North Texas Skeptic - Vol 15 No 06 - 2001

Magazine Overview

Title: The North Texas Skeptic
Issue: Volume 15, Number 6
Date: June 2001
Publisher: The North Texas Skeptics

This issue of The North Texas Skeptic delves into critical analysis of alternative medicine and skeptical events. The primary focus is a two-part examination of clinical research in homeopathy, alongside a report on a local skeptical game show and brief updates on scientific news.

Clinical Research in Homeopathy: A Limited Skeptical Review and Analysis (Part I)

By Daniel R. Barnett

The lead article, "Clinical Research in Homeopathy: A Limited Skeptical Review and Analysis (Part I)" by Daniel R. Barnett, begins by quoting Richard Feynman: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." The article addresses the claim that homeopathy has an impressive accumulation of statistics supporting its efficacy over the last 200 years, citing proponents like Frank King, DC. It notes the growing popularity of homeopathy, with celebrities like Mariel Hemingway, Jane Seymour, and Suzanne Somers endorsing homeopathic treatments.

The article explains that homeopathy was codified by Samuel Hahnemann approximately 200 years ago, but its mechanism remains poorly understood and difficult to explain in scientific terms. Dana Ullman, MPH, is quoted as saying that people are more interested in effectiveness than theoretical explanations. Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman and Robert Ullman suggest homeopathy works as "energy medicine," which is not yet fully measurable.

Homeopaths often point to randomized double-blind clinical trials to support their claims. The article references Mosby's Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which includes case studies on homeopathy's purported efficacy for various conditions. This series aims to examine two such clinical studies.

Homeopathic Treatment of Childhood Diarrhea in Nicaragua

The first study examined is a 1994 trial published in Pediatrics, led by Jennifer Jacobs, MD, MPH. The study involved 81 children (aged 6 months to 5 years) with acute diarrhea in León, Nicaragua, in July 1991. Children received physical examinations, dehydration assessments, and oral rehydration therapy. Homeopathic interviews were conducted to determine remedies, and children were then randomly assigned to receive either homeopathic pellets (e.g., Arsenicum album or Chamomilla 30C) or a placebo.

The trial reported a statistically significant decrease (P < .05) in the duration of diarrhea and a significant difference in stool frequency after 72 hours of treatment. The authors concluded that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. However, they acknowledged that no scientific explanation for homeopathy's mechanism of action currently exists.

Chamomilla vs. the River Jordan: Response to the Jacobs Study

This study faced criticism from physicians who questioned whether the observed effects were due to homeopathic therapy or dietary factors. Further critiques came from Wallace Sampson, MD, and William London, EdD, who analyzed the study in Pediatrics. They pointed out imbalances in the treatment and control groups (e.g., seven of eight compounds had unbalanced numbers) and argued that lumping all diagnostic and treatment groups together made it impossible to determine the efficacy of individual remedies.

Sampson and London also questioned the scientific basis of homeopathy, suggesting that a 30C potency dilution is so extreme that it's "more likely that there would be a molecule of the River Jordan water rather than a molecule of the material in the original solution." The study's authors responded by agreeing that pooling results made it difficult to assess individual treatments but argued that it would tend to dilute any positive treatment association. They defended the need for scientific inquiry into phenomena whose mechanisms are not understood, citing historical examples in medicine.

Despite the debate, Boiron USA, the manufacturer, proclaimed the trial a success. The study has been cited in various homeopathic publications.

The Weakest Skeptic Debuts at NTS

By Daniel R. Barnett

This section reports on the North Texas Skeptics' May 12, 2001, meeting, which featured a game show called "The Weakest Skeptic," patterned after the television program "The Weakest Link." Hosted by Laura Ainsworth, a member of the NTS Board of Directors, the show tested five contestants on rational thought, pseudoscience, urban legends, and alternative medicine.

The game involved five rounds, with each player answering five questions per round. Unlike "The Weakest Link," it was an individual competition, as Ainsworth explained, "There is too great a temptation to remove the smartest competitor, and at skeptic meetings, we do not punish people for being intelligent." The player with the lowest score at the end of each round was declared "The Weakest Skeptic" and humorously ejected with music.

Questions covered topics like Uri Geller, Scientology, and extraterrestrials. The host, Laura Ainsworth, delivered skeptical insults to contestants who answered incorrectly. The event concluded with two winners: Michael Binder and Virginia Barnett. Both received prizes, including a vintage NTS T-shirt and gift certificates. The article suggests "The Weakest Skeptic" may become a recurring event and potentially expand to other venues.

What's new

By Robert Park

This column presents brief news items of interest to skeptics.

Cell phones and cancer: So what does the GAO know?

Following the abolition of the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress turned to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for a report on potential health risks associated with cell phone use. The GAO found no evidence of adverse health effects but concluded that there is insufficient data to rule out all risks. The author questions the possibility of ever proving something is risk-free and suggests that risks might emerge with higher exposure or longer incubation periods.

Placebo effect: It won't shrink tumors or cure baldness.

A Danish study is discussed, challenging the widely accepted notion that any disorder responds positively to a sham treatment (the placebo effect). The study found that for measurable conditions, placebos were no more effective than no treatment. The author suggests the placebo effect might stem from reduced stress hormones in individuals who believe the treatment will work, and notes that the sale of herbal medications is declining after several negative trials.

Skeptical ink

By Prasad Golla and John Blanton

This section features a three-panel comic strip. The first panel shows a group reacting in horror to a dead person. The second panel shows someone confidently stating, "I WILL BRING HIM BACK TO LIFE." The third panel depicts a different scene where someone points and exclaims, "There goes Britney Spears!" The implication is a commentary on the unreliability or absurdity of certain claims or expectations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly emphasizes a skeptical approach to claims, particularly those related to alternative medicine like homeopathy. The editorial stance is critical of pseudoscience and highlights the importance of rigorous scientific methodology, evidence-based research, and plausible mechanisms. The magazine promotes critical thinking and challenges unsubstantiated claims, as demonstrated by the detailed critique of homeopathic studies and the humorous yet pointed "Weakest Skeptic" game show. The "What's New" section reinforces this by addressing current scientific and health-related topics from a rationalist perspective, debunking myths like the broad efficacy of the placebo effect and questioning unsubstantiated health risks.