Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
For those who argue that homeopathy is harmless, here's a story that shows what can happen when faith in quackery results in parents eschewing effective evdience-based medicine:
NINE-MONTH-OLD Gloria Thomas was in such distress that her crying alarmed some passengers on a plane trip from India to Sydney.She had been overseas for two months receiving medical treatment, and homeopathic medication from an uncle for severe eczema.
But in that time she missed two appointments which separate doctors had made for her at specialist dermatologists.
In May 2002, less than 10 days after her return, she was admitted to the Children's Hospital at Randwick severely malnourished and with infections to the skin and eyes.
She had died within three days of sepsis (bacterial infections) which had caused bleeding in her lungs and airways.
The reason for the baby's death:
Her father, Thomas Sam, who practised and taught homeopathy, had applied homeopathic remedies to try to cure Gloria's eczema since she was diagnosed with it when aged about four months, he said.The inquest, which will examine the role of nutrition in her death, will also examine the actions of her father and mother, Manju Samuel, and advice they received from doctors and homeopaths. Mr Hoy said the inquest would reveal if homeopathy should be better regulated or scrutinised.
A forensic pathologist, Ella Sugo, told the court a micro-organism which was commonly found in broken skin, was isolated in Gloria's blood, urine, skin and eyes. She had abnormally pale skin and hair. Dr Sugo found her immune system was weakened. Her thymus gland, a part of the immune system, had shrunk after originally being in good condition.
So much for homeopathy "strengthening the immune system."
Although it's possible that modern medicine might have been able to prevent this death, one thing's for sure: Treating the baby with water, which is all that homeopathic remedies really are, rather than effective medicine certainly didn't make it more likely that this baby would survive. Worse, the baby almost certainly suffered far more than she should have.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Sad Story. When the child's father develops some serious illness, I want to be there to feed him tiny little bottles of water and sugar pills.
Homeopathy belongs in the rubbish bin of wrong ideas, along with the four humors, phrenology and other such complete utter nonsense.
Posted by: DLC | November 6, 2007 4:37 AM
First, it's the first time I comment here so please forgive me if everything is not done in the rule. (also english is not my mothertongue :-))
So to the point, I just want to share something that may become as tragic in my family, my sister-in-law has just been diagnosed with Crohn's disease after finally have gone to a real doctor instead of her usual homeopath.
After the diagnosis, the doctor prescribed her some medication to "control" the disease and then she gets back to her homeopath who told her to throw it away as "it is bad".
The only positive point about this story, is that my wife who were trying for a long time to use homeopathy for our children (because everybody tell her it "works" and because it's not "harmful") as finally understood one of the reason I'm against it ...
Posted by: Bruno | November 6, 2007 6:07 AM
What a sad story! I'm sure many homeopaths are cynical exploiters of their victims but I have to assume that this one was genuinely deluded into believing he was doing the right thing. He deserves some pity, but the law should have the power to prevent him killing anybody else.
Posted by: Polonius | November 6, 2007 7:52 AM
many woo-meisters believe their own woo...but that doesn't relieve society of the responsibility to regulate/hobble them.
Posted by: PalMD | November 6, 2007 8:08 AM
Orac, I have to say I'm a little disappointed. Your post title suggested that you'd found a case where the homeopathic "treatment" itself was the cause of death, something like what chelation "therapy" can do. But this appears to be no more than a run-of-the-mill case wherein the victim actually died of something else, and the only role that homeopathy played was in the way that the parents used it instead of real medical treatment.
It's certainly one more piece of evidence that homeopathic remedies are worthless and should be avoided. But it's no more than that. Is it?
Posted by: wolfwalker | November 6, 2007 8:18 AM
This is a straw man argument against homeopathy because the same argument can be made against placebo treatment, or the option called "no treatment" when the patient actually has a treatable life threatening disease.
In the above case it was probably strep cellulitis rather than eczema. Acute cellulitis can be life threatening if the infection goes to hematogenous spread. While confined to the skin in its early stages, the infection is exquisitely sensitive to penicillin, one of the great triumphs of modern medicine.
Homeopathic remedies are not antibiotics and are not recommended for acute life threatening infections such as pneumococcal pneumonia, strep cellulitis or pulmonary TB, or an acute STD for example. However, homeopathy can safely be tried on the common scenario of cases of chronic infection on and off multiple antibiotics that aren't working, as well as other similar chronic medical problems. In this setting, hemeopathic remedies do no harm and can actually be associated with improved outcome.
Posted by: ductofsantorini | November 6, 2007 8:20 AM
Given that homeopathy is notable for having no actual effect whatsoever, that would be a fairly stupid reading on your part.
Posted by: MartinM | November 6, 2007 8:34 AM
The difference being that no one ever claimed that placebo works better than placebo.
And yet, unsurprisingly, you cite no evidence whatsoever to support this.
