Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

a shot to long

Posted by car9os on 22 Apr 2015 at 23:55 GMT

It can not be attributed to homeopathic "medicine" to improve the therapeutic effect presented, simply because it seems to me that the groups aren´t equivalent in the other variables considered, including the type of action and dedication of the professionals to each group (commitment , time spent, maybe enthusiasm). As such, we o not know how to assign the different results, so the conclusions proposed are totally misleading, even wrong (as very well noted Chris Lee in ). Should the 3 groups were treated in a absolutly similar way and the paper would be valid, no matter the results ...

No competing interests declared.

RE: a shot to long

ecmc2008 replied to car9os on 23 Apr 2015 at 01:42 GMT

Chris Lee got distracted in reading the article and misunderstood changing the content to support his biased conclusion. He stated "At the beginning of the trial, all of the women spent an hour or so in the company of the prescribing doctor, discussing their personal life and their symptoms and getting a thorough assessment of their mental state. The women were then randomly divided into three groups: one received a drug treatment while the other two were given placebos." Where is this written? How does he know the time spent? Anyway, in case of that, the three groups had the same assessment no matter the allocated group.
"During the study period, all of the women received weekly monitoring for serious changes in symptoms. But one of the two placebo groups received far more thorough monitoring. They essentially went through a large part of the first assessment every week, and the prescribing doctor would change either the placebo (to another placebo) or the dose of the placebo in response to any concerns." Again a misinterpretation because the patients did not receive a "weekly monitoring" and the prescribing doctor did not change to another placebo weekly.
"So how did this all turn out? Very well, in fact. It turns out that receiving the undivided attention of a medical professional for an hour a week does wonders for your mental health. The placebo/medical attention group showed far more improvement than both the drug and the other placebo group." There was no an undivided attention an hour a week. There was a baseline assessment and two follow-ups at week 4 and 6.
If Chris Lee believes it is magic is his own belief. The study is a well-designed RCT. No argument will be enough to convince someone who has a biased criteria about a subject. If he claims that only studiesin which the mechanism of action of the drug is known, should be conducted, many conventional drugs would never be used. For example, the mechanism of acetylsalicylic acid's analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties was unknown until twentieth century, and its medical use stretches back to antiquity. Many times, the mechanism of action of certain drug remains unknown but the drug has clinical efficacy.
Homeopathy has always been attacked, but the reality is that its use is widespread and patients seek for homeopathic treatments. Don´t you think something that has been attacked for so long and remains has some truth? Although its mechanism of action is still unknown. It is not a war between conventional medicine and homeopathy. If Chris Lee claims homeopathy is magic, he might prove it.

Competing interests declared: I am the author of the article