Junk Science vs Homeopathy

It is always useful to engage in discussion about health issues. In a previous post, the Black Duck has raised a study by George Lewith and Trevor Bryant in 2003 on Belladonna. So for readers of the blog rather that BD.

• There are other trials that prove that Belladonna is an effective remedy (for patients who have symptoms of illness that reflect the Belladonna symptom picture). The point is that trials must reflect what is being claimed for homeopathic remedies - and one remedy for one condition is not what homeopathy is about
• This reflects the 'dead end' of RCTs. Such trials rarely throw any light on anything useful. In fact, you can design RCT studies to prove whatever you want to prove.
• The real benefits of Belladonna are seen with patients with Belladonna symptoms; sudden, high fever, burning heat, redness, etc. Belladonna will have no visible effects on people who do not have such symptoms.
• So large RCT trials that give Belladonna to people who don't need it will certainly prove that Belladonna has no effect!
  

The real point, though, and the point being made throughout this blog, is that giving Belladonna in potency to someone who does not need it may do no good, but it does no harm. This is why homeopathy is a safe medical therapy.

In contrast, most, if not all conventional medical (ConMed) drugs do harm to patients, whether they are correctly prescribed or not. Some kill patients. Other lead to patients developing other diseases. Most ConMed drugs are positively harmful to people's health. And the 'scientific' testing of ConMed drugs has done little or nothing to protect patients from such outcomes.

And did homeopathy ignore the study? No we did not! Lionel Milgrom wrote 'MacCavity's not there!" and published it in JACM.

This is the point that Black Duck does not want to acknowledge.