Homoeopathy
BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7217.1115 (Published 23 October 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:1115All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am a veterinary surgeon in general practice and have been following
this debate and others of a similar nature in the veterinary press with
great interest. The remarks of Anne Sash couldn’t have been more timely
for me and in some ways mirror my own thoughts on the subject – surely the
one way to test whether or not there is anything to homoeopathy is simply
to try it and see.
The crux of the argument is that from the sceptical point of view
since, chemically, homoeopathic remedies are simply either water or sugar
they are infact identical to those substances and therefore can exert no
genuine effect. Homoeopaths will argue on the other hand that the
remedies are indeed different from their base components and actually
posess properties beyond pharmacology, chemistry or physics, acting in
other, as yet unknown ways.
In an attempt to resolve some of these matters I have devised a
simple, home grown clinical trial and I would like to appeal for
volunteers. The aim of the trial to discover whether it is possible to
distinguish between a homoeopathic remedy and a placebo preparation.
One of the problems with previous clinical trials carried out on
homoeopathic remedies is that not all remedies suit all patients when it
comes to the treatment of disease. Remedies have to be “individualised”
for each patient and this causes problems with trials which often prefer a
“one-size-fits-all” remedy to test. When homoeopathic remedies are being
developed, however, they undergo a process called proving where healthy
volunteers take the homoeopathic remedy and will as a result experience a
set of symptoms which are recorded. Once these are known the remedy in
question can be used to treat the same symptoms in unwell patients who
exibit them. Nowhere in Hahnemann’s Organon or any other major
homoeopathic reference is it suggested that the provers themselves need to
be individualised for a particular remedy in the same way that patients do
when undergoing homoeopathic treatment since plainly it would be
impossible to individualise a remedy prior to its characteristics being
known. Thus a test by homoeopathic proving is a good test for homoeopathy
with none of the pit falls of the clinical setting where observations can
be subjective and patients unpredictible and where poor results are often
attributed to problems with individualisation.
It occurred to me that those from the sceptic camp could be accused
of having a vested interest in a ‘negative’ result and might,
subconsciously or otherwise withhold evidence that would support the
validity of homoeopathy. So, if the trial is properly randomised and
blinded, it would be better to ask people who are convinced by homoeopathy
and who would therefore have no interest in witholding ‘positive’ results
to act as subjects. The randomisation will be done by tossing a coin to
see whether subjects receive remedy or placebo and the blinding will be
done by using pre-printed, standardised forms & letters and my having
only postal or e-mail contact with subjects. The results will be only in
a yes/no/don’t know format, will require no interpretation on anyone’s
part and will be published in full. Details of all participants will be
treated in strictest confidence.
A homoeopathic proving is one suitable method and has the virtue of
being a well recognised technique but the test can be done in any way
participants choose. Techniques used in previous, similar attempts have
included clinical trials on volunteers, dowsing, radionics,
crystallographic analysis and spectographic analysis. By default the
trial will use 30C Belladonna although participants again will be given
opportunity to select any remedy they may prefer or feel is more
appropriate for whatever reason.
I would like to ask anyone interested in participating in the trial
either as a volunteer or with advice to please contact me for further
details either by letter at Orchard Veterinary Group or by e-mail. For
reasons of economy I have to limit participants to the UK at this stage.
I would like to offer my grateful thanks in advance to all participants.
Niall Taylor
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Those of us who use homeopathy regularly over many years are not
concerned with the placebo theory because:
It can take many years of trial and error in choosing the correct remedy,
remembering that they all look and taste the same.
When the right remedy is taken, a condition of many years is soon
resolved.
If the condition is returning after some weeks or months, another dose is
taken, with the condition once again receding.
My severe allergy has abated in this way over 3 summers, (years ago). I no
longer fear suffocation, and I am grateful that I am not on Cortisone.
I have had so much experience of homeopathy working in this way, that I am
amazed that anyone is still arguing whether homeopathy works at all. The
best way to find out is to use it yourself.
Better still, participate in a Proving, where you test the remedy for what
it causes, by taking it frequently for a couple of weeks. Contact a local
college. Let us know how you go!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is true that the science or Hahnemann himself are failed to give a
perfect mechanism for how does homoeopathic remedies works? What is the
mode of there action?
