H ομοιοπαθητική και η μεγάλη πρόκληση των 1,000,000 δολαρίων

[Rose]

http://www.vithoulkas.com/en/research/clinical-trial-randi.html

http://tech.pathfinder.gr/xpaths/x-science/701666.html

Ο Γ. Βυθούλκας, ο J. Randi, η ομοιοπαθητική και η μεγάλη πρόκληση των 1,000,000 δολαρίων

Ένας μακρόχρονος αγώνας που αφορά στην εγκυρότητα της Ομοιοπαθητικής διεξάγεται μεταξύ ενός από τους διασημότερους ομοιοπαθητικούς και του πασίγνωστου κυνηγού ‘τσαρλατάνων’. Και ενώ έχουν περάσει πέντε χρόνια προετοιμασίας, τον Δεκέμβριο του 2008 η περίφημη πρόκληση της ομοιοπαθητικής συναντά μπροστά της εμπόδια που καθυστερούν τον αγώνα. Στη μια πλευρά βρίσκεται ο έλληνας ομοιοπαθητικός Γεώργιος Βυθούλκας, που η Διεθνής του Ακαδημία για την Κλασική Ομοιοπαθητική εδράζει στην Αλόννησο.

Η σκεπτικιστική πλευρά εκπροσωπείται από τον γνωστό αμερικανό ταχυδακτυλουργό και σκεπτικιστή James Randi, ο οποίος διευθύνει το επονομαζόμενο 'James Randi Educational Foundation' (Μορφωτικό Ίδρυμα του James Randi) που έχει την έδρα του στο Fort Lauderdale της Φλόριντα. Τόσο ο Βυθούλκας όσο και ο Randi είναι εξίσου παθιασμένοι με τις διαμετρικά αντίθετες οπτικές τους, χωρίς να δίνεται περιθώριο να συνεργαστούν τα δύο αυτά 'διάσημα πνεύματα'. Ο James Randi, στη 'σταυροφορία' του για να ξεσκεπάσει κάθε τσαρλατάνο ή ψευδοεπιστήμονα προσφέρει το χρηματικό έπαθλο του ενός εκατομμυρίου δολαρίων σε όποιον του αποδείξει πειραματικά πως ο σκεπτικισμός του απέναντι σε εναλλακτικές προσεγγίσεις στην ιατρική ή σε παραφυσικά φαινόμενα δεν ευσταθεί.

Εδώ και αρκετά χρόνια προσφέρει ο James Randi το ένα εκατομμύριο δολάρια σε οποιονδήποτε μπορεί να επιδείξει παραφυσικές ή υπερφυσικές δυνάμεις και φαινόμενα. Δικαιολογημένα θέτει πολύ αυστηρά κριτήρια και κανόνες για την πρόκληση αυτή και μέχρι στιγμής κανείς δεν έχει καταφέρει να περάσει ούτε καν τα προκαταρκτικά στάδια της διαδικασίας. Διάφοροι ψυχικοί, αστρολόγοι, αποκρυφιστές και ραβδοσκόποι έχουν προσπαθήσει να αναμετρηθούν με τον σκεπτικισμό του εδώ και πολλά χρόνια, γεμίζοντας τη λίστα των αποτυχημένων αιτήσεων που διατηρεί στην ιστοσελίδα του.

Όπως όλα τα μέλη της αδελφότητας των δύσπιστων, ο Randi είναι εναντίον της εναλλακτικής ιατρικής. Θεωρεί την ομοιοπαθητική ως ψευδοεπιστήμη και την κατηγοριοποιεί ως υπερφυσικό φαινόμενο γιατί οι ομοιοπαθητικοί χρησιμοποιούν ως φάρμακα ουσίες που αραιώνονται πέρα από τη σταθερά του Avogadro (οι ουσίες που χρησιμοποιούνται για την παρασκευή των  ομοιοπαθητικών φαρμάκων υφίστανται τόσο μεγάλη αραίωση που σε κάποια φάρμακα στο τέλος της αραίωσης η ποσότητα της ουσίας που παραμένει είναι σχεδόν ανύπαρκτη, δεν περιέχεται δηλαδή ούτε ένα μόριο της αρχικής ουσίας μέσα στο διάλυμα). Έτσι, σύμφωνα με τη συμβατική επιστήμη, τα φαρμακευτικά αυτά διαλύματα δε θα έπρεπε να έχουν κάποιο βιολογικό αποτέλεσμα. Ο Randi έχει συμμετάσχει σε αρκετές προσπάθειες απαξίωσης της ομοιοπαθητικής και είναι ένας από τους πιο αυστηρούς επικριτές της.

Μια ομάδα ομοιοπαθητικών υπό την ηγεσία του γνωστού έλληνα ομοιοπαθητικού Γεώργιου Βυθούλκα ξεκίνησε το 2003 τη διαδικασία για την προσπάθεια κατάκτησης του επάθλου των 1.000.000 δολαρίων από τον Randi. Ο Βυθούλκας ήταν σε μεγάλο βαθμό υπεύθυνος για την αναζωπύρωση του ενδιαφέροντος προς την κλασική ομοιοπαθητική στις δεκαετίες του '70 και του '80. Για τον Βυθούλκα, τα προηγούμενα πειράματα που είχαν σχεδιαστεί για να υποστηρίξουν την εγκυρότητα της ομοιοπαθητικής έπασχαν από κακό σχεδιασμό, κάτι το οποίο του δημιουργούσε ενόχληση. Ένα από αυτά τα αποτυχημένα πειράματα σχετιζόταν και με τον James Randi και παρουσιάστηκε στην τηλεόραση του BBC το 2003. Αυτό αποτέλεσε και μια εκ των κυριότερων ωθήσεων που έκανε τον Βυθούλκα να αποφασίσει να αντιπαραβάλλει την 40ετή του εμπειρία στην πρόκληση του Randi ώστε να ξεκαθαρίσει η υπόθεση.

