“energy” healing
You wake up with a headache on a rainy day.
Did the rain cause your headache?
Or was it perhaps the late-night coffee?
You then take a homeopathic remedy, and an hour later the pain is gone.
Did the remedy cause this?
Or was it the shower you took, the placebo effect, or something else entirely?
Perhaps you don’t care? But, if we want to make progress, we ought to care and find the answers. Sorting out coincidence from actual cause is crucial for making progress. Causality is one of the most important concepts in research, because humans are naturally prone to seeing patterns where none exist. We are all easily fooled, and regularly even by ourselves. Mistaking a correlation (two things coicidentally happening in sequence) for a cause (one thing creating the other) can lead to wrong decisions, useless treatments, wasted resources, and often to significant harm. To prevent this, scientists have long relied on structured frameworks to prove when one event truly triggers another.
In the late 19th century, the German physician Robert Koch wanted a foolproof way to prove that a specific microbe caused a specific disease. He developed the “Koch’s Postulates”, a four-step checklist that transformed medicine:
- The microbe must be present in every case of the disease.
- The microbe must be isolated from the sick host and grown in a lab.
- The lab-grown microbe must cause the same disease when introduced to a healthy host.
- The microbe must be isolated again from the newly infected host.
While these rules worked beautifully for many infectious diseases, they have limits. Some viruses cannot be grown easily in a lab, and some people carry bacteria without ever getting sick. And, of course, there are many diseases that are not due to microbes.
As medicine evolved to tackle chronic, non-infectious conditions like heart disease or cancer, Koch’s checklist thus fell short. For instance, smoking causes lung cancer, but you cannot easily “isolate” smoking in a lab, nor does every smoker get cancer. To solve this riddle, the UK epidemiologist Austin Bradford Hill introduced a broader toolkit in 1965, today known as the “Bradford Hill Criteria”. Instead of a strict pass or fail test, it uses several simple viewpoints to weigh the evidence:
- Strength: Is the connection large or powerful?
- Consistency: Do different studies produce the same result?
- Temporality: Did the cause occur before the effect?
- Biological Gradient: Does more exposure lead to more severe outcomes?
- Biological plausibility: Does the connection make sense with what we already know?
Without the guardrails of causality, medicine would still be based mostly on guesswork. Koch’s postulates gave us the clarity to cure deadly infections, and the Bradford Hill criteria allowed us to take on different public health threats like tobacco. By forcing us to ask how and why things happen, these criteria allow us to ensure that medical science is built on truth rather than mere coincidence.
In the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), causality has a particularly improtant role. This is because proponents often claim causality, while science rejects it:
Homeopathy:
Proponent claim: The fact that many patients get better after taking a homeopathic remedy proves that homeopathy works.
Reality: There are many other, more convincing explanations for this outcome.
Applied Kinesiology
Proponent claim: Muscle response strength proves nutrient deficiencies, toxin exposure, or food allergies.
Reality: No consistent relationship between muscle testing results and actual health status. The practice fails basic reliability tests; different practitioners get different results from the same patient.
Reiki
Proponent claim: Practitioners channel “healing energy” from assumed sources that improves health and prompts recovery.
Reality: No such energy exists. Well-controlled studies show Reiki performs no better than placebo. The claimed energy has no basis in physics or biology.
Acupuncture
Proponent claim: Inserting needles at specific points along “meridians” releases blocked qi and cures various conditions.
Reality: Most ot the patient-blind acupuncture trials show no difference from placebo acupuncture (needles placed randomly or not penetrating skin). Cochrane Reviews find acupuncture does no better than placebo. The meridian system has no anatomical basis.
_________________
These 4 examples illustrate the fundamental problem: SCAM proponents routinely mistake correlation for causation, or propose causal mechanisms that have no basis in established physics, chemistry, or biology. Without satisfying the above-mentioned criteria, these claims remain unproven speculation rather than scientific fact.
To put it bluntly:
CAUSALITY MATTERS!
France, like most countries, has long had its fair share of pseudoscience (see also my previous post). What is new, I feel, is the fact that opposition to the promotion of this dangerous nonsense is becoming more visible and hopefully more effective.
