On Homeopathy
I know that numerous chiropractors swear by homeopathy. I even know of a couple MD’s who push homeopathic “remedies.” It makes me shake my head because A) homeopathic theory (e.g., “the law of infinitesimals” and “the law of similars”) makes no sense and 2) homeopathic remedies and double-blind studies don’t mix.
Homeopathy is a painfully well-known placebo that millions of well-educated people just can’t bear to give up. They know that it can’t really work according to the theory of its promoters, but they just can’t part from that juicy hit of placebo.
I recently ran across a science website with good energy, lots of engaging stories and commentors chomping at the bit. It’s called Bad Science. The post that most recently caught my interest is on homeopathy, more specifically a highly suspicious article in the “British Journal of Homeopathy” that claims that water “has a memory.” Check out the comments for a rousing tour of the many failings of homeopathy. One fellow apologizes for peeing in the ocean when he was young, because he didn’t realize the effect that it was going to have on everyone in the future.
For more information on the bad science of homeopathy, including a stab at one of my favorite psuedo scientists, Deepak Chopra, consider this article from the Skeptical Inquirer. Here’s an excerpt:
Quite apart from the matter of how the water/alcohol mixture remembers, there are obvious questions that cry out to be asked: 1) Why does the water/alcohol mixture remember the healing powers of an active substance, but forget the side effects? 2) What happens when the drop of solution evaporates, as it must, from the lactose tablet? Is the memory transferred to the lactose? 3) Does the water remember other substances as well? Depending on its history, the water might have been in contact with a staggering number of different substances.
Homeopathy is only one of many forms of medical quackery being hawked to a scientifically naive public by researchers and public spokespeople who refuse to allow facts get in the way of their favorite version of snake oil:
The public is spending billions of dollars annually on sugar pills to cure their sniffles, hand waving to speed recovery from operations, and good thoughts to ward off illness, all with assurances that it’s based on science. Society has been set up for this fleecing in part by the media’s sensationalized coverage of modern science. Popular discussions of relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos often leave people with the impression that common sense cannot be relied on — anything is possible. Scientists themselves often feed the public’s appetite for the “weirdness” of modern science in an effort to stimulate interest — or simply because scientists, too, can be beguiled by the mysterious.
I wish there were more of a placebo effect associated with the reading of science done carefully. Maybe then we wouldn’t waste so much money and energy on all of those other placebo-effect inducers, including homeopathy.
Consider the total lack of real science applied to homeopathy by its believers. That is the subject of an article by Harriet Hall, M.D., called “Homeopathy–Still Crazy After All These Years. Here’s an excerpt:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-01-14.html#feature
I’ve been reading this exchange with interest but my thoughts have been about the many links that are being posted as proof of this or that point.
We are always warned about how unreliable is the information available on the internet. I know that Wikipedia is not The Encyclopedia Britannica, but in general has the quality of information on the web gotten better or worse or just about the same?
Further, is the information in the tons and tons of printed books now gathering dust on library shelves around the world any more reliable? There seems to be plenty of misinformation to be found wherever you look.
Didn’t mean to hijack this conversation. Erich, if you think this would be more appropriate as its own post let me know. This surely isn’t the only thread that uses links to bolster an argument but it struck me that both sides seem to have “documented” evidence in the form of a web page of some kind which contradict each other. Logically, half of them have to be wrong.
Mike: Even if I were a scientist who could run my own study I couldn’t convince the world because it would just be piled on top of all of those studies already done.
What strikes me about homeopathy is that it makes no sense, in theory, for the reasons stated in the post. Then, on top of that, their don’t seem to be any convincing double-blind studies that give us any confidence in homeopathy (and those who advocate it don’t seem to be motivated to run them).
The shaky studies allegedly showing that homeopathy works are done by those advocating homeopathy. When those not pushing homeopathy run double-blind studies, they repeatedly show nothing greater than the placebo effect.
I’d like to say that I choose to rely on credible experts, but then that invites the issue of how to choose an expert. It raises allegations that scientists who work with the scientific/medical establishment are incapable of keeping open minds. Among the lay people, it boils down to how to choose an expert we trust, in a world where SO many experts have sold out. Hence, there doesn’t seem to be any way for either side to convince the other (even though, regarding homeopathy, I would prefer those with higher standing among the scientists who do this sort of work, as evidenced by substantial track records of peer reviewed work).
Yeah, for once a non-scientist can state that specfic researcher(s)can find what they are looking for and/or also not find what they don’t suspect exists.
Might faith in what they believe be factors to be included in their reported results.
I will repeat this for those who might not want to hear it again, double blind studies are not done with radioactivity. A rock is not a rock unless it has the specifics about where it came from attached to it. How homeopathic is that?
Magician James Randi takes on homeopathy in this Youtube lecture. This 2001 lecture is terrific–succinct and informative. Randi pulls no punches. He essentially calls homeopaths crooks and swindlers.
A couple whose baby daughter died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html?page=-1
Here’s an undiluted video dose of Brit-snark at homeopathy:
Dan: That comedic ridicule of homeopathy is spot on.