Download Lectures on Biostatistics (1971). Corrected and searchable version of Google books edition
Download review of Lectures on Biostatistics (THES, 1973).
On 21 November, 2005, Dr David Spence appeared on the BBC’s Today Programme. He was being interviewed about a report that, he said, provided evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy. In fact it does nothing of the sort.
Dr Spence’s paper was published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It is not really research at all. They simply asked 6544 patients who had had homeopathic treatment whether they felt better or not. Half the patients (50.7%) said they were ‘better’ ot ‘much better’. A further 20% said they were ‘slightly better’. The patients who had homeopathic treatment were not compared with anything whatsoever!
This is reported in a straighforward way. What is quite ludicrous is the stated conclusion of the paper:
“The study results show that homeopathic treatment is a valuable intervention”.
It is obvious that there is not the slightest reason to attribute the answers given by patients to the fact that they had been given homeopathic treatment. That would be the crudest form of post hoc ergo propter hoc error. It does not even show that the homeopathic treatment was producing a placebo effect.
Papers like this do not add to human knowledge, they detract from it. By reverting to pre-enlightment forms of argument, they mislead rather than enlighten. To make matters worse, this work was done at public expense, by the Directorate of Homeopathic Medicine, United Bristol Healthcare, National Health Service Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
What on earth is a respectable hospital and medical school, like those in Bristol, wasting money with this sort of mediaeval hindrance to medical knowledge? We are truly living in an age of delusions.
Download the paper and see for yourself [ Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. J Altern Complement Med. 2005, 11, 793-8. pdf file, 74 kb].
12 Responses to Homeopathy in Bristol: Dr Spence’s infamous paper
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
[…] study to which they allude here has to be the worst paper ever published. It is the infamous Spence (2005) study. Oddly enough, this paper is one that Westminster students were asked to assess […]
[…] imagine that the courses are very critical when the official response from the university cited the Spence (2005) study as though it provided evidence for the efficacy of […]
They’ve done it again: Witt CM, Ludtke R, Mengler N, Willich SN. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? – Results from a long term observational study BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8(1):413.
They’ve demonstrated that patients visiting a doctor for the first time tend to say they feel better later on. Is it possible that they visited the doctor because they felt ill, do you think?
I wonder how the 27% who dropped out would have felt.
[…] community responded to the Shang et al. analysis of homoeopathy by hyping an uncontrolled customer satisfaction survey. Amazingly, they found that patients often feel better after treatment. Well, a team including R. […]
[…] latter, more charitable, view is supported by the fact that Ms Roberts trots out, yet again, the infamous 2005 Spence paper, as though it constituted evidence for anything at all. In this paper 6544 patients at the Bristol […]
[…] might remember Dr. David from a 2005 debacle on the validity of Homeopathy treatment based on a “Will you date me? Check yes or no!” style of survey. Apparently […]
[…] has sent me s scanned copy which you can download here. As evidence it is about as useless as the infamous Spence study so beloved of homeopaths. There was no control group at all. It simply follows 316 babies and found […]
[…] J Manip Physiol Ther,12:281-288. [ download thr reprint]. As evidence it is about as useless as the infamous Spence study so beloved of homeopaths. There was no control group at all. It simply follows 316 babies and found […]
[…] The “study” is distinguished (if that is the word) by having no control group, and by being about as utterly useless as a purported piece of science as is possible. David Colquhoun gives it a quick fisking here. […]
[…] favourite with homeopaths is a 2005 study in which 6544 consecutive patients were asked how they felt after homeopathic treatment and 50% […]
[…] Thompson was also an author of the infamous paper, Spence et al (2005) paper [download pdf]. This paper was no more than a customer satisfaction […]
[…] Report” which is not a Swiss report but is a case study of research misconduct, a customer satisfaction survey masquerading as evidence of efficacy, and sundry other supportive gems mined from the House of Commons Select Committe report whose […]