fallacy
In so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), there are few notions more difficult to argue against than this one:
I KNOW IT WORKS BECAUSE I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT MYSELF!
Yet, it is this notion that we most often encounter when discussing with proponents of SCAM. To argue against it often gets an emotional response, not least because the SCAM proponent feels that we are implying that (s)he is either lying or stupid or both. Therefore, it is important, I feel, to keep on addressing this issue. So, let me once again explain why ineffective treatments often appear to be effective.
To make this less boring, let’s consider a concrete case, one where nobody (well, almost nobody) will get emotionally involved. Let’s consider a patient who has been suffering from recurring pain of an undiagnosed origin and experiences benefit after crystal healing, a form of SCAM for which there truly is not a jot of evidence.
Why then does (s)he experience less pain after consulting her crystal healer?
There is a myriad of reasons, and in this post I will borrow some from the literature of psychology:
- The patient might think his/her pain is less frequent without actual change; recall bias.
- The healer might have provided an explanation for the pain which the patient experiences as a symptomatic improvement.
- The healer could have convinced him/her that his/her pre-treatment pain was worse than it truly was; recall bias.
- The patient might report improvement in accord with what (s)he believes to be the healer’s hope and expectation; social desirability.
- The patient is prone to preferentially remembering improvements as opposed to worsening; recall bias.
- Patients might interpret ambiguous changes in symptoms as indications of improvement.
- Many symptoms disappear or improve on their own; natural history of the disease.
- Many symptoms fluctuate; natural history of the disease.
- Extremes become less extreme on re-testing; the phenomenon of ‘regression towards the mean’.
- Patients employ several therapies simultaneously and later misattribute an improvement to one treatment.
- Patients expect to improve; the placebo-effect.
- Patients are conditioned to improve; the placebo-effect.
- Improvement owing to enthusiasm of receiving a new intervention; the novelty effect.
- Improvement owing to enthusiasm of receiving an exotic therapy.
- Improvement due to the compassionate care and attention received.
- Improvement due to the time spent with the healer.
- Improvement due to the effort and resources invested by the patient.
All these phenomena (and several more, I am sure) work in concert and can generate a clinical outcome that makes ineffective therapies and even slightly harmful treatments appear to be effective. In any single case, it is impossible to decide what precisely brought about the improvement. The only way to make sure that the specific effects of the treatment (in my example the crystal therapy) was involved is to conduct one (better several) controlled clinical trials.
I recently came across a short article from 2009 in the BMJ reporting that: “The World Health Organization has said that homoeopathy should not be used to treat several serious diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria...”
At the time most people (including myself) were rather pleased that the WHO took what was considered a clear stance, I remember. Reading the short paragraph again today, I must say I am underwhelmed. In fact, if I analyse it carefully, I have to admit that the statement is nonsense.
This would be inconsequential or trivial, were it not for the hundreds of similar statements warning people that HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SERIOUS CONDITIONS.
Have I confused you?
No, I am not claiming the homeopathy SHOULD be used for serious conditions! I am saying that the statement is misleading and can easily be misunderstood. Some people might interpret it as meaning that, alright homeopathy must not be used for serious diseases, but can be used for all other conditions. Come to think of it, the WHO has often been seen promoting so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and therefore I cannot be sure that this is not the message they wanted to send out.
Highly diluted homeopathic remedies contain nothing; they are therefore biologically implausible. Crucially, the best evidence fails to show that they work beyond a placebo effect. Therefore, employing it for a serious condition might hasten the patient’s death. But using it for a less serious condition is surely not much better.
Imagine someone takes it for asthma, or psoriasis, or coronary heart disease, or rheumatoid arthritis, or flu, or food poisoning, or the common cold, etc, etc. If he uses it as a sole treatment, he will suffer needlessly. If he uses it as a complementary treatment (Hahnemann did expressly forbid such combinations), he might not be affected negatively except for the time and money invested. But his health would not benefit, and therefore the WHO (or anyone else for that matter) should not imply that this is fine.
It follows that the warning HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SERIOUS CONDITIONS is nonsense. The only sound advice is this:
HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY CONDITIONS.
