorts

Matthias Rostock*, Johannes Naumann, Corina Guethlin, Lars Guenther, Hans H Bartsch and Harald Walach

BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19  doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-19

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email info@biomedcentral.com, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

No such thing as homeopathy?

Lee Turnpenny   (2013-05-03 18:32)  N/A

This paper was recently cited in a short article entitled `Homeopathy is more than placebo��, in the February 2013 edition of the magazine What Doctors Don��t Tell You, on sale in various UK outlets. (It also formed the basis for an article entitled
`Homeopathy has a `clinically relevant�� effect way beyond placebo��, in June 2011 on the same magazine��s website.) The title of this paper suggests description of a study methodology, but with no conclusory statement regarding the relative efficacy of homeopathy and placebo. Nevertheless, two years after publication, WDDTY still considers it a cherry ripe enough for re-picking. As such, it would be of interest to ascertain whether or not the authors/publishers of the paper consider that WDDTY misappropriates their work? Or do they concur that `Homeopathy is more than placebo��?

The authors invoke the popularity of homeopathy in apparent justification for this study. There is prevarication somewhat as to whether homeopathy is clinically effective �� `a matter of heated debate��. But there is no (scientific) debate concerning clinical effectiveness. Homeopathy is not clinically effective, in that it has no effect on organic disease. So, regarding cancer, it does not cause tumours to shrink or disappear.

The question then, properly put, is not whether homeopathy is clinically effective�� but whether it has an `effect�� on patients in a clinic �� in this case, cancer patients. And this, I think (I hope), is actually the question that the author��s of this study attempted to address. In writing, `We wanted to study the clinical effects of classical homeopathy��, surely they mean `We wanted to study the effects of classical homeopathy on patients in a clinic��. Indeed, they state that, `The effects of homeopathy on quality of life in cancer patients has been studied very rarely��, a statement that this report is indeed of a study of the effects of homeopathy �� not on disease �� but on `quality of life.�� It is not about homeopathic `remedies�� and organic disease; it is about psychological/psychotherapeutic well-being. It is thus not specifically about homeopathy at all.

Who can dispute the improved `quality of life�� reported by cancer patients receiving some or other `alternative�� treatment to complement (prior or ongoing) conventional adjuvant therapy (ie chemotherapeutic drugs, radiotherapy, or other supplemental treatment following surgery)? Attentive care does make people feel better. This has nothing to do with the `remedies�� they are administered �� not physiologically anyway. Yet the authors seem to be at pains to include attentive care under `classical�� homeopathy, with critics being wrong to focus on the implausibility of potentised diluted remedies (ie, shaken water), when this is not classical homeopathy in totality. Such detractors miss the point that `classical�� also denotes the lengthy, detailed `individualisation�� that matches a patient to a continually adjusted `remedy�� regimen. Hence, in one fell swoop, the double-blind Randomised Clinical Trial is rendered inapplicable, inappropriate; it is impossible to conduct such a trial of homeopathy proper, as (homeopathically-treated) patients, being different individuals, cannot be randomly combined into a group for objective measure. If a RCT only concentrates on the pilules dispensed for a specific ailment, and those pilules turn out to be no more beneficial than placebo, then that trial is invalidated because it has not taken into account the individualisation of subjects �� which, as a RCT, it cannot do. Therein lies the circular logic of the homeopath��s justification for rejection of the assertion that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo.

What is necessary, this paper argues, is that because cancer (or other serious chronic disease) patients who seek out homeopathic care have preferences which exclude willingness to participate in a RCT, then any study is obligated to only consider treatments actively chosen by those patients `�� since free choice is part and parcel of a potentially important therapeutic step.�� This would seem self-fulfilling �� the patient will `feel�� better, because they have been empowered through choice. Control is impossible. A point to note is that this homeopathic treatment was offered at homeopathic clinics, along with, or following, conventional cancer treatment (90% of those opting for homeopathy did so to complement ongoing adjuvant treatment; only 10% went fully alternative, discontinuing conventional treatment). This presents limitations: for direct `matched pair�� (homeopathic versus conventional) comparisons, patients of comparable case history, disease progression and prognosis are necessary. And these could only be recruited from palliative stage care groups �� that is, patients no longer receiving adjuvant treatment. However, the large differences between patient groups limited formable matched pairs to a number deemed insufficient for meaningful study. Therefore, the results are those of a longitudinal observational study of all consenting cancer patients, without separation of adjuvant and palliative stages.

The second paragraph of the Discussion is confusing: we are informed that the homeopathic versus conventional group comparison is further complicated by the fact that patients receiving homeopathy were more severely affected and, for some reason, delayed commencing their care until four (diagnosis of tumour progress) to seven (initial diagnosis) months after those in the conventional group commenced theirs. This is given as explanation for the homeopathic care group having a higher rate of prior adjuvant (chemotherapy/radiotherapy) treatment. Why the delays? Why the higher rate of prior adjuvant treatment in the homeopathic group?