Posted by: MartinM | November 6, 2007 8:37 AM
On a positive note. There are too many people in the world right now, to eliminate the child of a stupid man is, perhaps, desirable
Posted by: Eric Bloodaxe | November 6, 2007 9:40 AM
"The difference being that no one ever claimed that placebo works better than placebo." That beautiful, one of the most quotable things I have seen.
In homeopathy what does the use of a number followed by an X mean. I have a buddy recommending this homeopathic cream for pain. The knee pain is less but as you can guess no clinical trials are available and it is probably placebo. They list the homeopathic ingredients with a number followed by an X (6X, 8X etc.) but not the carrier agent.
Posted by: vlad | November 6, 2007 10:07 AM
I'll take the child of a stupid man over someone who thinks the death of a child desirable any day.
Posted by: MartinM | November 6, 2007 10:10 AM
That tells you how much the original solution has been diluted. 'X' means it's been diluted by a factor of ten each time, and the number tells you how many times - so 6X means diluted by a factor of ten, six times. 'C' means diluted by a factor of 100 each time.
Posted by: MartinM | November 6, 2007 10:14 AM
The thing is, the dad will probably swear up and down that his child didn't die because of his having used homeopathy instead of real medical treatment - it'll be because he didn't dilute it enough, or used eye of newt instead of frankincense, or whatever - anything to avoid admitting to himself that he is to blame for his own child's death.
Posted by: isles | November 6, 2007 12:05 PM
And yet, unsurprisingly, you cite no evidence whatsoever to support this.
Güthlin C, Lange O and Walach H. Measuring the effects of acupuncture and homoeopathy in general practice: An uncontrolled prospective documentation approach. BMC Public Health 2004, 4:6.
Posted by: squeakywheel | November 6, 2007 1:43 PM
Ok I'm no medic so I may be missing something, but does the paper cited by Squeakywheel really pass as a good study? I don't see any control group who received no treatment, so it doesn't show any improvement over doing nothing. Additionally there's no placebo group in the trial. Also wouldn't another group, people receiving orthodox treatments, be another suitable comparison?
For all I know that paper could just be showing that homeopathy can clear up a cold in seven days, while without treatment it'll hang around for week.
Posted by: Alun | November 6, 2007 2:14 PM
the only role that homeopathy played was in the way that the parents used it instead of real medical treatment.
Homeopathy is not just a pseudo-medical practice: it is an ideology which rejects the use of real medical treatment and has to be seen as at the root of the neglect and abuse which resulted in death.
If homeopathy was presented as supplemental it might be relatively harmless. Might.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | November 6, 2007 2:28 PM
pneumococcal pneumonia
http://www.hpathy.com/diseases/pneumonia1-symptoms-treatment-cure.asp
http://www.hpathy.com/diseases/erysipelas-symptoms-treatment-cure.asp
http://www.specialityhomeopathy.com/treatment/MDR_Tuberculosis.htm
http://www.hpathy.com/diseases/genital-herpes-symptoms-treatment-cure.asp
(Sorry, had to guess what you meant by 'acute' here)
Obviously people recommend Homeopathy for exactly what you list.
Posted by: Brendan S | November 6, 2007 3:24 PM
duct:
My original comment with direct links is held for moderation, but:
http://www.hpathy.com/
Lists EVERY disease you mention.
Please don't pretend like Homeopathy isn't recommended for every ailment under the sun by people wanting to sell other people fancy water.
Posted by: Brendan S | November 6, 2007 3:25 PM
Squeakywheel and ductofsantorini:
Here, try this.
Properly administered, it will help your condition.
If it doesn't work the first time, read it again.
Posted by: jre | November 6, 2007 4:09 PM
Vlad:
In homeopathy what does the use of a number followed by an X mean. I have a buddy recommending this homeopathic cream for pain. The knee pain is less but as you can guess no clinical trials are available and it is probably placebo.
I seem to remember a paper recently that showed that simply the action of rubbing can help reduce pain, which may mean that applying a homeopathic cream could genuinely reduce pain above placebo (even though the cream itself is only a placebo).
I'm afraid I don't have the reference, but maybe someone else will remember it.
Posted by: DrFrank | November 6, 2007 5:36 PM
The difference being that no one ever claimed that placebo works better than placebo.
That's because they haven't tried my new water-energized placebo! It's based on magnetic water energetic technology derived from faeces equinum extract!!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 6, 2007 6:48 PM
Roflmao ... "Properly administered, it will help your condition. If it doesn't work the first time, read it again."
Here is the blame the patient for not doing it right excuse.
And by the way, "reading" it a second time won't help anything.
Posted by: Patrick | November 6, 2007 7:17 PM
Her thymus gland, a part of the immune system, had shrunk after originally being in good condition.
Two questions: When and why was her thymus checked and found to be in good condition, and what sort of common microrganism causes the thymus to shrink like this?