Η αντιπροσωπεία του Randi κανονίστηκε να αποτελείται από μια ομάδα σκεπτικιστών. Αυτή η ομάδα μαζί με την ομάδα των ομοιοπαθητικών του Γ. Βυθούλκα ξεκίνησαν το 2003 τις διαδικασίες προετοιμασίας για το πείραμα. Επινοήθηκε ένα πρωτόκολλο από μια διεθνή ομάδα επιστημόνων και το πείραμα θα γινόταν σε ένα νοσοκομείο της Αθήνας. Το πείραμα συμπεριλάμβανε ομοιοπαθητικούς που θα εργαζόντουσαν υπό την εποπτεία του Βυθούλκα και ορισμένες εξατομικευμένες θεραπείες που προοριζόντουσαν για έναν αριθμό ασθενών και που θα γινόντουσαν με το πρότυπο της διπλής τυφλής μελέτης, κατά την οποία οι μισοί ασθενείς λαμβάνουν την δοκιμαζόμενη θεραπεία, ενώ οι υπόλοιποι λαμβάνουν θεραπεία placebo. (Σ' αυτό το πρότυπο διπλής τυφλής μελέτης, εξετάζεται κατά πόσον η δοκιμαζόμενη θεραπεία θα παρουσιάσει στατιστικά σημαντική διαφορά στη βελτίωση της υγείας των ασθενών εάν αντιπαραβληθεί με μια ομάδα ελέγχου στην οποία οι ασθενείς λαμβάνουν ένα φάρμακο που στην ουσία είναι κάποια ουδέτερη ουσία που δεν προκαλεί κάποιο βιολογικό ή θεραπευτικό αποτέλεσμα placebo).

Όλα έδειχνα πως έβαιναν καλώς όταν τον Αύγουστο του 2006 ο Βυθούλκας έλαβε ένα συμφωνητικό υπογεγραμμένο από τον Randi, στο οποίο δήλωνε πως ήταν ικανοποιημένος με το προτεινόμενο πρωτόκολλο. Ακόμα περισσότερο, δεν ζητούσε να γίνει κάποιος προκαταρκτικός έλεγχος, ένα στάδιο κατά το οποίο έχουν ήδη αποτύχει όλοι όσοι έχουν δεχθεί την πρόκληση του Randi. Ωστόσο, ο Randi στη συνέχεια καθυστέρησε την έναρξη του πειράματος επικαλούμενος λόγους υγείας και έλλειψη ικανοποιητικού κονδυλίου. Ο Βυθούλκας ζήτησε προφανώς από τον Randi να ορίσει κάποιον εκπρόσωπο εφόσον ο ίδιος θα απουσίαζε, κάτι που δεν έγινε δεκτό από τον Randi. Συμπλήρωσε, ότι χρειαζόταν έξι μήνες για να αναρρώσει από τα προβλήματα υγείας που αντιμετώπιζε.

Αυτή η περίοδος των έξι μηνών, σύμφωνα με τον Βυθούλκα, ήταν εξαιρετικής σημαντικότητας. Συνέπεσε με τον διορισμό του νέου Δημάρχου της Αθήνας που εγκατέστησε νέο πρόεδρο στην επιτροπή επιστημόνων και νέο πρόεδρο στο νοσοκομείο που επρόκειτο να διεξαχθεί το πείραμα. Ο Βυθούλκας ισχυρίζεται πως ο Randi γνώριζε για τις επικείμενες αλλαγές και πως καθυστέρησε επίτηδες τη διαδικασία του πειράματος ώστε να αποφύγει την πρόκληση. Μια πρόκληση που είχε τα προσόντα της αυστηρότερης και καλύτερα οργανωμένης προσπάθειας για να κατακτηθεί το έπαθλο του ενός εκατομμυρίου δολαρίων, από όσες είχαν μέχρι στιγμής προταθεί στον Randi. Έτσι, η ομάδα των ομοιοπαθητικών πιστεύουν πως ο Randi έκανε πίσω γι' αυτόν ακριβώς το λόγο.

Μετά από 2 ακόμα χρόνια περαιτέρω διαπραγματεύσεων με τις νέες τοπικές αρχές, η ομάδα των ομοιοπαθητικών κατάφερε και πάλι να προχωρήσει τη διαδικασία στην Αθήνα και ξεκίνησε τις τελικές προετοιμασίες για το πείραμα. Τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2008, πραγματοποιήθηκε στην Ελλάδα μια διμερής συνάντηση μεταξύ δύο αντιπροσώπων του Randi, του Δρ. Menachem Oberbaum που θα ήταν ο επικεφαλής κριτής για το πείραμα και του κ. Βυθούλκα. Μετά και από αυτή τη συνάντηση η ομάδα των ομοιοπαθητικών θεώρησε πως όλα ήταν έτοιμα για να συνεχιστεί η διαδικασία αλλά βρέθηκαν μπροστά σε μια νέα έκπληξη. Τον Οκτώβριο του 2008, ένα μήνα μετά από την προαναφερθείσα συνάντηση, έλαβαν το ακόλουθο μήνυμα από τον Randi:

"Ξεχάστε όλη την προηγούμενη αλληλογραφία που ανταλλάξαμε για το ζήτημα. Αυτό που ισχύει είναι η παρούσα κατάσταση. Πρώτον, απαιτείται από τον Γεώργιο Βυθούλκα να συντάξει μία κανονική, σωστά συμπληρωμένη αίτηση και να την υποβάλλει όπως απαιτείται από τον καθένα να κάνει. Εφόσον ληφθεί, θα προχωρήσουμε όπως και με κάθε άλλη συνήθη αίτηση, με τις ρυθμίσεις, συμπεριλαμβανόμενης της απαίτησης για το προκαταρκτικό στάδιο."