But one cannot conclude that the homoeopathic medicines "...that
homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo....". Then also
one sticks on their statement, must explain the following.
1.Any pathogenic disease can be cured by homoeopathy whenever there
is presence of active pathogens, how? Is it placebo effect?
2.Any psychotic disease schizophrenia, madness, phobias & all
other can be cured by homoeopathy even in case of the very little aged
patients homoeopathy works. Does it placebo effect?
3.If we suppose these all are placebo effects then there is one more
critical question that must be answered, why cure is impossible if we
neglect the 'similia theory' while treating a patient.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Alternative medicine is still associated in the popular mindset with
organically grown vegetables, healthy food, fair-trade, compassion for
animals, sustainable living etc. In my view these concerns deserve to be
taken seriously. If I am right, and alternative medicine is a creation
that primarily serves the interests of the producer and practitioner, then
the whole of the alternative movement stands to lose a lot of credibility
(by association) when the truth comes out.
Desperate and persistent attempts to verify an utterly bogus theory
will eventually yield some meagre positive results. Is my mood effected by
what colour socks I am wearing? etc. Good science should involve (as far
as possible) attempts to falsify theories rather than attempts to verify
them. This means that an inclusive history of medicine would be littered
with unsung heroes. Noble failures who invested time, sometimes a
lifetimes work, investigating hypothesise that ultimately turn out to be
wrong, however robust the rationale seemed at the time. Without these
noble failures science would not be possible. The fact that the culture of
Homoeopathy is unable to gracefully accept failure is an insult to the
integrity of those that have.
Alternative medicine has in a small way infiltrated mainstream
practice. Where this has occurred it is trumpeted as if it were a
validation of the principals, methodology and efficacy. At the same time
any kind of opposition to Alternative medicine will be accused of
representing the interests of profit or conservatism over the interest of
the patient. Health care professionals who are sceptical of alternative
medicine are in a double bind; they may choose to remain silent in case
open protest is counter-productive.
As an interested outsider, I find it deeply insulting when it is suggested
that my motives are not honourable, i.e. the best interest of the patient.
Given these tactics it is not surprising that alternative medicine has
made some headway.
Another strategy of argument that is offensive to sceptics is the
suggestion that criticism is motivated by hatred. Of course I am
motivated by hatred, though not personal hatred of homoeopaths, just
hatred of dishonesty, where I perceive it. The subtler shades of
dishonesty (including self deception) are in some ways the most worrying,
threatening the erosion of important values.
I do not mean to suggest that Integrity is easy. To have integrity
one must question oneself and be prepared to accept that decisions one
made in the past were the wrong ones. Alternative medicine seems to
attract people who I call “ethical” types. These people are basically
good. I think it’s a fair criticism of this personality type to say that
they are so confident that they are “ethical” to the core that they
(perhaps a little smugly) forget to scrutinize their own behaviour. When
they are in groups they are very uncomfortable with disagreement,
consequently the culture of alternative medicine is, as far as I can see,
without self-criticism. (They are also more likely to believe in dowsing
and astrology than real doctors.)
During any argument it is appallingly patronising to be told to go
and do more reading on the subject. This response is designed to make the
recipient feel ill equipped to continue the discussion. It is a cheap way
to assume an air of expertise. There are a number of important points to
raise here.
1. If all their reading has been worthwhile why aren’t we given the
salient points?
2. Practitioners of Alternative medicine need constant affirmation; of
course there are books to provide this, lots of them, no doubt it’s a
lucrative market.
3. A general reader, someone with a rudimentary grip on science has all
the tools necessary to understand the following: That if there is a “law
of similars” and if “potentization” is a true phenomenon then the laws of
chemistry, biochemistry and physics as we know them are all erroneous.
Such a person would also see that the methodology of Homoeopathic
“provings” is hopelessly flawed. If you think there is something
premature about these statements, perhaps you ought to do some more
general reading.
Two hilarious responses to scepticism: “conventional medicine grow
up!” “Of course there is still a place for conventional medicine” This
must be very highly potentised preposterousness indeed.