Is there more to the story or have I missed something?
Posted by: notmercury | November 6, 2007 9:27 PM
That poor baby.
I watch friends do homeopathy, and swear by it, and yet...they don't get better. In fact, they get worse.
One friend tried to control her diabetes by diet, and while it helped, it wasn't enough, and her GP told her it was time to consider insulin.
Instead, she started a whole food diet, which isn't bad at all actually, except she isn't getting enough protein. She can't stand dried beans, and tofu is upsetting her GI.system. She's upset she isn't getting better, and is blaming herself. She started taking more homeopathy "things," and it's not working either. She has been playing this game for years, and all to avoid the side effects of DRUGS.
But why subject a baby to such an awful death when there was something that would work, and work fairly quickly? Why, why, why? And for the baby to have low levels of protein? Was she not being fed properly as well? There's more to this tale than has been revealed, and it will be interesting to see how this tale unfolds.
Posted by: Rjaye | November 6, 2007 10:13 PM
The x is a dilution factor. The idea is that you take a tincture of the medicine prepared according to the founding texts on homeopathy.
You put one drop of that in a quantity of either water or alcohol depending on solubility. As it was explained to me by a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies several years ago, I think the ratio is 1000 to 1.
That's 1X. Then you take one drop of that and put it in a similar quantity of the water or alcohol at 1000 to 1 again.
That's 2X
Do that again - that's 3X. . . etc.
And here's the kicker. 8X is marketed as a way more effective medicine than say 3X or 4X and at a higher price. It's basically a way to sell water or alcohol at many times their cost to the manufacturer.
But, you get plug into some serious woo - and I guess that's worth something.
Posted by: Pelican's Point | November 6, 2007 10:30 PM
For years acupuncture was considered quackery and now its in every GP's office.
Homeopathy will probably go the same route.
It is econoimically viable and when used with in proper medical settings causes no harm and may actually benefit the patient. Whether the benefit is from placebo effect or not doesnt matter. The drug industry has been selling the placebo effect for years.
Sure you can call Homeopathy deadly if it is used in the wrong setting. Any modality including most drugs are also deadly when used in the wrong setting, medical condition or wrong dosage. Actually a case can be made that most drugs are more dangerous than homeopathic liquids which are so benign, they can be swallowed with no adverse side effects.
This brings us to the real reason why homepathy MUST BE STAMPED OUT. It will cut into drug company sales and profits.
Posted by: squeakywheel | November 7, 2007 5:15 AM
I'm happy to stand corrected, Squeakywheel, but I thought one of the reasons Homeopaths argued that testing was too expensive for them was that Drug companies could afford to test their products against a placebo, a placebo being a treatment with no biological effect. If this isn't the case and orthodox drugs are largely placeboes, then why are their results much stronger than those for homeopathy?
Also wouldn't the fact that drugs have side effects suggest that they are biologically active and there's a lot more going on than a placebo effect?
I can see how you might want to argue that orthodox drugs are placeboes, or how orthodox drugs have dangerous side effects. I can't logically see how you can argue for both. Could you explain how this works?
I think you might also want to ponder the meaning of the term economically viable. I'm sure it's economically viable to leave a road accident victim to die, but I don't think that anyone would argue that's a Good Thing to do.
Finally, when you talk about sales and profits is the motivation to profit only on the side of Big Pharma? Are professional homeopaths and the companies which sell homeopathic products non-profit making?
Posted by: Alun | November 7, 2007 5:48 AM
When I hear someone say something like that about their favored woo, I know that they're such deluded True Believers that there's little point in dealing with them further.
I note that "squeaky wheel" still hasn't produced any positive evidence that homeopathy is anything other than a fancy placebo. No doubt his/her/its response now will either be to bloviate and dodge or to post some of the usual poor quality studies that homeopaths like to cite.
Posted by: Orac | November 7, 2007 7:08 AM
Well, no. Acupuncture is claimed to be effective for a vast range of conditions; for almost all of these, it's still considered quackery, on the rather simple basis that there's no evidence whatsoever of any benefit. The claimed underlying mechanism of acupuncture is still considered quackery, on the rather simple basis that there's no evidence whatsoever to support it.
And your evidence for this is...?
Well, yes. It's one of the common characteristics of liquids containing no active ingredients that they tend not to have any effects, 'side' or otherwise.
Idiot! Do you have any idea how many medical researchers there are in the US alone? How many you need to dismiss as dishonest, ignorant or incompetent to explain the dearth of support for your quackery of choice? If the only way you can defend your position is by slandering people who, by and large, are doing their bit to improve humanity's lot, then it would behoove you to consider the possibility that your position is utterly bereft of merit.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 7:48 AM
Hey, no slander there, just economic reality. Medical practice is dominated by the drug industry, this is just a fact of life. Anything that is bad for drug sales is shall we say, "discouraged".
