Nov 19, 2009
Homeopathy really doesn’t work
A couple of years ago, I re-posted an old article of mine about homeopathy discussing its ludicrous claims, its feeble attempts to provide a scientific explanation for those claims, and basically pointing out that no solid evidence has ever been found that infinitely diluted solutions of spurious ingredients have any more beneficial effect on a patient than a glass of fresh water.
The post got a very late critique from someone in the homeopathy “industry”, so I took each of their points and updated my original post, making it even more robust than it had originally been. Incidentally, that first draft was written originally for a medical magazine and had been checked over by a homeopath and a general practitioner, so it’s not that it hadn’t been in half decent shape to begin with.
One of the big claims that homeopaths make is that there is lots of positive evidence for what they do and that anyone who says there isn’t is being economical with the truth. Well, there are a few clinical trials, that demonstrate something-ish, but lots more that say a very lot about how homeopathy really doesn’t work.
Cochrane Reviews, NHS Choices, etc are great starting points for looking at clinical trials:
Homeopathy for dementia – Summary: “No evidence that homeopathy is effective in treating dementia”.
Homeopathy for ADHD – Conclusion: Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Homeopathy for headache? – Results: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of homeopathy for managing headache; studies published to date are flawed.
Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments – Conclusion: There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic medicines for other adverse effects of cancer treatments.
Homeopathy in allergies and respiratory conditions – Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to judge whether or not homeopathy is useful in the treatment of allergic, ENT and respiratory conditions.
Quackwatch has an interesting summary of homeopathy in which the author points out that homeopathic products “are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs.” But, Bandolier has the best comment:
Even ardent proponents of homeopathy who have performed a critical overview conclude that homeopathy ‘should not be substituted for proven therapies’.
This quote is based on a citation of Jonas et al in Annals of Internal Medicine in their critical review of homeopathy in which they state – “There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions.”
Proponents claim that homeopathy works. They claim that the repeated dilution (effectively infinite dilution to the point where not a single molecule of the original tincture is present in the solution) of an agent that causes particular symptoms will yield a treatment for similar symptoms presented by a patient with some condition or other.
Of course, they also argue that a homeopath does much more than a conventional physician in assessing “holistically” the patient’s state of physical and mental health…but then that suggests that the remedy hinges on bedside manner rather than a physical effect and doesn’t that then imply that the billion-dollar homeopathic over-the-counter remedies won’t work because the patient doesn’t get the pep talk from the practitioner? Anyway, if I were a GP I’d be wholly insulted that I was being accused of not taking care of my patients, just because scientifically it makes more sense to focus…
The homeopathy debate is almost totally one sided, any rational assessment can show that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery. Similar debates surround arguments about other forms of superstition, including the existence of ghosts, ghouls, fairies at the bottom of the garden, perpetual motion machines, and countless other medical panaceas.
Clinical trials have been done, they are generally weak, poorly designed, and when assessed en masse reveal little more than statistical deviations even in those claimed to be the most extensive and strong.
Respectful Insolence recently deconstructed FASEB Journal’s homeopathic deconstruction.
In addition, Bandolier provides a nice summary of homeopathic evidence: “Until large and well conducted randomised trials tell us differently, the conclusion is that homeopathy does not work, and its use instead of remedies of proven effectiveness is not a matter of trivial implication. Members of the public are relieved of much money each year by homeopaths. There’s little evidence they are relieved of any suffering.”
By the way, despite the existence of dozens of homeopathic clinics in Africa, the World Health Organisation (WHO) specifically states that it: “DOES NOT recommend the use of homeopathy for treating HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea”.
Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, & Linde K (2003). A critical overview of homeopathy. Annals of internal medicine, 138 (5), 393-9 PMID: 12614092
Baum, M., & Ernst, E. (2009). Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy? The American Journal of Medicine, 122 (11), 973-974 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.03.038:
It is considered unethical for modern medical practitioners to sink to this kind of deception that denies the patient his or her autonomy. Secondly, by opening the door to irrational medicine alongside evidence-based medicine, we are poisoning the minds of the public. Finally, if we don’t put a brake on the increasing self-confidence of the homeopathic establishment, they will cease to limit their attention to self-limiting or nonspecific maladies.
I expect this post will get a lot of irrational comments, I don’t intend to enter into personal correspondence, but would hope that readers could discuss the issues here. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? I don’ think so, open your mind too much and your brains are likely to trickle out one homeopathic drip at a time.
"Deceived Wisdom: Why What You Thought Was Right Is Wrong" from David Bradley. Available now on 
interesting about high dilutions ..
