Complementing the Simillimum in Chronic Diseases - Multiple Sclerosis - Essay Example

An Analysis of “Complementing the Simillimum in Chronic Diseases: A Case of Multiple Sclerosis” The first work that this analysis will focus upon is entitled, “Complementing the Simillimum in Chronic Diseases: A Case of Multiple Sclerosis” by Harry van der Zee. This study, similar to many others in the field, analyzes the ability of a single panacea to treat a multiplicity of diseases (Bornhoft, 2011). In particular, a case of a woman with seemingly advanced multiple sclerosis is discussed at length. Although well written, and possibly admissible into a homeopath’s log of disease and treatment procedures, the piece falls far short on many metrics with respect to any type of scientific analysis (May/Pope 1998). Namely this is due to an overall lack of concrete figures, accessible data, and any discernible implementation of the scientific method. Furthermore, the author never acknowledges that with the particular case of the woman suffering from MS and her multitude of symptoms, he may be treating a patient that is also suffering from severe psychological exhaustion, intense family problems, and/or depression (as evidenced throughout the text and her symptoms) (van der Zee, 2007). Events in her life that contribute to this depression include possible senility/depression of her husband, her own inability to be the care taker as she has for so many years, her daughter being treated for severe asthma attacks, her son experiencing a difficult puberty, her daughter coming out as a lesbian, and her mother-in-law gaining entry into her home and breaking her leg in the process. It is these very problems that are worth noting due to the fact that they can easily complicate the diagnosis of her MS that was previously given (Cleveland Clinic 2012). Those in the medical community are familiar with secondary side effects of tangential problems, and this may very well be the case of the patient in question. Accordingly, the study does not provide a convincing case for the fact that the patient’s symptoms became diminished over time due to the fact not that her MS was in remission but because the problems she was undergoing at home could have become lessened (Greenhagh, 2001) In homeopathy, even more so than traditional medicine, the need exists to absolutely define the symptoms so a correct course of action and intelligent diagnosis can be made (Robins, 2005). As was the case with woman in the study, it is more than likely that her MS was complicated by a host of other factors – not the least of which was her fragile mental state over the years that the doctor was administering to her. Additionally, the mechanism by which the PC remedy actually works is not discussed. As this should be the heart of the matter, it is surprising that Van der Zee’s makes no mention of how medically and biologically the body synthesizes the treatment and works to heal itself from the given malady. Also equally troubling is how remedy is sold. Rather than providing the necessary ingredients to the consumer, even at a noticeable markup, and being forthwith and upfront about the active ingredients; Van der Zee has a system by which someone who suffers from an ailment will contact Van der Zee to buy the code to the ingredients for the PC remedy. Upon receipt of the code, the patient may then bring the code to one of 3 homeopathic compounding pharmacies that Van der Zee has listed on his website as cooperating pharmacies. In short, the whole organization of the cure lends one to be more than somewhat alarmed by the whole process (Stehlin, 1997). Lastly, Van der Zee references “consistently good results” multiple times when referring to the efficacy of PC1 on ailments such as gonorrhea, AIDs, malaria, and MS; however, the actual raw data, numbers cured, numbers of patients that succumbed to the disease or the treatment, the establishment of any type of control group and or other variables are not mentioned (Grimvall, 2011). For instance, regarding the PC1 treatment discussed Van der Zee states: “I have tried a variety of remedies for chronic diseases out in my practice. The results have been mixed. Sometimes there didn’t seem to be a response, but in other cases the results were better than I had ever seen with homeopathy”. (van der Zee, 2007) Again specificity is needed to determine the scope and level of these claims to the reader can make an informed decision as to the effectiveness of the treatments (Kauffman, 1971). To give Van der Zee credit, perhaps the information does exist but was merely not published in this representation of the data; however, in order for the field to take his research seriously, numbers, statistics, and data must be given so that the community at large can analyze and assess the data (Freeman, 2009). Additionally, the author may have desired to talk broadly about the applications and uses for homeopathy; yet the pitfall is found when he begins to mix medical postulation with belief without offering supporting evidence (Pope/Mays 1998). As compared with the other similar analysis, the level of literature cited and referenced by van der Zee is not what would be considered admissible for a scientific study (Singh, 1999). An Analysis of “A Randomized Controlled Trial of Homeopathy in Rheumatoid Arthritis” The second work which is to be analyzed is entitled, “A Randomized Controlled Trial of Homeopathy in Rheumatoid Arthritis” by Paul Fisher and D. L. Scott. In stark contrast to the first paper, the second article represents the other end of the spectrum with regards to regimented scientific analysis of the claims therein. The authors methodically lay out the research question, the variables that exist, the size of the group that is being analyzed, the time limits associated with the study, and the results of the study (Denzin/Lincoln, 2005). As such, measurable inference may be drawn by the reader as to the research question posed (Patten, 2012). Unlike the previous paper examined, the data that is compiled in this analysis has firm roots in other academic studies with references replete throughout. As a result of the study, the authors found the following: “No evidence that active homeopathy in proves the symptoms of RA, over 3 months, in patients attending a routine clinic as compared with those that took the placebo” (Fisher/Scott, 2001). Additionally, this study avoids the dangers of making reference to unsubstantiated and isolated cases within the framework of trying to draw inference to the general population (Adams, 2007). By adhering to a rigorous approach to the information presented, the second article presents a greatly more sophisticated approach to scientific analysis and bio-medical understanding than did the first article. Although homeopathy may not necessarily accept every facet of how the medical community treats disease, it is necessary that it follows the rubric and framework of scientific analysis as laid out in this study (Daniel and Levine, 2001). In so doing, the research will become more substantiable, their results more measurable, the