Download PDF
Homeopathy 2007; 96(02): 120-124
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2007.03.004
Debate
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2007

Bayesian homeopathy: talking normal again

A.L.B. Rutten
Further Information

Publication History

Received21 September 2006
revised02 February 2007

accepted05 March 2007

Publication Date:
13 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Homeopathy has a communication problem: important homeopathic concepts are not understood by conventional colleagues. Homeopathic terminology seems to be comprehensible only after practical experience of homeopathy. The main problem lies in different handling of diagnosis. In conventional medicine diagnosis is the starting point for randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of treatment. In homeopathy diagnosis is combined with other symptoms and personal traits of the patient to guide treatment and predict response. Broadening our scope to include diagnostic as well as treatment research opens the possibility of multi factorial reasoning. Adopting Bayesian methodology opens the possibility of investigating homeopathy in everyday practice and of describing some aspects of homeopathy in conventional terms.

Keywords

bayesian methodology - homeopathic terminology - likelihood ratio
 

  • References

  • 1 Kent J.T. Lecture on Homeopathic Philosophy. Wellingborough, UK: Thorsons Publishing; 1979.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Bianchi M.T., Alexander B.M. Evidence based diagnosis: does the language reflect the theory?. BMJ 2006; 333: 442-445.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bayes T. An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos Trans R Soc London 1763; 53: 370-418.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gill C.J., Sabin L., Schmid C.H. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ 2005; 330: 1080-1083.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Horton M.D., Counter S.F., Florence M.G., Hart M.J. A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 2000; 179: 379-381.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Garcia-Aguayo F.J., Gil P. Sonography in acute appendicitis: diagnostic utility and influence upon management and outcome. Eur Radiol 2000; 10: 1886-1893.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. Assessing likelihood ratio of clinical symptoms: handling vagueness. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 182-186.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. ‘Cure’ as the gold standard for likelihood ratio assessment: theoretical considerations. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 78-83.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vineis P, Kriebel D. Causal models in epidemiology: past inheritance and genetic future. Environ Health 2006;5(1):21 [Epub ahead of print].
    PubMed