Bogus Beliefs - Homeopathy
Posted: Monday, July 06, 2009
by Ben Morrish
http://alltruism.blogspot.com
Over a decade ago I had homeopathic
treatment for a skin condition I have – psoriasis, which causes
patches of skin cells to multiply too fast, leading to the formation
of thick, reddish scales, bits of which tend to dry out and flake
off. Not very pleasant really.
I tried homeopathy because I had tried
various other things and they hadn't worked, so why not try one more
thing that almost certainly wouldn't work either, just on the off
chance I was wrong?
I tried it. I wasn't wrong. It didn't
work.
Some advocates of homeopathy will say
that it didn't work because I didn't believe it would.
However, nothing in the stated theory of homeopathy suggests that the
recipient has to believe, so such homeopaths are essentially
just making it up as they go along – their claim about the
necessity for belief isn't part of the principles of homeopathy
itself, it's just a rather weak excuse they've invented to explain
the observed fact that homeopathy didn't work on me.
Stangely, some of the very same
homeopaths suggesting my lack of belief was the reason for
homeopathy's failure make the claim that their treatment works on
animals. Obviously, animals don't believe in homeopathy – it's a
safe bet that they have no idea what it is.
Raise this point to the homeopaths and
they might well change the story a bit to try and protect their
belief – suddenly it's not the belief that makes it work,
it's the skepticism – the "negative energy" - that stops
it working, so obviously it would work on animals because they don't
have that nasty negative energy. Of course, they don't provide any
evidence for this.
If there was any energy involved,
"negative" or otherwise, this would be something we could measure
and test, but unsuprisingly the homeopaths aren't too bothered about
doing this.
Like many "alternative medicine"
practitioners or "New Agers" they are willing to make up new
forms of energy at the drop of a hat. "Life energy", "crystal
energy", "reiki energy" and so on – the list is nigh endless,
and continually growing. "Science does't know everything" is one
of their pat responses when challenged about these wacky forms of
energy, and is rare among their utterances in that it is true.
Science most certainly doesn't know
everything. As Dara O'Briain put it - "science knows it
doesn't know everything. If it did, it would stop!". However
science does know quite a lot about energy, and the forms it
takes.
If there were forms of energy not yet
discovered, these would still be governed by the law of conservation
of energy. Even if we couldn't measure them directly for some reason,
we would still expect to see otherwise inexplicable surpluses or
deficits in other types of energy. If a skeptic produced some
mysterious "negative energy" we'd expect to see extra calories
being burnt off or something since the "negative energy" would
have to come from somewere. When we take the trouble to look, we
don't see this. So we can reject the postulated "energy" as
bogus.
If you want to be able to postulate new
forms of energy and still be taken seriously, you need to be an
expert on current theoretical physics and be able to demonstrate that
the current models don't fit the evidence as well as your proposed
model featuring a new kind of energy.
But back to me, and my runaway skin.
The homeopathy I tried, from several different practitioners, had no
noticeable effect whatsoever. I didn't expect it to work, and it
didn't.
Years before, when I was a young
teenager, I'd been to my GP about the psoriasis and been given
something called Betnovate, a steroid-based liquid. I'd used it for
several months, and it hadn't had any effect on me. Just like the
homeopathy.
Years after my unsuccessful treatments
by both conventional medicine and homeopathy, I went back to my GP
again, hoping that advances in medical science might have thrown up
something new for me to try and hopefully relieve my increasingly
uncomfortable skin.
My hopes were somewhat dashed when my
GP prescribed me Betnovate again, the very same thing I'd tried
before, all those years ago. However, I decided to go ahead and give
it a go – I fully expected it to do nothing at all, as before, but
at least it would then be ticked off the doctor's "to try" list,
so that I could hopefully move on to something else which might
actually work.
My "negative vibes" were far higher
towards the Betnovate than they had been towards the homeopathy,
because I knew from personal experience that the Betnovate
didn't work on me.
I went home and started applying the
Betnovate. To my surprise, within a week my symptoms were greatly
reduced, and within a month they were almost entirely gone.
These weren't subjective symptoms like
"a vague headache" or "slight unease" where my personal
"reporting bias" could have come into play - my symptoms had been
very visible to others, and independent observers had, unprompted,
noticed the improvement.
If the homeopaths claims about
"negative vibes" completely negating the effectiveness of
treatments were true then this was something of a miracle – somehow
conventional medical science had found a way to produce medicines
that could pierce the web of negative energy and produce effective
results in the most skeptical patients, an ability which somehow
eluded the homeopaths even though they were the only ones who
believed such negative energy existed in the first place!
Of course, medical science had done no
such thing. There had been no experiments to find a way to get
through the "negative energy", and no changes to the medicine to
somehow overcome it.
The Betnovate I received the second
time around was the same as the Betnovate I received the first time –
it wasn't laced with cunningly engineered compounds designed to
disrupt the flow of "negative energy". The "negative energy"
was merely a figment of the homeopath's imagination.
Why didn't the Betnovate work the first
time I hear you ask? Honestly, I don't know.
There are a few explanations which seem
reasonable though (and don't require me to make up any fundamental
new forms of energy!).
Perhaps, thanks to the youthful
foolishness I was filled with at the time, I hadn't applied the
medication properly. Or perhaps my body was so full of growth
hormones that the growth-restricting properties of the Betnovate were
drowned out.
Some of you may be thinking "well,
perhaps the homeopathy would have worked if you'd given it a second
try". This is a fair point, although I did try several homeopaths,
over a period of several years (and mostly after the worst of my
teenage hormone-storms had died down!), and got no improvement
whatsoever.
Advocates of homeopathy who focus on
attacking conventional (aka "evidence based") medicine rather
than providing evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy may
also point out that my story shows that conventional medicine has its
flaws and doesn't always work.
The answer to that of course is quite
simple – no-one is claiming that it is flawless (the packaging even
lists some of the flaws, under the heading of "side effects"!),
and no-one is claiming that it always works. In fact clinical trials
give us good information about the probability of a particular
medicine working in a particular set of circumstances, and not even
the most reliable medicines are 100% effective.
While I have presented the above as
anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of conventional medicine and
the ineffectiveness of homeopathic medicine, it is important to
remember than anecdotal evidence isn't something you can rely on too
much.
A few anecdotes can add a little colour
to the dry statistical evidence from a controlled clinical trial for
example, but it is the evidence from the controlled trial(s) that we
should base any relevant decisions on, not the evidence of a few
anecdotes.
(for those interested in seeing the evidence for themselves, I highly recommend Google Scholar, as it allows you to search through papers on many clinical trials.)
Not so sure about your whole energy idea, good article anyway mate.Hi Dan, thanks for reading! :)
The energy idea isn't really mine. Back when homeopathy was invented, many believed in the theory of "vitalism", where living beings were animated by some fundamental "life energy" that was present only in living beings.
Now we have a fairly good picture of the chemical processes that actually do animate living things. They are insanely complicated - even the processes going on in a single cell involve many hundreds of reactions working together in a tightly regulated manner - but they explain how living beings "work" without having to invent a mysterious "life force".
Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy decided that all diseases must be caused by imbalances in the individual's "life force". Today, we know the causes for almost every disease - and not one of these explanations has needed to invoke a mysterious life force, and there's no data that is best explained by postulating the existence of "life force".
Interesting article, Ben. I've tried Homeopathy in my young adult life. It worked. I would not be opposed to trying it again. I know there are bogus claims and beliefs just as there are with civilized medicine.Thanks for reading! I know quite a few people who believe homeopathy has helped them.
I don't think homeopathy works, at least not in the way it claims to. However, the session with the homeopath can be beneficial (working as a form of counselling), and may also serve to increase the placebo effect of the pills somewhat.
Counselling + placebo effect together are a powerful force, and can genuinely make people feel better. But I think (and trials have repeatedly shown) that homeopathic remedies aren't effective beyond placebo.
If a homeopath's various remedies were secretly swapped around, or replaced with blank sugar pills that had not been homeopathically prepared I think the number of people who went away feeling better would remain the same.
hi! Just read your article.First off, everybody's body is different!!! And depending on who you went to, and their knowledge, expertise (or lack of it), could effect why it didn't work for you.I know of a number of folks that these things didn't work so good.And I know just as many that have miracle stories (me included).The herbalist I went to, had a working knowledge, and helped me get off the meds I was on for seizures. I've been seizure free for ten years now.As I said, everybody's body is different!!! There are MANY factors to consider. And MANY herbs that do similar things. Sometimes certain herbs together work a little against each other, too.Just don't "write it off" because you had a bad experience. The goal and end result is YOU GOT BETTER!! Hot diggity!!! That's great!!It works for some, not for others.As for the "negative" energy. hmm......well, I won't say that it wasn't a contributing factor, but without knowing all the ins and outs of your specific situation, it's hard to comment.Don't think that these other things don't work either. They do. I've seen it.It's like anything else. You'll have your "questionable" doctors, and your good doctors. Same thing in the herbal field. Some aren't so good, and if you're fortunate to find a really good herbalist, it's a great find!I'm sorry for your pessimistic view. As I said, I've seen it work. Are there categories in the "alternative" medicine that I'm not really into?? Sure.But I don't look down on those that it has helped.Just be happy they're finding solutions and they're happy.That's the BEST medicine!!"First off, everybody's body is different!!! And depending on who you went to, and their knowledge, expertise (or lack of it), could effect why it didn't work for you."
I agree here - everyone is different.
And yes, the expertise (or lack of it) of a practitioner could effect why it didn't work for me - but at least one of the homeopaths I visited was very highly regarded in homeopathic circles, so I don't think I just had three inexpert ones.
However, if an inexpert homeopath gave me the wrong remedy, according to the basic principles of homeopathy (although one that tends to get fudged around or outright denied by many of its supporters), I should have experienced slight negative effects, similar to the negative effects the ingredients of the remedies would have caused before they were "potentised". I didn't get any negative effects.
Of course, I am just one example, and therefore my story itself is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and therefore not itself sufficient to draw a firm conclusion either way!
"And MANY herbs that do similar things. Sometimes certain herbs together work a little against each other, too."
I completely accept that many herbal treatments work - they contain chemical "active ingredients" that are known to be generally effective for certain conditions. In fact, conventional medicines are often derived from herbal preparations. Herbal treatments can be very effective, just like "normal" drugs. They can also be dangerous, just like "normal" drugs, when mis-used (herbal preparations are easier to misuse because the amount of active ingredient in a given amount of herb can be very variable).
Homeopathic remedies contain zero active ingredient.
"You'll have your "questionable" doctors, and your good doctors. Same thing in the herbal field. Some aren't so good, and if you're fortunate to find a really good herbalist, it's a great find!"
I agree - many conventional doctors aren't very good. Finding a good one is a great find. However, the quality of the practitioner is largely irrelevant if their remedies don't have any effect.
So the remedies / medications need to be tested, and the bad ones thrown out, and the ones that do a good job need to be kept and made available to those who will benefit from them. This is what clinical trials set out to do, and homeopathic remedies simply don't do very well in the results unfortunately.
"But I don't look down on those that it has helped"
I don't look down on those it has helped, I just disagree about whether it was actually the homeopathy that helped them.
I think, based on the evidence from trials and large-scale testing rather than just anecdotes, that the genuine improvements some people see when they use homeopathy come from the placebo effect and the benefits of counselling etc rather than from the homeopathy itself.