Although I am irritated by the bigoted views implicit in astrology
(for example), I recognise that thousands of years ago it contained some
remarkable assumptions for the time. Astrologers looked out at the sky and
did not see chaos; instead they saw patterns and order. They observed and
chartered the rotation of the heavens. No mean accomplishment. However we
can now see that they were absurdly greedy in their deductions, finding
erroneous answers to questions that were quite out of context. The same
was true with alchemy. These are extreme examples of “greedy
reductionism” (a term I’ve taken from Daniel C Dennet). Even far-reaching
and sound theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution are subject to this
greed (i.e. when it is used to support racist views or neglect of the
needy etc).
I believe this framework offers a good light in which to view
Homoeopathy and its enduring appeal. Its early success was due to the
safety of the remedies compared to the hazardous other treatments of the
day. Homoeopathic clinics were also relatively hygienic. Hahnemann took
the credit for the bodies ability to heal itself. At the time, who could
blame him? Nowadays this practice is shameful.
The most disgusting of all are the claims that Homoeopathy is
“spiritual”, “holistic” and treats “the whole person”, these claims are
preposterously grand, yet conveniently impossible to defend.
Indoctrinated Homoeopaths are deeply attached to these groundless notions.
One only needs to know of one nearly tragic case where a homoeopath did
not properly diagnose a serious infection to see how utterly meaningless
these claims really are. In any event the correct action would have been
to refer the patient to a proper doctor.
JOKE:
Q: What happens when a homoeopath is knocked down by a car?
A: He gets taken away by an AMBIENCE.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Of course they are worried. The "lay" most probably pharmaceutical
(or hardened medical conservative) persons use any forum to bring over
their laughable "arguments" against what seems to be revolution in public
conscience regarding medicine. I got e-mails from the "lay person" with
the claim like "Homeopathy is doomed".. "homeopathy's days are
numbered"... Well, could you be more specific and tell us WHEN homeopathy
is going to die? More than 200 years is not enough? And speaking about
"career in alternative medicine" would the "lay person" disregard such
fields like acupuncture, which is officially recognized by most of medical
institutions and organizations, without any doubt at all about its
effectiveness? If so, what is it, biased opinion based on some very
specific grounds? Like endangered profit of pharamceutical giants making
billions by feeding people with chemical products, which are much more
destructive than diseases that are supposed to be treated by those drugs?
Of course homeopathy is not perfect and only treatment. Of course, there
is place for many other medical methods INCLUDING conventional medicine.
This is what we call an "open mind attitude" to the matter of human
sufferings.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
In the many critical things Stephen Park says [1], he seems to imply
that homeopaths spend so much time with their patients deliberately in
order to have a therapeutic impact [placebo] on them. This contention is
rooted in ignorance - rather than studying the subject itself first in a
neutral manner, he chooses to accept the hateful opinions of others, who
in turn, have not studied it either. What value can prudently and sensibly
be credited to the views of such a person? If you have not studied this
subject deeply, neutrally and over time, with a genuinely open mind, then
I’m afraid the opinions you express are pretty worthless. Nevertheless, he
raises a few valid points that require a more informed response.
Homeopaths do tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. This
is true. Historically, it has always been the case. Even today, with the
aid of computers, they spend between 40 and 60 minutes with them on
average. And this ranges down to 20 minutes and upwards to 3 hours for an
initial consultation [2]. I think we can safely to assume that they do
this because they feel they have to, not for any disreputable reasons.
Consider for a moment the economic implications of this situation:
they cannot reasonably see more than 10-12 patients in a working day,
which means their fees have to be relatively high to make a decent living.
Compared to allopaths, with an 8 minute consultation [or less], it is easy
to see how, in a free market, allopathy has an undoubted economic edge. It
also means that homeopaths would certainly feel tempted to reduce
consultation times and drop their fees whenever they could, and thus see
more patients per day, so as to enjoy a
better livelihood. The question then becomes: is it reasonable to suppose
that homeopaths would forgo the chance to earn more money by idly chatting
to their patients, if they thought all they were doing was having a
placebo effect? Is this a reasonable portrayal of their work? I shall
contend that it is not a reasonable picture at all.
