« Google Purge | Main | USB key »

Who to believe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm
It's difficult to know who to believe when the news appears to contradict itself.

Homeopathy no better than placebo

Homeopathy, favored medical remedy of the royal family for generations and hugely popular in the UK, has an effect but only in the mind, according to a major study published in a leading medical journal on Thursday.

The conclusions of the Lancet analysis are a body blow for proponents of homeopathy, which has been around for 250 years and has attained cult-like status among its aficionados.

Swiss scientists compared the results of more than 100 trials of homeopathic medicines with the same number of trials of conventional medicines in a whole range of medical conditions, from respiratory infections to surgery. They found that homeopathy had no more than a placebo effect.

So are all those home remedies wrong? Could it be possible? But then there are other studies published that seem to disagree:

Butterbur Offers Hay Fever Relief (also here)

For the one in five Americans who suffer from hay fever, the herb butterbur may be an effective alternative to an antihistamine drug, according to what is called the largest trial on the plant extract done so far.

Researchers from Switzerland and Germany compared butterbur extract with fexofenadine (Allegra), an antihistamine commonly used to treat intermittent allergic rhinitis, better known as hay fever. Common symptoms of hay fever include sneezing, nasal congestion and watery, itchy eyes.

The investigators assigned 330 patients to one of three groups: the first group took butterbur extract (also called petasites), 8 milligram tablets three times a day; the fexofenadine group took a 180-milligram antihistamine tablet in the morning; and the third group received placebo pills.

Other stories about functional remedies from natural sources include:
- extract of St Johns Wort for treating depression
- marijuana for treating multiple sclerosis (maybe)
- pomegranate for treating cartilage deterioration In osteoarthritis

So does homeopathy have a real effect or not?

The key to deciphering all this is checking the claims to make sure they properly account for the placebo effect. That means it needs to be double-blind (both the patient and the person administering the medicine don't know if the dose is real or not) and large enough to give a statistically significant result.

In large, that means that most of the "natural" remedies you see in the grocery/drug store are a waste of your money. It's likely only a placebo effect. Admittedly, there might be some hidden gems out there. But isn't it logical that if there truly was a medical advantage in taking one of those natural "supplements," that the manufacturer would gladly fund a study to prove it is in fact efficacious.

I guess when it comes down to finances, funding a study to (maybe... most likely not) prove your product pales in comparison to the money that can be collected by fleecing the ignorant hordes of people.

Another thing to keep in mind is that medical studies don't have to be released to the public. So most likely small-scale studies have already been done internally by the manufacturers of these supplements, and are simply not revealed because the studies don't support their claims.

Clicks support this site.  Ads by AdGenta.com

Comments

I took an art class my sophomore year where my professor claimed that she was diagnosed with breast cancer and was able to heal herself by eating right, exercising, and natural supplements (didn't mention which ones). She claimed that there are some natural supplements that really do work and said that there should be more studies conducted to find out which actually work. She said that the reason there wasn't research done is that there is more money in the drug industry than the natural supplement industry. For example, doctors give perscriptions for drugs and not natural supplements. Why? She said natural supplements unproven due to lack of research and that drug companies 'pay' doctors in different ways for using their brand of drugs (free samples, stuff, etc.). I don't know how right or wrong her claims are, this is just what she said. Personally, I don't really know much about this topic, but I am sure that there are some gems out there (Aspirin comes to mind). Well-conducted, unbiased research is needed to find them.

There are a few points I'd like to address.

  • Doctors are "bribed" by drug reps to push a product. I'm not for legislating every little thing, but I do see this issue becoming more of a problem, as it feeds on the doctor's individual greed, rather than an altruistic desire to help people.
  • I think the reason most doctors don't "prescribe" (no prescription necessary) supplements is that they want to see quality clinical research that shows the remedy works without serious side effects. I think this is a good thing. Doctors should be open to recommending supplements if there is good research to warrant the recommendation

  • I find it questionable to say that natural supplements are unproven due to lack of reserach. The supplement industry is huge, and can easily fund the research. That's why I made the comment in the article about lack of published research to be a big red flag. If you see something advertised on TV (weight loss, ED, etc.) and can't find properly-conducted clinical studies on it, definitely don't buy it.
  • Of course, as a consumer, should it be our responsibility to vet every medication we take? That's part of the reason we have the FDA. The supplement industry purposefully doen't make any specific medical claims to avoid the scrutiny of the FDA. Are they simply trying to save money, or should we question the potency of their product. Some argue that meeting FDA criteria is too difficult/expensive, but is it in the public interest to relax the FDA's standards to make it easier to get a supplement approved for medicinal purposes? Time will tell.

Visitors

Locations of visitors to this page

Post a comment