Eric's HOMEOPATHY page

posted by Eric Krieg -last updated 3/14/98 available at http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/hom.htm

"If there is something to it, let's find out so we can tell the world":

Sites Skeptical of Homeopathy

   That clueless (inbred too?) Prince Charles wrote
a letter to the press effusing about non-scientific medical claims and whining about
genetic engineering.  Luckily, a few scientists made a well-worded response.

the following is a good response from Gilbert Mertens on Charles' letter:

________________________________________________________________

Comment on the article ""When our health is at risk, why be so mean ?"",
written by the Pronce of Wales and published by the Times of London in its
December 30, 2000, issue.

« Medicine has come a long way. In the centuries past, doctors could do little
more than sit at the bedside and watch people die. But cures are not the final
destination. We are now at the advent of a century of prediction and prevention
of disease » (Thomas R. Reardon, American Medical Association, quoted in « From
Quackery to Credibility : Unconventional Healthcare in the Era of High-Tech
Medicine ». A 2000 Pharmaceutical Management Report of Informa Publishing,
London, ISBN 1-8606-7465-8).

Is it not a paradox that people promote the idea of putting more money in
alternative, unconventional healthcare, at a time when both medicine and
pharmacology are at the peak of their effectiveness ?
Should mysticysm be allowed a new lease of life in matters of health ?

Over the years, a considerable  effort has been made to prove the healing nature
of unorthodox therapies. A few examples are given hereafter :
 

In 1986, The Lancet published the results of a double blind trial of homeopathic
pollens (30 C H). There was a significant reduction in the symptoms of the
homeopathic group compared with placebo. However, a second reading of the
protocol revealed that the first group  had resorted to antihistamins (Broch
Henri, "Au coeur de l´extraordinaire", L´Horizon chimérique, 1994).

The same year, another placebo-controlled study, intended to establish the real
efficacy of homeopathy using Opium  15 C H and  of Raphanus 5 C H, showed that
the remedies were effective only in terms of unverifiable signs. No significant
difference were observed between the homeopathic group, a placebo group and
patients who were given nothing at all.

It was not the first backlash against homeopathy. There was, for example, a
large-scale but abortive attempt to give credibility to Hahnemann´s theories in
1930s Germany.

Opening the  international  congres of the  Homeopathic Society in the name of
the Fuehrer on 8 August 1937, Rudolf Hess offered the following stout defence on
the creed :« The new Germany considers it politicaly  necessary to proceed in
the verification of all phenomenons whatsoever. However, certain physicians have
not hesitated to attack and reject not only new therapies but also others whose
origins go back to a  distant past, as is today the case of homeopathy, without
 even  making the effort to subject these therapies to  serious examination. For
this reason, I have taken under my protection the XII International Congress of
Homeopathy in Berlin, to express the interest of the National Socialist State in
all modes of therapies that are useful to the people´s health ».

As a result of this high-grade intervention, it would appear, a well-known
homeopath, Dr Fritz Donner (assisted by a pharmacologist and an internist), was
ordered to come up with the necessary proofs. His findings were not published
and they were withheld from the medical community for many years. It was only in
1969 that  a translation of the Donner report  appeared  in a French  magazine
(the results were never published in Germany).

Henri Broch, who was responsible for the report coming to light, cites inter
alia  two letters of Fritz Donner to, respectively,  E. Unseld, president of the
German Association of Homeopathic Physicians, and H. Schoeler, editor-in-chief
of the Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung. These confirm that all of Donner´s
findings were negative and that he came under pressure to  conceal the results
of his research. As Donner himself stated (translated from the french) :  « One
cannot inform homeopaths about the real nature of homeopathy, nor can one
publish it in a homeopathic journal.  In the best  homeopathic tradition, anyone
can come up with the most glaring absurdities and they will be published; by
contrast, the fundamentals of an important medicine against diphtheria will never
be published and the researcher who works on these sources will be treathened
with immediate dismissal ».

