Download PDF
Homeopathy 2008; 97(04): 214-219
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.007
Debate
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2008

How can we change beliefs? A Bayesian perspective

A.L.B. Rutten
Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Received11 January 2008
revised01 September 2008

accepted11 September 2008

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract: How can Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) change our beliefs? The fact that they do update prior beliefs to different posterior beliefs is explained by Bayesian philosophy.

Crucial points in Bayesian analysis include setting the first prior expectation right and sequential updating of the prior in the light of new evidence. Bayesian analysis depends highly on the evidence included.

RCT evidence can only falsify the placebo hypothesis, it cannot indicate which mechanism of action could be responsible for an intrinsic effect and therefore cannot overturn existing beliefs. Bayesian reasoning could structure further discussion, but subjectivity is an inherent element of this process. In the case of homeopathy the first prior is not a common prior shared by all parties to the debate, but a paradigm, this prevents common updating of beliefs. Only by keeping an open mind towards other paradigms and all possible hypotheses can a low Bayesian prior be elevated to the point of accepting a new paradigm, this is more relevant than Bayesian calculations.

Keywords

Bayes theorem - Paradigm - RCT - Meta-analysis - Homeopathy
 

  • References

  • 1 Linde K., Clausius N., Ramirez G. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834-843.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kleijnen J., Knipschild P., ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 316-323.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 577-582.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 The Lancet (Editorial). The end of homoeopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 690.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vandenbroucke J.P. Homeopathy and the growth of truth. Lancet 2005; 366: 691-692.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Shang A., Huwiler-Müntener K., Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726-732.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chaplin M.F. The memory of water: an overview. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 143-150.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vandenbroucke J.P., de Crean J.M. Alternative medicine: a “mirror image” for scientific reasoning in conventional medicine. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 507-513.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Waldmann T., Baack M., Richter N., Gruss C. Structure-specific binding of the proto-oncogene protein DEK to DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31: 7003-7010.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pickersgill H., Kalverda B., de Wit E., Talhout W., Fornerod M., van Steensel B. Characterization of the Drosophila melanogaster genome at the nuclear lamina. Nat Genet 2006; 38 (09) 1005-1014.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Homeopathy 2007; 96: 141-226.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMed
  • 12 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy, in this issue.
    PubMed
  • 13 Goodman S.N. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 1005-1013 [PMID: 0010383350].
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rosendaal F.R., Bouter L.M. Dwalingen in de methodologie (slot). XXXIX. De ultieme waarheid. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2002; 7: 304-309.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chaloner K. Elicitation of prior distributions. Bayesian biostatistics. [chapter 4] New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1996.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Spiegelhalter D.J., Freedman L.S., Parmar M.K.B. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. Bayesian biostatistics. [chapter 2] New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1996. ISBN:0-8247-9334.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Woodworth G.G. Biostatistics: a Bayesian introduction. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. ISBN: 0-471-46842-8
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Sterne J.A.C., Egger M., Smith G.D. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323: 101-105.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Chan A.W., Hrobjartsson A., Haarh M.T., Gotzsche P.C., Altman D.G. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published trials. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-2465.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Healy D. Did regulators fail over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors?. BMJ 2006; 333: 92-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gotzsche P.C., Hrobjartsson A., Johansen H.K., Haarh M.T., Altman D.G., Chan A.W. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PloS Med 2007; 4 (01) e19 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Teixeira J. Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 158-162.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar