Abeo is a huge fan of this man and has been trying to get me to watch Mock The Week (despite my lack of a TV not seeming to register). However – whilst trawling the Tube for some funnies I found this. Excellent stuff.
Dara O’Briain on homeopathy
Comments
(25 Responses)
Ahh Mock the Week
Latest episode here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m0kzv/Mock_the_Week_Series_7_Episode_5/ )
(*COUGH* iPlayer Phillis!
Dara, Frankie Boyle, Hugh Dennis, Russell Howard all fab!
ah.. he’s hilarious!!
ha i saw this on tv about a month ago and thought you’d appreciate it! glad to see you found it
Dara O Briain FTW
Mock The Week FTW
^_^
Hahaa ohh…Brilliant!…rubbing a cat on the side of the head hehee…get in the f´´ckin sack horseshit peddler ghehee…xcuse me
This was my favourite bit from the whole show
“There’s more to life, than evidence”
“GET IN THE FUCKIN’ SACK”
Hilarious, one of my favorite pieces of comedy ever, makes me giggle every time I think of it, Dara is great.
i genuinley love that man!!!
‘now get in the fucking sack!’
Dara is a comedy god up there with Bill Bailey. Would love to see him live. In the unlikely scenario that anyone finds they have a ticket to see him live that they don’t require, send it this way……
Love it, If you liked it check out this Tim Minchin’s beat poem, beautifully done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s
Nice, in Holland there is all summer a program on Veronica which features quite a lof of comedians from the UK and other countries (festival of laughs in Montreal) Very nice program, a bit late in the evening but love watching it. The variety is quite nice. Only now and then I dislike one of them.
Real (homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails
Someone beat me to the Tim Minchin link, very funny.
Woops, this was the one I was looking for, similiar opinions as Dara:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w
Evidence-based modern homeopathy is the scientific revolution (fastest growing medicine in the world) in the 21st century
One hesitates to ask, but is there any actual evidence to support either of your assertations, Dr Nancy?
“Evidence-based modern homeopathy is the scientific revolution (fastest growing medicine in the world) in the 21st century”
Nintendo Wii is the fastest selling console of all time in the UK. It also shows little medical benefit.
Post the links to the papers on medline that show a demonstratable effect improvement vs existing treatments at the 95% level for homeopathy vs any condition you care to choose – a metaanalysis would be preferable.
I’ve read quite a few that are interesting, but most of the time the placebo group performs similarly to the homeopathy group.
And you used the lovely term ‘evidence based’ – my response is simply the same as all medical professionals – show me that evidence and we’ll start production tomorrow.
Thanks,
links to research studies supporting homeopathy published in journals
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep114v1 //oxford journal
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t512515754w83686/?p=f8ffce09215749588a3ed277fdad3439&pi=2 //ADHD, European Journal of Paedretics by springerlink
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000448/frame.html //hypericum, InterScience
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121675687/abstract?SRETRY=0 //PSORIASIS
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-48HXDX3-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bb04aacc3d5f482e108d423d84ed6285 //Elseiver by sciencedirect.com
http://ccrhindia.org/cumulative/clinicalresearch.htm //CCRH,
I haven’t been through all of those papers, but those I have completely fail to support either your contention that “Evidence-based modern homeopathy is the scientific revolution (fastest growing medicine in the world) in the 21st century” or answer Rich’s request “Post the links to the papers on medline that show a demonstratable effect improvement vs existing treatments at the 95% level for homeopathy vs any condition you care to choose – a metaanalysis would be preferable.”
There is a lovely example of someone totally misapplying quantum entanglement in a frankly ridiculous way, however.
@baldySlaphead
Meta Analysis in support of homeopathy medicine
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/about-homeopathy/clinical-research/experimental-studies
http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/systematic_reviews/index.html
Your first link (http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/about-homeopathy/clinical-research/experimental-studies) mentions a number of systematic reviews.
The first discussed is Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 302: 316-323.
The article you provided states:
“The first systematic review of homeopathic research was published in the British Medical Journal in 1991. Of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 indicated positive results, which included RCTs that received high quality ratings for randomization, blinding, sample size, and other methodological criteria. The authors, three orthodox epidemiologists, came to the following conclusion:
TBC
“The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”. And “The evidence presented in his review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”.”
That review (the full thing is available from http://en.scientificcommons.org/19769158) clearly states:
“At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.”
The report singles out one trial with one of the most rigourous methodologies for demonstrating that an ascribed postitive effect for homeopathy with regard to decreasing the time to recovery of bowel movements after abdominal surgery in earlier trials with poor methodologies could not be replicated and indeed the results were indistinguishable from a placebo effect.
If that is the sort of endorsement practitioners hold up to demonstrate how efficacious homeopathy is, I am not impressed.
The next two citations are even reported as saying: “the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials”. I shan’t bother to comment further.
Your article attributes the following quote with respect to Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB (1997) Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet, 350: 834-843:
“The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo”.”
Unfortunately, the supposed quote does not appear in the article, which is available from http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/are_the_clinical-effects-of-homoeopathy_placebo-effects.pdf
However, a similar quote can be found on page six, whereupon it is entirely clear that this quote refers to
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 316–23, which we’ve already discussed above. The attribution of a clearly identified quote from one study to another raises serious quesions in my mind.
Further more the actual report report in question clearly identifies the following interpretation of their meta-study: “Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.”
Frankly, I can’t be bothered to read such badly-flawed reporting further. Again, you have failed to adequately prove your point, and only raise suspicions.