People who use so-called alternative medicines (SCAM) tend to be more vaccine hesitant. One possible conclusion that can be drawn from this is that trusting SCAM results in people becoming more vaccine hesitant. An alternative possibility is that vaccine hesitancy and use of SCAM are both consequences of a distrust in conventional treatments. an International team of researchers conducted analyses designed to disentangle these two possibilities.
They measured vaccine hesitancy and SCAM use in a representative sample of Spanish residents (N = 5200). They also quantified their trust in three CCAM interventions; 
- acupuncture,
- reiki,
- homeopathy
and in two conventional medical interventions:
- chemotherapy,
- antidepressants.
Vaccine hesitancy turned out to be strongly associated with (dis)trust in conventional medicine, and this relationship was particularly strong among SCAM users. In contrast, trust in SCAM was a relatively weak predictor of vaccine hesitancy, and the relationship was equally weak regardless of whether or not participants themselves had a history of using SCAM.
According to the authors of this paper, the implication for practitioners and policy makers is that SCAM is not necessarily a major obstacle to people’s willingness to vaccinate, and that the more proximal obstacle is people’s mistrust of conventional treatments.
This is an interesting study. Yet, it begs a few questions:
- Is it possible to reliably establish trust in SCAM by asking about just 3 specific therapies?
- Is it possible to reliably establish trust in conventional medicine by asking about just 2 treatments?
- Why those therapies out of hundreds of options?
- Could it be that here are national differences (in other countries distrust in conventional medicine is not a strong determinant of SCAM use)?
- Is trust in SCAM and distrust in conventional medicine perhaps the common expression of an anti-science attitude or cultist tendencies?
‘THE INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE COLLABORATIVE‘ claim to be a collection of the leading organisations within the field, who are committed to working together to improve healthcare in the UK. They believe that a truly integrated healthcare service would improve patient experiences, bring about better patient outcomes, and provide a framework for a more cost-effective delivery of healthcare services.
Their purpose is as follows:
To bring together professional associations and stakeholders within complementary, traditional and natural healthcare, to identify common areas of interest, and to collectively take forward agreed objectives to promote greater integration with conventional Western medicine.
Objectives:
- To increase public awareness, knowledge and understanding of complementary, traditional and natural healthcare.
- To raise issues in integrated healthcare with government and decision-makers.
- To provide information on complementary, traditional and natural healthcare to the media and interested parties.
- To promote the benefits to public health of greater provision and integration of complementary, traditional and natural healthcare.
- To develop co-ordinated strategies to help patients access accurate information on integrated healthcare.
- To facilitate better access to, and choice of, appropriate complementary, traditional and natural healthcare within the NHS.
- To empower the public to share responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.
- To encourage whole-person, individualised healthcare.
- To advocate collaboration with conventional Western healthcare professionals.
- To support the development of a robust and appropriate evidence base.
They sate that Integrated Healthcare involves combining the best of conventional Western Medicine with a range of complementary, traditional and natural therapies.
The IHC brings together the following leading organisations, who are Core Members and lead our work.
- Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH)
- Association of Energy Therapists (AET)
- Association of Naturopathic Practitioners (ANP)
- Association of Physical and Natural Therapists (APNT)
- Association of Reflexologists (AoR)
- Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture (ATCM)
- British Complementary Medicine Association (BCMA)
- British Reflexology Association (BRA)
- Chinese Medical Institute and Register (CMIR)
- Craniosacral Therapy Association (CSTA)
- General Council and Register of Naturopaths (GCRN)
- Faculty of Homeopathy (FoH)
- Federation of Holistic Therapists (FHT)
- International Federation of Professional Aromatherapists (IFPA)
- Kinesiology Federation (KF)
- McTimoney Chiropractic Association (MCA)
- National Institute of Medical Herbalists (NIMH)
- Shiatsu Society UK (SSUK)
- Society of Homeopaths (SoH)
- Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT)
- UK Reiki Federation (UKRF)
The IHC also provide revealing paragraphs about several so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) on their website. This is where I have found a host of interesting statements. Here are just 6 examples:
- Chiropractic treatment mainly involves safe, specific spinal manipulation to free joints in the spine or other areas of the body that are not moving properly.
- Science is starting to understand the mechanism of action of ultra-high dilutions in the body, and homeopathic medicines are gentle, safe to use and in widespread use across the world.