When drug companies do a study showing that placebo beats their drug, they just hide the study in the file cabinet, do more studies until they get the "right" results, then ghost write it into a major journal, get FDA approval, and PRESTO, all the GP's are pushing placebos on the population.
Works for the drug companies, and it works for homeopathy only cheaper.
Posted by: squeakywheel | November 7, 2007 8:41 AM
HOW? Do they bribe or threaten every medical student in universities, all the doctors who just want to help people, yadda yadda yadda? That's a LOT of people all over the world. It'd be almost utterly impossible to prevent a leak.
Seems quacks of all stripes try to do that. It'd also require silencing all the people involved in the negative studies. Again, that's a lot of people, all over the world.
That's the problem: It doesn't work. Homeopaths can't get away with their consistent failure. They can't even get the balls to take on James Randi for a million dollars to do something even less of what we demand of drug companies.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 7, 2007 9:46 AM
HOW? Do they bribe or threaten every medical student in universities, all the doctors who just want to help people, yadda yadda yadda? That's a LOT of people all over the world. It'd be almost utterly impossible to prevent a leak.
take a look at the leaked Zyprexa documents for an inside look at the "HOW"
Posted by: squeakywheel | November 7, 2007 10:52 AM
And you've just proven my point: If the drug companies do something dishonest, there will be a leak. You're asking me to believe that they can operate routinely without any leaks.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 7, 2007 10:59 AM
A single drug company wouldn't be able to 'stamp out' homeopathy on its own. Even if there were a conspiracy between all drug companies, and even if every single person involved was corrupt, dishonest, or for some other reason unwilling to leak, that would still leave academia. After all, it's not like it's the drug companies which are saying that homeopathy doesn't work. It's the general consensus of the medical community as a whole. That's a lot of people who have to be dishonest, corrupt, ignorant, blackmailed, or whatever.
So yes, the idea that the medical community rejects homeopathy not on its merits but for economic reasons is indeed slander on a grand scale.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 11:10 AM
Pelican's Point said "The x is a dilution factor. The idea is that you take a tincture of the medicine prepared according to the founding texts on homeopathy.
You put one drop of that in a quantity of either water or alcohol depending on solubility. As it was explained to me by a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies several years ago, I think the ratio is 1000 to 1. "
Close, but not quite. The "X" is a 1 in 10 dilution (X = 10), so any dilution between 1X to about 23X would actually have molucules of the particular remedy in the solution.
The 1 in 100 dilution factor is "C", so any dilution between 1C and 12C would have a molecule of the remedy in the solution. A very common homeopathic dilution is "30C", which is a solution that would require the oceans of several Earth-like planets to prepare in order to have one molecule of the remedy. On Usenet there is a "recipe" for 30C Nat Mur (salt diluted to 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ratio):
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/8e13fd1b374ce84b
The 1 in 1000 dilution factor is noted with "M". That is not seen often.
Hey, Squeakywheel... I have a kid with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who takes generic Atenolol every day (about $4/month) to reduce the pressure across his already damaged mitral valve. What homeopathic preparation would be just as effective and cheaper to deal with that genetic heart anomaly (which is one of the more common of about a half dozen reasons that adolescents sometimes suffer from "sudden cardiac death")?
Posted by: HCN | November 7, 2007 11:12 AM
Many years ago I used to think there was something to homeopathy; I thought it was traditional herbal remedies.
When I read what it actually was (water memory!?) I realized I could reasonably dismiss it all as pure crap.
BTW how do you get water to only remember one of all the substances it has been exposed to?
Posted by: khan | November 7, 2007 11:28 AM
Squeakywheel, if proving that a medicine works is simply a matter of cycling the tests until a result beats the placebo then are you saying this is how homeopaths get their positive results too? Is it possible you may have misunderstood what a placebo is?
I ask as the documents you link to would suggest that Zyprexa has a biological effect, which would also indicate it's not a placebo. I'm still confused as to how a placebo could be biologically active. If the drugs were as ineffectual as you claim surely there wouldn't be side-effects?
Posted by: Alun | November 7, 2007 12:05 PM
Her thymus gland, a part of the immune system, had shrunk after originally being in good condition.
Two questions: When and why was her thymus checked and found to be in good condition, and what sort of common microrganism causes the thymus to shrink like this?
Is there more to the story or have I missed something?
Notmercury--the pathologist looked at the thymus gland and saw stress involution. A response of a functioning gland that was presented with a severe stressor (such as sepsis) and was unable to cope. It's "burned out" in the lingo, trying to keep up with the overwhelming infection.
Any bacterial sepsis can have this effect. H. flu, Staph. aureus, P. pneumioniae, Streptococci, you name it. You can tell in the post-mortem examination. BTW, I've done around 1,300 pms, and approximately 10% were infants.