The recent revelations about pseudoscientific content in the biology and geology (sciences de la vie et de la Terre) teacher‑training program at the “Institut National Supérieur du Professorat et de L’Education” in Dijon illustrate how deeply irrational ideas and outright quackery can infiltrate institutions that should embody and promote scientific rigour. For several years, future secondary‑school biology teachers enrolled in the master’s degree programme “Métiers de l’Enseignement, de L’Education et de la Formation, Sciences de la Vie et de la Terre” were reportedly offered modules on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), such as “self‑healing,” homeopathy, and “mind over cancer,” where the power of mindset was presented as more important than chemotherapy. Such teaching does not simply represent a minor pedagogical eccentricity; it directly undermines the principles of evidence‑based medicine and science education.
Instead of learning how to critically appraise data, distinguish levels of evidence, and communicate scientific uncertainty, these trainees were exposed to narratives that elevate anecdote, belief and spurious “energy” concepts over controlled clinical trials and established oncological knowledge. More troubling still, students describe a climate in which questioning these contents could be seen as a lack of openness, thus inverting the very logic of critical thinking: scepticism toward dubious claims was implicitly discouraged, while credulity was smuggled in as a virtue.
The institutional response – acknowledging that “certain contents” might be problematic and promising internal reviews – remains inadequate as long as it treats pseudoscience as a marginal excess, rather than as a systemic failure of quality control and epistemic standards. In a context where schools already face conspiracy thinking and health misinformation, the responsibility of teacher‑training institutes is not merely to avoid obvious charlatanism, but to actively inoculate future teachers against it.
If those tasked with teaching biology and geology to the next generation are introduced to homeopathic and “mind‑healing” discourses without critical thinking, the boundary between science and pseudoscience becomes dangerously blurred. Defending that boundary is not an academic luxury; it is a matter of public health, intellectual integrity, and respect for the patients and families who depend on honest, evidence‑based information.
As calling out pseudoscience in France gets more effective, we will doubtlessly hear more about this issue. And as this development gathers momentum, the French will become more rational … yes, I know, I am an incurable optimist!
Breast cancer and its treatments affect patients’ physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. Practices such as Reiki are used to support symptom management, particularly during chemotherapy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients within the framework of Martha E. Rogers’ “Science of Unitary Human Beings.”
The research was conducted as a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, and DergiPark databases, with the search updated through May 2026 prior to the final analysis. Randomized controlled trials, experimental studies, and quasi-experimental studies investigating Reiki interventions in breast cancer patients were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were independently assessed by two researchers using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Four studies meeting the inclusion criteria included a total of 339 participants. The included studies suggested that Reiki practice may reduce fatigue and improve overall comfort and well-being. Some studies also reported improvements in quality of life, comfort, mental well-being, and mood.
The authors concluded that Reiki appeared to be a safe and well-tolerated complementary intervention in the included studies. Reiki practice may contribute to symptom management, improve quality of life, and support psychological well-being in breast cancer patients. However, due to the limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and methodological differences, larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.
This is a weird review, if there ever was one!
- It certainly did not follow the PRISMA guidelines.
- It evaluated the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients; much clearer can one not display a pro-Reiki bias!
- It included non-randomised trials.
- None of the included studies were of sufficiently good quality.
But the weirdest aspect must be the conclusion of the abstract: it aknowledges the fact that the primary studies were rubbish and nevertheless praises the multiple alleged benefits of Reiki. If the evidence is unconvincing due to many flaws of the primary data, the only adequate conclusion should read something like this:
Because of serious flaws of the included studies, the evidence that Reiki affects the symptoms of breast cancer patients fails to be positive.
