Credit: Veer Images
Pseudoscience makes me mad. Which is why I was so pleased to read a recent draft statement from Australia's peak health advisory body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, which said, in part: "The NHMRC's position is … it is unethical for health practitioners to treat patients using homeopathy, for the reason that homeopathy … has been shown not to be efficacious."
"Unethical" and "not efficacious" are strong phrases indeed. This is the first time the Australian government has made such an unequivocal statement about the pseudoscience of homeopathy. According to the draft statement, they were motivated after a similar move in the United Kingdom.
In 2010, the UK National Health Service conducted a review of the evidence to support continued public funding of homeopathy in Britain (totalling £4 million a year).
Following an exhaustive investigation, which included submissions from scientists and homeopaths alike, they concluded that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy, that no further clinical trials should be conducted, that explanations for why homeopathy works are "scientifically implausible" and that evidence shows homeopathy doesn't work. Now, that's what you call definitive.
Homeopathy was invented 200 years ago by German physician Samuel Hahnemann and is based on a 'like-treats-like' concept: that is, the symptoms of an illness can be treated by minute quantities of the substance that caused it. So a homeopathic preparation for insomnia may include miniscule amounts of coffee; or one for hayfever may contain tiny traces of pollens.
To make it even more bizarre, homeopathic preparations are extremely dilute, often beyond the point where science predicts even one molecule of the original substance remains.
For example, a common dilution strength known as '30C' is equivalent to watering something down 10-60. That's like putting a drop of vodka in a pool the size of the Solar System and expecting to still get drunk. Yet this is precisely what homeopaths believe: the more dilute the substance, the more potent it is. To explain this, they claim that the water retains a 'memory', of the original substance.
This is, of course, complete gibberish, and conveniently ignores the fact that the water also somehow 'forgets' all the sewage, mercury and other nasty stuff it has been in contact with before it ended up in a jar on the shelf of your local pharmacy.
Unlike the UK, the Australian government does not directly fund homeopathy, but $3 billion of taxpayers' money is funnelled into private health fund rebates every year. So if your health fund covers it, taxpayers cover it too.
The draft statement indicates the NHMRC plans to consult several health bodies before making a decision on whether this becomes an official statement, and which will include the general public. This will not mean homeopathy is banned in Australia. But if it's officially declared unethical and useless, there will be pressure on health funds to cease covering it. And maybe, just maybe, we will see it disappear from pharmacy shelves - where it currently sits incongruously alongside remedies based on science and deep evidence, and which have withstood rigorous testing.
More importantly, the statement sends a clear message to the public that homeopathy is not medicine and should not be used instead of conventional treatment.
Perhaps the NHMRC also considered two recent tragic deaths in Australia where homeopathy was implicated: 45-year-old Penelope Dingle, who died from bowel cancer treated with homeopathy; and 9-month-old Gloria Sam, who died from septicaemia contracted from severe eczema, also treated with homeopathic care.
Homeopathy is a pseudoscience - a claim, belief or practice that is presented as scientific but actually doesn't adhere to any valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility and cannot be reliably tested. It certainly has no place in our pharmacies and should not be funded by taxpayers. If the NHMRC draft position becomes official, it not only makes scientific sense, but will also protect consumers. And this can only be a good thing.
Rachael Dunlop, a cell biologist, is the communications officer at the Heart Research Institute in Sydney. A vice-president of Australian Skeptics and reporter for its podcast, The Skeptic Zone, she is a blogger and tweeter who recently won a global Twitter Shorty Award for Health.
Nothing in it
Great article, and it's wonderful to see the Australian government doing the right thing.
In the UK, homeopathy is supported (much to the delights of homeopaths) by Prince Charles. The argument being that if an inbred, overly privileged, idiot with no scientific or medical training or understanding supports it, then who are we mortals to disagree.
And just in case the complaints come rushing in:
1) No, it's not the way that vaccines work. Vaccines create an immune response to an actual stimulant. Homeopathy a) has no stimulant b) the stimulant has no relationship anyway. For example, diluted fragments of the Berlin Wall are used to 'treat' feelings of isolation.
2) No, it's not being close-minded to reject homeopathy. Science is, by definition, completely open minded- if something is shown to be true in the natural world, science embraces it. Quantum entanglement, Einsteinian relativity and the Theory of Evolution are all mind-bendingly fantastic, but the evidence makes them undeniable (unless of course better evidence arrives). Homeopathy is implausible, and internally logically inconsistent, but if it somehow works we should embrace it. But no, it has not been shown to work beyond placebo. The better the study, so any purported effects of homeopathy disappear - exactly what you would expect for a 'treatment' with no effect.
3) No, just because it has been around for a long time does not make it valid. Astrology, human sacrifice, seances, belief in 1000s of god(s) have long 'traditions' - but they do not make them real.
4) No, it's not a 'Eastern/Western' thing. Homeopathy was invented in Germany, and the credulous and skeptical exist everywhere. Don't be patronising.