Homeopaths need long consultations - not to instil any kind of
placebo effect - but to get to know their patients more deeply as human
beings. This enables them to prescribe more accurately. All the
information they gather from the patient about nausea, emotions,
menstruation, sleep, vertigo, hot or cold sensations, food preferences,
and other such subtle symptom data, is essential to match the totality of
the patient with that of a single drug picture in the homeopathic materia
medica of 2000+ drugs. There is no shortcut to this approach, which can
make it an easier task, as Mr Park should know. It is the very heart and
soul of homeopathy to extract and contemplate this type of subtle symptom
data. Without painstaking attention to details of this kind, the wrong
drug is likely to be chosen, which will do nothing for the patient -
regardless of how much time is spent talking. That is the reality of the
situation:
'I have often heard physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion
that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest
just as strongly with my wrong remedy as with the right one, and my
patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct
remedy.' [3]
On quite another tack, it is also true to say, that there do exist
today some very talented homeopaths who have developed an ability to
prescribe on a quick-fire basis, by only giving the patient a few minutes
of their time. These homeopaths have an impressively ‘encyclopaedic’
knowledge of homeopathic drugs, without which they would not be able to
spot the subtle differences in symptoms that enable them to quickly
appraise every individual case. Such homeopaths, often in teams, work
queues of patients and hence treat many hundreds per day in rural clinics,
mostly in India, but also in parts of Africa, South America and eastern
Europe [4]. They mostly treat acute problems a GP might encounter, whereas
the longer consultations are still required for deeper constitutional
prescribing. All of this information Mr Park could encounter by studying
the subject for himself, before publicly parroting the entirely
prejudicial opinions of others about it.
It is also true to say that the subtle symptom data of the patient
cannot actually be used by a regular clinician, as they do not adopt such
a neutral listening approach to the patient, but merely seek to see them
as a disease label. And nor does the pharmacopoeia contain that kind of
fine-tune symptom data. Let us therefore turn Mr Park’s argument around
slightly. Regular physicians might easily be accused of ignoring masses of
[real and unique] subtle symptom data in their patients, which they
regard, if at all, as so much ‘extraneous baggage’ of no use in making
clinical decisions. Some even regard this material as invented or
fantasised by the patient. So be it. Moreover, as scientific
reductionists, they are content merely to treat the parts and disease
labels, blithely ignoring the patient as a whole being. Would that be a
reasonably fair account of their approach? I think it would.
In which case, critics of ‘alt. med.’ like Mr Park should ask
themselves long and hard what type of medical encounter they would
actually prefer. Would they wish to feel better in every department of
their body and mind through the use of subtle and safe microdoses of drugs
proven on the healthy; or the use of acupuncture or nutritional reform
[for example]? Alternatively, would they prefer instead, to get a few
parts sorted out fleetingly by use of poisonous, unproven drugs? In the
latter case, of course, there is no true cure on offer, only palliation
and suppression; allopaths seem merely to engage in some temporary re-
juggling of symptoms, like an elaborate form of physiological window-
dressing. It is fundamentally uncurative, as it does not remove all
symptoms from the body and it does not stimulate the body’s own healing
powers. It does not create health. Well, these are the views natural
therapists consistently hold about allopathy.
Like acupuncture, homeopathy does not cure disease; it restores
health, which may be defined as the body’s innate healing powers [vis
medicatrix naturae], the importance of which has been increasingly ignored
by regular medicine for the last two centuries. Bedazzled by 'science',
and working purely at a chemical and physiological level, allopathy does
not seek to boost this power and probably depletes it. The two medical
systems seem to stand poles apart and it is hard to see how anyone could
be an advocate or practitioner of both [5].
Try as one might, it us difficult to regard Mr Park’s views as
deriving from a thorough study of this subject. They seem imprudent,
impatiently dismissive and entirely hostile - they reflect the hateful
opinions of those who seek to demolish and badmouth ‘alt. med.’ at every
turn. If only people would patiently study these subjects, deeply,
neutrally and take time to reach more balanced views - and practice some
of the therapies too - before choosing to pontificate in this way, then
much blatant misunderstanding could be avoided.
Peter Morrell
Sources
[1] Stephen Park, BMJ letter - More Scepticism Please, 20 May 2000
and further letters 24 May, 25 May, and 4 June 2000.
[2] This information derives from as yet unprocessed and unpublished
data, collected by the author from surveys during 1998-9 from ~300
worldwide homeopaths [mostly Spanish, Australian, UK, New Zealand and
American practitioners].