Presumably, these, and other, confounding factors were corrected for during the analyses of the data generated from the `�� patient self-reports, taken at study entry and every 3 months over the course of one year���� �� a year in which `�� a larger proportion of patients under conventional treatment received chemotherapy or radiation����. Nevertheless, the validity of those self-reports is questionable. Chemotherapy/radiotherapy is often uncomfortable, painful, miserable. It actually makes recipients very ill �� and feel it for a while after �� and consequently likely (one might not unreasonably predict) to tick low for `quality of life��; a score likely (again, predictably) to increase as side-effects fade with time following the treatment. So, if at the commencement of the study more time had elapsed since your last course of chemo/radiotherapy, that lengthening interim will affect how you score yourself. Particularly if you��ve felt empowered by exercising the option of `alternative�� care; and further opting, as did a much higher number in this grouping (with a higher rate of prior adjuvant treatment), for no more courses of misery-inducing chemo/radiotherapy. Couple that with lots of personalised attention and follow-up phone consultations, at a time when you perhaps feel vulnerable and alone, then you are bound to experience a sense of improved well-being (however marginal; however influenced by the ethnographical intervention of being asked how you feel �� because the `presence�� of the attendant, attentive observer affects the `behaviour�� response).

If a clinical/medical/scientific journal such as BMC Cancer deems it legitimate to publish this `alternative�� kind of thing, then it ought, for the sake of its readers, to nevertheless assign referees who will provide scientifically valid reviews. But the validity of the self-scoring does not appear to have overly concerned the peer reviewers assigned this paper. Both seemingly believe in the efficacy of homeopathic remedies in treating organic disease �� including tumours. In a scientific medical journal, this is alarming. Why this concern with (the supposed effects of) remedies, when the study is supposedly not about them? And despite seeming recognition of the study��s uncontrollability, the authors are commended for `very successful research��. Where, specifically, did this study `succeed��? Didn��t we already know that more attentive, personalised care makes people feel better?

Which brings us back to WDDTY and its citing of this paper as evidential argument that `Homeopathy is more than placebo.�� This now reads as an ambiguous statement, because it is unclear whether or not it refers to the administering of useless shaken water and sugar pilules (on which WDDTY has shameless form); or whether it is alluding to the other `aspect�� of homeopathy, the individualised care, as this study considers. In which case the statement reads as though accepting that the water and pilules are merely placebo; and misses the point that this study does not �� because it cannot �� evaluate against placebo. One is left to conclude, therefore, that the editors of WDDTY failed to properly read the paper they refer to. Or deliberately mis-appropriate it. Because this paper, in its emphasis on `classical��, delineating homeopathy into two separate components (`It is important to notice that we have not studied the effect of homeopathic remedies, but of homeopathic care��) leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as homeopathy at all. The homeopathic remedies themselves are no more than placebo; the homeopathic care is simply�� care. Homeopaths have no monopoly on claiming origination of the provision of good care (palliative or otherwise), which ought to be separated out from homeopathy and its claims to treating the organic basis of disease.

From the final paragraph of the Discussion:

`It goes without saying that this [care] is an intensive communicative, interactive process that operates via many different pathways, some of which are likely to be psychological and very general in the sense of a meaning response, some of which might be specific to homeopathic therapy and its usage of the remedies. It is also a likely scenario that homeopathic remedies are only active in an unbroken therapeutic context and that, at least for practical therapeutic reasons, the question whether homeopathic remedies are placebo or not, is irrelevant.��

It doesn��t go without saying �� it needs to be said. Either the remedies have a biochemical, physiological effect, or they do not. We know they do not�� because they contain no active ingredient. If, then, they can only `function�� as a `psychological device��, the question as to whether or not they are placebo is not irrelevant. It is what they are. I read this excerpt as arguing that `homeopathic�� care `works�� �� in part �� due to the anticipation of its remedies; and conversely, that those remedies can only `work�� as part of an overall ongoing individualised care process engendering that anticipation, leading inevitably to improved scores on subjective self-reported surveys. Thus (conveniently for the pill-peddling homeopath), it is impossible to extricate and evaluate the discrete remedies relative to placebo in a properly controlled RCT �� thereby shielding them from scrutiny. But if homeopaths use such interpretation as bullet-proofing their case that the RCT is inapplicable, then he/she cannot conclude �� as WDDTY would have you �� that Homeopathy is more than placebo.