Posted by: William the Coroner | November 7, 2007 12:24 PM
Thank you William the Coroner.
Posted by: notmercury | November 7, 2007 1:06 PM
[irony]I highly recommend this video of James Randi explaining the magic of homeopathy.[/irony]
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 7, 2007 3:26 PM
SqueekyWheel,
The problem with the medical field in this country is not the drug companies...
It's the insurance companies. Have you seen the returns for those investments?
Metta.
Posted by: Rjaye | November 7, 2007 4:18 PM
Sure homepathy is the wrong treatment for this unfortunate kid who died of septicemia. Digitalis for pulmonary edema when its not pulmonary edema (actually pneumonia) on the chest film is also the wrong treatment which can kill from dig toxicity and untreated rampaging pneumonia. So, does that mean allopathic medicine should be banned and "laws passed " to protect the public from docs who mistake pulmonary edema for pneumonia? No, of course not. We have other ways of dealing with it.
Posted by: Limpi-Tor | November 7, 2007 5:36 PM
Hee, hee! Actually, Patrick, I agree. My comment was intended only to provide a useful link to the Lancet survey of homeopathy studies. The accompanying remark was intended only in jest. Belief in homeopathy is a condition for which there is no known cure.
Posted by: jre | November 7, 2007 5:50 PM
Limpi-Tor, can you explain what homeopathy is the RIGHT treatment for anything that is not self-limiting?
Really, check out the video posted by Robster just a couple posts above yours.
Posted by: HCN | November 7, 2007 6:04 PM
The classic homeopathic tale:
"Homeopathy can treat serious conditions like diseasonitis!"
Kid treated for diseasonitis with homeopathy dies horribly.
"No one anywhere ever said that homeopathy was of any use for diseasonitis! It's only good for small stuff that goes away on it's own! Homeopathy can't treat anything life-threatening!"
Next week: "Homeopathy can treat serious conditions like diseasonitis!"
Possible side events: Skeptical blogger gets censored by a bunch of Society of Homeopath thugs for suggesting that homeopaths enforce codes of conduct against claiming cures when one of their own violates the code of conduct.
Meanwhile, homeopaths have yet to prove they can tell the difference between a homeopathically treated pill and one sham-treated with normal water/alcohol/whatever. Still other homeopaths talk about the dangers of overdosing on their sleep remedies while skeptics can publicly guzzle them down in large quantities without fear.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 7, 2007 9:11 PM
Oh Squeakywheel, why won't you answer my question?
What magical power does homeopathy have for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
This also goes for Mr/Ms Limpi-Tor. Where was pulmonary edema or pnuemonia ever mentioned in this case?
Where is homeopathy ever the preferred treatment for a NON-self-limiting condition ever preferred?
I mean what homeopathic treatment is better for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? Or for strep throat? Or for bacterial pneumonia? Or for tuberculosis? Or for Haemophilus influenzae type b bacteria? Or for Bordetella pertussis? Or for cholera? (wait, unfair... cholera can actually be treated with plenty of fluids, something homeopathy does not lack!) Or for syphilis? Or for Pasteurella pestis (bubonic plague)? Or for hypertension? Or for lymphoma?
Come on! Give us the answers!
Posted by: HCN | November 8, 2007 12:36 AM
Alun asked:
No. Not even close.
Posted by: qetzal | November 8, 2007 12:39 AM
squeakywheel wrote:
How much do you know about the IND process? Are you aware that you are required by law to submit an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA before you begin testing a new drug in people in the US? Are you also aware that you are required to inform the FDA of every clinical study you do on that drug? Every single one?
In fact, you have to submit a detailed written protocol for every clinical study, covering pretty much everything you plan to do in that study. And if you change the protocol, you have to submit the changes to FDA. And you have to send them annual reports, telling them how many people you've treated in every single study that year, and summarizing what you found. And then later, when you ask them to approve your new drug, they expect you to provide a very detailed report of all the results of every one of those clinical studies (not to mention all the animal studies, etc.).
So, do you think the drug companies are hiding these studies from FDA as well? How do they do that? Do they do all the studies first, decide which ones are good, and then pretend to do them all over again? Because FDA really doesn't like it if you tell them "Hey, here are the results of a bunch of clinical studies we did over the past 3-5 years. We neglected to mention any of them before, but the results are really good, so can you please approve our drug now?" Remember, FDA wants you to tell them about each study before you start it. But you can't do that if you don't know in advance which ones you need to hide from them.
Unless, of course, FDA is in on this vast conspiracy. But if that's the case, why would Pharma do all these studies at all? They could just fabricate some imaginary clinical data, tuck a nice fat envelope of cash between pages 200-201, submit the 'data' to FDA with a wink, get a guaranteed approval, and start raking in profits.