[3] James Tyler Kent, 1926, New Remedies, Lesser Writings and
Aphorisms & Precepts, Chicago, quoted in Francis Treuherz, 1984,
Origins of Kent's Homeopathy, JAIH 77.4, 130-49; 140-1.
[4] see David Little website:
http://www.similimum.com
London College http://www.lcch.com/
also Buddhist homeopaths in Africa websites:
http://www.anandamarga.org http://home.pacific.net.sg/~rucira/africa
[5] see Harris L Coulter, 1973-5, Divided Legacy, 3 volumes, Wehawken
Books, Washington, for a deeper study of this schism in medical thought.
Competing interests: No competing interests
An open letter to health care professionals (with open minds)
Dear health care professionals,
I understand that there is a growing demand for alternative medicine and
that public satisfaction rates are high.
I also understand that Doctors are overstretched. They may often be
tempted to refer patients to alternative practitioners either because they
feel that a harmless placebo is the appropriate treatment, or because they
have an “open mind” with regard to the efficacy of alternative treatments.
(Of course a truly open mind is not closed to the possibility that a lot
of fringe medicine is a Barnum and Bailey style rip-off).
The BMA document “Referrals to Complementary therapists” makes it
clear that patient safety should be the first priority of doctors. I feel
that alternative therapies present costs to society that were not touched
upon by the document. The National Health Service has, I’m afraid, a duty
to weigh these up against the market pressure for alternative therapies.
In my view natural consumer rights are violated by the bogus claims of alternative
medicines, especially by Homoeopathic remedies which have no active
ingredient. Deception is very seldom ethical. If Homoeopathy is not
deception then it comes very close indeed. Its survival certainly depends
on the organised spread of misinformation. In matters of health, consumers
deserve greater than average protection. I believe it is inappropriate
for GPs to refer patients to Homoeopaths, and I was disappointed that the
document did not simply state this.
The spread of pseudo-science is of deep concern to those of us who
have not given up hoping for an educated public, who could discern it from
real science and dismiss it accordingly. Even some doctors, sadly, have
been fooled by Homoeopathy, though the facts are easily available, and
speak for themselves.
Doctors are not guardians of truth, however they are in a position of
some authority. This authority is as abused if they encourage the
absorption untruths are into our minds, just as it would be if they
encouraged the inhalation of cigarette smoke into our lungs.
The environmental and consumer movements are two very necessary
forces in a modern economy with which I am broadly sympathetic. They have
both, through ignorance, shamefully, given endorsements to alternative
health, or so it seems. I am calling, therefore, on doctors and health
care professionals to take the sceptical approach, irrespective of its
popularity or the length of the “worried well” queue. Giving credibility
to mumbo jumbo is seriously bad for society.
I have no commercial or professional interest in health, though I
have lived for 6 years in an alternative medicine “hot-spot”. I can assure
you that while alternative therapies may seldom actually damage health, I
feel sure of the detrimental effect it has on a community’s faculty of
reason, encouraged as it is to believe in “wave energy fields”,
“meridians”, “constitutional types”, potentization and other phenomena who
have as little claim on reality as did ectoplasm, phlogiston or the ether.
Very best wishes Stephen Park
Competing interests: No competing interests
· A response to Peter Morrel
Debate of the 1840s is revisited
“EDITORVickers and Zollman's article on homoeopathy was a balanced account
of homoeopathic medicine.”
I disagree
“ However, the ensuing dialogue between medicine and "evil quackery"
shows some parallels with that in the 1840s.
In both cases, the engagement has been vigorous and hostile; alternative
medical systems were booming then, just as they are today.
The pressure of public popularity is driving the worldwide growth of
alternative medicine.
Clearly patients who turn to alternative medicine are unhappy with some
aspect of conventional treatment, and they should reveal their motives to
their doctors.
Unless their disappointments are addressed, more patients will inevitably
flock to such therapists.
Holistic treatments may offer slender hope to patients, but they seem
to prefer hopes to drugs and surgery.”
True. I think there are many complex reasons for this. I think we
have a very strong need to make sense of our lives, to have stories that
are plausible, so that the frightening random element is diminished.
Science based medicine is rightly cautious about supplying these.
Quacks are fountains of them, Implicit and explicit.