The Donner Report speaks for itself, although its author confesses that  « I
avoided to  the maximum  mentioning in my report anything that could have been
too fatal to homeopathy ».
(Text based on,  and  translated from  "Les Charlatans de la Santé, by
Jean-Marie Abgrall, Documents Payot, Editions Payot & Rivages, Paris, 1998,
p44-46. ISBN  number  2-228-89194-0)

Homeopathy´s supporters contend that this "alternative" approach can do what
drugs cannot :  supply  a sense of confidence and self-worth whose benefits will
be felt long after  "allopaths" have thrown in the towel, making it far easier
for patients to return to normal life. Yet critical analysis of the theory keeps
drawing a blank. (From Quackery to Credibility : Unconventional Healthcare in
the Era of High-Tech Medicine ». A 2000 Pharmaceutical Management Report of
Informa Publishing, London, ISBN 1-8606-7465-8).
 

Much  cited is a study published in The Lancet (Linde K et al.,Are the clinical
effects of homeopathy placebo effects ? A metaanalysis of placebo-controlled
trials. Lancet 1997, 350, 834-8419 ). This  seemed to identify a positive effect
of homeopathic treatments compared with placebo :  was this at last the
recognition of homeopathy´s merits ?

Yet an extensive Belgian review of  the most recent publications on homeopathy,
including the meta-analysis in The Lancet, revealed serious weaknesses in all of
 these studies. In October 1998 the FNRS (Fonds National de la Recherche
Scientifique), representing  the deans of Belgium´s Faculties of Medicine and
members of  the Royal Academies of Medicine, concluded in a Common Memorandum to
the National Government, that  its analysis of the international literature on
placebo-controlled trials of homeopathic products did not show any clear
superiority of the  homeopathic treatments over placebo.

Studies subject to minimal quality requirements were regarded as either negative
or positive but burdened with methodological biases that ruled out any
definitive conclusions. In addition, a number of  positive results could not be
confirmed by independent teams --a major factor in the objective evaluation of
science in general and of medicine in particular. The review published in The
Lancet, while it followed a rigorous methodology, did not permit a conclusion
either, as it did not respect the principle of pathological and treatment
homogeneity that is essential for meta analysis. (« From Quackery to Credibility
: Unconventional Healthcare in the Era of High-Tech Medicine ». A 2000
Pharmaceutical Management Report of Informa Publishing, London, ISBN
1-8606-7465-8).

In his 1994 Position Paper on Homeopathy, William T. Jarvis, professor of
preventive medicine at Loma Linda University and president of the U.S. National
Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) writes : « Homeopathy was devised by the
German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) as a reaction to practices based
upon the ancient humoural theory which he labeled "allopathy."  The term has
been misapplied to regular medicine ever since.
The cardinal principles of homeopathy include that :
· most diseases are caused by an infectious disorder called the psora (itch);
· life is a spiritual force (vitalism) which directs the body's healing;
· remedies can be discerned by noting the symptoms that substances produce in
overdose (proving), and applying them to conditions with similar symptoms in
highly diluted doses (Law of Similia);
· remedies become more effective with greater dilution (Law of Infinitesimals),
and become more dilute when containers are tapped on the heel of the hand or a
leather pad (potentizing).

Homeopathy's principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry,
physics, pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the dictionary
definitions of a sect and a cult--the characteristics of which prevent advances
that would change Hahnemann's original principles. Most homeopathic studies are
of poor methodological quality, and are subject to bias. Homeopathic product
labels do not provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although
homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be non-toxic due to their high
dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful. The ostensible value of
homeopathic products can be more than a placebo effect because some products
have contained effective amounts of standard medications or have been
adulterated.
The marketing of homeopathic products and services fits the definition of
quackery established by a United States House of Representatives committee which
investigated the problem (i.e., the promotion of "medical schemes or remedies
known to be false, or which are unproven, for a profit"). The United States
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act lists the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United
States as a recognized compendium, but this status was due to political
influence, not scientific merit. The FDA has not required homeopathic products
to meet the efficacy requirements applied to all other drugs, creating an
unacceptable double standard for drug marketing. The Federal Trade Commission
has not taken action against homeopathic product advertising although it clearly
does not meet the standards of truthful advertising generally applied to drugs.
Postal authorities have not prosecuted mail-order product promoters that make
unproven claims for mail fraud. Three states have established homeopathic
licensing boards.  Some of these have been administered by medical mavericks
with a history of difficulties with former medical licensing boards ».(« From
Quackery to Credibility : Unconventional Healthcare in the Era of High-Tech
Medicine ». A 2000 Pharmaceutical Management Report of Informa Publishing,
London, ISBN 1-8606-7465-8).
 

Proponents of alternative healing methods have used all sorts of techniques to
win what they feel is well-deserved scientific credibility for their discipline.
Some of them have tried to do double-blind studies of homeopathy's
effectiveness, with varying degrees of success. Most have relied on patient
testimonials. But, for the most part, they have done this by making what they do
seem scientific by using scientistic jargon to explain it.

One of the classic examples of this was the 'molecular memory of water'
experiments investigated by the journal Nature in 1988. Basically, a French
laboratory sought to investigate if water might somehow 'remember' compounds
which were mixed into it and then diluted out. This might, of course, provide a
'scientific' basis for the Law of Succussion, which as some scientists point
out, leads to scientific absurdity, since as one put it, "the most effective
remedy might be to take a drop of the stuff and then mix it into Lake
Erie."(Pilkington, J Maya, Alternative Healing and  Your Health, Ballantine
Books, New York, 1991,p.7).

This particular lab, whose work was sponsored by French homeopaths, claimed that
the experiments were a success: that even after no molecules of the original
substance were present, water would act as if the substance's properties were
still active. When other labs failed to duplicate this result, this experiment
attracted the attention of CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). CSICOP basically "broke" into the
lab, accused the experimenters of fraud, and then had Nature write a piece
discrediting this avenue of research. It was very reminiscent of the later "Cold
Fusion" episode. Homeopaths tried to make their practice seem more 'scientific,'
and only succeeded in drawing down the wrath of the 'science police,' CSICOP".

These days healthcare entrepreneurs come and go, many of them amassing fortunes
before they leave the zjeatre of pseudo-science. There are more than 1.300
entries on the ever-changing list of therapies offered by these self-proclaimed
gurus -from absent healing and aromatherapy to healing love and healtheology,
Mahikaro and Marma Science, network spinal analysis, psionic medicine,
radiesthesia, rebirthing, vibrational medicine, Zen Alexander Technique and many
more.(« From Quackery to Credibility : Unconventional Healthcare in the Era of
High-Tech Medicine ». A 2000 Pharmaceutical Management Report of Informa
Publishing, London, ISBN 1-8606-7465-8).
The medical community should voice concern by insisting that alternative
therapies can not be allowed a free ride, substituting assertions, speculation,
and testimonials for sound clinical evidence and follow a rationale that
violates fundamental scientific laws. While it is easy to sympathise with
theories of disease prevention and treatment, we must be aware of having our
interests dictated by dogmatic faith in alternative practices that have sought
to undermine conventional medicine.

Gilbert Mertens
(e-mail : Dr.Fischer-Mertens@t-online.de)
==============================

So I don't seem too smug, I would like to add for any potentially offended Europeaners,
that my country has constantly decreasing grade school science test scores that are lower
than that of most first world countries.
 

Other People's Pages of Interest:

• My good friend, Fred Mitchells skeptic page
• good overview of skepticism
• The best index of skeptical information from Australia
• I like to subscribe to CSICOP's emailing list
• excellent information on memetics
• discussion of homeopathy in news groups

near by pro-paranormal resources:

• Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research recently, I heard they have little interest in skeptical involvment.
• closely linked to the above group is Society for Scientific Exploration
• EXOTIC RESEARCH magazine
• Frontier Research Seminars by John Coviello of NJ

This page has been hit  times.  since Feb 1998.

I recommend the following group for examing paranormal claims:

Go Back to Eric's skeptic page , Let me know if you would like to be added to mass skeptical emailings I send out (no more than weekly)