There must be 300 document links on that site. Any chance you could narrow it down a bit? Tell me which one or two or even ten are the most incriminating. Otherwise, it's a bit like me telling you to read the US Code of Federal Regulations if you don't believe my statements about INDs and FDA. (Except that, unlike your site, the CFR has nice descriptive titles and is searchable.)
Posted by: qetzal | November 8, 2007 1:31 AM
If the FDA was in on it, there'd be no need for the song and dance except to type up fake studies: They could operate just like any profitable altie company. They'd just have government approval, and the savings from not having to do tests would be a nice bonus.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 8, 2007 7:38 AM
Alun, about your question: "Are the companies which sell homeopathic products non-profit making?" Here in Europe some are listed, see for instance Laboratoires Boiron
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiron
Sales keep growing, net results went down in recent years during a buying spree and new ventures abroad. Debt fully repaid in 2006, record profit expected for 2007.
Not in the Big Pharma league, but a "multinationale" all the same and doing quite nicely
sylvie c.
Posted by: sylvie coyaud | November 8, 2007 8:41 AM
789,936 real deaths per year by medicine:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm
Not familiar with the magazine (I just googled leading causes of death) but the references at the end are from well respected, peer reviewed medical journals.
Poor judgement and mistakes are part of life does this make medicine quackery?
Posted by: Vanodorf | November 8, 2007 11:58 AM
Really, dude, using Gary Null and Life Extension magazine as sources? I somewhat suspect they might have an agenda.......
Posted by: dr. luba | November 8, 2007 12:49 PM
Since when do infrastructural problems like malpractice and such have anything to do with scientific problems?
That's like claiming the entire theory of flight is wrong because there are some pilots who make mistakes.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 8, 2007 1:31 PM
I referred to the references and not the article itself.
Here are some original articles published in well respected, peer reviewed medical journals:
1. Barbara Starfield. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? JAMA. 2000;284:483-485.
2. Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet. 1998;351:643-644.
3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.
[2] and [3] are available free on-line, I believe. I quote from [1]:
>>
12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery
7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
80,000 deaths/year from nosocomical infections in hospitals
106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications
The numbers, esp. the last one, are still pretty mind-numbing.
Hope this clarifies my earlier posting.
Posted by: Vanodorf | November 8, 2007 3:58 PM
Those mostly have to do with Adverse Drug Reactions, which means that people do have problems with real drugs that have real biological effects on people.
What does that have to do with homeopathy?
Are you saying that homeopathy is safer because it is impossible for homeopathic remedies to have any kind of biological effect? Is homeopathy safer because it does nothing?
I can get some of the studies of Adverse Drug Effects may be problems with antibiotics because of allergies, stomach problems, yeast growth and other things (the IV giving my newborn antibiotics had to be moved every day because it irritated the area it was in, fortunately after being put in both legs and arms, he was removed from IV antibiotics before they had to put on the top of his head). Would a person infected with a bacterial infection be better off with homeopathy than antibiotics?
Can you give us the studies that show specifically how much better homeopathy is for strep, staph, or other bacterial infections like syphilis (which is something Hahnemann claimed to be able to cure)?
As noted by William the Coroner's message, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/11/a_real_death_by_homeopathy.php#comment-629385 , there is a high probability the child had sepsis. So your answer on how homeopathy is a better treatment for bacterial infections is very pertinent to this discussion.
Posted by: HCN | November 8, 2007 4:21 PM
Vanodorf:
Is your point simply that conventional drugs and medical practices have risks? Granted.
Or is your point that conventional drugs and medical practices have risks, therefore homeopathy has merit? In that case, please brush up on your logic.
Posted by: qetzal | November 8, 2007 4:39 PM
Surprise surprise, the studies that find positive outcomes for homeopathic remedies are commonly done by committed homeopaths, and funded by homeopathy companies.
But... isn't this exactly the same "funder bias" they routinely flay mainstream medicine and science for? It is? Fascinating... But... don't the homeopathy companies have to submit their trial data to an independent regulator to get approval for the drug before selling it? They don't? Not at all? Seriously? No oversight? You mean... they can just publish in a dyed-on-the-wool journal of alternative medicine, where the data is "peer reviewed" by other people who explicitly believe homeopathy works? Doesn't that mean the homeopaths don't have to do any of the controls sceptical mainstream scientist reviewers would ask for? It does mean that? Right.
Yep. Sounds like a nice racket.
Or Alternative-Illuminati Conspiracy. Take your pick.
By the way, following on from Sylvie Coyaud's link to the French "Homeopathic Pharmaceutical" company Boiron, it is worth mentioning that Boiron has had a hand in several of the most high profile "proof that homeopathy works" stories. Phillipe Belon, who was one of the co-authors on the original (infamous?) Jacques Benveniste 1988 homeopathy paper in Nature, later became research director of Boiron. Belon is also an author on the work of Madeleine Ennis and co-authors that is regularly cited by homeopaths as "proof that ultra-high dilutions have biological effects".
