Homeopathy Effective in Treating Neo-natal Pigs with Diarrhoea

A paper published yesterday (15/1/10) in the peer-reviewed journal Homeopathy by Camerlink et al (2010) found that the homeopathic remedy Coli 30K was highly significantly (p< 0.0001) more effective than placebo in a placebo-controlled, observer blind RCT on the treatment of diarrhoea in neo-natal pigs.

52 sows of pigs form a commercial farm who were in their last month of gestation and had never been vaccinated against E.coli were randomly assigned to either a placebo group or treatment group. This included 300 pigs.

Both groups would receive either the homeopathic remedy Coli 30k or placebo twice a week in their last four weeks pre-partum.

It was found that the treatment group had significantly less E.coli diarrhoea than the placebo group (P <0.0001). Furthermore in the homeopathic treatment group the diarrhoea was less severe, there was less transmission and duration appeared shorter.

Camerlink I, Ellinger L, Bakker EJ and Lantinga EA (2010) Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia Coli diarrhoea in neonatal pigs, Homeopathy, Vol.99 (57-62)

That’s another nail in the “homeopathy is just placebo” coffin – That coffin is looking pretty nailed in to me!

Alan

8 Responses to Homeopathy Effective in Treating Neo-natal Pigs with Diarrhoea

  1. Sean Ellis January 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    I don’t have access to the original paper. Can someone let us know what the blinding protocols were on this test?

  2. Fabio Valeri January 17, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    The paper is available here:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14754916

  3. homeopathyuk January 17, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Hi Fabio,

    Thanks for posting the link
    🙂

    Alan

  4. homeopathyuk January 22, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    I am amused by the silence of the Denialists about this research… don’t any of you think this deserves a closer look? Or are you minds closed already? 🙂

    Hey….maybe there is something in this memory-of-water stuff after all!

  5. Sean Ellis January 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    “I am amused by the silence of the Denialists about this research… don’t any of you think this deserves a closer look?”

    Yes. That was the reason for the delay – I was looking into it more closely, in between family and work commitments.

    See http://moteprime.org/article.php?id=39

    • xtaldave April 8, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

      Sean,

      Something you may want to add as an addendum to your moteprime piece is that the previous exposure of the sows to whatever the diarrhoea causing bug (DCB) was, wasn’t checked or controlled for. The DCB could be e.coli, Salmonella, or C.perfringens, there are many possibilities.

      It should be noted that the paper tested for e.coli but couldn’t find any present in poorly piglet faeces – they went on to assume that ecoli30K works because e.coli30C ‘works’, but in the introduction they include two references which concluded “None of the homeopathically treated groups differed significantly from the controls” & “nosode treated group did not differ significantly from the control group” – which seems odd to me.

      Vaccination against e.coli was checked, but of course this is not really the point – animals naturally generate immune responses to pathogens as a matter of course.

      Given that some piglets suffered from diarrhoea, the DCB is obviously prevalent on that farm. The sows very likely encountered the strains of DCB responsible for the piglet diarrhoea during pregnancy or previous to pregnancy, and may have passed antibodies onto the some piglets, irrespective of treatment. This was not looked into or controlled for in any way.

      • Sean Ellis April 9, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

        Thanks to xtaldave for following up with those observations. Very interesting.

        I was also looking at updating the article for my own reason. I have been thinking about at the way transmission within each litter of piglets affects the effective sample size.

        The paper says that transmission within a litter is (a) likely and (b) fast. This means that if any of the piglets in a litter get an infection, the likelihood is that others will too. Has this been taken into account in the P-value calculation, are are all cases treated as independent?

        I need to go back to the paper and check the mathematics to see which of these assumptions has been used.

  6. homeopathyuk January 25, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    Hi Sean,

    I’ve read your report on the research & I agree with some of what you said.

    What I would like to see is other teams repeating the research on other farms & see if they get similar results. Would you agree if more teams get positive results this may indicate that ultra-dilute homeopathic remedies CAN have an effect on biological systems?

    To answer your points at the end, the reason the researchers say there is no ‘residue’ of homeopathic remedy in the meat that could be passed on to humans is that…there are no molecules of ‘stuff’ in the remedy…homeopathy is an energy medicine.
    This also explains why the homeopathic remedy will not lead to bacterial resistance….it isn’t ‘killing off’ bacteria, it is stimulating the pig’s immune system to overcome the excess bacteria…a totally different proposition.

    Alfuy

Leave a Reply