Our bodies are a great vulnerability, but we feel strongly that we
are not merely bodies. This illusion of dualism is a very natural and very
strong one: For centuries it was believed that physical deformity was a
manifestation of moral deformity. Why else would God have made some people
deformed? Although I haven’t heard this one from a quack recently their
rationale is routed in similarly cosy parallels.
Thinking scientifically is likely to lead (perhaps unconsciously) to
some unpalatable truths, (come to think of it they hang in the air of
every hospital.): Life is short, arbitrary painful and pointless. The
good are unlikely to be rewarded.
Alternative medicine by contrast paints a view of life in which health and
happiness are the only natural consequences of being oneself, its just a
question of finding ones true self and restoring the balance with some
expensive tincture.
Is it ludicrous to suggest that people see their healers instead of going
to church?
“Many people refer to the unproved efficacy of homoeopathy and the
"ludicrous" nature of its minimum doses.
The usual argument is that because "it cannot work" therefore "it does not
work."
If I am not mistaken many aspects of anaesthesia were a complete
mystery until very recently; it didn’t stop it being a very useful tool
and very central to conventional medicine.
“Were homeopathy to prove an effective therapy, it would be
irrational for any legitimate medical practitioner to ignore or fail to
employ it.
Given the apparent lack of adverse effects from high dilution homeopathic
remedies, such a therapy should be readily embraced if it were effective.
Indeed, open-mindedness is one of the hallmarks of science and the
rapid assimilation of new therapies and technologies has been a consistent
characteristic of scientific medicine. In fact, studies have shown that
practitioners of mainstream medicine are less dogmatic than those of its
alternatives.
To quote the late Dr. Carl Sagan, "...at the heart of science is an
essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an
openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the
most ruthlessly sceptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how
deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."68 From "Homeopathy and
science a closer look"
David W. Ramey, DVM*
Mahlon Wagner, PhD^
Robert H. Imrie, DVM`
Victor Stenger, PhD#
“In the 1840s, Sir John Forbes, physician to Queen Victoria's
household, called "the infinitesimal doses" of homoeopathy "an outrage to
human reason."
Its successes were written off as "self limiting diseases."
But as patients know, few diseases improve when left alone.”
I disagree, though it’s certainly true that we like to feel we are
doing something other than suffering passively.
“ Thus, to claim that homoeopathy works because patients "would get
better anyway" does not square with human experience:”
Human experience is full of its own illusions; we often see what we
are looking for.
“ if doing nothing for self limiting diseases is the reason that
homoeopathy works, then why should anyone bother giving any drugs at all?”
Perhaps very often no drugs would be a good idea.
“It is doubtful that patients would pay high fees for treatments of
no value.”
Is it? Some people do yogic flying, others collect avant-garde art,
Chinese women had their feet bound. There is no end to the diversity of
culture. Can culture stand a vacuum? It would be very odd if bogus
therapies did not exist. Imagine a bogus therapy that has all the
qualities to survive and flourish and ask yourself how it differs from
homeopathy? A: not much if at all.
“The argument that they are rich and desperate (or stupid) enough not
to know whether a treatment works seems unconvincing.
Vickers and Zollman state that there is a lack of "evidence that
homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single condition."
How does one define "evidence" when homoeopaths deny the existence of
single conditions?”
Is this really a very robust strategy?
“ Trials of homoeopathy have been disappointing, but the weight of
anecdotal evidence must count for something.”
I was Ill (fill in the details) the doctors and specialist could not
help me but the homeopath, asking strange questions and finding my
constitutional type has cured me and now I can do x again which I couldn’t
do before."
This story is:
A: easier to tell than a more complex one
B: more likely to be told and repeated than a similar one with no
positive ending.
We may have a culturally embedded need to tell this or similar story.
Homeopathy is a process for generating these anecdotes.
“In the 1850s it was widely predicted that "medical fads" such as
homoeopathy would fizzle out in a few years.
That they have failed to do so either indicates that they do work or
stands as a testament to human credulity.”
The latter. Homeopathy does not stand alone in having fooled people,
although its products seem to enjoy a peculiar privilege in that they make
outrageous and unsubstantiated claims whilst having no active ingredient.
Any natural common sense view of fair trade is being violated. In matters
of health surely consumers have an even greater than normal right to
protection.