Some people have shown great improvements in these tests, but not actually been given the homeopathic remedy at all! The placebo effect shows that our bodies do have amazing healing powers. The trials show that homeopathy doesn't noticeably increase these powers any more than a non-homeopathic placebo pill.
"Just be happy they're finding solutions and they're happy.That's the BEST medicine!!"
I agree. They do say laughter is the best medicine. But for diabetics, for example, I'd recommend a little insulin alongside :)
Hi Ben, I agree with you in many ways. Positive - negative energy or belief in a product has nothing to do with whether it works or not. Reality is what matters. I have dermatitis and I tried natural remedies. Nothing worked. Over the counter meds didn't work. Then finally good stuff from the Dermatologist. On the other hand, I have tried natural methods for other issues and they work great. If I can go natural I would prefer it. It about whatever works best. But again. I am with you on this postive negative energies, crystals and such. Very well stated! Thanks for writing about your experience. In the process of venting, you gave very helpful and encouraging information! Blessings to you! TeresaI agree that it's about whatever works best.
I don't quite agree on the idea that "natural is best" - although I do agree that blasting a condition with powerful medication is something that should only be done when absolutely necessary: if a milder medication can fix it, then that's all you should use.
The main reason I don't agree that with the "natural is best" concept is that "natural remedies" aren't designed to be remedies for the particular conditions we take them for, we've just happened to notice that they can help.
Conventional medicine studies the natural remedy and identifies what chemicals within it are actually doing the helping and produces a medicine that just contains that (i.e. it removes any other active but unhelpful chemicals).
By doing this, we end up with a medicine with fewer side effects, and a precisely controllable dose (the trouble with many natural herbal remedies is that the amount of active ingredient can very quite dramatically so you can't be sure how much drug you're actually getting).
An example of this is aspirin, derived from the bark of the willow tree. Sure, I could nibble the bark direct, or prepare an infusion from it and drink that, but then I'd be getting not only the active ingredient but lots of other chemicals that happen to be present in the bark, not all of which might be good for me (and some of which would definitely not taste too good :) ). I'd also be getting essentially a random dose of the active ingredient because the concentration will vary from tree to tree, and season to season etc. Give me the "unnatural" aspirin pill over the bark any day - a precisely controlled dose, and no extra chemicals that might give side effects!
Apart from that, I don't have anything against natural remedies per se. Many herbal preparations do work, and work well.
Having said that, homeopathic remedies are not really "natural" in my opinion - they are heavily processed in a way that supposedly imbues them with some kind of "potency" greater than was present in the original natural ingredient.
I didn't really go into the placebo effect in the article, but it exists, and it means that pretty much any "treatment" imaginable (that doesn't contain anything harmful) will appear to "work" for a lot of people. The placebo effect is well documented, and very powerful.
Homeopathic treatment has been repeatedly shown, on the whole, to be more effective than no treatment at all. However, it has not been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo (i.e. treatment with non-homeopathic sugar pills is just as effective as treatment with homeopathic ones).
For this reason, there will be people who do genuinely show an improvement in their condition when they use homeopathy. I would say, based on the evidence, that it is actually the placebo effect that can take the credit for the improvement in such cases, but of course many will disagree :)
Thanks for reading!Oh Ben, you make me smile :-)I forget how technically minded you are -- and that is a good thing, it is you, but I have to remember to be careful when I give open-ended comments, like "natural is best". I certainly did not mean I would munch on fungus because it is a form of anitbiotics :-) Although, garlic is, and garlic has cured my sinus infection when amoxicillin hasn't. other times, like now, I am on a potent anti-botic because the mild ones, nor garlic worked this time. All the best to you :-)I'm with you all the way on garlic - it's great stuff, very healthy and delicious too!
And there's even an "unnatural" version you can get with the "bad breath" side effect removed, but when it comes to garlic, I must admit I do think natural is best :)
Thanks for commenting!
