homeopathic treatment of migraine in children.
What would you expect the conclusions to be?
But, of course!
The results of this study demonstrate the interest of homeopathic medicines for the prevention and treatment of migraine attacks in children. A significant decrease in the frequency, severity, and duration of migraine attacks was observed and, consequently, reduced absenteeism from school.
“[D]emonstrate the interest”? What does that mean?
As you also might guess, there are problems with the study – sample size, the stated goal of the study, lack of controls, unwarranted conclusions. Dr. Edzard Ernst has a look.
Boiron’s new study of homeopathy | Edzard Ernst.
Debunking flawed homeopathy studies is not what I aim for or spend my time on. Yet this study, I thought, does deserve a brief comment.
Why? Because it has exemplary flaws, because it reflects on homeopathy as a whole as well as on the journal it was published in (the top publication in this field), because it is Boiron-authored, because it produced an obviously misleading result, because it could lead many migraine-sufferers up the garden path [...]
[...]the Boiron-authors conclude that “the results of this study demonstrate the interest of homeopathic medicines for this prevention and treatment of migraine attacks in children”. This is an utterly bizarre statement, as it does not follow from the study’s data at all.
But the study is published. That’s all they need. No one will notice all the critique against it. They will cite this research in their claims as positive evidence. If this study is so poor, why was it published in the first place?