Incidentally, one of the things that doomed Benveniste (in addition to the shoddy procedures in his lab, debunked by Nature editor John Maddox, Walter Stewart of the NIH and James Randi) was the discovery that two of the key members of his group were enthusiastic believers in homeopathy whose salaries were funded (unacknowledged in the original paper) by..... Boiron.
Errm... you mean there was hidden conflict of interest? But ... isn't that just what the Alties always accuse mainstream medicine of...? (etc etc)
Boiron makes the laughable (though highly profitable) "20 million dollar duck" homeopathic cold remedy Oscillococcinum. Oscillococcinum is made from extract of the liver of one unlucky duck, diluted 100 to the power of thirty times (sic). Thats diluted by a factor of one in 10^60. Count the molecules of solvent... but you may run out of universe first.
I guess it's a smart way to keep the cost of raw materials and R&D down. Boiron may only have 2% of the global sales of a big pharma like AstraZeneca, but that still means they sell 600 million ish dollars worth of product a year. Ker-chingg.
Posted by: Dr Aust | November 8, 2007 5:14 PM
There are well-recognised issues of over-prescribing certain drugs for certain things for certain patient groups - e.g. it can be argued that elderly people get a lot of GI bleeding problems from non-steroidal anti-inflammatories that they might not have needed to take - but antibiotics for a serious systemic infection is surely one of medicine's most complete no-brainers.
Should say that I am a bioscience PhD, not an MD (that's my wife's paying gig) but it seems pretty likely that the kid in the story had nasty eczema that got infected, which then proceeded to systemic infection and then to sepsis and organ failure that killed her. A very avoidable tragedy if they had gone to a conventional doctor, or certainly to a dermatologist who would likely have recognised the problem easily and treated the infected eczema with antibiotics.
BTW, I know a young adult who got hospitalised aged 20ish by systemic consequences of untreated infected eczema. Luckily she got appropriate treatment (prompt antibiotics and inpatient care), and following her recovery a referral to a dermatologist specialising in eczema who taught her how to manage her eczema properly.
Posted by: Dr Aust | November 8, 2007 5:35 PM
In addition to the inherent risks in doing anything medical that have been pointed out, it should be noted that absolute numbers are large because lots of people use real medicine.
But real medicine at least has a favorable risk/benefit ratio. Homeopathy has no detectable benefit, and it comes with the various risks of inaction. Homeopathy is doing nothing. That's what they want us to do: Nothing.
Real medicine risks lives, but it saves so many more who could not survive on their own. We're doing everything we can to cut down on the risks, but homeopaths would rather we just give up and go to 3rd world status, rather than engage in a risk.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 8, 2007 6:27 PM
So, do you think the drug companies are hiding these studies from FDA as well?
No, they just hide them from the American public, until forced out in the open by litigation.
What magical power does homeopathy have for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
None that I know of, on the other hand beta blockers don't have any magical powers to change the underlying defect which is a mutation in one of four genes that encode proteins of the cardiac sarcomere: the β-myosin heavy-chain, cardiac troponin T, α-tropomyosin, and myosin-binding protein C genes.
Since there are 50 different genetic variations, drug treatment is empiric. Some drugs help, some don't. Only way to find out is to try them. This is also true for homeopathy.
There is no evidence that either beta-blockers or verapamil protects patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from sudden death. This is the same for homeopathy, no evidence homeopathy pretects from sudden death, either.
Posted by: squeakywheel | November 8, 2007 6:41 PM
Hey, Sylvie -- thanks for that pointer!
And let's not forget that Laboratoires Boiron is also home to the Million Dollar Goose.
Posted by: jre | November 8, 2007 6:43 PM
Squeakywheel said "There is no evidence that either beta-blockers or verapamil protects patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from sudden death."
It reduces the pressure across the mitral valve, this is evidenced by the the every 6 month appointment for monitoring by the cardiologist. There is an avoidence of high heart rates in exercising because that could cause obstruction of the mitral valve.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? It looks that you actually looked at the data (but fluxed up the conclusions).
Something like:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/7/1680? which says "In obstructive HCM, negative inotropic agents (ß-blockers,154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 calcium antagonists,49 50 163 164 165 166 167 168 and disopyramide8 169 170 171 172 ) have been used to decrease the degree of outflow obstruction. In our experience, ß-blockers are especially effective in latent obstruction and to some extent in mild resting obstruction but tend to be less effective in the more severe degrees of obstruction,8 159 although others have reported more favorable results.154 155 156 158 160"
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=10089842&dopt=AbstractPlus
(there are more recent papers that seem to show other medications, and that there is still sudden death, but not as much as before)
And the question was how is homeopathy BETTER than atenolol. You seem to have conceded that homeopathy would not be at all effective. But you decided to try to poison the well by claiming conventional medicine is also not effective. Which was just silly.