5) No, it's not harmless. Lack of treatment for actual diseases is extremely dangerous, and it is wholly unethical for a practitioner to pretend to know what is best for a patient in the absence of valid evidence.
6) No, it's not a conspiracy of 'Big Pharma' to suppress homeopathy. Homeopathy is BIG BUSINESS, pays over 18 times on advertising than R & D (Pharma is 2x). And the substances in homeopathy have a mark-up percentage several orders of magnitude higher than even a Starbucks Tea.
Brava, Dr. Dunlop.
PSEUDOSKEPTICISM Makes Me Mad !!
"Homeopathy is a pseudoscience - a claim, belief or practice that is presented as scientific but actually doesn't adhere to any valid scientific method"
UNTRUE, INCORRECT AND INDICATES THAT THE AUTHOR HAS DONE NO RESEARCH WHATEVER INTO HOMEOPATHY, ITS METHODS OF PROVINGS, ITS REPERTORIES, ITS MATERIA MEDICAS, ITS DISCOVERIES THAT WERE LATER USED BY ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE SUCH AS NITRO FOR ANGINA. ALSO INDICATES THE AUTHOR IS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, SUCH AS THAT BY ENNIS, CLEARLY SHOWING HIGH DILUTION REMEDIES WITH ALL THE MOLECULES DILUTED AWAY CAN AND DO HAVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AS THOUGH THE MISSING MOLECULES ARE STILL THERE. NEITHER HAS THE AUTHOR BOTHERED TO VIEW, FOR EXAMPLE PRESENTATIONS CLEARLY ASSERTING AND DEMONSTRATING STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING EFFICACY ABOVE PLACEBO.
THE AUTHOR CLEARLY DENOUNCES HOMEOPATHY BUT ON GROUNDS OF MERE BELIEF, ITSELF ALSO UNSCIENTIFIC - IGNORING META ANALYSES APPEARING IN LANCET SUPPORTIVE OF EFFICACY ABOVE PLACEBO LEVELS AND REAMS OF OTHER RESEARCH BY PEOPLE SUCH AS DRS IRIS BELL, RUSTUM ROY AND MANY OTHERS.
THE AUTHOR OF THIS ATTACK AGAINST HOMEOPATHY HAS CLEARLY SUCCUMBED TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE PSUEDO-SKEPTICAL "SCIENTISM" CULT, WHICH ATTEMPTS TO ATTACK AND DENOUNCE ANTI-ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE BASED ON INNUENDO, RIDICULE AND ATTEMPTS TO USE A SINGLE METHOD OF TESTING, THE DOUBLE BLINDED PLACEBO CONTROLLED RANDOMIZED TEST MORE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE HALF BAKED PHARMACEUTICALS, WHICH REALLY DO HAVE MOLECULES OF THEIR POISONS PRESENT, LOOK GOOD. USING THIS METHOD OF TESTING FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, HOMEOPATHY, WHICH CLAIMS NO MOLECULES OF ITS CURATIVE SUBSTANCE PRESENT AND WHICH CLEARLY, IF IT WORKS, CANNOT POSSIBLY BE USING CONVENTIONAL BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES AND THEREFORE REQUIRES SOME COMPLETELY DIFFERENT METHOD OF TESTING, IS IDIOTIC, COMPLETELY UNSCIENTIFIC AND ILLUSTRATES THE LOGICAL POSITIVISTIC FALLACY AT THE ROOT OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST SCIENTISM ERROR.
" lacks supporting evidence or plausibility"
THE EVIDENCE THAT SOME SORT OF CURATIVE EFFECT IS PRESENT IN HOMEOPATHY IS OVERWHELMING, EXTENDS ACROSS CENTURIES AND IS REPEATABLE THOUGH SOMETIMES NOT PREDICTABLE. ITS SCIENTIFIC MECHANISM REMAINS UNKNOWN. SEE LINKS AT THE END OF THIS COMMENT.
" and cannot be reliably tested." WITH THE WRONG TESTING METHOD, THAT'S RIGHT!
" It certainly has no place in our pharmacies"
AND WHO APPOINTED THE AUTHOR WITH THE POWER TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION?
BASED ON MERE OPINION AND "HATRED" OF "PSEUDOSCIENCE"??
"If the NHMRC draft position becomes official, it not only makes scientific sense, but will also protect consumers. And this can only be a good thing."
Should Barry Marshall have been banned while doing his research that led to the discovery of H. Pylori??
BANNING SOMETHING THUS KILLING RESEARCH IN IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT A GOOD THING.
