Far too many trees have died in the service of praising or debunking homeopathy in the two centuries since Hahnemann invented it. The forests can celebrate, because this is the definitive book about homeopathy. It is neither “for” nor “against” homeopathy; it is explanatory. It is dispassionate and as unbiased as it could possibly be. It says good things about homeopathy, shows how arguments for and against it have been flawed, and contains nothing that the most ardent homeopaths should be able to complain about (but complain they surely will, because the facts Ernst reports are not what they want the world to hear). (more…)
Archive for Homeopathy
I love to see a regulatory agency actually do its job. Especially within medicine, where it is most important, the lack of political will seems to get in the way of properly regulating health care products and services in the way that most consumers assume they are regulated.
Homeopathy is perhaps the best example. Homeopathy is pure unadulterated pseudoscience and witchcraft. There is no legitimate scientific debate about this. Homeopaths create their potions by starting with fanciful substances that can’t work and then dilute them out of existence. The result is plain water that they claim has magical properties. Yes – that’s really what it is.
A Canadian academic, Dr. Mark Loeb, who is a respected infectious disease researcher who knows how to conduct high quality research, wants to study homeopathic nosodes. Nosodes are essentially homeopathic vaccines.
Tim Caulfield, a Canadian professor of health law and policy, thinks the study is misguided and unethical. The two are having a respectful public debate about the risks and merits of doing such a study.
David Gorski and I have actually published in the peer-reviewed literature on the broader question of studying alternative medicine: “Clinical trials of integrative medicine: testing whether magic works?” So we have both weighed in already on this debate, but since this is a major theme of science-based medicine I thought it was important to bring the discussion here as well. It is an interesting dilemma worth discussing, and we are seeing that exact dilemma play out on the question of this specific proposed study.
Homeopathy is pseudoscience
For quick background, both sides in this debate agree that homeopathy is 100% pseudoscientific nonsense. Homeopathy was invented by one person, Samuel Hahnemann, about 200 years ago. It was not based on any scientific research or knowledge base, it did not develop out of emerging knowledge of biology or physiology. It was simply invented out of whole cloth based loosely on the superstitious belief in sympathetic magic – the notion that substances contain a mysterious “essence” that can be transferred to the body and stimulate the life force. (more…)
The FDA recently put out a consumer warning about homeopathic teething gels and pills. The warning states:
The FDA recommends that consumers stop using these products and dispose of any in their possession.
The warning is not because all homeopathic products are inherently useless. As we have discussed here often, the basic principles of homeopathy are pure pseudoscience. The practice of diluting substances so that almost no or no active ingredient remains means that most homeopathic products are just sugar pills. Further, clinical studies show that homeopathic products don’t work. There isn’t a single homeopathic product that has been shown to be effective for a single condition with rigorous clinical trials.
The FDA acknowledges this, writing in their warning:
Homeopathic teething tablets and gels have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safety or efficacy. The agency is also not aware of any proven health benefit of the products, which are labeled to relieve teething symptoms in children.
[Editor’s note: For no reason whatsoever other than to share great news, we bring you this contribution from Michael Marshall, project director of the Good Thinking Society and vice president of the Merseyside Skeptics Society.]
As regular readers of this blog may know, skeptics here in the UK have been campaigning for some time to end the funding of homeopathic remedies by the National Health Service. This is a campaign that we at the Good Thinking Society – the charity I work for full-time, led by science writer Simon Singh (yes, that Simon Singh) – have been at the forefront of over the last couple of years, and we recently secured a significant victory as NHS Liverpool brought their homeopathy service to a close, as a direct result of the legal challenge we brought in 2014.
While the background to our project was ably and generously described by Harriet Hall here at Science Based Medicine following her appearance at the QED conference last year, it is perhaps worth detailing the progress we’ve made in the last year, and how this success came about. After a series of Freedom of Information requests allowed us to determine where in the country homeopathy is funded by public funds, we were able to monitor for new funding decisions being made – knowing that any decision to spend public funds can be subjected to scrutiny and to legal challenges if not carried out correctly. (more…)
The definition of “propaganda,” like so many things, is a bit fuzzy. The dictionary definition is: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” There is no sharp demarcation line, however.
Speech occurs on a spectrum from obsessively objective, fair, balanced, and scholarly at one end, to deliberately deceptive and manipulative propaganda at the other. Most speech is somewhere in the middle. We are all coming from a certain narrative, one which we believe is valid and important, and often speech is meant to be persuasive.