- By testing … muscles the kinesiologist can get a picture of what is happening in your meridian system and how this may be affecting you.
- Radionics is a healing technique in which your natural intuitive faculties are used both to discover the energetic disturbances underlying illness and to encourage the return of a normal energetic field that supports health.
- Reflexology is a complementary therapy based on the belief that there are reflex areas in the feet and hands which are believed to correspond to all organs and parts of the body.
- [Reiki] is a tradition that is open to any belief system and benefits may include deep relaxation and the promotion of a calm peaceful sense of wellbeing.
And here are 6 corrections of the above-listed statements:
- Chiropractic involves unsafe spinal manipulation to free customers of their cash.
- Science has long understood that there is no mechanism that could possibly explain homeopathy.
- By testing muscles, the kinesiologist pretends to do something meaningful in order to be able to bill the customer.
- Radionics is a con technique that is counter-intuitive, implausible and unrelated to energy.
- Reflexologists believe to have shown conventional anatomy and physiology to be mistaken.
- Reiki is a tradition and a belief system demonstrably out of touch with reality.
PS
If the IHC want to change their text and adopt my corrections, I would waive my fee for this efforts.
There are uncounted different forms of bogus so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs), and many have been discussed on this blog. What do I mean by ‘bogus’? A bogus SCAM is one, in my view, that is being promoted for conditions for which it does not demonstrably generate more good than harm.
Ten popular examples are:
- alternative cancer ‘cures’,
- applied kinesiology,
- Bach Flower Remedies,
- CEASE,
- chiropractic,
- detox treatments,
- homeopathy,
- osteopathy,
- paranormal or energy healing techniques,
- slimming aids.
These treatments are diverse in many ways: history, basic assumption, risks, etc. But they nevertheless tend to have certain features in common:
- Most SCAMs originate from the ideas developed by a single, often charismatic individual who proclaimed to have seen the light. Think of Gerson, Bach, Palmer, Hahnemann, Still.
- They are recommended by enthusiasts as a panacea, a ‘cure all’.
- They are heavily promoted by celebrities, hyped by the press and marketed via books or the Internet, but they are far less or not at all supported by published studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
- The clinical trials of SCAM that have been published are flimsy, lack independent replication, yet are celebrated by proponents as though they represent robust evidence.
- SCAMs target either the most desperately ill patients who understandably tend to cling to every straw they can find. Or they go for the ‘worried well’ who have nothing truly wrong with them and plenty of cash to waste.
- Proponents of SCAM use scientific-sounding terminology, while simultaneously displaying a profoundly anti-scientific attitude.
- Entrepreneurs of SCAM are efficient at selling false hope at excessive prices.
- SCAMs sometimes seem to work because many of the therapists are skilled at maximising the placebo-response.
- SCAM is awash with conspiracy theories, for instance, the notion that ‘the establishment’ is supressing SCAM. (If a SCAM ever showed real promise, it would rapidly scrutinised by researchers and, if effectiveness were confirmed, adopted by conventional medicine. The notion of an alternative cure for any disease is idiotic, because it presupposes that conventional healthcare professionals shun a potentially valuable treatment simply because it emerged from elsewhere.)
- Most SCAMs can do direct harm. For instance, oral treatments can be toxic or interact with prescription drugs. Or spinal manipulations can cause a stroke. Or acupuncture can cause a pneumothorax.
- SCAMs are dangerous even if they do not cause direct harm. There are many examples of people who died needlessly early because they used SCAM as an alternative to conventional medicine (Steve Jobs is a prominent example).
- Moreover, SCAMs cause harm by undermining the principles of EBM and, more importantly, by undermining rational thinking in our society.
- SCAM practitioners violate fundamental rules of medical ethics on a daily basis. One could even argue that the ethical practice of SCAM is rarely possible.
Guest post by Richard Rawlins
Ever since its inception, Homeopathy has struggled to establish principled medical ethics amongst its practitioners. For sure, Samuel Hahnemann was good doctor who achieved much by denying his patients the bleeding, emetics, expectorants, laxatives and poly-pharmacy conventional at the turn of the nineteenth century. But he then lost his way in spiritism and vitalism, devised a system of care which could not, and did not, provide any benefit beyond placebo responses, and inveigled many colleagues to share his delusion. Many derided him.