I came across an interesting paper entitled “The Ethics of Tawas and Other Rituals in Medical Practices“. Here is its abstract:
Rituals in medical practice have either been seen as an anthropological aspect of current biomedical processes or as a pre-scientific aspect of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In either tendency, the literature has since failed to account for these rituals as rituals—conveyors of meaning, expressions of identity, and even as a rite of passage from illness to wellness. As an alternative to current discussions, this paper presents the case study of tawas, a diagnostic ritual from Philippine traditional medicine that determines personalistic and mystical causes of illnesses. As a non-intrusive procedure, tawas involves incantations and some ritual objects, e.g., rice, candle, axe, etc., that do not pose any direct harm nor benefit to the patient. While complete reliance on tawas at the expense of proper medical procedures could harm patients, the very ritual of tawas itself occupies a limbo within non-beneficence and non-maleficence. Following a Wittgensteinian perspective of treating rituals as meaning-laden human activities, this paper argues that rituals like tawas, much like other rituals embedded in biomedical practices, should be understood as rituals and not as empirical cures, thereby allowing their tolerance in medical practice in general.
The author seems to advocate for the cultural integration of traditional practices like tawas into a broader medical framework. They categorize tawas not as a physiological intervention, but define it as a conveyor of meaning. By addressing the “meaning-laden” aspect of illness, the ritual may address the psychological and social dimensions of a patient’s health, even if it has no effect on their physical pathology.
It is claimed that, since tawas involves non-intrusive objects (candles, rice), it is physically benign. At the same time it is acknowledged that “complete reliance” on tawas could harm patients. From a clinical safety standpoint, the “limbo” is only maintained if the ritual is strictly adjunctive rather than alternative.
The text uses a Wittgensteinian perspective, focusing on rituals as expressions rather than theories. Modern neuroscience suggests that the “ritual” of care—the white coat, the focused attention, the diagnostic process—triggers real neurobiological changes (e.g., dopamine and endorphin release). Aacknowledging the symbolic healing power that rituals have on patient anxiety and the “meaning response,” which can objectively improve health outcomes by reducing cortisol and stress.
The author identifies tawas as a diagnostic ritual which might well be the most contentious point. In science, a “diagnosis” must be reliable and valid. Tawas clearly fails the scientific criteria for validity. The author’s defence is that tawas shouldn’t be judged by those criteria at all. While this might be philosophically sound, in a clinical setting, a “mystical diagnosis” must conflict with a biological one, potentially leading to patient non-compliance with life-saving treatments.
This study was conducted to determine the effect of Reiki performed on children with leukemia between the ages of 5-7 years on pain, vital signs, oxygen saturation, and quality of life. It was a double-blind, pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study. The research sample consisted of 66 children with leukemia aged 5-7 years who were hospitalized in pediatric oncology wards of a university hospital between December 2020 and November 2021. The balanced block randomization method was used for randomization. The data were collected using Information Form, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale (W-BPS), Vital Signs Follow-up Form, The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Cancer Module. Reiki was performed to the Reiki group for 20-30 min once per day, for 3 consecutive days and pseudo-Reiki was applied to the pseudo-Reiki group by an independent nurse during the same application period.
There was no statistically significant difference in vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature) and SpO2 values among the groups (p > 0.05). However, both children’s and mothers’ evaluations on days 1, 2, and 3 after the intervention showed that pain scores in the Reiki group were significantly lower than in the pseudo-Reiki and control groups (p < 0.001), and quality of life was significantly higher (child:p < 0.001; mother:p < 0.01) compared to the pseudo-Reiki and control groups.
The authors concluded that Reiki did not affect the vital signs of the children but was effective in reducing pain and increasing the quality of life compared with the pseudo Reiki and control groups. It is recommended that Reiki therapy be used in addition to medical treatment to reduce pain and improve quality of life in children with leukemia aged 5-7 years.
The whole point of having a control group receiving pseudo-Reiki is to control for placebo effects. For this purpose, it is necessary to fool the patients well and make sure that they are unable to tell Reiki from pseudo-Reiki. I would guess – I have no aceess to the full paper – that this was not the case in this study. If I am correct, the positive outcome is likely to be due to expectation of a positive healing effect and unrelated to any specific effect of Reiki.
In any case, it is irresponsible nonsense to recommend Reiki – or any therapy – on the basis of just one positive study. For that one would need several independent confirmations with high quality studies that firmly establish a cause effect relationship. The current study does not fall into that category, and I am not aware of a single trial that does.
Exactly ninety-three years ago, on May 10, 1933, Nazi Germany staged one of its earliest and most symbolic assaults on intellectual freedom. Presented as a spontaneous outburst of student zeal, the book burnings were in fact a carefully orchestrated campaign to “purify” German culture and bring it into line with National Socialist ideology.
The initiative was led by the Deutsche Studentenschaft (DSt), the German Student Union, which by May 1933 had fallen firmly under Nazi control. The ideological direction and media amplification came from Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. At the Berlin bonfire, Goebbels proclaimed that “the era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end,” framing the event as a cultural turning point.
Operationally, the campaign was coordinated by the DSt’s Main Office for Press and Propaganda, under student leader Hans Karl Leistritz (often misattributed in some accounts), while members of the SA and SS ensured order and visibility at the rallies. What unfolded was not a single evening of spectacle but the culmination of a structured four-week programme titled the “Action against the Un-German Spirit.”
The campaign began on April 12 with the publication of twelve theses—deliberately echoing Martin Luther, denouncing “Jewish intellectualism” and calling for a racially defined German literature. Central to the effort were blacklists compiled by librarian Wolfgang Herrmann, identifying works deemed “un-German,” including those classified as “asphalt literature,” a derogatory term for modern, urban, and socially critical writing.
During the burnings, students ritualised the destruction by reciting “fire oaths” (Feuersprüche), each tailored to the author being condemned. When works by Sigmund Freud were thrown into the flames, for example, they denounced the “overvaluation of sexual life,” illustrating how ideological messaging accompanied the physical annihilation of texts.
The targets spanned a wide intellectual spectrum, uniting literary, scientific, and political figures under the label of cultural subversion. Among them were Erich Maria Remarque, condemned for his pacifism; Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg, for their political thought; and writers such as Heinrich Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Kurt Tucholsky, Alfred Döblin, and Stefan Zweig, whose works challenged nationalism or authoritarianism. Even figures like Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud were attacked as representatives of “Jewish science,” while international authors such as Ernest Hemingway and Jack London were included for their perceived ideological nonconformity. The inclusion of Helen Keller, whose social justice writings provoked particular hostility, underscored the breadth and arbitrariness of the purge.
The international response was immediate and forceful. In New York City, more than 100,000 people demonstrated against what was widely described as the “death of the mind,” while organisations such as the American Jewish Congress organised protests and boycotts. In exile, German intellectuals sought to preserve what had been destroyed: in 1934, the Deutsche Freiheitsbibliothek in Paris began collecting copies of banned works to ensure their survival.
The events of May 10 quickly assumed a grim symbolic significance. Heinrich Heine’s earlier warning – “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people” – proved to be less a metaphor than a prophecy, foreshadowing the far greater crimes that would follow.
When a top journal like PNAS (Procedings of the Nationsl Academy of Science) publishes an article entitled “What’s the science behind acupuncture?“, I must take notice. Here is my take on the (sadly disappointing) effort:
My very short summary of the paper (I do encourange my readers to read it in full)
The article starts from the premise that acupuncture is proven to work, an assumption that – as we will see in a minute – is not based on sound evidence. It describes the evolution of acupuncture from a traditional practice rooted in ancient concepts like “qi” and “meridians” to a modern medical treatment increasingly validated by science. It argues that practitioners like Min Chen are today able to provide evidence-based explanations for their work. While early clinical trials were plagued by the “sham” acupuncture paradox, the text argues that more recent, rigorous studies and technological projects are bridging the gap between Eastern philosophy and evidence-based medicine, suggesting that acupuncture’s effects are physiological realities rather than mere placebo.
My concerns of the paper
The article attempts to bridge the gap between Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and conventional medicine suggesting that several anatomical discoveries “correspond” to ancient meridians. This, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Finding a morphological structure (e.g. fascia) and claiming it represents the meridian system ignores that meridians were conceptualized as functional energetic conduits, not anatomical vessels. Citing an 80% overlap between acupoints and connective tissue planes lacks specificity. Given the ubiquity of connective tissue in the human frame, any randomized point on the body would likely “overlap” with a tissue plane, rendering the “meridian” map a possible exercise in pattern-seeking rather than anatomical discovery.