Αυτή η νέα τροπή των γεγονότων εκνεύρισε δικαιολογημένα τον Γιώργο Βυθούλκα, εφόσον είχαν ήδη περάσει 5 χρόνια εργασίας επάνω στο ζήτημα. Τα πράγματα έγιναν χειρότερα, όταν ο Randi ισχυρίστηκε στην ιστοσελίδα του ότι η ομάδα των ομοιοπαθητικών αποσύρθηκε από το πείραμα. Αυτή η κατηγορία αμφισβητήθηκε έντονα από τον Γ. Βυθούλκα.

Φαίνεται όμως πως δεν έχουν χαθεί όλα, εκτός ίσως από το ένα εκατομμύριο δολάρια. Το πείραμα πιθανώς μπορεί ακόμα να προχωρήσει με τη συμμετοχή των σκεπτικιστών Alec Gindis και Hrasko Gabor που αρχικά αντιπροσώπευαν τον Randi. Προφανώς θέλουν να δουν ποια θα είναι η κατάληξη αυτής της μακρόχρονης διαδικασίας. Επίσης, ο Βυθούλκας εξακολουθεί να ενδιαφέρεται για τη διεξαγωγή του πειράματος, καθώς πιστεύει σθεναρά ότι το σωστό είδος πειράματος μπορεί να αποδείξει στους επικριτές της ότι η ομοιοπαθητική θεραπεία έχει όντως βιολογικό αποτέλεσμα.

Μια πλήρη αναφορά της ιστορίας, μπορεί να διαβάσει κανείς (στα αγγλικά) στην ιστοσελίδα του Γιώργου Βυθούλκα.

James Randi

Ο James Randi είναι συνταξιούχος επαγγελματίας ταχυδακτυλουργός (αποκαλείται συχνά 'Ο Καταπληκτικός Randi'), συγγραφέας, ομιλητής και ερασιτέχνης αρχαιολόγος και αστρονόμος. Γεννήθηκε το 1928 στο Τορόντο του Καναδά, όπου και τελείωσε το Γυμνάσιο. Είναι σκεπτικιστής και υποστηρικτής της επιστημονικής μεθοδολογίας, ενώ είναι ευρέως γνωστός ως αμφισβητίας των παραφυσικών ισχυρισμών και της ψευδοεπιστήμης. Ξεκίνησε την καριέρα του ως επαγγελματίας μάγος, αλλά όταν συνταξιοδοτήθηκε στα 60 του χρόνια ξεκίνησε να ερευνά το πεδίο των παραφυσικών φαινομένων, τον αποκρυφισμό και τους ισχυρισμούς για υπερφυσικές δυνάμεις.

Αν και συχνά τον αναφέρουν ως άνθρωπο που απομυθοποιεί, ο Randi αποποιείται τον χαρακτηρισμό, περιγράφοντας τον εαυτό του ως ερευνητή. Έχει γράψει για τα παραφυσικά φαινόμενα, για τον σκεπτικισμό και για την ιστορία της μαγικής τέχνης. Έχει ιδρύσει το James Randi Educational Foundation και προσφέρει το έπαθλο του ενός εκατομμυρίου δολαρίων σε οποιονδήποτε μπορεί να επιδείξει αποδείξεις για παραφυσικά, υπερφυσικά και αποκρυφιστικά φαινόμενα ή δυνάμεις, κάτω από συνθήκες ελέγχου που θα έχουν οριστεί από κοινού κι από τις δύο πλευρές. Για την ώρα, κανείς δεν έχει καταφέρει να κερδίσει το έπαθλο και η πρόκληση του Randi θα διακοπεί τον Μάρτιο του 2010. Τα χρήματα που προοριζόντουσαν να διατεθούν για το σκοπό αυτό, θα χρησιμοποιηθούν για άλλα προγράμματα, η φύση των οποίων θα ανακοινωθεί όταν διακοπεί η πρόκληση, τον Μάρτιο του ερχόμενου έτους.

Γεώργιος Βυθούλκας

Ο Γιώργος Βυθούλκας γεννήθηκε στην Αθήνα το 1932 και ασχολείται με την ομοιοπαθητική για πάνω από 40 χρόνια. Σπούδασε την ομοιοπαθητική στη Νότια Αφρική και το 1966 έλαβε δίπλωμα ομοιοπαθητικής από το Ινδικό Ινστιτούτο Ομοιοπαθητικής. Μετά από την απόκτηση του διπλώματος επέστρεψε στην Ελλάδα όπου και άσκησε την Κλασική Ομοιοπαθητική, καθώς επίσης ξεκίνησε να την διδάσκει σε ιατρούς σε ένα κέντρο στην Αθήνα, που τελικά ονομάσθηκε Κέντρο Ομοιοπαθητικής Ιατρικής. Το 1972 ξεκίνησε ένα ελληνικό περιοδικό για την ομοιοπαθητική. Το 1976 οργάνωσε το πρώτο από μια σειρά ετήσιων διεθνών ομοιοπαθητικών σεμιναρίων. Το 1994 ίδρυσε την Διεθνή Ακαδημία Κλασικής Ομοιοπαθητικής στην Αλόννησο, που παρέχει μεταπτυχιακή εκπαίδευση στο πεδίο της ομοιοπαθητικής.