Posted by: HCN | November 8, 2007 7:37 PM
I was just trying to place "a" death from homeopathy in the context of 106,000 deaths from adverse drug reactions.
Now that I have been "outed" as a homeopathic sympathizer here are the facts as I know them:
1. Nobody knows how homeopathy works. Worse, it goes against current understandings of physics and biology. This is, unquestionably, the biggest obstacle in gaining wider acceptance. It won't be the first time something works before the underlying principle is discovered though. The Wright brothers managed to fly their airplanes with no knowledge of the Bernoulli principle, the connection was not made until 30 years later.
2. Like everything else, there is good homeopathy and bad homeopathy (and many bad homeopaths). Still in the fringes, it tends to attract a good following of quacks and "homeopathic fundamentalists"
3. A good homeopathic prescription is individualized to the patient (not the diagnosis) so it works quite different from traditional medicine. Medical studies, structured around the diagnosis and broad action of traditional medicines, have for that reason difficulty capturing its curative effects. I believe, however, that it's matter of time before a properly structured, rigorous study will be able to demonstrate its effectiveness.
4. Good homeopathy is very difficult to practice and the truly good homeopaths are few. There are over 1500 homeopathic medicines available and often a successful prescription can take several attempts at finding the right one.
I have personally experienced the success of homeopathy in our family, horse farm and small pets for over twenty years. In the case of one of the children, the success came after a week of hospitalization and batteries of tests. With no diagnosis and a rapidly advancing paralysis of the lower limbs we resorted to a (good) homeopath. The improvement started almost immediately and within a week the cure was complete. Placebo? We routinely treat colic, a rapidly advancing and life threatening condition, in our horses. Sometimes it takes a few attempts to refine the prescription and bring about relief. And we always keep the local vet's number handy. Coincidence? Spontaneous remission? After personally witnessing the cause-and-effect too many times to make it statistically plausible one has to look beyond.
Not a scientific proof but a personal experience that as an honest observer I cannot deny even as I cannot explain ...
Posted by: Vanodorf | November 8, 2007 8:06 PM
I feel that because Vanodorf and squeakywheel find that real medicine has risks, and sometimes does not work and is in general not perfect that they would be perfectly happy to have us forego anything but homeopathy.
Basically getting us back to the "good ol' days" of 1830 in terms of medical care. Just treat the symptoms with magic water, and ignore finding out what is actually wrong.
This is how Baby Gloria was treated, and we all know how well that worked.
Oh, must point out this bit of Vanadorf sillyness "The Wright brothers managed to fly their airplanes with no knowledge of the Bernoulli principle, the connection was not made until 30 years later."
That is a bunch of bullocks. The Bernoulli book "Hydrodynamica" was published in the mid 1700s (predating even Hahnemann's magic water). The Wright brothers built and used a wind tunnel to test their wing sections. They conducted experiments, read aeronautical papers and even wrote several. Here is one of those papers that they presented: http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Aeronautical.html
Posted by: HCN | November 8, 2007 8:31 PM
WRONG! The biggest obstacle to acceptability is that you haven't been able to prove that it works under unbiased, controlled conditions. That's why we push for double-blind clinical studies. They're designed to remove biases and other distorting factors.
Note on personal experience: How the hell do you eliminate bias in such uncontrolled conditions? All sorts of alternate explanations can creep in under sloppy conditions. Placebo effect, self-limiting nature of disease, regressive fallacy, confirmation bias, cherrypicking, subjective validation, and so on and so forth. Living creatures don't just sit idle when they're faced with problems so that you can conveniently nail it down to your pet hypothesis. Life is a noisy procedure, and we have to limit that noise.
The easiest person to fool is yourself. That's why you have to undergo heavy bias-removal in the form of clinical trials. With personal experience, you have a habit to assume you're typical when you could be lucky.
You're thinking like the centuries-old allopaths, Vanodorf. Mankind largely abandoned allopathy for many of the same reasons we currently reject homeopathy. Bleeding, leeching, etcetera persisted because some lucky individuals survived to give good testimonials, and they had some simple, elegant (and, of course, wrong) principles that sound good to laymen.
Just like homeopathy. The only difference is that homeopathy is nearly incapable of direct harm, only the indirect harm associated with inaction.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 8, 2007 8:40 PM
That's why we push for double-blind clinical studies. They're designed to remove biases and other distorting factors.
Where is the initial double blind placebo controlled study that showed arthroscopy is beneficial for osteoarthrits before the tens of thousands of procedures that were done? Some brave soul revealed the truth that arthroscopy for osteoparthitis is a sham, mainly benefical for the operators bank account. How many other accepted procedures are being done today without DBPC studies, and how many of these will be revealed as shams? You name the number.
Posted by: