A new study out this week says that research on homeopathy is often biased to make it look more effective than it really is. The study found that registered trials provide better results than unregistered ones. Over a third of registered homeopathy trials have never been published, which can be a sign of burying unflattering findings. The invention of the homeopath happened around the turn of the 19th century. It claims to work by finding a substance that causes the same symptoms as the illness a person is experiencing, then taking it out of the water and putting it back in. It is said that this memory can be left in the water and given to someone to cure what ails them. Scientists remind people of the fact that the theory of medicine isn't supported by modern science, and that it's a myth. Even if the underlying principles don't pass the sniff test, it still has fans and practitioners. Big pharmacy chains like CVS can be found with homeopathic treatments. Because they fall under the same umbrella as dietary supplements in many countries, there is little regulation of their claims. The only way to know if a product works is through the scientific literature. The literature on homeopathy seems to be just as bad as the theory behind it. There were clinical trials of homeopathy dating back to the early 2000s. It is an optional part of ethical clinical research to register a trial. Other scientists can double check their work if they register trials before they start. Researchers who stray off course and conduct analyses of their results that weren't outlined in their registered plan might do so because they didn't get what they wanted. Scientists might register but never publish a study because the results weren't what they hoped for.
The field of homeopathy seems to be an especially bad culprit for these issues, according to the researchers. Almost half of published trials have never been registered, and more than one third of trials have never been published. The trials that weren't registered showed larger treatment effects on average. Researchers changed the outcomes they were looking for from the original plan about a quarter of the time when they published the results of registered trials.
Any one of these things can be bad in its own way, but put together and you have a recipe for inflating how effective homeopathic treatments look in the clinical trial literature.
Overall, the findings suggest a concerning lack of scientific and ethical standards in the field of homeopathy and a high risk for reporting bias.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, given that nothing about homeopathy makes sense. Some countries still endorse its use, journals still publish these studies, and lots of people will buy it at their local pharmacy. Accidents that have landed people in the emergency room and likely led to a string of infant deaths in recent years have been caused by poorly made products that contain the poison that was supposed to be removed.
This new research suggests that the science meant to support the benefits of homeopaths is flawed, and that this is the clearest example of junk medicine still around.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
