==>英国ホメオパシー協会がいんちきな文献引用なドキュメントを英国議会に提出 (2010/02/10)
このドキュメントは2009年11月に提出されたもので、英国下院サイトに掲載されたものがこれ：
==>Memorandum submitted by The British Homeopathic Association HO 12 (2009/11)
ほぼ出所が同じと思われるのが2009年8月にECCHという団体から出ているリスト：
==>An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys -- The European Network of Homeopathy Researchers -- August 2009
もっとも、この団体の実体があるのか、ないのか、よくわからんけどね。
==>存在感のないホメオパス団体・専門職業人賠償責任保険・ホメオパシー死亡事件a> (2009/07/26)
それはさておき、ECCHという団体から出ているリストは、The British Homeopathic Associationのリストと重複しているので、同様のいんちきが存在する。
- Kleijnen 1991
They came to the following conclusion: "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. The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications".
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. British Medical Journal. 1991b;302:316-23.
[An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys -- The European Network of Homeopathy Researchers -- August 2009]The third of the four papers, Kleijnen et al, concluded that the data were "not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions". The fourth, published in 1997 by Linde et al, was updated two years later, and yet the update – which was more critical of homeopathy – was not cited.
4本のうちの3本目のKleijnen et alは「確定的な結論を出すには不十分なデータ」だと結論していた。1997年に発表されたLinde et alは2年後にアップデートされ、よりホメオパシーに批判的になっていたが、これは引用されていなかった
[Martin Robbins: "Homeopathic association misrepresented evidence to MPs" (2010/02/05) on The Guardian Blog] - Cucherat 2000
A systematic review and meta-analysis showed highly significant results for surveys adding up to a total of 2 617 patients (P=0.000036). Results were not that significant for high quality surveys (P=0.08). The author concludes that further high quality studies are needed to confirm results.
Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M., & Boissel, J. P. 2000, "Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group", Eur.J.Clin.Pharmacol., vol.. 56, no. 1, pp. 27-33.
[An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys -- The European Network of Homeopathy Researchers -- August 2009]I spoke to Jean-Pierre Boissel, an author on two of the four papers cited (Boissel et al and Cucherat et al), who was surprised at the way his work had been interpreted. "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'," he said, pointing out that what he and his colleagues actually found was evidence of considerable bias in results, with higher quality trials producing results less favourable to homeopathy.
引用された4本の論文のうち2本(Boissel et al; Cucherat et al)の著者のひとりであるJean-Pierre Boisselと話した。彼は自分のレビュー論文の解釈のされように驚いていた。「私のレビュー論文は、ホメオパシーとプラセボには差異があるという結論には到達していない。私と共著者たちが実際に見つけたのは、結果にバイアスのある証拠であり、クウォリティの高い実験をやれば、ホメオパシーに有利でない結果が出るだろうというものだ
[Martin Robbins: "Homeopathic association misrepresented evidence to MPs" (2010/02/05) on The Guardian Blog] - Jonas 2003
In a review of homeopathy research the authors found three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy that reported effects that seem to be more than placebo, and one review that found its effects consistent with placebo.
Jonas, W. B., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Linde, K. 2003b, "A critical overview of homeopathy", Ann.Intern.Med., vol. 138, no. 5, pp. 393-399.
[An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys -- The European Network of Homeopathy Researchers -- August 2009]A review by Jonas et al concludes that there are "too few studies to make definitive conclusions about the efficacy of any one type of homeopathic treatment on any one condition" yet is cited by the BHA as providing evidence that homeopathy is effective in the treatment of rheumatic diseases.
Jonas et alのレビュー論文は「いかなる症状に対する、いかなるホメオパシー治療の有効性について確定的な結論を得るには研究が少なすぎる」と結論していたが、BHAはリウマチ性疾患の治療にホメオパシーが効果的だという証拠を提供する成果として引用している。
[Martin Robbins: "Homeopathic association misrepresented evidence to MPs" (2010/02/05) on The Guardian Blog]
他にも色々あると思うが、またいずれ...