Persuasive speech promoting a point of view or certain conclusion is fine – it does not necessarily deserve the label of propaganda. The fuzzy line gets crossed, however, the more logic and evidence are compromised for the sake of the narrative. (more…)
Retail pharmacy is giving itself a credibility problem. While pharmacists are highly trusted health professionals, there are increasing questions about the products sold in pharmacies. Many of the non-prescription products that you can find aren’t backed by good evidence. And the number of dubious products seems to be growing. Homeopathy is an extreme example. Homeopathic “remedies” look like conventional medicine, but unlike actual medicine, homeopathic products don’t contain any active ingredients. They are effectively and sometimes literally sugar pills: placebos that are marketed to treat health concerns. Not surprisingly, there is zero convincing evidence to show that homeopathy has any value in medicine. Homeopathy is fundamentally incompatible with the current scientific understanding of the medicine, biochemistry, and even the basic physics that form the foundation of a pharmacist’s knowledge base about medicines. There is no medicinal benefit to homeopathy. Yet despite the obvious ethical issues of selling sugar pills to patients who may be led to believe these products may be beneficial, the profession of pharmacy hasn’t acted, or even seriously asked itself if selling these products is appropriate. And homeopathy has moved quickly from a fringe product to one that you can find in most retail pharmacies. Here’s a picture from a local pharmacy near me. Imagine you’re in a rush, searching for a cough and cold product. How easily can you identify the homeopathy? (more…)
Favorite naturopathic treatments comprise pumping patients full of dubious mixtures by injection, including IV drips. Naturopaths also employ topicals (salves, ointments and creams), rectal, and vaginal suppositories, and oral medications, such as bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, all made from “natural” substances.
these nutritional, herbal and homeopathic remedies are compounded to meet unique patient needs and are not typically available from the large drug manufacturers that don’t make small batches of such specialized products.
Not to mention the fact that it is highly doubtful these questionable remedies could make it through the FDA drug approval process, which requires proven safety and efficacy.
The FDA’s recent steps to improve drug compounding safety is a welcome curb on these practices. Draft Guidance issued in April addresses both compounding for office use and by prescription. (“Office use” refers to creating a supply of a compounded drug to be used by a health care practitioner as needed, as opposed to compounding a drug per a specific prescription for an individual patient.) In June, the FDA also issued an Interim Policy on substances that can be used in compounding a drug. We’ll discuss how these affect naturopathic practice in a moment. (more…)
There is dubious content in PubMed that you won’t find unless you look for it, or stumble across it inadvertently. It’s the entire field of alternative medicine which is abstracted and complied along with the actual medical literature. In this world, the impossible is accepted as fact, and journal articles focus on the medical equivalent of counting angels on pinheads. I’ve been trying to avoid blogging about alternative medicine practices like homeopathy lately because the practice itself is a scientific dead end. There is no emerging evidence or interesting research to describe, because there is no science to build on. But research on homeopathy is interesting if one wants to understand how placebo effects can appear to be real. Importantly, research and clinical trials of homeopathy allow us to see the underlying (baseline) challenges, flaws, and biases in evaluating real medicine more clearly. Today I want to review a newly-published systematic review of, adverse effects attributed to homeopathy. The casual reader might not see the multiple problems with this type of research. But once you understand the basis of homeopathy, the conclusion that one can draw is quite different from that of the author’s. And if inert sugar pills can appear to have medicinal effects, and even adverse effects, then we can better adjust for these biases when we’re studying actual medicine. (more…)
Medicine has an intellectual hierarchy. Supposedly the best and the brightest are in the academic medical centers and are the thought leaders in their field.
Those of us lower in the hierarchy are well aware of some of the warts present on our betters, but I would expect those at the top would adhere to the highest intellectual and ethical standards. People being, well, people, expecting exceptional standards is admittedly an unrealistic expectation.
It would appear that many academic centers are doing their best to avoid meeting my expectations, attempting to abandon all standards.
I mentioned over at SfSBM that Dana-Farber is spending 2 million dollars on a renovation to, in part, offer the unmitigated steer manure that is reiki and reflexology to their cancer patients. Yes. Reiki. Reflexology.
Dana-Farber is just one of many academic medical centers who are putting their imprimatur on nonsense.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Integrative has released “About Herbs”, an iPad/iPhone guide to Botanicals, Supplements, Complementary Therapies and More. Spoiler alert: the ‘More’ does not include critical thinking. This guide is not anywhere as ludicrous as offering reeky, sorry, reiki, but at times it comes close. (more…)