As medicine in all developed countries became better regulated, so the associated ethics became better focussed. “First do no harm” is common to all systems, but in the UK, the four ‘A’s of avoiding adultery with a patient, alcohol whilst in a clinical situation, advertising, and association formed the next domain. ‘Association’ meant having a professional medical relationship with anyone not also a GMC registrant. Times, and standards have changed, but quackery, charlatanism and health care fraud has always been unethical. The problem for society has been the GMC’s reluctance to take any action against its registrants who lack integrity, promote quackery, or seek to defraud. The general response has been “we only act on complaints by a patient, health authority or fellow registrant – and complaints have to be specific.”
So it is that about 400 registrants of the GMC continue practising homeopathy with impunity. Sir Simon Stevens has now all but banned homeopathy from the NHS, but a medically qualified practitioner, in the private sector can do as they please, no matter how vulnerable and gullible the patient.
Doctors are of course required to obtain fully informed consent to treatment, and that should mean advising patients that homeopathic remedies are but placebos. Many patients so treated will declare they “feel better” and are content – but in practice, no explanation is offered to patients attending homeopaths. A classic charlatonnade (a charade promulgated by a charlatan).
But perhaps the vicissitudes of Covid-19 is exposing the hypocrisy of the GMC’s position, and might yet enable some redress for patients seeking redress for unethical medically qualified homeopathic attention.
The Guardian and Sunday Times of 22nd March 2020 reported that Dr Mark Ali allegedly made £1.7M profit in one week from selling kits to test for COVID -19.
“The GMC said no doctor should try to ‘profit from the fear and uncertainly caused by the pandemic…We would be concerned to learn that doctors are exploiting patient’s vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge, in order to profit from fear and uncertainty…’ “
The rationale for that fear is surely irrelevant – any health practice which takes advantage of the patient’s vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge is unethical. Simple.
“We also expect doctors… not to offer or recommend tests that are unproven, clinically unverified or otherwise unreliable.”
This is in the context of the serious issues of SARS-CoV-2 (the name of the corona virus which causes the illness COVID-19) – but it is helpful that the GMC’s ethical principles have been clearly stated.
May we take it the GMC will be equally as stringent with their registrants (doctors) who take advantage of the patient’s vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge, and recommend tests such as homeopathic provings “that are unproven, clinically unverified or otherwise unreliable.”?
And if not, why not?
All homeopathic remedy prescriptions are ‘tests’: “Take this, see how you go, I’ll adjust if needed…”. The German word pruefung used by Hahnemann (meaning ‘testing’ or ‘examination’) has been translated into English as ‘proving’. But the word for ‘to prove’ is beweisen, and that is not the word Hahnemann used. The use of ‘proving’ in English implies merit which is not deserved. All part of the delusion.
Clearly, any doctor who recommends homeopathic remedies, but does not explain the conventional view of the remedy, lacks integrity and is unethical – by definition. If the doctor is GMC registered (which a ‘doctor’ does not have to be – e.g., dentists are not) – they should be subject to sanction by the GMC. The GMC should do its duty to protect the public, and not wait for a crisis to stir them into action.
Sadly, if practitioners are not GMC registered, caveat emptor.
[If you do not like black humour or sarcasm, please do NOT read this post!!!]
Donald Trump just announced that, at Easter, he wants to see churches packed, his way of saying the lock-down is over because it is damaging the economy. Many others have put forward similar arguments and have pointed out that caring for the vulnerable, sick, old, etc. creates an economic burden that might eventually kill more people than it saves (see for instance ‘Economic crash could cost more lives than coronavirus, study warns‘).
Many people have also argued that homeopathy is unjustly vilified because it is truly a wholesome and safe medicine that should be used routinely. The notion here is that, alright, the evidence is not brilliant, but 200 years of experience and millions of fans cannot be ignored.
I have been wondering whether these two lines of thinking could not be profitably combined. Here is my suggestion based on the following two axioms.
- The economy is important for all our well-being.
- Homeopaths have a point in that the value of experience must not be ignored.
