World Homeopathy Awareness Week 2011
This week has been designated as “World Homeopathy Awareness Week” (WHAW). This is a rather odd title, as we shall see later, but the gist of it is that it is a PR exercise by the homeopathy community, designed to increase sales of their treatments.
There’s a hashtag for it on Twitter: #WHAW. The amusing thing is that the vast majority of tweets using that hashtag are from non-homeopaths, pointing out how utterly bogus homeopathy is.
Anyway, in the spirit of raising awareness, I’d like to share a couple of facts about homeopathy. First I’m going to explain the important, but often misunderstood, difference between homeopathy and herbal medicine, and then I’m going to look at the motivations of homeopaths who put their clients’ health at risk.
It’s a surprisingly little known fact that homeopathy and herbal medicine are two completely different things. Regular readers of this blog are doubtless well informed about such things, and may find it surprising that anyone could confuse the two, but they frequently do.
Herbal medicines contain extracts of herbs. They are quite interesting. Many are pretty much worthless, but some have reasonably good evidence of efficacy. St John’s Wort is a good example, which was found to be more effective in the treatment of depression than placebo in a Cochrane Review. Because many herbal medicines are pharmacologically active, they can of course have side effects. Most commonly used herbal medicines are reasonably safe if taken as directed, but fatal side effects have been known, particularly when the manufacturing process was not well controlled.
Many modern pharmaceuticals are, of course, simply adaptations of herbal medicines. Some medicines, such as digoxin, are simply the purified active ingredients of medicinal herbs, while others, such as aspirin, are simple chemical modifications of those ingredients.
Homeopathy is completely different. Although some (but not all) homeopathic treatments are prepared from herbal treatments, homeopathic treatments are diluted so comprehensively (typically by a factor of 1030, or to put it another way, a trillion trillion times) that not a single molecule of the original herbal (or other) substance remains in the finished product. The finished product is therefore completely pharmacologically inactive. It is literally nothing more than a sugar pill.
Homeopathic treatments, where they appear to be effective at all, therefore do so entirely by the placebo effect. This is not only what would be expected based on the fact that they contain no active ingredients, but it has also been demonstrated clearly in a vast body of clinical research.
So, by now you’ve realised that the distinction between herbal medicine and homeopathy is pretty important, haven’t you? However, one thing I have learned in WHAW is that even some professional homeopaths are apparently unaware of the difference. “Fact” number 19 on this page, maintained by a professional homeopath, states that an arnica gel product “was the first homeopathic product to be registered by the MHRA”. In fact, the arnica gel product in question is a herbal product, not a homeopathic one. If homeopaths themselves are not aware of the distinction, there must be many others out there who are similarly confused.
Another thing I have learned this week is something about the motivation of homeopaths. It’s something that has always puzzled me. Why would someone want to recommend ineffective treatments to people who are ill?
Now, I’m not saying homeopathy is all bad. As I’ve argued before, although homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, there are plenty of minor, self-limiting conditions for which placebo is actually quite a good choice of treatment. Yes, there are ethical problems with that approach, but those problems are not necessarily insurmountable. And many homeopaths practice homeopathy responsibly, limiting their practice to non-serious conditions, and making sure patients are encouraged to seek proper medical help if they are actually ill.
However, not all homeopaths are that responsible. Some behaving shockingly irresponsibly. For example, some offer homeopathy as alternatives to vaccines for potentially fatal diseases,and others offer it for malaria prophylaxis. I recently came across one particularly harrowing account of a woman who died a prolonged, painful, distressing, and probably unnecessary death from bowel cancer, after a homeopath had convinced her to use homeopathy instead of potentially curative conventional treatment.
Why on earth would anyone behave in such a despicable and frankly evil manner?
There are really only two possible explanations: that the homeopaths are ignorant of the science of homeopathy, and genuinely believe that their treatments can cure real diseases, or they are acting in bad faith, and despite being aware that homeopathy cannot cure cancer, prevent malaria, etc, are putting their own desire to make money from homeopathy ahead of their responsibility to care for the health of their clients.
So we have 3 categories of homeopaths: responsible ones who understand the limitations of their treatment and refer to real medicine when necessary, irresponsible ignorant ones who attempt to treat real diseases in the mistaken but genuine belief that they can, and those who callously and knowingly offer ineffective treatment for real diseases.
I do not have any statistics for the proportion in each category, but one thing I have learned this week is that there do appear to be considerable numbers of prominent homeopaths in the last, and most worrying category.
WHAW has a Facebook page. I thought it would help to raise awareness (that’s the point, isn’t it?) by posting a link to a systematic review of homeopathy on the page, which points out that homeopathy is no more than a placebo. That link was promptly deleted. A post later appeared on the page pointing out that they were not interested in any contrary opinions, and would simply delete them.
This appears to be quite common practice in blogs maintained by homeopaths. Comments left pointing out that good quality research evidence shows homeopathy to be ineffective are frequently deleted. It’s also clear from following the exchanges on Twitter that many of the opinion leaders of homeopathy are simply not interested in actual research evidence.
Does that sound like a good way of promoting awareness?
No. It sounds like a way of attempting to suppress awareness. These do not look like the actions of people ignorant of the facts but acting in good faith. These have every impression of being the actions of people who are cynically trying to create a misleading impression to protect their own business interests.
I am actually quite shocked by this clear evidence of bad faith among many members of the homeopathic community. Until this week, I was not really aware of the extent to which that bad faith appears to exist. I suppose that in that sense, WHAW has been successful in raising my awareness of homeopathy.
Superb, refreshing article. You have exposed homeopathy for what it really is. It is alarming that many still put their faith into a treatment that clearly doesn't have any genuine effect.
The biggest disgrace of homeopathy is the cost to the taxpayer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/10/complementary-medicine-nhs-more4
How can this possibly be justified?
Nice blog post - a minor point though.
you say that homeopathic remedies are diluted "typically by a factor of 10^30," - actually - the truth is even more extreme:
Homeopathic remedies typically use a centesimal dilution scale and 30C is in fact a 1 in 100^30 (or 10^60) dilution!
Ah yes, thanks for that correction Dave, of course you're right. The 30C dilution, which as you correctly point out is a 1 in 10^60 dilution, is more commonly used than the 10^30 dilution I mentioned.
Which, as you say, makes it all the more mind-boggling. Even a 10^30 dilution would be spectacularly unlikely to have any active ingredient left in it. With a 10^60 dilution, you then take that 10^30 dilution and dilute it 10^30 times (ie a trillion trillion times) again. So now you are pretty much guaranteed that there's no active ingredient left.
I too posted a comment on the Facebook page for WHAW, asking them why they deleted Adam's post and to ask if they were afraid of a real debate. It seems that it took less than 15 minutes for my post to be removed from the Facebook group and for me to be banned from it. NOt before I saved this screenshot however! http://yfrog.com/h7g3ap
They really don't want to enter into a debate. Chickens!
Banninated too. Long ago. Homeopathy Plus (the one who thumbed its nose at the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration) also practises this type of Facebook Glitch, where posts spontaneously disappear. They learnt it at the alter of antivaxxers, in particlular, Meryl Dorey.
There is still time to sign my petition asking the Vic Dept of Health to review their Better Health factoid sheets and remove the nonsense on homeopathy.
The ‘Law of Similars’ the cornerstone of homeopathic is not a demonstrable law of nature, like gravity nor is it a law as enacted by legislation.
It is more accurately described as the ‘Lore of Similars’ as in folk-lore.
Homeopathy lacks scientific grounding and repeated clinical studies, as confirmed by the Cochrane Collaboration Review, show that it lacks evidence of efficacy beyond that of a placebo.
Greetings to all homeopaths and patients of homeopathy spread across 7 continents - a wonderful "World Homeopathy Day" on 10 April 2011 on account of the 256th birthday (1755) of our master Dr. Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann
Oh dear! It looks like Nancy Malik simply doesn't get it. Is her post just a spamming account? Just because it's quite an old form of therapy, doesn't mean it's a good one. We used to put patients into iron lungs, but thanks to evidence-based advances in medical care, we have used positive pressure ventilation for critically ill patients with respiratory failure for over 50 years. Where are the evidence-based advances in homeopathy? Like the chance of finding an active molecule of a "treatment" in a homeopathic preparation - non-existent. This is the 21st century, not the 18th.
Medicines beyond 12C retains nano-grams of fine nano-particles of original starting material (2010) http://bit.ly/edUwqd
Great article! Makes me think of that Tim Minchin song "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out".
"show me one example in the history of the world of a single homeopathic practitioner who's been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that solutions made up of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water have a consistently higher medicinal value than a similarly administered placebo"
A perfect description of what homeopathy is all about.
