Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money! --George Carlin
I know exactly nothing about homeopathy, other than rumors of pseudoscience and fraud. I decided to embark on an education in the subject to research the plausibility of homeopathy's claimed medicinal benefits.
If it smells like woo, it feels like woo, and it looks like woo, then it must be woo right? Unfortunately, it's not that simple for the layperson to separate the facts from fallacies as I shall discuss.
We'll begin with a definition of homeopathy and a summarized history:
Homeopathy is a system of medical therapy that uses very small doses of medicines, or remedies. These remedies are prepared from substances found in nature.Nevertheless, homeopathy should not be confused with herbal medicine. These two systems of medicine are very different. Herbal medicine uses tinctures of botanical substances, whereas homeopaths use ultradilute "micro"doses made from not only plants, but minerals or any other substance found in nature.
The homeopathic doctor chooses the proper remedy by following a special rule of nature called the Law of Similars. This law states "like cures like," or that a medicine can cure a sick person if it can cause similar sickness in a healthy person. For instance, if you peel an onion, your eyes burn, itch and water. You might also have a runny nose and begin to sneeze. If you had similar symptoms during a cold or allergy attack, such as a runny nose, watery eyes and sneezing, a homeopathic micro-dose of the remedy Allium cepa (red onion) would help your body heal itself.
The word "homeopathic" is derived from the Greek words homeos meaning "similar" and pathos meaning "disease" or "suffering." Thus, homeopathy means "to treat with a remedy that produces an effect similar to the disease or suffering."
In the late 1700's in Germany Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) developed the founding principles of homeopathy. The "Law of Similars" is cited as the basic principle enabling homeopathy to deliver results. The concept is remarkably parallel to the primitive belief in sympathetic magic.
A homeopathic remedy employs imperceptible traces of natural ingredients. The weaker the compound, the stronger the results, so it is claimed. In a homeopathic treatment there is less than one molecule of the active ingredient. Take a molecule of caffeine, mix it with the Atlantic ocean, and voila, you have yourself a homeopathic sleeping remedy.
This claim sounds suspect until you discover the explanatory power of "Water Memory".
Jacques Benveniste (1935-2004) courted scientific controversy with his attempt to explain the therapeutic effects of homeopathic compounds postulating his concept of "Water Memory". Benveniste argued that water had the capacity to retain the "memory" of molecules with which it came into contact. As dilution of the original mixture occurs, the memory of the original compound is retained. Benveniste performed his own experiments to test his hypothesis and found it to hold water (pun intended). However, subsequent independent double-blind experimentation could not replicate the claimed results. The concept was rejected by the scientific community as without merit. If homeopathy works, then it is not due to "water memory". At least according to scientists.
Skeptical Inquiry
Suspend your disbelief for a moment and join me on a journey through Google to research homeopathy. Imagine that you are an average Joe or Joanne. Skeptical inquiry is not your usual modus operandi, you typically believe what is presented to you as long as the presentation is professional and the "facts" seems plausible at face value. Sources are cited, studies presented, testimonials abound, this stuff must work!
Homeopathy presents itself professionally, citing "natural laws", peer reviewed scientific papers, clinical studies, and much more to lend to its credibility.
The big question is "Does it work?" I wanted to find out if homeopathy had substance for its claims and with my Baloney Detection Kit and mouse in hand I began my voyage of discovery.
My first keyword search; "Does homeopathy work?" yielded 1,470,000 results. There is clearly a lot of information out there, but how to narrow down my research and get to the facts?
I immediately discovered the National Center for Homeopathy (NCH), a US based proponent of homeopathic medicine. The NCH publishes links to a selection of peer reviewed research papers and clinical studies that apparently demonstrate the veracity of homeopathic claims. In some cases a link to the originating source was provided.
Peer reviewed research documents cited by NCH and published on the website of the US National Library of Medicine include:
Not all of the thirty-two research papers listed included citations to the original source. A casual observer might be convinced by these seemingly impressive conclusions from reputable scientists. The NCH clearly works hard to demonstrate scientific support for homeopathic alternative therapies.