AND NOW FOR A LINK TO A REAL SCIENTIST CHEMIST AND HOMEOPATH LIONEL MILGROM'S ARTICLE EXPOSING THE FALLACY AND WRONG HEADED ASSUMPTIONS IMPLICIT IN THE AUTHOR'S POSITION, A COMMON MISTAKE AMONG PEOPLE WHO HAVE UNTHINKINGLY ACCEPTED THE SCIENTISM FALLACY "PARTY" LINE - THE ARTICLE "BEWARE SCIENTISM'S ONWARD MARCH", ALONG WITH CLEAR LINKS TO VALID HOMEOPATHY RESEARCH AND REFUTATIONS OF THE PSEUDO-SKEPTICISM USED TO ATTACK IT, SEE THIS:
READ IT!
http://www.anh-europe.org/news/anh-feature-beware-scientism%E2%80%99s-onward-march
Don't shout
To the commenter above, please don't use block caps. They make your comment hard to read and I gave up after the second paragraph, though I caught your link at the bottom to the website of a paid industry lobby group and I have to wonder why you think anyone with their reasoning faculties intact would view it as an objective and reliable source.
I'm surprised you mention 'provings' as they are the very opposite of the scientific method. I tried to research your claim that the use of nitrates to treat angina was 'discovered by homeopathy'. It appears to be unsupported and I note you provide no reference. Re your mention of Ennis, I'm not sure how you think that her (apparent) discovery of the effect on basophils of ultra-dilutions of histamine has any bearing on the claims made for homeopathy. In any event, it would seem you have not read her latest paper (2010).
"In the in vitro studies with human basophils, although ultra-high dilutions are used, most of the effects are qualitatively similar to those obtained with pharmacological doses. To my mind, this opposes the fundamentals of homeopathy, where my understanding is that there are opposing effects caused by pharmacological doses and those caused by ultra-high dilutions."
(snip)
"After over 20 years research trying to find out if high dilutions of histamine have a negative feedback effect on the activation of basophils by anti-IgE, what do we know? The methods are poorly standardized between laboratories – although the same is true for conventional studies as described above. Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies. How much of the effect is due to artifacts remains to be investigated. Some authors have employed anti-IgE dilutions which caused little basophil activation, others used greater concentrations."
Source: http://www.similima.com/homeopathyresearch/thesis109.pdf
Remind me again, what your point was?
As for your second paragraph, the last meta-analysis published in the Lancet (Shang 2005) concluded that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. I do hope you're not trying to suggest that any of the previous reviews of homeopathy research are good positive evidence for homeopathy? If so, I invite readers to check out what they actually say here:
http://discoverhomeopathy.co.uk/?page_id=2
I'd be happy to read the rest of your comment if you want to say it again without shouting.
Too loud, didn't read.
Too loud, didn't read.
PSEUDOSKEPTICISM Makes Me Mad !!
Seriously, are the capitals really necessary?
This comment is typical of someone who has never looked at the evidence on balance and finds comfort in remaining in closed circles peddling false claims. Stop trying to cheery-pick data to support charlatan practitioners that squander considerable money for selling nothing but vials of water.
I suppose you probably think by diluting petrol my car will go faster.
Homeopathy Works
I've used homeopathy for many years in my treatment of serious, chronic conditions like chronic insomnia, acute conditions like bronchitis and injuries with such success that it is my primary form of medicine.
Here are some of the facts about homeopathy:
It is a 200 year-old system of medicine with a laudable safety record and vast volumes of documented clinical evidence plus 100's of studies published in respected, peer-reviewed national and international journals proving it produces significant and sometimes substantial health benefits.
Some of those studies (and some of the science) can be seen at:
www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-research
www.extraordinarymedicine.org
http://avilian.co.uk/
Homeopathy has been proven in studies (EECH Study 2009; Reilly, 2005) to be safe for infants, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers.
http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/extensive-study-concludes-homeopathic-remedies-and-treatment-are-safe/
Homeopathy was recognized by WHO in 2005 as the second most used system of medicine (not the second most used alt med)in the world. Its use grows by 10%+ every year around the world because it's efficacious, safe, inexpensive and green. It's embedded in the national health care programs of countries like England, Switzerland and Mexico.
Anyone who finds homeopathy has a friend for life!
... as a placebo.
|I've used homeopathy for many years
Anecdotes are not reliable evidence.
|It is a 200 year-old system of medicine
Bloodletting is even older - should we consider it even better?
|Homeopathy has been proven in studies ... to be safe
So has water and other placebos. Safe != effective.
Homeopathy was recognized by WHO in 2005 as the second most used system of medicine
Once again, most used != most effective.
Also, I'd be curious to see a direct link to the official statement from the WHO on that, not some vague reference from a homeopathy site.
The only official WHO statement I can find on homeopathy is a statement that it does not recommend the use of homeopathy for HIV, TB or malaria.
Briefly, no reputable, repeatable, well controlled trial has ever found homeopathy to be more effective than a placebo. None of the studies cited by homeopathy advocates have held up to those requirements.
Homeopathy doesn't work. End of story.
Huh?
"Anyone who finds homeopathy has a friend for life!"
Would that include Penelope Dingle and Gloria Thomas?
Anyone who finds
Anyone who finds Catholicism, too, has a friend for life!
About time someone
About time someone verbalizes what we have always thought about these therapies