effects of the treatments more acceptable to mainstream science (Gerdes, 2008). Additionally, by ascribing to the same rubric and regimented studies that the remainder of the scientific community uses; homeopathy will be allowed to be measured on its own merits without continually being marginalized as it has in the past. Besides the careful documentation of the objectives and methodologies presented in this piece, the authors also take painstaking care to present the facts alone without any bias towards the results (Snyder, 2007). This type of analysis was not evidenced in the first piece which was analyzed as the author was making broad, sweeping generalizations concerning effects, uses, and results of the trials he was conducting, the authors of this piece make no such statements. The medical trials are set to speak for themselves without any bias from the author as to the intent or goals that are expected to be seen from these trials (Patten, 2012). Additionally, this study goes into great depth concerning the contents of the homeopathic compounds which were administered to the participants in the study. Whereas the first article vaguely mentioned the ingredients without committing to their contents, this article went into great depth displaying clarity and openness concerning the contents of the medicines administered; something that is a vital necessity for any scientific study (Horwitz, 2011). Further, this full disclosure instills confidence in the reader/reviewer that the level of research meets the standard expected from a piece of scholarly research (Friedman, 2006). Perhaps the largest limitation that this study portends is the fact that so many of the testing candidates dropped out or otherwise were indisposed prior to completion of the analysis time period. This does not necessarily damage the credibility of the study; however, it does slightly weaken the results and findings as one is left to wonder why the attrition rate for the participants involved is so high (Russo, 2011). Although this fact is explained on a case by case level, it still leaves the reviewer to question the methodology involved (Northcutt/McCoy, 2004). Lastly, for purposes of this analysis, it is not the viewpoint or the findings of the article or study that is being measured, it is the methodological approach, use of the scientific method, measurement of variables, lack of biases, and intellectual rigor with which the study is approached that helps the merit of the study to stand or to fall. Though the first article analyzed lacked the scientific content necessary to lend it credibility, the content was nonetheless intriguing; however, due to its unmethodological approach and reliance on firsthand experience, it could not be counted credible as a scientific article. Accordingly, the second article bore all the hallmarks of a scientific effort, fully documented to support the findings it presented. Bibliography (1999). Herbal therapy, medicinal plants, and natural products: an IPA compilation. Bethesda, MD, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Adams, J. (2007). Researching complementary and alternative medicine. London, Routledge. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=184317. Abgrall, J.-M. (2000). Healing or stealing? medical charlatans in the new age. New York, Algora Pub. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10476723. Bornhoft, G., & Matthiessen, P. F. (2011). Homeopathy in healthcare -- Effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs an HTA report on homeopathy as part of the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme. Berlin, Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2. Cleveland Clinic . 2012. Chronic Illness and Depression . Available at: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/depression/hic_chronic_illness_and_depression.aspx. [Accessed 24 July 2012]. Daniel, E. L., & Levine, C. (2001). Taking sides. Clashing views on controversial issues in health and society. Guilford, Conn, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Fisher, P. and Scott, D. (2001) A Randomized Controlled Trial of Homeopathy in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatology, 40 p.1052-1055. Freeman, L. W. (2009). Mosbys complementary & alternative medicine: a research-based approach. St. Louis, Mo, Mosby Elsevier. Friedman, C. P., & WYATT, J. (2006). Evaluation methods in medical informatics. New York, Springer. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=42753. Gerdes, L. I. (2008). Medicine: opposing viewpoints. Detroit, Greenhaven Press. Greenhalgh, T. (2001) How to read a paper book.The basics of evidence based medicine. Available at: http://thiqaruni.org/medcine/153.pdf. [Accessed 24 July 2012]. Grimvall, G. (2011). Quantify!: a crash course in smart thinking. Baltimore, Md, Johns Hopkins University Press. Horwitz, R., & Muller, D. (2011). Integrative rheumatology. New York, Oxford University Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=590181. Johnston, R. D. (2004). The politics of healing: histories of alternative medicine in twentieth-century North America. New York, Routledge. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDs. (2002). Ancient remedies, new disease involving traditional healers in increasing access to AIDS care and prevention in East Africa. Geneva, Switzerland, UNAIDS. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=91326. Kaufman, M. (1971). Homeopathy in America; the rise and fall of a medical heresy. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. Micozzi, M. S. (2011). Fundamentals of complementary and alternative medicine. St. Louis, Mo, Saunders/Elsevier. Northcutt, N., & McCoy, D. (2004). Interactive qualitative analysis: a systems method for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Patten, M. L., & Bruce, R. R. (2012). Understanding research methods: an overview of the essentials. Glendale, CA, Pyrczak Pub. Pope, C. and Mays, N. (1995) Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. National Institute of Health, 311 p.42-45. Pope, C. and Mays, N. (1999) Qualitative Methods in Health Research. National Institute of Health, Available at: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/pdf/qualitative.pdf [Accessed 24 July, 2012] Robins, N. S. (2005). Copelands cure: homeopathy and the war between conventional and alternative medicine. New York, Knopf. Russo, J. (2011). The tools of science: the handbook for the apprentice of biomedical research. Singapore, World Scientific. Snyder, L. (2007). Complementary and alternative medicine ethics, the patient, and the physician. Totowa, N.J., Humana Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10181991. Stehlin, D. (1997). Homeopathy, real medicine or empty promises? Rockville, MD, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration VP, Singh V, Dey SK, Rao K. (1999). Homeopathy in HIV infection: a trial report of double-blind placebo controlled study. Br Homeopath J.;88(2):49-57. van der Zee, H. (2007) Complementing the Simillimum in Chronic Diseases: A Case of Multiple Sclerosis. Homeopathic Links, 20 (5), p.1-5. Read More