What follows is surprisingly simple: in view of the over-riding importance of the economy, let’s prioritise it over health. As it would look bad to deny those poor corona victims all forms of healthcare, let’s treat them homeopathically. This would make lots of people happy:
- those who think the economy must take precedent,
- those who fear the huge costs of saving corona patients (homeopathy is very cheap),
- those who argued for decades that we never gave homeopathy a fighting chance to show its worth.
There is a downside, of course. There would be a most lamentable mortality rate. But, to paraphrase Dominic Cummings, if a few oldies have to snuff it, so be it!
Once we get used to this innovative approach – I suggest we call it integrative medicine – we might even consider adopting it for other critical situations. When we realise, for instance, that the pension pots are empty, we could officially declare that homeopathy is the ideal medicine for anybody over 60.
What do you think?
I missed this article by Canadian vascular surgeons when it came out in 2018. It is well-argued, and I think you should read it in full, if you can get access (it’s behind a pay wall). It contains interesting details about the anti-vax attitude of doctors of integrative medicine (something we discussed before), as well as the most dubious things that go on in the ‘Cleveland Clinic’. Here is at least the abstract of the article:
Evidence-based medicine, first described in 1992, offers a clear, systematic, and scientific approach to the practice of medicine. Recently, the non-evidence-based practice of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been increasing in the United States and around the world, particularly at medical institutions known for providing rigorous evidence-based care. The use of CAM may cause harm to patients through interactions with evidence-based medications or if patients choose to forego evidence-based care. CAM may also put financial strain on patients as most CAM expenditures are paid out-of-pocket. Despite these drawbacks, patients continue to use CAM due to media promotion of CAM therapies, dissatisfaction with conventional healthcare, and a desire for more holistic care. Given the increasing demand for CAM, many medical institutions now offer CAM services. Recently, there has been controversy surrounding the leaders of several CAM centres based at a highly respected academic medical institution, as they publicly expressed anti-vaccination views. These controversies demonstrate the non-evidence-based philosophies that run deep within CAM that are contrary to the evidence-based care that academic medical institutions should provide. Although there are financial incentives for institutions to provide CAM, it is important to recognize that this legitimizes CAM and may cause harm to patients. The poor regulation of CAM allows for the continued distribution of products and services that have not been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy. Governments in Australia and England have successfully improved regulation of CAM and can serve as a model to other countries.
Those who have been following this blog a little know how much I agree with these authors. In fact, in the peer-reviewed literature, I have been publishing similar arguments for almost 20 years, e.g:
- Integrative medicine: not a carte blanche for untested nonsense. Ernst E. Arch Intern Med 2002. PMID 12153386
- Disentangling integrative medicine Ernst E. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 – Review. PMID 15065622
- Integrated medicine. Ernst E. J Intern Med 2012. PMID 21682782 Free article.
- Integrative medicine: more than the promotion of unproven treatments? Ernst E. Med J Aust 2016. PMID 26985838
What is pseudoscience and how can it be differentiated from science? This ‘demarcation problem’ has occupied many of our best minds and which nevertheless is largely unresolved. Two brave academics have recently published a paper aimed at providing organisations within the justice system with an overview of:
a) what science is and is not;
b) what constitutes an empirically driven, theoretically founded, peer-reviewed approach;
c) how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.
In it, they demonstrate that not all information which is presented as comprehensively evaluated is methodologically reliable for use in the justice system. Even though it does not really solve the old demarcation problem, I found their article important and informative and therefore take the liberty of quoting a brief excerpt here:
Organisations within the justice system do use empirically and theoretically supported approaches. However, some implemented approaches lack empirical evidence. In more perturbing cases, police officers, lawyers and judges may resort to pseudoscience – that is, bodies of information that may appear to be scientific but, in reality, lack the characteristics of scientific knowledge. … if members of the justice community are not advised about the publishing process then pseudoscientists can be fairly proficient at providing counterarguments. In addition, pseudoscientists can use several other fallacious arguments to achieve maximum support for their approaches.
For example, pseudoscientists might argue that their approaches are supported by a select number of articles, theses or books, and that they are reliable due to their acceptance by important organisations. However, if upon reading such literature it becomes apparent that there is no empirical or theoretical support, or that the steps leading to the conclusions are not thoroughly justified (be this methodologically or through evaluation), the implementation of their approaches remains merely destitute of vision. In addition, such reference to important organisations – often known as ‘name-dropping’–is detrimental by nature; doing so lends support to the notion that one might be unable to distinguish pseudoscience from science and may not understand the role that science plays in developing better professional practice.