In the face of skepticism, the NCH uses research papers to prove homeopathy. The conclusion, according to the NCH is that homeopathy is proven.
Since the beginning, conventional medicine has tried to halt the progress of homeopathy. At best, it accuses it of giving "placebos" despite double blind studies which demonstrate the absolutely undeniable efficacy of homeopathic treatments.
However, the bullshit detector is buzzing and red lights are flashing. From the quote above; "...conventional medicine has tried to halt the progress of homeopathy". Why would "conventional medicine" try to halt the progress of homeopathy? If it was discovered that a tablespoon of nutmeg cured Alzheimer's, conventional medicine would surely jump onto the discovery and not deny it. If the efficacy of homeopathic treatment works, why the denial from scientific sources?
The NCH can't have it both ways. If there are genuine peer-reviewed papers and double-blind clinical trials that support homeopathic treatments, these will have been reviewed and accepted by medical journals and scientists. Progress would not be halted as the evidence would be in the mainstream.
Digging around the US National Library of Medicine's website there are many other papers to be found that do not support homeopathic efficacy:
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom. Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for and against the effectiveness of homeopathy. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (generally considered to be the most reliable source of evidence) was searched in January 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Cochrane reviews with the term "homeopathy" in the title, abstract or keywords were considered. Protocols of reviews were excluded. Six articles met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Each of the six reviews was examined for specific subject matter; number of clinical trials reviewed; total number of patients involved; and authors' conclusions. The reviews covered the following conditions: cancer, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, dementia, influenza and induction of labour. DATA SYNTHESIS: The findings of the reviews were discussed narratively (the reviews' clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.
It appears that that there is conflicting evidence. Is the NCH selectively including research papers that appear to support their conclusions that homeopathy is a valid medicine?
Research is conflagrated by poorly thought out sites that fail to include citations or sources at all, but merely offer opinion in the guise of factual research.
Homeopathy breakthrough: homeopathic solutions proven to carry memory of water and exhibit biological effects
Groundbreaking new research has just been revealed that establishes the validity of homeopathy. It's being called the "holy grail" of homeopathy, and it has been published in the peer reviewed journal Inflammation Research. The study shows that a chemical dissolved in a solution (in such proportions that not even a single molecule of the original chemical could exist in the water) exhibits verifiable, scientifically proven biological effects. What this proves is that homeopathy is real. There's something about the homeopathic water that is different from regular water, and the biological effects are undeniable and easy to verify.
The above offers no citations for sources but merely claims that there has been groundbreaking new research. I won't quote the entire article, you can read it for yourself, but it goes on at length to describe the conspiracy against homeopathy.
We've seen two approaches to support homeopathy. The use of scientific support and the opinion based appeals and special pleadings as shown by NaturalNews.com. We can obviously discount the latter, but the former is more problematic.
Which should one believe? The likes of the NCH purport to show scientific evidential support, but as we've seen, their use of peer-reviewed papers is selective. Not surprisingly dissenting papers do not appear on the site. Arguments against dissent dissolve into claims of "conspiracy" and this tactic is disingenuous at best. But to the layperson resources such as the NCH appear convincing and forthright.
The difference between the NCH site and the US National Library of Medicine is that the latter takes no position on the subject. Publishing research both in favor and against the homeopathic is the balanced approach. Selectively choosing only those in support, as is the NCH approach, suggests that there is something that they are trying to gain.
In sum. There is a huge amount of "evidence" presented to sell homeopathic remedies, but the research does not support the efficacy of homeopathy. But to the layperson this is a lot to uncover and the hope that something so "natural" can overcome sickness is too great of a lure.
I conclude with this quote from the French Journal Prescrire International which in 1995 said:
As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo-responsiveness), these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients. However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in identical conditions.
A collective of
twisted, liberal baby-eating atheists with a penchant for taking the piss out of the religious mindset. Sorry,
we just can't help ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment