Myths about homeopathy (and putting them right)

(continued from previous page)

"There are no tests which have shown homeopathy to work"

To begin with we need to be clear about what we mean by tests, since homeopathy has been shown to work in a number of different types of test, and this myth generally refers only to randomised control trials (RCTs).

And this is where the lack of logic kicks in. Some conventional medical treatments cannot be tested using the RCT model, and so evidence of effectiveness is based on the clinical evidence of cases. One example is surgery, another is psychiatry, and it is even the case that some drugs are prescribed on the basis of clinical evidence, rather than on the evidence from RCTs. In addition, drugs are usually withdrawn on the basisof the clinical evidence revealing dangers not identified in the RCTs, so clinical evidence is actually considered more important in the evaluation of treatent than RCTs. Homeopathy has an unequaled level of detail in its case histories which makes it possible to verify the success of treatment by study of clinical practice, and there are also good reasons for it not being easily tested using RCTs. As a result the demand for evidence from RCTs is inappropriate and intended to distort the truth.

There are two particular reasons why homeopathy cannot be tested properly in RCTs:

The remedy has to be individualised. RCTs are based on giving the same treatment to a large number of people and looking at the results, compared with those for a group which has been given an "inactive" treatment. If you give the same remedy to a large number of people who nominally have the same illness, but whose individual symptoms do not indicate that the remedy is appropriate, then it is an "inactive" treatment for some proportion of those people. The result is that you are comparing an "inactive" treatment not with an "active" one, but with a combination of "active" and "inactive" treatments. This will dilute the difference between the groups and make the treatment appear ineffective.The sequence of remedies has to be individualised.  The best RCTs are generally conducted so that neither the patient nor the practitioner knows who is getting the "active" treatment and who the "inactive" one (double blind). In homeopathy, however, the practitioner needs to assess the patient's reaction to the previous remedy in order to decide how to proceed with the case. A lack of reaction to the remedy is important information as it may indicate that the wrong remedy or the wrong potency has been prescribed. Study of the case will lead to a decision about whether to change the remedy or potency. If the practitioner does not know whether the patient actually received the remedy, then it is impossible to make any accurate assessment of the case, and so the treatment becomes confused. This again will dilute the difference between the groups and make the treatment appear ineffective.

It is a measure of the power of homeopathy that even so there are trials which show it to be successful. A study of clinical trials of homeopathy by Kleijnen et al. (BMJ 1991; 302:316-323) concluded: ‘Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials (77%) indicated positive results.’ They also stated: ‘At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definite conclusions.’

"Homeopathy kills people"

This is a very new myth, and is literally impossible. Since the remedies stimulate the body's own healing processes, their action is precisely opposed to that of fatal illness. What is actually meant - is that homeopaths prevent or delay the use of "real" medicine, leading to a patient dying sooner than they might have done. In other words it is simply the argument that homeopathy is ineffective, dressed up in a more dramatic and particularly aggressive form. Only hypothetical evidence is ever produced to support this myth, since the truth is that generally patients come to homeopaths AFTER conventional treatment has failed, rather than before conventional treatment.

The truth is that even in the teeth of death, when nothing can be done to stop what is happening or to extend life, homeopathy can give relief and dignity to a person's last moments.

Other "objections" to homeopathy (and the answers to them)

While these do not fall under the heading of "myths", they are objections frequently used against homeopathy, although they're not reasonable.

"It cannot solve everything"

No homeopath would claim to be able to cure everything, or even to help in every case. For unknown reasons some people with chronic illnesses do not respond well to the homeopathy, just as some people fail to respond to other therapies. In addition there are circumstances which require a different sort of intervention. For example, while homeopathy may speed up the healing of broken bones, if they are not set properly, they will not heal correctly. There are also cases in which rapid intervention is needed to save life, such as severe injury, a severe asthmatic attack, or a severe allergic reaction. In such cases conventional medicine can save the life, but homeopathy has its role in speeding up recovery and working to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

"It can delay "real" treatment"

This is a popular objection at present and is based on the assumption is that homeopathy does not work, and only deludes the patient rather than helps them. It is a purely hypothetical objection, and is an attempt to scare people rather than inform them.

The reverse case is far more common, since many patients come to a homeopath because conventional medicine has failed to help them. Given that the best time for homeopathic treatment is in the earliest stages of illness (whether acute or chronic), the success of homeopathy in such cases is evidence of its power as a therapy, and the reality of its effects.

"Serious illnesses may not be diagnosed in time"

IF this is a problem, it is certainly not unique to homeopathy, since "Studies of autopsies have shown that doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time." (New York Times, accessed 29 December 2007). Homeopaths who are not fully trained in medical diagnosis have been taught to refer patients back to their GP for tests, if they suspect a serious illness that has not been diagnosed. But it is in the nature of homeopathy that it can offer a well trained practitioner much greater knowledge of the health of the patient than can be obtained through a conventional medical consultation.

Some conventional medical treatments cannot be tested using the RCT model and so [like homeopathy] evidence of effectiveness is based on clinical evidence of cases.

A new argument has emerged: a suggestion that homeopathy "kills people". But this is literally impossible since the way the remedies work is exactly apposed to that of fatal illness.

Homeopathy cannot help in every case. Some people just do not respond well to homeopathic treatment.

One objection to homeopathy is that "serious illnesses may not be diagnosed in time", yet studies of autopsies have shown that doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time.