Abstract
This paper aims to discern the meaning behind Placebo drugs and compare their efficacy
to a frequently compared to term- homeopathic treatment. The historical, biopsychosocial, and medical significance of placebo will be juxtaposed with the blazing controversy surrounding homeopathic remedies.
A brilliant 2020 study outlines the roles of both drugs in ameliorating several welfare
factors in patients suffering from NSCIC. The correlation of quality of life and survival time will
tie in with statistical data of the effect of placebo, homeopathy and no treatment on survival time of patients. The double-blind and placebo-controlled trial will be performed over 18 months and examined for changes at 9 months. A control group of affected patients will be featured in the examination. The analytical scope of this paper evaluates the differences between the two by considering statistics and biological examination. The method used to analyze data is quantitative.
Key words: efficacy, homeopathic treatment, placebo-controlled, quantitative.
Introduction
'Placebo' is referred to by linguists as [I] shall please"- originating from Latin. Future
indicative active of the Latin verb 'placere' and means "to please, give pleasure, be approved, be pleasing, be agreeable, acceptable..." (Shapiro, A.K.) The use of the placebo effect in medicine is commonly regarded by patients, psychologists and medical professionals as a sham treatment developed to act as a false source of support while ultimately ameliorating one's physical and mental wellbeing. Its discovery signified an indispensable breakthrough in medieval medicine, when medics ascertained the power of a fake drug in improving symptoms, such as migraines, joint pain, arthritis, asthma, high blood pressure, and depression.
(Munnangi S, Sundjaja JH, Singh K) These are some of the conditions that are most
sensitive to the placebo effect. Soon, the placebo was proved to yield positive physiological
results in patients by effectively treating their malady. In medicine, the Placebo drug has played a critical role in mitigating illness in troubled patients by mimicking real treatments and appearing visually convincing. Henry Beecher, an acclaimed US physician, was the first to discover the placebo effect in 1955. Henry Beecher analyzed the results of 15 studies and concluded that, regardless of a patient's complaint, around one-third showed a significant response to a placebo.
(Marchant, Jo.) Wielding placebo drugs in medicine and psychology decreases the impact of
illusory expectations on the outcome. For instance, as written by Allan LG, Siegel S, according to signal detection theory, the expectation of a treatment creates uncertainty about the sensory information of pain, and the placebo response is a case of perceptual error. Furthermore, homeopathy is an alternative type of treatment that is currently very controversial due to its bizarre resemblance to placebo drugs. This paper aims to discuss the correlation between both phenomena.
Research question
“How does modern day homeopathic treatment compare to the efficacy of the Placebo drug?'
Literature review
Existing literature primarily focuses on conceptualizing the imperative role of placebo in
modern treatment. Prior research and studies provide a spectrum of perspectives considering the main exploitation of the sham therapeutic treatment. While some sources claim that placebo is predominantly utilized to please and comfort patients who were suffering from incurable,' state Finniss and Damien G, others focus on their role in experimental studies: "Clinical investigators use randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials as a gold standard to validate treatments.' (Munnangi S, Sundjaja JH, Singh K) Homeopathy, similarly, is a pseudoscientific type of surrogate treatment, aiming to stimulate an independent bodily response to a sickness. According to the research done by the Homeopathy Research Institute, an approximate of 200 million people worldwide, with 50% of the surveyed living in India, and a large partition of Europe (100 million EU citizens, some 29% of the EU's population) believe in and habitually implement homeopathy in treating illnesses. (HRI) When searching ‘the correlation between homeopathy and placebo', several medical studies and articles came up.
Numerous sources disprove the efficacy of homeopathic treatment, with the medical community referring to it as health fraud, due to the deficiency of statistical and biological tests. Lecturing at the Cambridge University's Centre for Science and Policy, Sir John Beddington voiced his scientific opinions concerning homeopathy: "My view scientifically is absolutely clear: "homeopathy is nonsense, it is non-science.. The most it can have is a placebo effect...”
Methodology
Quantitative research
In order to examine the availability of conducted experiments in the realm of homeopathic
treatment and its linkage to placebo, I investigated studies on Pubmed that came up from
searching with keywords such as: homeopathic treatment, placebo in homeopathy, placebo effect in medicine. This paper will thereby consider and be designed similarly to the accomplished study conducted by Michael Frass, who discovered the role of homeopathic treatment in improving the quality of life and elongating survival of a lung cancer patient. This study proves the efficacy of homeopathy parallel to placebo and control trials. The efficacy of homeopathic treatment will compare to placebo-controlled trials with the purpose of identifying whether additive homeopathy influences a patient's physical and mental wellbeing as well as quality of life (QoL). Controlled variable: patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Dependent variables: quality of life and survival time. Independent variable: additive
homeopathy treatment vs. placebo vs. no homeopathic treatment. The participants involved in this clinical trial included patients with stage IV NSCLC. Patients were treated with homeopathic treatment during placebo-controlled and double-blind trials in Phase III of testing medical drugs.
Phase III includes testing a drug on a large group of individuals with the given disease in order to determine the efficiency of the drug as compared to placebo drugs. From 150 patients with NSCLC, 52 were taken as a control group and not given neither placebo, nor homeopathy. 98 individuals took either placebo or homeopathic remedies; (placebo= 51) (homeopathy= 47) The drugs were given in a double-blind manner, meaning that neither the patient nor the doctor knew which drug was being presented to them. Likewise, the methodology will include several groups of affected patients and examine the physiological results for control, placebo-treated and homeopathically treated groups.
Results. Patients (47) that were treated with homeopathic remedies showed positive tendencies, as their QoL showed more improvement compared to placebo. The timeline for the clinical trial was 9 and 18 weeks. The average (median) survival time was considerably longer in the homeopathy group (435 days; p < 0.001) versus placebo (257 days; p =0.010) as well as against the control group (228 days; p < 0.001). QoL showed to be directly proportional to survival time, creating a positive correlation. Therefore, homeopathy displayed optimistic results for NSCLC patients.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this paper investigated the terms 'placebo drug efficacy' and 'homeopathy',
analyzed numerous studies and articles providing various opinions and statistical data,
investigated a clinical trial comparing the two drugs and therefore crafted a medical and
psychological perspective that must be further explored. A further exploration will include a
broader study with a larger frequency of patients in the given groups. A substantially more
thorough examination will be conducted to delve into the pharmacological aspects of placebo and homeopathic remedies. The proposed question: 'How does modern day homeopathic treatment compare to the efficacy of the Placebo drug?' will receive a profound scientific break-down and examination.