Ο Γ. Βυθούλκας έχει γράψει μια πλειάδα βιβλίων για το αντικείμενο της ομοιοπαθητικής, δύο εκ των οποίων ('Ομοιοπαθητική, η Ιατρική του Νέου Ανθρώπου' και 'η Επιστήμη της Ομοιοπαθητικής') έχουν μεταφρασθεί σε άλλες γλώσσες. Στις προθέσεις του είναι να συγγράψει ένα μεγάλο έργο, το Materia Medica Viva, που θα αποτελεί ένα βιβλίο αναφοράς στις ομοιοπαθητικές θεραπείες και θα φτάσει τους 16 τόμους όταν ολοκληρωθεί, ενώ ήδη έχει εκδοθεί ο πρώτος τόμος. Συγχρόνως, έχει δημοσιεύσει πολλά άρθρα σε ομοιοπαθητικά περιοδικά και έχει αναπτύξει ένα έμπειρο σύστημα για να το χρησιμοποιούν όσοι ασκούν την ομοιοπαθητική ώστε να επιλέγουν θεραπείες για τους ασθενείς τους.

Έχει τιμηθεί με ποικίλες διακρίσεις. Τον Δεκέμβριο του 1996 τιμήθηκε στο Σουηδικό Κοινοβούλιο με το βραβείο Right Livelihood Award (Εναλλακτικό βραβείο Νόμπελ), που σύμφωνα με την σχετική αναφορά στην ιστοσελίδα του, το σκεπτικό του βραβείου είναι ότι:

απονέμεται για την εξαίρετη προσφορά του στην αναμόρφωση της Ομοιοπαθητικής γνώσης, έτσι ώστε να πάρει την θέση της σαν επιστήμη, και για τις ακούραστες προσπάθειες του στο να εκπαιδεύσει γιατρούς με τα υψηλότερα στάνταρ, ώστε η ομοιοπαθητική να θεωρείται σήμερα μέσα στον επιστημονικό χώρο σαν μια αποτελεσματική θεραπευτική μέθοδος.

[Rose]

http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/use-of-homeopathy-in-pediatric-oncology-in-germany-2/

Use of Homeopathy in Pediatric Oncology in Germany
Hpathy Ezine, June, 2011

Author: Alfred Laengler
A research paper comparing the use and satisfaction levels of patients treated with homeopathy as compared to treatments with other non-homeopathic complementary and alternative methods, esp. in pediatric cancers.

About the Authors:
Alfred LÀngler,1,2 Claudia Spix,3 Friedrich EdelhÀuser,2 Genn Kameda,1 Peter Kaatsch,3 and Georg Seifert4
1Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Herdecke, Gerhard-Kienle-Weg 4, 58313 Herdecke, Germany
2University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany
3German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR), The Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics (IMBEI), University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany
4Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Otto Heubner Centre of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Charité-UniversitÀtsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
———————
Received 2 February 2010; Revised 24 March 2010; Accepted 10 September 2010
Copyright © 2011 Alfred LÀngler et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reprinted from : Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 867151, 7 pages
doi:10.1155/2011/867151

Abstract

Homeopathy is a frequently used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment. We present results comparing responses of homeopathy users (HUs) and users of other forms of CAM (NHUs) in pediatric oncology (PO) in Germany. Differences between these two groups (usage, associated demographic characteristics, previous experience with CAM) are investigated. 186 (45.2%) of the 367 CAM users were exposed to homeopathy. The treatment duration amounted to a median of 601 days for HUs and 282 days for NHUs. Parents with p (127; 76.5%) also used homeopathy for their child’s cancer. Nonmedical practitioners played a considerably greater role as source of information than did treating physician. In the majority HUs received their prescriptions from nonmedical practitioners (56%; 29.4% of NHUs). HUs communicate more frequently with their physicians about the CAM-use (77.7% versus 65.2%) and recommend CAM more often than NHUs (94% versus 85.6%). Homeopathy is the most frequently used CAM treatment in PO in Germany. HUs sustain treatment and therapies considerably longer than NHUs. Most families who had used homeopathy before their child was diagnosed with cancer also used homeopathy for the treatment of their child’s cancer. Compared to other CAM treatments, patient satisfaction with homeopathy appears to be very high.

1. Introduction

Complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) are frequently used in the treatment of acute and chronic disease both in Germany and worldwide. This applies equally to adults [1-3] and children [1-4]. Published data on the frequency of CAM used specifically in pediatric oncology is available in the form of usually smaller single-centre studies [5-14]. A parent survey on use of CAM in pediatric oncology published by us involved 1595 parents and is both the most extensive and the only population-based study of this kind in the international literature to date. This survey showed that CAM was used by 35% of the 1063 patients whose parents participated in the study [15]. An exploratory multiple analysis showed that the following factors had a significant influence on the probability of CAM use (in order of importance): earlier experience of CAM (OR = 4.72, ), diagnosis with poor prognosis (OR = 1.63, ), child died before the survey (OR = 1.97, ), and higher social status (OR = 1.44, ). Despite the dispute concerning homoeopathy [16], we assume a growing number of patients using homoeopathy in pediatric oncology. Therefore, it is of interest to examine the use of homoeopathy and user profiles among children with oncological malignancies in Germany.

No studies on the use of homeopathy in pediatric oncology have been published to date. With the exception of a few supportive indications, homeopathic medication in pediatric oncology is used as an adjunct to conventional medicine. Homoeopathy is a well-known system of medicine that follows the “principle of similar” which treats “like with like” with potentized substances at a dilution level far beyond the Avogadro number. The majority of homoeopathic remedies are made from natural substances (e.g., plants, minerals, or animals). Two large and methodologically sophisticated epidemiological studies on the use of homeopathy in children in Germany were recently published [17, 18]. Homeopathy is prescribed both by doctors and by nonmedical practitioners (“Heilpraktiker,” naturopaths, chiropractors, etc.) and also used as self-medication [19, 20]. The publications on the use of CAM in pediatric oncology show consistently that homeopathy plays a significant role in many developed countries as well as in other countries such as India, for example.

In this retrospective, representative, and population-based parent survey, we compared the group of homeopathy users (Hus) with the users of other CAM therapies (NHUs) to establish whether there are any differences between these two groups with regard to patterns of CAM-use, the attending circumstances, or previous experience of CAM.

2. Patients and Methods

The postal survey sent to parents was carried out in 2004 in collaboration with the Deutsche Kinderkrebsregister (GCCR) (German Childhood Cancer Registry). The study population included all parents in Germany with a child (under the age of 15 years) diagnosed in 2001 with one of the diseases registered and systematically recorded by the GCCR. At least 95% of all German cases of childhood cancer are registered in the GCCR. Exclusion criteria were death within the first 8 weeks after diagnosis and development of a second cancer. The survey was conducted in coordination with all German hospitals that had treated children with leukemia and cancer in the year 2001 and had reported to the GCCR. The hospitals were permitted to exclude individual patients from the survey (stating reasons if possible). The selected families were sent the questionnaire by mail. The list of alternative and complementary treatment methods given in the questionnaire was as comprehensive as possible in order to obtain as realistic as possible a picture of the different methods used. The systematically developed German language questionnaire for parents was based on data published on this topic to date, our own clinical experience, and the experience obtained from a pilot survey [21].
Among other things, the questionnaire provided an alphabetic list of 69 possible CAM treatments and therapies, of which “homeopathy” was one. Those CAM-users who named this category were defined as homeopathy users (Hus) and their data compared with those of the group of nonhomeopathy users (NHUs) (i.e., users of other forms of complementary or alternative medicine but not homeopathy) and examined with respect to patterns of CAM-use, attending circumstances, and previous experience of CAM.

All patients had received conventional treatment as well as the specified complementary treatments or therapies. Because we had no information from so-called “treatment refusers,” we are unable to comment on their use of complementary and alternative therapies. But “treatment refusers” are extremely rare in Germany. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Witten/Herdecke, Germany, and carried out in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki [22].

3. Statistical Analysis

This was not an analytical study and therefore results are presented primarily in the form of descriptive statistics, that is, percentages relating to the mostly categorical data collected. The basic percentages are supplemented by binomial 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) reflecting the precision of the estimate. The main measure is the comparison of percentages between the groups. Some of the more relevant differences between the HU and NHU groups were tested by the -test for homogeneity in tables. These tests should also be viewed as exploratory in nature, not confirmatory.

4. Results

4.1. CAM Use

Of the 1063 families who responded, 367 (35%, 95% CI (31.7%; 37.4%)) stated that they had used CAM in the course of their child’s illness. Of these 367 CAM users, 166 (45.2%) reported that they had used homeopathic medicines. This was thus the numerically largest group of CAM users. When asked for the “most important” CAM therapies used, 137 (37.3%) of all CAM-users reported that they had given homeopathic medicines (Table 1).



Table 1: The “most important” CAM treatment methods from the users’ viewpoint. Selection: treatment methods listed at least 10 times ( CAM-users; multiple answers possible).

The mean duration of use of homeopathic medicines was 601 days. The mean duration of use of all other CAM therapies was 282 days. These are lowest estimates, as in many cases, treatments were still ongoing at the time of the survey.

An analysis of the frequency of use of different CAM-therapies by diagnostic group on the basis of the diagnostic groups recorded in the GCCR did not show any particular concentration of homeopathy users in specific diagnostic groups (data not shown). A total of 396 (37.3%) of the survey participants had previous experience of CAM. This previous experience was most often with homeopathy (; multiple responses allowed). Of the 166 homeopathy users 127 (76.5%) had previous experience of homeopathy. A further 38 (22.9%) homeopathy users had no previous CAM experience. In the NHU group () on the other hand, none of the respondents had previous experience of homeopathy, 100 (49.8%) had previous experience of other CAM therapies and 98 (48.8%) had no previous CAM experience (not specified 3 (1.5%)) (Table 2). Comparison of these two groups with regard to their previous experience of homeopathy shows a highly significant difference ().



Table 2: Previous experience of CAM in the family before a child was diagnosed with cancer ( questionnaire participants).

There was no difference between the HU and NHU groups with regard to either the prognosis of the underlying disease or the attribute “death of the child before participation” (data not shown). The percentage of HUs with high social status was the same as in the group of NHUs (52% and 47.6%, resp.).

4.2. Attending Circumstances of CAM Use

Comparison between HUs and NHUs with regard to the reasons for using CAM showed that the categories “for physical stabilization” (77.7% versus 63.2%), “to enhance the immune system” (72.3% versus 61.2%), “to improve the tolerability of the conventional treatment” (58.4% versus 39.3%), and “for detoxification” (42.2% versus 19.9%) were named noticeably more often by HUs. The only category named more often by NHUs than HUs was “for relaxation” (21.4% versus 12.7%).