Fallacious arguments from pseudoscientists can also address negative comments in a way that attempts to discourage further criticism from members of the scientific community. They can engage in legal threats and ad hominem attacks – that is, opposition to an argument ‘by questioning the personal circumstances or personal trustworthiness of the arguer who advanced it’. For example, if academics raise concerns regarding a particular pseudoscience without having attended its associated seminars, pseudoscientists might assert that the academics do not have the required understanding and that, as such, their criticism is of no value. If the academics had indeed attended the seminars, the pseudoscientists might instead suggest that their concerns are raised out of obscure or malicious reasons. Pseudoscientists might even state that they are criticised due to their revolutionary approach and refer to a quote dubiously attributed to the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: ‘All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident’. However, as Sagan rightly points out,
the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
‘HOMEOPATHY360’ are fiercely decided to defend homeopathy, no matter what. They state that we promise to stand by your side always to fight against the critical attacks on Homeopathy… Therefore, I was not really surprised when, a couple of days ago, I received an email by them urging me to support US homeopaths against the threat by the FDA. Here is part of this correspondence:
… If you want to know more about the FDA’s proposed new rules for homeopathic medicines, here’s a summary of the most important points:
- The new rules, if adopted, will allow the FDA to withdraw even properly manufactured and labeled homeopathic medicines from the marketplace. This is puzzling because these have never posed any sort of safety concern according to an initial review of public FDA records by Americans for Homeopathy Choice.
- It is clear that the FDA intends to use this authority and has even mentioned specific medicines such as Belladonna, Nux vomica and Lachesis muta in its public statements regarding enforcement.
- The authority for this kind of assault on homeopathy will result from the declaration by the FDA that all homeopathic medicines are “new drugs.” We all know this is nonsense. Homeopathic medicines have been around for 200 years.
- But this nonsense declaration means that under U.S. law all homeopathic remedies will become technically “illegal” and subject to withdrawal from the marketplace. If the FDA just thinks there is a problem with a homeopathic medicine, it can withdraw it forever without conducting any sort of investigation.
- Since the agency has already said that it thinks that Belladonna, Nux vomica, Lachesis muta and several other remedies are dangerous, we can anticipate that it will try to remove them from the marketplace as soon as its new rules are adopted.
- But, it won’t be possible for Americans to get remedies that are banned sent to them from abroad. The FDA will simply stop these remedies at the border.
I could tell you more, but what I’ve told you so far should convince you that we ought to help the American homeopathy community defeat these unreasonable and misinformed rules. The rules simply do not reflect the realities of homeopathic medicines, namely, that they are nontoxic, mild, effective and have few, if any, side-effects. And, homeopaths use them in ways that individualize treatment. That this is the best way to treat patients was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann 200 years ago.
The enemies of homeopathy are everywhere and they appear to be stepping up their attacks. That’s why the world homeopathy community must work together to stand up to them…
_________________________________________________________________
I have reported about the FDA initiatives on homeopathy before. In 2015, they started it with a public hearing. Since then, the FDA also issued several warnings to manufacturers who were putting consumers at risk (see, for instance, here, here, and here).
What the FDA seem to be trying to do is nothing else but meeting their ethical, moral and legal responsibility vis a vis consumer safety. Homeopathy has had a free ride for far too long. It is high time that this sector joins the 21st century.
The above quote, with its bonanza of bogus claims and falsehoods, shows the urgency of this task. The defenders of homeopathy seem to live on a different planet where rationality, facts and evidence can easily be over-ruled by creed, dogma and wishful thinking. If homeopaths want their trade to join the realm of real medicine they need, at the very minimum, to show with sound evidence:
- that their remedies generate more good than harm,
- that they adhere to acceptable quality standards.
Failing this – and so far, homeopaths not only failed at this task but continue bombarding us with an incessant flow of bogus and dangerous claims – homeopathics cannot be considered to be medicines, and homeopaths cannot be called responsible healthcare professionals. It is high time to stop turning a blind eye to the double standards that have been applied for 200 years.
