Homeopathic Remedy for Arsenic Toxicity - Assignment Example

Homeopathic Remedy for Arsenic Toxi Study Critique by The study by Belon etal. in 2007 was conducted in West Bengal, India and had the purpose of finding out whether the homeopathic remedies against arsenic toxicity were efficient or not. However, the methodology of the study somehow lends itself to numerous flaws in logic, as well as deficiencies when it comes to actual medical procedure for medical experimental researches and so this means that the results and conclusion of the study are not reliable. One of the flaws of the methodology is that the homeopathic remedies Arsenicum Album 30 and Arsenicum Album 200, which are both collectively referred to as “verum” in the study, actually proved to be therapeutic only when “the volunteers [from the observed situation] were advised strictly to take arsenic-free water during the course of investigation” (Belon et al. 2007, p. 142). This therefore means that “some doubt was expressed as to whether the improvement noticed was actually due to their intake of the arsenic-free drinking water or…the homeopathic remedies” (Belon et al., p. 142). The study being analyzed right now was based on this idea that is why the 2007 study did not try to use any arsenic-free water for the purpose of avoiding the same confusion as the first studies that used such homeopathic remedies. However, the constant use of arsenic-contaminated water may have actually interfered with the expected results of the study since the subjects kept on taking arsenic-contaminated water at the same time that they were taking homeopathic remedies. Thus, there could have been a sort of constant progression of the diseases brought about by arsenic contamination at the same time that the individual is being treated using homeopathic remedies. The efficiency of the remedy could have therefore been affected by the continuous supply of the cause of the disease. Furthermore, since the arsenic levels in every individual is not accounted for or that there is no way they could possibly be accounted for, then the study is therefore not entirely controlled. Some individuals may obviously be receiving relatively more arsenic levels than others, thus the effects of the homeopathic remedies on them may be different. In fact, this could have been the reason for the withdrawal of many of the respondents from the study who claimed that they did not experience ameliorating changes in them. Another problem with the research investigation was that 39 subjects of 20 males and 19 females may not have been enough as a particular sample size to represent the whole Indian state of West Bengal (Beldon et al. 2007, p. 144). Although the research sample may already be the entire population of people in Dasdiya believed to have been consuming arsenic-contaminated water, the results may still be inconclusive if they have to be considered vis-à-vis the number of cases of arsenic contamination in India, not to mention the fact that the placebo group in the study was greatly reduced in size because of the voluntary withdrawal of the respondents from the study. At best, the results and conclusions of the study could only apply to the study itself because the sample size considered and even the population was perhaps too small compared to what is needed to be representative of all arsenic-contaminated people of the world. Another error of the methodology is that most of the arsenic victims used as respondents to the study were actually weak and anemic, and were therefore known to be “afraid of giving blood at regular interval” (Belon et al. 2007, p. 144). The fact that people were weak and anemic meant that they could not have possibly represented the majority of the population, who are expected to have normal RBC levels in the blood. Moreover, the fact that the subjects were afraid of giving out blood for the study somehow did not allow constant monitoring of the effect of the homeopathic remedies on the arsenic contamination. Furthermore, being anemic and weak may mean having other complications that could actually have affected the efficiency of the homeopathic remedies or may have even boosted them. No one can actually predict how a diseased individual would react to certain medications. That is why the authors of the study should have conducted these on individuals without bodily ailments other than those caused by arsenic contamination. One more problem was that the subjects were not monitored as to their intake of the homeopathic remedies. In fact, it is stated in the report that “the subjects were asked to pick up their vial as per their choice” (Belon et al. 2007, p. 144). Although this was done entirely in random, the problem with this was that there was no way that the administration of such homeopathic remedies was monitored. Each subject could have taken in the homeopathic remedy in different ways, in varying amounts, in varying intervals, and perhaps even in varying solutions as they could have been diluted or mixed with food or drinks. This could therefore have affected the overall outcome of the study. Even if the results of the study were positive – in favor of the homeopathic remedies, still a particular way of taking it or a particular number of dosage may have been the key to effective treatment. This particular procedure will not be known unless the procedure of intake should be controlled. In short, the subjects of the study may have actually used a particular procedure that somehow helped make the remedies more effective. Nevertheless, this is an unknown variable since the procedure was not controlled. Still, another problem with the study was that it took two months before a sample-collection camp was conducted in the village in order to gather urine and blood samples (Belon et al. 2007, p. 144). This is probably caused by the fear that the subjects may have had about taking their blood out. Thus, there was no way to determine whether the effects of the homeopathic remedies manifested before the two-month duration or if the time was not enough to determine the full effects of the remedies. The idea of using two months was also not properly documented although it could have been based on some previous studies. Furthermore, the idea that two months was used may have given some of the subjects ample time to resort to other forms of medication. Besides, they were no constantly and strictly monitored. Their periods of rest as well as lifestyle factors may have also affected the efficiency of the remedies on them. Thus, several factors were not controlled. One more problem with the methodology was that only 25 out of the original 39 subjects turned up during this time (Belon et al. 2007, p. 144). During this time, those who did not wish to join anymore did not do so because “they did not find the remedy effective enough in bringing any ameliorative changes, for which they were no longer interested to continue…” (Belon et al. 2007, p. 144). In fact this somehow destroyed the validity of the placebo group since out of the 17 who received placebo, only 5 turned up for the blood and urine tests. The sample size of the placebo then became “very small” (Belon et al. 2007, p. 144). When the placebo group becomes small, it somehow means that there is no way that the efficiency of one treatment can be ascertained. It is because there is no point of comparison as to whether the treatment indeed makes a difference or not. In short, the placebo group could have proven that regardless whether it is homeopathic remedies or a placebo that is used, then perhaps the same results may have been obtained. The flaws of the methodology of this particular study include the possibility of the negative effect of the continual contamination of arsenic on the efficiency of the homeopathic remedies, the fact that the arsenic levels in every individual is not accounted for, the relatively small sample size, the low turnover of the members of the placebo group, the presence of anemia and weakness in the subjects, the lack of monitoring of the intake of the remedies, and the two-month duration of the study which was not justified. All of these things greatly contribute to the idea that the results and conclusions of the study would not be reliable nor valid, or at best would not be applicable to issues outside the context in which the study was conducted. REFERENCES Belon, P. et al. (2007). Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity?: Evidence-based findings from a randomized placebo-controlled double blind human trial. Science of the Total Environment 384 (2007), 141-150. Read More