With regard to the sources of information on CAM the survey showed that for the HUs nonmedical practitioners played a considerably greater role than treating physicians (Figure 1). In the large majority of cases HUs received their prescriptions from nonmedical practitioners (56% versus 29.4% of NHUs). Self-medication played a lesser role for HUs than NHUs (13.8% versus 23.4%). The same holds for the social environment (28.9% versus 42.3%) (Figure 2).



Figure 1: Sources of information about CAM ( CAM-users; multiple answers possible). *Heilpraktiker: state registered, non-physician health care provider of CAM in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.



Figure 2: CAM-prescribers ( CAM-users; multiple answers possible).

The timing of CAM use in the course of the illness showed about the same distribution in both groups. In most cases CAM was used at the same time as the conventional treatment performed by the pediatric oncologist. 14% of the users had used, CAM only after the end of the conventional therapy.

[Rose]

4.3. Patterns of Communication

The percentage of families who spoke with their doctors about using CAM with their child was particularly high amongst the HUs. A total of 77.7% of the HUs spoke to a doctor about use of CAM compared with about two thirds of the NHUs (65.2%).

With regard to the doctors’ responses (“recommended,” “took note,” “advised against,” “do not know”) there were significant differences between the hospital doctors addressed by HUs and NHUs. 7.3% of the HU group reported that the hospital doctors approached by them had recommended use compared with 17.3% of the NHU group (). 72.7% of the hospital doctors of the HUs took note of the CAM use without comment compared with 55.5% of the doctors of NHUs while 20% of the hospital doctors of HUs advised against CAM use compared with 27.3% of doctors of NHUs. There was no identifiable difference between HUs and NHUs with regard to the reactions of the pediatricians or general practitioners addressed.

4.4. Hoped for and Experienced Effect

There was no essential difference between the two groups with regard to their basic conviction about the efficacy of CAM; before use 68% of the HUs and 59.2% of the NHUs were “absolutely sure” or “fairly sure” that CAM would have a positive impact on their child’s illness. However, the percentage of “doubters” was higher in the NHU group (31.8% versus 21.1%). In the NHU group, the parents’ assessments of the actual effect of homeopathy on their child’s illness showed no essential differences compared with their expectations (data not shown).

When asked about side-effects, 4.4% of all CAM users reported one nonspecific side-effect ( of 358 of CAM users answering this question, multiple responses were allowed). There were no significant differences between HUs and NHUs (data not shown).

The fundamentally positive attitude (hoped for and experienced effect) of all CAM users is reflected in the willingness of the parents to recommend CAM use to other parents in a similar situation: 89.4% of all CAM users would do this (94% of HUs, 85.6% of NHUs). It is not surprising that HUs would recommend homeopathy most often whereas in the case of NHUs homeopathy is only in 32nd place amongst the recommended CAM therapies. Mistletoe therapy, on the other hand, is frequently recommended in both groups (place 2 for HUs and place 1 for NHUs).

5. Discussion

These data are from the most extensive as well as the first population-based study on the prevalence of CAM use in pediatric oncology. There have been no other studies to date either on the use of homeopathy in pediatric oncology or in comparison with users of other CAM therapies. In our survey, population users of homeopathy were the largest group (45.2%). In the results of non-European studies, homeopathy only plays a marginal role if any: Israel 16.4% [23], Canada 1.2% [12], and USA not mentioned [15]. Only one recent study from Italy [24] and a small study from the Netherlands [9] also found that homeopathy was the most frequently mentioned CAM therapy amongst children with cancer. This high rate of homeopathy use confirms the fact that homeopathy in children is used most often for treatment of chronic illnesses or of acute self-limiting illnesses [25-27].

An important factor which influences the likelihood of CAM use in a child with cancer is previous experience of CAM in the family before the child’s cancer. 37.3% of all survey participants had already had experience of CAM, a figure which is lower than that in the German population as a whole [28, 29]. On the other hand, 76.5% of HUs had previous experience of CAM, always of homeopathy. In comparison with NHUs (27.4% previous experience of homeopathy) this difference is statistically significant and was not previously known.

In HUs more than in NHUs the reasons given for the use of CAM were related to reduction of concomitant symptoms of the illness or of the conventional therapy. But general treatment goals such as “to enhance the immune system” or “for detoxification” were also named disproportionately often by HUs. There are no comparable data in the literature.

A large percentage of HUs (77.7%) had spoken with a doctor (GP, pediatrician, pediatric oncologist) about the use of homeopathic medicines. Surveys on the use of homeopathy in general pediatrics have shown considerably less willingness to talk to a doctor about the homeopathic treatment [25]. But 65.2% of the NHUs in our survey population also spoke to a doctor about their use of CAM therapies. The reactions of the pediatric oncologists approached differed substantially between the two groups, those approached by the NHUs actively recommending CAM use significantly less often (7.3% versus 17.3%).

Although the HUs spoke strikingly often to the doctors involved in their child’s treatment, these play only a subordinate role when it comes to the prescribing of the homeopathic medicines. Most prescriptions for homeopathic medicines (which are usually available over-the-counter) came from nonmedical practitioners. This is in agreement with the results of other studies investigating the use of homeopathy in pediatrics [24, 25, 30].

In contrast to an epidemiological study on the status of homeopathy in children in Germany [31], our data show no dependence of the use of homeopathy compared to NHUs on higher social status. However, in the analysis of the total study population (HUs + NHUs) a higher social status was one of the statistically most striking factors influencing the use of CAM in general.

