Minutus

It's OK , so did the other posters by the look of it.

Obviously it wasn't clear from my post, and there was me thinking it
was crystal clear!
Ah well back to the drawing board....

Mind you my private thought was that homeopaths are so locked into the
scientific proof thing they can't lift their gaze above the dashboard
and see where the road is actually heading. ie. still dancing to
allopathy's tune without even realising it.
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

scientific proof.

I agree that getting the message over to the public is what is really needed. At the moment trials that are totally inappropriate to the subject get maximum publicity and the ones you hear of where homeopathic *treatment* compares favourably to placebo or allopathic treatment (i.e. using whatever remedy is necessary over a period of time for real people) do the rounds of homeopaths and never make it to the press. The fact that other therapies have allowed 'irrelevant' trials to hog the limelight doesn't mean that there is no point in 'relevant' trials for them or us. They should not have gone along with those particular trials.
It is not a matter of 'pandering' to insurance companies or the medical establishment (and it insulting to imply that that is what it is all about)- it is a matter of not letting ourselves be mis-represented. there is nothing wrong with science: it is not a bugbear to be frightened of or to despise. It means the pursuit of knowledge which I should have thought we were all after. What is wrong is bad scientific process where you take a proposition that parodies the belief of a group of people, show that it is fallacious and then say that the belief of that group is fallacious too. Just bad science. We should proclaim that instead of letting the allopathic community define the parameters of trials to the disadvantage of our therapy and then dominate the debate.
We could still do with *more* trials of a relevant sort, though, and I don't have a problem with taking insurance company money for that so long as the parameters are determined realistically to reflect what homeopathic treatment really is. Not an impossible task.
bw

theresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shannon,
on looking at your mail again, I picked up my jaw and read it properly! It
looks as if you may be excluding people who give up after one or two
remedies. In many ways this could be valid (i.e. I agree that not every
remedy can be successful), but it should be spelt out if your statistic is
not to be a bit misleading.
For what it is worth, in my own practice survey, which has been published
over last two issue of HIP, I only dealt with a random group of 100 new
patients, whom I followed up after 6 months with questionnaires and review
of notes. So no long term or existing patients were taken into account and
no-one who did not return for appointments or fill in the questionnaire
either could be assumed as successful, though probably one or two were. The
actual improvement rate as far as could be determined from this in- many-
ways flawed survey was closer to 67%, varying according to the conditions
presented. Closer to Robyn's figure. However, he has not taken into account
that a substantial number, if not most, of new patients will have had
conventional treatment first and many most susceptible to placebo may not
have made it as far as the homeopath. So the 50% is 50% of people who have
not improved with the real or imagined benefits of conventional medication
before find their way onto the audit.
Needs a statistician to say if this criticism is valid.
Theresa

Oh yikes, I didn't mean that to be a statistic!!!!! It's *not* a
statistic, because the parameters aren't defined--and that was part of
my point. I think that our assumptions, rhythm, procedures, etc., in
normal prescribing, are very different from those in a "study". My
reason for bringing it up was that the numbers as being given cannot
represent the *reality* of homeopathic practice. Even the studies that
do show a positive effect, sometimes yield "success rates" that puzzle
me, are lower than I can understand--but in real life we *don't* always
"get it right" on the first or even second try--some more often than
others, but *no one* gets it right every time, in the beginning.

So again, my point was--when someone says that homeopathy "works 50% of
the time", I feel it is really, really, absolutely *crucial* to make
plain, 50% of *what*??? Is it 50% of individual prescriptions--in
which case you'd want to know what happens then..

Because if the assertion is that only 50% of *patients* are helped,
well, I don't know... Unless the patients are an unusually challenging
group (but even still...), or prescriber isn't hanging on to their
patients long enough to get more than one try, or isn't getting
feedback, or something. I don't see how someone would stay in business
if only half of their patients were gaining anything for the money
they've spent!

Below:
If you're referring to my post where I said I figured I've helped
"90%", please also note that I am basing this (as I said) on my teeny
little friends-and-family group, most of whom I've been toying with, I
mean prescribing for, for in some cases as much as 10 years. A few
have been going pretty well, where each time the picture changes (or
recurs with minor changes) I'm able to get to a useful remedy without
too much detour (tho I might be weeks or more in *deciding* what to
give--I have that luxury, since they *are* friends and family), then
things are stable for some time.

Other times I'll give a series of "misses" to one person or another,
but eventually get hold of a useful thread, and things finally start
moving.

One I've been trying unsuccessfully to prescribe for since about 10
years ago, and *nothing* so far has made *any* difference!!! Argh, and
yet again argh... I think with everyone else I've at least had
eventual success with one thing or another, tho not necessarily as
"deep" as I'd like. Oh, and two I have just begun with, have so far
one "miss" apiece, and we'll have to see what's next.
I agree! And I did indeed mean to. Remember I said--because they
*are* friends and family, I get to keep trying when I feel I have good
basis for trying again, so not one *has* given up after only one or two
tries. It's a far different situation than a "real practice", but IMO
still meaningful.
And if I were to figure how many I've helped within the first six
months (which at my pace usually means at the first or second
prescription), it looks like my figure would be similar (do I get to
count successful acute prescriptions, which I generally do okay with?
). And if I were to hold it to the number I've helped with my
*first* prescription, well, maybe 50% would be about right--BUT is that
a fair evaluation of the effectiveness of *homeopathy*, or even
"homeopathy as practiced by me" ??? No!!!!! And that is exactly the
point I'm trying to make.
Mm, and there are tons of other variables as well!

How neat that you did that review of your own practice! I'd bet there
were some results that interested and maybe surprised even you--were
there, or was it pretty much as you'd expected? Good idea!!

Anhway, I hope this clarifies what I meant...
Best,
Shannon