“Editorial / Homeopathy and high dilutions – is there a real effect? / A. Falus”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gfd639qt4vlv1626/fulltext.pdf?page=1
“Thus their findings indicate that high dilutions may indeed have a biological
effect. The authors are unable to explain their findings but wished to encourage others to investigate this area”
I am 55 years old. I have 2 brothers and a sister, their families, and within the families 6 children ranging from 6 years to 24 years.
Then off course we have our parents.
As far as I can remember, the big family has seldom had a medicine from the allopathic drug store. The only time we have visited an allopathic doctor was for vaccination for children.
This is not to say we have never been sick: we live in India and with the conditions around us falling sick is rather normal. If I remember correctly, I and members in the family have suffered from the following illness among others:
1. Fevers: malaria, typhoid, chicken pox, measles, flu and seasonal fevers among others.
2. Throat problems: Tonsils, cough, pains.
3. Skin: Eczema, ring worms, warts, corns, eruptions.
4. Stomach: diarrhea, worms, pain, vomiting, jaundice.
5. External Injury: dog bite, flesh wounds, sprains.
Every time we have relied upon homeopathic treatment and have been cured by taking the highly diluted remedy! I would believe that it is possible that taking homeopathic medicines acts as placebo but it would be stretching the imagination a little far as to how many of the above problems can be cured by placebo effect, over what period of time and how many people can benefit from this effect! The combined family age at 591 years is a long time.
In the 55 years of my life time I have never taken a medicine from Allopathic store for any of the above problem. I am sure we are not the only family who can stand up and say this; there would be many other similar people in this world. And because this is true, so is the understanding that Homeopathy is a form of medicine.
If the present methods of science are not able to evaluate the action procedure of the homeopathic medicine it does not mean the medicine is wrong. It can actually mean that to understand the working of these medicines the check procedure has to be changed.
david
sorry for attacking your article as an individual.
look mate i am just going off 20 years off experience from having a family friend who is a naturopath/homeopath who has cured many many many of my family and friends from all kinds of illnesses which regular doctors cant do anything about……
i have seen this alternative medicine work over and over again…..
in the end of the day it is up to you to believe me. if you think im lying or talking rubbish…… well congratulations. your wrong……..
Great article & review. Homeopathy works? So does magic. I really believe the magician makes coins disappear or people levitate & no amount of scientific evidence will convince me otherwise.
This reminds me of a skeptic I knew years ago who said there is more evidence for the tooth fairy. After all, there are millions of children under the age of 5 who will swear unshakingly that the tooth fairy put that quarter under their pillows. Now, I know I put that quarter under MY kids’ pillows but surely some of the children must be right.
@Shane Well , I cannot let a personal attack go unchallenged, can I? First off, sciencebase is not a “they”. It’s just me. I am a freelance science writer, and yes, funnily enough I write about science. Did you imagine some enormous corporate entity churning out anti-homeopathy propaganda? Wrong. Moreover, I wonder how you think I am going to make more money writing such an article. No one paid me to write it. There is just too much garbage published about alternative medicine and I wanted to point out that total and utter lack of credible evidence in its favour.
The onus is on homeopaths and other charlatans to prove efficacy, not the other way round. They cannot, as the hundreds of reports that have been published prove. At best, they occasionally demonstrate vaguely better than placebo, but not always, and even the positive results have to be massaged (without essential oils) so much to make them fit the concept.
Not only does infinite dilution contradict everything we have learned about physics and chemistry over several hundred years but the notion that “like cures like” is plainly wrong. Stroking your stung skin with nettles does not cure the sting, likewise a fever-inducing herb diluted into oblivion does not cure the lethal, parasitic blood disease malaria.
But, the most absurd notion is that “whats the worst that can happen?” (which needs an apostrophe in what’s by the way). The worst that can happen is that someone with a serious illness seeks out a quack, is “treated” with some mystical woo and simply gets worse or dies, whereas seeking out a genuine treatment may have cured them.
Homeopathic propaganda suggests that it can cure AIDS, cancer, TB, malaria, swine flu, bird flu, gullible idiot flu etc etc etc.
Homeopathy can do absolutely nothing for these illnesses.
Certainly, if you have some transient disorder, a little TLC from a so-called holistic practitioner is going to make you feel like you’re getting better, but if a disorder is transient, that’s all there is too it, it was going to get better anyway. Even placebo outperforms sugar pills in some tests.
Incidentally, if it actually worked homeopathy would no longer be alternative medicine, it would just be medicine, wouldn’t it?