In view of the fundamentally positive expectations of the CAM users, the high percentage who would further recommend CAM to parents in a comparable situation is not surprising. However, here too there is a difference between the two groups, 94% of the HUs stating that they would further recommend CAM compared with 85.6% of the NHUs. Our data also show that HUs continue homeopathic treatment significantly longer than patients using other CAM therapies. A possible reason for the high degree of satisfaction of HUs could be the fact that homeopaths devote more time and attention to their patients. A homeopathic interview can take as long as 1-2 hours. In a qualitative comparative study of homeopaths and conventional doctors it was found that the parents experienced the treatment by a homeopath as more holistically oriented compared with the symptom-based approach of a conventional doctor [32]. This probably also applies to the HUs in this survey, even though the prescribers were for the most part nonmedical practitioners. The data obtained in this survey do not permit any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the treatment, the occurrence of side-effects, or interactions with the homeopathic medicines. Furthermore, in a double-blind clinical trial published by Paris et al., patients in both groups (active treatment and placebo) were convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathy both before and after the treatment [29]. Nevertheless, the analysis demonstrated the homeopathic treatment to be as ineffective as the placebo. On the one hand, trials of homeopathy trials, as of some other treatments, are associated with high patient conviction of efficacy from the outset. This seems to be a persistent problem and has to be taken into account methodologically. On the other hand, assuming the therapy was effective, the subjective assessment by the parents displays that the complementary homeopathic therapy was associated with a perceived benefit. Whether this had anything to do with an actual therapeutic effect or any other psychological effects, for example, “meaning response” [26] or placebo-effect [32], is not yet known as the methods used in this study do not permit differentiation of these effects.

6. Limitations

As a relatively high percentage of the responding families used anthroposophic medicine (AM) in addition to the homeopathy, the frequency of use of homeopathy in pediatric oncology in Germany may be overreported in this study. Lay people in particular often find it difficult to distinguish between AM and homeopathy as both treatment systems use potentized medicines. It is possible that some of the families who were prescribed medicines by an anthroposophic doctor incorrectly reported this as homeopathy. However, it is unlikely that homeopathic medicines were incorrectly reported as AM. Anthroposophic medicine is partly used as an extension to conventional medicine and partly replaces it [33]. The treatment and therapeutic possibilities offered by AM include specially produced medicines of mineral, plant, and animal origin, various artistic therapies, rhythmic massage [33], curative eurythmy [34], external treatments (compresses, oils and ointments, baths), medical consultations and counselling (partly psychotherapeutic), and extended anthroposophic nursing and care. These treatments and therapies aim to stimulate and strengthen the patient’s own healing forces; they are practiced by physicians, therapists, and nurses. Physicians are trained in both AM and conventional medicine and most are medical specialists. A further limitation is that the questionnaire was only available in German and that certain patient groups may therefore have been indirectly excluded from the survey.

7. Conclusion

Homeopathy is the most frequently used complementary therapy in pediatric oncology in Germany. Most HUs had used homeopathy before the cancer and would further recommend homeopathy to others in a similar situation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ms Irene Jung of the GCCR for her outstanding support in distributing the questionnaire and with the data logistics and analysis, Barbara Pfrengle-LÀngler for her help with data input, the hospitals and, particularly, the families participating in the survey and Hilary Coleman for linguistic help in preparing the manuscript. This study was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Kinderkrebsstiftung Bonn [DKS 2003.13]. Alfred LÀngler is supported by a research grant from Software AG Stiftung. The funding sources did not have any influence on study planning, data analysis or publication process.