Homeopathy superior to placebo
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601(1997) // homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective and positive at 95% confidence interval) to placebo
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2990407-3/abstract (1994) //homeopathy does more than placebo
Nancy, you're still really not doing very well on the Turing Test. I'm genuinely not sure if you're a human being or a spambot. I'm allowing your posts for now, as they are vaguely on topic, although you are still completely failing to engage with the questions I've asked you.
If you are a human being, please could you try to engage in discussion rather than repeatedly posting random links to flawed studies about homeopathy.
Nancy Malik - you are talking nonsense. There is no evidence to support your pseudoscience.
Homeopathy equals Conventional Medicine
Placebo effect size same in conventional & homeopathy medicine (2010)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/7 (2007) //homeopathy Vs anti-biotics & analgesics for respiratory & ear complaints
Nancy, I am starting to get a little tired of your posting random links and completely failing to engage in any kind of conversation. I really don't want to start moderating your comments out of existence, but if you don't make at least some effort to take part in the discussion, I will.
Your next post must contain some sort of reply to the questions that I or others have asked you, or some sort of explanation of why you think I shouldn't moderate your comments. You don't have to agree with me, you just have to prove you are a human being.
If your next post is simply more random links to flawed studies of homeopathy with no attempt to engage in dialogue, I shall assume that your post has come from a spambot and delete it.
This post is sans links as desired by you.
You must knew the history of homeopathy first
Homeopathy is non-toxic system of western medical science originated in Germany by Dr. Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (10 April 1755 Germany-1843 France) (the founder and father of homeopathy). He received his M.D. with honours in conventional medicine from University of Erlangen in 1779. He realised his own school of conventional medicine was not helping the patients and spent years researching on homeopathy. The term “homoeopathy” was coined in 1807, first published in Hufeland's Journal of Practical Medicine.
Many thanks for confirming you are a human being, Nancy. I actually have no objection to your posting links, and you should feel free to post as many as you like if you feel they add to the discussion. What I object to is the posting of *irrelevant* bits of information with no attempt to contribute to the discussion.
Now, I raised some points in the blog above about the bad faith of the homeopathic community. I would be very interested in your views on that. What, for example, do you think of the behaviour of Francine Scrayen? Do you agree that it's criminally irresponsible for a homeopath to claim to be able to treat cancer?
And the history of homeopathy is also not relevant. I'm more interested in the ethical standards of homeopaths in the 21st century.
Nancy - the placebo effect can be the same size, but any RCT proven treatment has an effect above the placebo effect, unlike any homeopathic treatments tested so far.
Nancy, you're only getting a borderline score for the Turing Test, so I'm not sure whether your posts are coming from a human being or from an auto-commenting-bot. However, if you are a human being, I would be very grateful if you could engage with some of the points I raised in my post.
Why, for example, has there been such complete silence from the homeopathy community on the disgraceful behaviour of Francine Scrayen? If we are supposed to believe that most homeopaths are caring and ethical people, I would have expected rapid and unequivocal condemnation of Scrayen from the mainstream homeopathy community. The fact that no homeopaths seem prepared to say that what she did was bad makes me think that there is a considerable amount of bad faith in the homeopathy community. Can't you see that?
Of course, if you are just an auto-commenting-bot, we'll have to make our own minds up about what that says of the ethics of the homeopathy community.
The research has shown the therapeutic benefits of homeopathic medicines for treatment of cancer.
Evidence-based Complimentary & Alternative Medicine (Hindawi)
Dynamized Preparations in Cell Culture (2009)
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2009/296291.pdf // Carcinosinum 200C, Conium, Lycopodium activates beneficial gene p53 which provides defense against tumour/cancer
No, research hasn't shown therapeutic benefits of homeopathic medicines for treatment of cancer. That paper you linked to is an in-vitro study (ie one done in test tubes in a lab), not a study in cancer patients.
Now, how about you answer some of the questions that you've been asked?
Adam says :
Why, for example, has there been such complete silence from the homeopathy community on the disgraceful behaviour of Francine Scrayen?
This is not quite correct - I seem to recall that that highly regarded homeopath John Benneth said that Francine Scrayen should be made a saint or given a medal or something like that.
[...] pretty much pathognomonic of quackery. It won’t surprise you to know that this is exactly how homeopaths and Stanislaw Burzynski’s PR operation behave as [...]