The paper acknowledges the “most puzzling” finding that sham acupuncture often produces results comparable to “true” acupuncture. This, it would seem to me, invalidates the foundational TCM theory of specific “acupoints” and “meridians” is invalidated. Yet, the article suggests that sham acupuncture is “not a true placebo” because it also triggers biological pathways. If needling anywhere produces an effect, acupuncture is merely a generalized, non-specific neuro-modulatory stimulus.
The article quotes Chen on “harmonizing organ functions” and “regulating qi” as well as researchers referring to “fibroblast activation” and “vagus nerve stimulation”. The author seems to consider both to be true; yet they seem mutually exclusive. Translating metaphysical concepts into physical phenomena does not “validate” the original theory but merely replaces it.
The article employs the opioid crisis to justify the rise of acupuncture. Yes, the need for non-pharmacological pain management is urgent, but clinical necessity does not equate to scientific validity. The text quotes the “lasting benefits” observed in some meta-analyses without discussing the often fatal flaws in these papers. Furthermore, it fails to cite the substantial body of evidence suggesting that acupuncture is not effective. Moreover, it hardly mentions the small effect sizes and hence limited clinical usefulness found in the positive studies.
The final section of the paper essentially rebrands acupuncture as “bioelectronic medicine”. If its mechanism of action is purely the electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve or the release of endogenous opioids, then the TCM concepts are all but superfluous. If a cheap and wearable TENS unit is more or less equivalent, the “meridian” and “qi” myths are obsolete.
In summary, the paper reads, I fear, only marginally better than a Chinese government promotional text – most disappointing for an article published in a journal of high standing. It attempts to preserve the cultural prestige of TCM while stripping it of its internal logic in order to make it compatible with science. For acupuncture to gain a true “scientific footing”, research must, in my view, move beyond finding “tantalizing” correlations. It should address fundamental problems, e.g.:
- As long as we have no convincing proof that acupuncture works beyond placebo, discussions about its mechanisms are futile.
- If qi, acupoints and meridians are illusions and irrelevant for the clinical outcome, then the science is not validating acupuncture but merely re-discovering a well-known non-specific form of peripheral nerve stimulation.
This review was aimed at analyzing the scientific evidence on Reiki intervention as a nursing care strategy for people with cancer. For this purpose, the researchers searched six databases, including primary studies, in Portuguese, Spanish and/or English, about the evidence on the use of Reiki intervention as a care strategy for cancer patients, totaling five publications.
The included studies suggest potential benefits of Reiki intervention, such as pain relief, reduction of physical symptoms (fatigue and insomnia) and improvement in emotional aspects, such as anxiety and stress. However, the results are still limited in terms of methodological robustness and generalizability.
The Brazilian authors concluded that, although the findings indicate beneficial effects of Reiki in people with oncological diseases, there is a limited production of clinical trials aimed at the application of this therapy in clinical nursing practice. Reiki can be considered a complementary strategy in nursing care, as long as it is integrated into an individualized therapeutic plan. It is recommended that studies with greater methodological rigor be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Reiki applied by oncology nurses.
The authors explain that “Reiki is a practice that uses the laying on of hands and symbols to channel universal life energy to recharge, realign and rebalance the human energy field. Its objective is to undo energetic blockages that compromise the flow of vital energy, and maintain harmony between the body, mind and spirit.” With just 2 sentences, the authors inply that Reiki has a sound scientific basis which they do not question in their paper at all. Yet phenomena such as live energy, regarging, realigning and rebalancing human energy fields, energetic blockages in the human body, flow of vital energy could not be less scientific. In fact, they are pure fantasy and have no basis in reality.
The authors also explain that 20 % (n=1) of the included studies were qualitative, 20 % (n=1) were quasi-experimental, 20 % (n=1) were reports of professional experience, and 40 % (n=2) consisted of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). On closer scrutiny, none of the RCTs was sufficiently rigorous to allow firm, positive conclusions. In other words, there is no good evidence and the conclusion that Reiki is beneficial for cancer patients is nonsense.
The authors note that, in 2017, with the publication of Ordinance No. 849, of March 27, Reiki was officially included in the Brazilian public health network. In view of the above mentioned lack of plausibility combined with a lack of effectiveness, this inclusion seems wholly irresponsible.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