References

A. Cottencin, E. Mullet, and P. C. Sorum, “Consulting a complementary and alternative medical practitioner: a systematic inventory of motives among French patients,” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 791-798, 2006.
E. Ernst, “Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine: a systematic review,” http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Vol78-No2/bulletin_2000_78(2)_252-257.pdf.
Allensbacher Archiv, Naturheilmittel 2002, Allensbach Institut, Allensbach, Germany, 2002.
P. C. Fletcher and J. Clarke, “The use of complementary and alternative medicine among pediatric patients,” Cancer Nursing, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 93-99, 2004.
L. J. McCann and S. J. Newell, “Survey of paediatric complementary and alternative medicine use in health and chronic illness,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 173-174, 2006.
A. Shaw, E. A. Thompson, and D. Sharp, “Complementary therapy use by patients and parents of children with asthma and the implications for NHS care: a qualitative study,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 6, article 76, 2006.
T. J. Zuzak, I. Zuzak-Siegrist, A. P. SimÃ΅es-Wüst, L. Rist, and G. Staubli, “Use of complementary and alternative medicine by patients presenting to a paediatric Emergency Department,” European Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 168, no. 4, pp. 431-437, 2009.
A. Molassiotis and D. Cubbin, “‘Thinking outside the box’: complementary and alternative therapies use in paediatric oncology patients,” European Journal of Oncology Nursing, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 50-60, 2004.
M. A. Grootenhuis, B. F. Last, J. H. de Graaf-Nijkerk, and M. van der Wel, “Use of alternative treatment in pediatric oncology,” Cancer Nursing, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 282-288, 1998.
M. Mottonen and M. Uhari, “Use of micronutrients and alternative drugs by children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia,” Medical and Pediatric Oncology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 205-208, 1997.
J. Bold and A. Leis, “Unconventional therapy use among children with cancer in Saskatchewan,” Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 16-25, 2001.
C. V. Fernandez, C. A. Stutzer, L. MacWilliam, and C. Fryer, “Alternative and complementary therapy use in pediatric oncology patients in British Columbia: prevalence and reasons for use and nonuse,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1279-1286, 1998.
T. Friedman, W. B. Slayton, L. S. Allen et al., “Use of alternative therapies for children with cancer,” Pediatrics, vol. 100, no. 6, article E1, 1997.
D. Martel, J.-F. Bussières, Y. ThéorÃͺt et al., “Use of alternative and complementary therapies in children with cancer,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 660-668, 2005.
M. L. Neuhouser, R. E. Patterson, S. M. Schwartz, M. M. Hedderson, D. J. Bowen, and L. J. Standish, “Use of alternative medicine by children with cancer in Washington State,” Preventive Medicine, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 347-354, 2001.
M. W. Ben Arush, H. Geva, R. Ofir, T. Mashiach, R. Uziel, and Z. Dashkovsky, “Prevalence and characteristics of complementary medicine used by pediatric cancer patients in a mixed western and middle-eastern population,” Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 141-146, 2006.
C.-H. Yeh, J.-L. Tsai, W. Li et al., “Use of alternative therapy among pediatric oncology patients in Taiwan,” Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 55-65, 2000.
A. Zutavern, P. Rzehak, I. Brockow et al., “Day care in relation to respiratory-tract and gastrointestinal infections in a German birth cohort study,” Acta Paediatrica, vol. 96, no. 10, pp. 1494-1499, 2007.
A. Laengler, C. Spix, G. Seifert, S. Gottschling, N. Graf, and P. Kaatsch, “Complementary and alternative treatment methods in children with cancer: a population-based retrospective survey on the prevalence of use in Germany,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 44, no. 15, pp. 2233-2240, 2008.
P. Fisher, “Homeopathy and the lancet,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 145-147, 2006.
A. LÀngler, C. Spix, S. Gottschling, N. Graf, and P. Kaatsch, “Elternbefragung zur Anwendung alternativer und komplementÀrer Behandlungsmethoden in der Kinderonkologie in Deutschland,” Klinische Padiatrie, vol. 217, no. 6, pp. 357-364, 2005.
http://www.wma.net/e/policy/pdf/17c.pdf.
M. W. Ben Arush, H. Geva, R. Ofir, T. Mashiach, R. Uziel, and Z. Dashkovsky, “Prevalence and characteristics of complementary medicine used by pediatric cancer patients in a mixed western and middle-eastern population,” Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 141-146, 2006.
A. Steinsbekk, N. Bentzen, and S. Brien, “Why do parents take their children to homeopaths? – an exploratory qualitative study,” Forschende KomplementÀrmedizin, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 88-93, 2006.
S. Ekins-Daukes, P. J. Helms, M. W. Taylor, C. R. Simpson, and J. S. McLay, “Paediatric homoeopathy in general practice: where, when and why?” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 743-749, 2005.
R. Huber, D. Koch, I. Beisner, I. Zschocke, and R. Ludtke, “Experience and attitudes towards CAM—a survey of internal and psychosomatic patients in a German University Hospital,” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 32-36, 2004.
U. HÀrtel and E. Volger, “Use and acceptance of classical natural and alternative medicine in Germany—findings of a representative population-based survey,” Forschende Komplementarmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 327-334, 2004.
F. Marian, K. Joost, K. D. Saini, K. von Ammon, A. Thurneysen, and A. Busato, “Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: an observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 8, article 52, 2008.
A. Paris, N. Gonnet, C. Chaussard et al., “Effect of homeopathy on analgesic intake following knee ligament reconstruction: a phase III monocentre randomized placebo controlled study,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 180-187, 2008.
A. C. C. Lee and K. J. Kemper, “Homeopathy and naturopathy: practice characteristics and pediatric care,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, vol. 154, no. 1, pp. 75-80, 2000.
Y. Du and H. Knopf, “Paediatric homoeopathy in Germany: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS),” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 370-379, 2009.
D. E. Moerman and W. B. Jonas, “Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 136, no. 6, pp. 471-476, 2002.
Anthroposophic medicine in brief: Facts and Figures, International Federation of Anthroposophical Medical Associations, 2005, http://www.ivaa.info/IVAA_new/factsheet.htm.
A. Büssing, T. Ostermann, M. Majorek, and P. F. Matthiessen, “Eurythmy therapy in clinical studies: a systematic literature review,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 8, no. 1, article 8, 2008.

[Rose]

http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/

Research in Homoeopathy

Author: Robert Medhurst

The author presents a formidable list of homeopathy research studies (abstracts) to counter any lingering claim that homeopathy is not proven.

I’m constantly amazed at the ease with which critics of homeopathy confidently declare that there’s no evidence for homeopathy, and even more amazed at the lack of scrutiny that’s given to this statement by the media. Whether this declaration is made through simple ignorance, stupidity or with the deliberate intent to deceive, would make an excellent topic for investigation. Either way, the assertion that there’s no evidence for homeopathy is plainly and clearly wrong. Shown below are abstracts from human, animal, plant and in-vitro scientific studies that attest the reality that there is indeed evidence for homeopathy, and lots of it.

Robert Medhurst

Robert Medhurst is a qualified Naturopath & Homoeopath with 27 years of clinical experience. He has written many articles & lectured throughout Australia & the US on homoeopathy. He previously operated several natural therapies practices in Sydney & was involved in teaching & research activities. He now lives in Adelaide and operates the research and development and education departments for a major homoeopathic manufacturer. He is the Expert Advisor on Homeopathy to the Federal Government of Australia, Dept of Health & Ageing.