Actually, this realisation, that any beneficial effect wrought by homeopathy is a consequence of the care and not the remedies, is nothing new. Do those opting for homeopathy (providers and recipients) not do so in the belief that it (will) make(s) them feel better, and so will be inclined to respond to questions as to their quality of life and (`spiritual��) well-being in a more positive manner?

In its reaching effort to justify the irrelevance of the randomised controlled trial to homeopathic remedies �� because their usage cannot be extricated from the individualised care process prescribing them �� this paper is self-contradictory. Evaluation of the effects of the care component of `classical�� homeopathy is likewise impossible if those effects rely on the anticipation of remedies which are `�� likely�� only active in an unbroken therapeutic context�� engendering that anticipation. Yet, whilst seemingly arguing the inseparability of remedy and care elements, this is what the authors half-quixotically attempted: `It is important to notice that we have not studied the effect of homeopathic remedies, but of homeopathic care.�� But leave out the remedies �� thereby eliminating the anticipation of them �� and what are you left with?

If this paper is successful at all, it is by the subtle affirmation that there is no such thing as `homeopathy.��

Competing interests

None (other than scientific scepticism towards homeopathy).

top

Without homeopathic remedies, is care 'homeopathic'?

Lee Turnpenny   (2013-03-18 14:02)  N/A

Without homeopathic remedies, is care 'homeopathic'?

I came across this reference in an article entitled 'Homeopathy is more than placebo' in the February 2013 issue of the magazine 'What Doctor's Don't Tell You', on sale in various supermarkets in the UK.

Do the authors consider that the title of this magazine piece is used appropriately; ie do they concur with it as a statement, and with the citing of this paper in a magazine endorsing homeopathy?

Competing interests

None (unless scientific scepticism towards homeopathy is considered such).

top

No convincing evidence for efficacy of homeopathic care, let alone homeopathic treatment.

Kausik Datta   (2013-03-10 14:04)  My views are personal and do not reflect those of my institution

I started reading this paper with interest, particularly since I was intrigued by the assertion by the authors that they wanted to focus on homeopathic care, and not the efficacy of homeopathic remedies per se (an interesting assertion pointed out by someone else). I found this study largely disappointing, scientifically speaking. Several points have been discussed in the blog this hyperlink points to. I made a few additional observations which indicate, to me, that this paper did not present convincing evidence for efficacy of homeopathic care as well.

I am slightly leery of using quality of life (QoL) measurements as a study variable. I am, of course, speaking from a privileged perspective, in that my definition of 'quality of life' (as a reasonably healthy individual) and a cancer patient's definition of the same are bound to be dramatically different. But that difference, then, would directly speak to the difference in the perception of the efficacy of these alternative medicine ('alt-med') therapies between, say, my taking them and a cancer patient's taking them. Surely that would impact a survey-based QoL measurements?

As others (most recently, Prof. Edzard Ernst) have discussed, it is likely that the creation of a feel-good factor is the principal goal of the alt-med therapies - which may even account for some of perceived efficacies of alt-med therapies. But, by that count, non-conventional approaches like Therapy Dogs are equally effective. Which means, there is no specificity of these alt-med treatments, if QoL is to be the sole arbiter.

An important point regarding the randomization mentioned in the article being discussed. Patients were not randomized in a blinded fashion. They chose homeopathic or conventional treatment. At entry, homeopathy patients were younger, more educated, and were more likely to be white collar workers or in self-employed jobs. Coming as they were from socieities in which homeopathy is accepted as a valid method of treatment, is it any wonder that the homeopathy arm would do better in the QoL surveys? The capacity of human beings to delude themselves is almost endless. This is one of the reason why these subjective estimates are very problematic. I'd have loved to see some objectively assessable diagnostic and prognostic information, such as, say, tumor status and progression, histopathology data, and so forth, which were not included in the paper.

Another question jumps to the mind. What was the placebo? I mean, after the randomization, in order to judge the efficacy of homeopathy over placebo, the patients would have to get exactly identical treatment (including interactions, conversations and palliative care) except for the variable being tested. From my reading of the paper, it appears that it was only homeopathy or no homeopathy. The authors refer to a book and a paper for the treatment regimens. Unfortunately, it is beyond my capacity to read non-English text. I couldn't even find the abstract of the paper in PubMed.

Finally, it is good that the authors have consciously refrained from comparing the homeopathy arm and the conventional arm (as they indicate in the discussion). Else, the consistently higher proportion of death in the homeopathy arm (I cannot speak to the statistical treatment, not having the raw data at hand) would have required some explanation.

So, overall, even if the authors say that they focus on 'homeopathic care' rather than on 'homeopathy remedies', this paper doesn't seem to address many of the pertinent questions.

Competing interests

I have no competing financial interest. However, I am skeptical of homeopathy as a valid medical therapy and have written on that subject at various fora.

top

Post a comment