“The growing demand for these treatments is a central and
uncomfortable reality which medicine must face up to.”
Sad but true
Stephen Park
PS, I have no commercial or professional interest in this subject. I
am genuinely curious and therefore never satisfied by mumbo jumbo.
(Homeopathy is an endless source of this stuff). Where is the nitty-
gritty?
Homeopathy is an enormous industry precariously balanced on a stupid
falsehood. The prognosis is not good. Any careful reading of these
exchanges reveals that insiders in this vain and silly enterprise actually
carry this conclusion with them, a gene that must not be let out at any
time.
I was going to write a book on this subject but I’ve been beaten to it. I
can thoroughly recommend: Homeopathy What are we Swallowing? By Steven
Ransom. Credence publications. ISBN0-953512-2-1
I think I will work instead on a pamphlet, which might be entitled
”How to give up being a homeopath without feeling gullible and foolish”
there only one problem , I simply don’t know where to begin.
pps. Closed minds? In my experience an open mind would preclude
anyone from a career in alternative medicine.
Competing interests: No competing interests
How Homeopathy Really works
1. Homeopathy is a sociological phenomenon, not a biochemical one or
(absurdly) a sub atomic one. If this seems unlikely consider for a moment
some other undeniably sociological phenomena; the avant-garde art market,
disco dancing, the fascist youth movement, yogic flying, train-spotting,
body-piercing and bungee jumping, not to mention transvestites,
astrologers, stag hunters, Christian scientists etc. you will recognise
that we humans are weird and wonderful creatures. Our culture cannot stand
a vacuum any more than nature.
It would be very odd if bogus therapies did not exist.
Consider also how deeply rooted in every culture is the story of the
miracle cure and how revered is the role of healer. How strong is the
urge (perhaps subconsciously) to make this story more plausible and to own
it, to bring it home? Is a scientific worldview an obstacle in this
regard?
For the sake of argument imagine a highly successful bogus therapy,
i.e. one that offers a physical cure but doesn’t deliver it.
What factors would determine the survival of this therapy?
(Of course it would require faith, dogma, organised persuasion, in
addition; see “something’s that work in Homeopathy’s favour”)
What would all the participants in this performance get out of it?
What would it offer patients in place of effective remedy?
(1:a placebo. 2: rights to the anecdote “I was cured but science
can’t understand how”. 3: “ Those evil multinational drugs companies wont
get me”) etc.
What’s in it for the therapist?
(How fabulous to be a healer that mere pedantic science cannot get a
grip on, though a little inappropriate to blow your own trumpet on these
pages)
How would it place it self in relation to other treatments on the
market?
(Fill this one in yourself)
How would believers in this therapy respond to refutations and
criticism?
(See responses to “something’s that work in Homeopathy’s favour”)
What makes a good therapist?
(One that is convinced and convincing, prepared to write letters,
make outrageous claims, reassure etc.)
There is much more to say on this subject.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Updated details for Society of Homeopaths
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Please note The Society of Homeopaths has now dropped the 'o' to make it
more 'user-friendly'.
Our email and website address is now as follows:
info@homeopathy-soh.org
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/
The Society of Homeopaths is the largest organization registering
professional homeopaths in the UK. Our Registered Members complete
rigorous training (normally 3 years full time or 4 years part time) with
one of our recognized course providers, and undergo a further period of
clinical supervision before becoming eligible for our public Register.
We aim to:
*develop and maintain high standards for the practice of homeopathy
,br>*develop and maintain for public use a Register of homeopaths who practise
to the standards required by the Society, and abide by the Society's Code
of Ethics and Practice
*protect the public's freedom to have homeopathic treatment now and in the
future
*promote public awareness of homeopathy and encourage its responsible use
in the home
*promote and support the establishment of education and training in
homeopathy
The Society of Homeopaths, 11 Brookfield, Duncan Close, Moulton Park,
Northampton NN3 6WL
Tel: 0845 450 6611 Fax: 0845 450 6622
Please also note that Society members:
"have been adequately trained in the essential medical sciences and skills
and have had suitable clinical training and experience."
Yours Faithfully,
Mary English DSH
Licensed member of The Society of Homeopaths working towards registration.
Competing interests:
I am a Licensed Homeopath
Competing interests: No competing interests