John O'Malley batting for Homeopathy. Swings! Misses!
For those that missed it, this is the morning segment from RDU with Spanky and an homeopathic supporter. Not an actual homeopath, which may explain some of the weird ideas he was making up. Below is my response to this segment that, sadly, we didn't get notice of in time to participate. Breakfast with Spanky interviewed "Dr" John O'Malley DC about homeopathy. Personally I think Mary would have sounded less... wacky.
Wow... A trifecta.
Let's take them in order;
Ignoring his complete lack of comprehension on physics vs biology, O'Malley starts with a demonstration of applied kinesiology, which can be quite convincing if you don't know what's going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology#Criticism
But it is a parlor trick and used as the basis for fraud with startling regularity. The last time I recall this sort of trick abused was the Power Balance bracelets in Australia. AU$60 for a piece of plastic and a hologram that was likely less that $1 total; http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/powerbalance.htm
Next we had Jacques Benveniste. Being really general; Benveniste et al published a paper in Nature (with some interesting caveats from Nature) that showed positive results for homeopathy. However, when tests procedures were examined and tightened up the reported results were not achieved again. Benveniste agreed to the tightening of the test procedures and prior to the results being announced was asked if he was satisfied with the new procedures. He was. Then, long story short, results presented, negative, Benveniste packs a sad, loses funding, tries to go it alone. Others tried to replicate, majority failed. Ennis et al see a positive result, but at least accept that they can't explain why and try to work out the mechanism. Others try to replicate Ennis et al and again, most fail, but a few succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste
Personally I was surprised that O'Malley trotted out a 30 year old case that has been dismissed and mostly forgotten by the scientific community. I was expecting Luc Montagnier to have been mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Electromagnetic_signals_from...
And to wrap up the trifecta, we have Big Pharma.
Spanky is right, the Govt needs to pick and choose where to invest taxpayer money where there's a possibility of extending knowledge. O'Mally throws in the stacking of the sub-committees of the Medical Research Council and the refusal to fund research into homeopathy. Given the controversial nature of homeopathy why should the MRC fund it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Mechanism_of_the_effect
How about Big Homeo? Homeopathy is a multi billion dollar industry. The drug industry funds it's own research. The homeopathy industry should be doing the same.
A note on the Skeptics 10:23 protest; 94% of people who use homeopathy don't actually realise that there is no active ingredient. This is dishonest and this is the part of the industry that we wanted to make the public aware of. Hence the slogan "Homeopathy: There's nothing in it."
http://www.pharmacytoday.co.nz/news-details?objId=16F087C0-1C0C-4DAC-96F...A note on the placebo effect; While it is a well know and proven effect, despite O'Malleys ad ignorantiam position, just because he's never seen an experiment proving it doesn't mean there aren't any. The placebo mechanism is still a mystery, science is willing to admit that it doesn't know it and gets on with the process of filling in the gaps via research. As things are tested and found wanting they are noted, discarded and the next hypothesis is looked for. Unlike homeopathy which is yet to establish itself as a reliable proven effect beyond placebo. Yet, with so much evidence against it, this industry refuses to accept that and continues to cheery pick studies and bastardize the scientific method. As a test, search PubMed for homeopathy. Now search for papers with a positive result. The quantity of papers is insignificant compared to most other fields, but there are some being published.
Trackback URL for this post:
- Gold's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Only just listened to this radio interview
Doctor (of Chiropractic) O’Malley chooses to criticise my study, even although it passed the process of peer review. In fact, the reviewers were generally quite impressed and I received a lot of email expressions of support. Apart from the fact O'Malley did not like its findings (that the majority of chiropractors use the title of Dr in a way likely to mislead), I challenge O’Malley to tell me exactly what is wrong with the study. It wasn’t actually a meta-analysis, by the way - not sure why he calls it one. And I was right: Chiropractors have to make clear they are chiropractors – that is, they cannot simply call themselves Dr John, or the such like in a health care setting – they have to make clear they are a Dr of Chiropractic. Dr of Chiropractic is somewhat different from being a Dr of Medicine or PhD - catch some of the jibes on 'Two and a Half Men' to get a feel for how Americans feel about chiropractors using the title of doctor. Publsihed articels have even called the dre of chiropracitc degree spurious. In the UK, chiropractors are no longer allowed to use the title of Doctor.
I'm suprised O'Malley didn't try to criticise my 2010 paper co-authored with Prof Edzard Ernst, also published in the NZMJ, that reported most chiropractors make claims not supported by sound evidence. Maybe he reaslises he is on dodgy ground.
My recent letter to the NZMJ about chiropractic ethics appears to have led the NZ Chiropractic board to tighten up on their rules about use of the title Dr. Some chap called (something like) Coreean Peolsna wrote a rejoinder to that, but it was gibberish and failed to address the point I made.
I take grave exception to O’Malley’s unprofessional comments about Massey University and shall be passing them to the risk managers of both Massey and Canterbury Universities (although I can't find any reference to him actually working at the latter).
I also published an article in the NZMJ about how use of the title doctor afects potential customers' perceptions of both practioner and therapy. Maybe he didn't see that one.
In trying to defend homeopathy, O’Malley comes across as rather foolish and, quite simply, at odds with those who actually do understand science. Some might say daft. I note that on his website (see: http://www.alphaomegahealthcare.co.nz/pages/4/about-us.htm) he makes various claims about homeopathy (e.g., on site provision of homeopathic remedies to correct faults in the body's meridian system) - when I can be bothered, I'll complain about these to the NZASA (and no doubt O'Malley will again complain about me to my university when I do), becuase as we all know, homeopathy is now thoroughly discredited.
The placebo mechanism is
Is it actually? The Placebo Affect by Steven Novella seemed to have a pretty good description regarding how and why.
Another chiropractor
Another chiropractor (mis)using the title of "Dr". Tried looking up his qualification and he gives a Ph.D. but no enlightenment as to what it is in (assuming it's not one of those diploma mill ones). No wonder it was wacky, he very possibly has no clue about what he is advocating hence the smoke and mirrors stuff of using applied kinesiology and the waffling. Great comment, you've done a thorough job of debunking his claims.
It's also interesting that
It's also interesting that according to the Alpha Omega Health Care Profiles he is
yet I can find no mention of him on the Canterbury website...
I feel it worth pointing out
I feel it worth pointing out that under NZ law it is required that a chiropractor using the term Dr. must indicate that it is in chiropractic. (Use of inappropriate titles by New Zealand practitioners of acupuncture, chiropractic, and osteopathy.)
Heh. :) This is the study
Heh. :) This is the study that the chiro was taking the piss out of isn't it?
He'd have been better off by not mentioning it.
That's a handy reference to
That's a handy reference to have... :)