homeopathy
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
A recent survey of the “Österreichische Gesellschaft für Marketing” (OMG), a Viennese opinion research and market research institute shows a notable shift in public attitudes towards homeopathy. In 2010, nearly one in five Austrians reported greater confidence in homeopathy than in evidence-based medicine. By 2026, that proportion had fallen to just one in ten (10%), indicating a substantial erosion of support over the past decade and a half. Interestingly, the percentage differed acconding to politics; for voters of the right-wing freedom party and the greens the percentages were notably higher (15 and 19% respectively).
Several factors likely contribute to this trend. One important driver is the increasingly critical stance adopted by mainstream media. Over recent years, reporting on homeopathy has become more evidence-focused, often highlighting the lack of plausible mechanisms and robust clinical efficacy beyond placebo. This shift in media tone may have played a significant role in reshaping public perceptions, particularly among more scientifically literate audiences.
Equally important is the growing distance between homeopathy and the scientific community. As medical research continues to emphasize rigorous methodology and reproducibility, homeopathy has struggled to meet these standards. The accumulation of negative or inconclusive findings in high-quality trials has further weakened its credibility within academic medicine.
Yet, the responsibility for declining trust does not rest solely with external critics. Instances of scientific misconduct within homeopathy research – such as studies later found to involve highly probable data manipulation and subsequently retracted – have likely contributed to skepticism. In particular, the now infamous study by the Vienna-based Michael Frass might have contributed to the decline. Such events undermine not only individual studies but also the broader integrity of the field.
Overall, the Austrian data suggest a gradual but meaningful realignment toward evidence-based medicine, driven by both external scrutiny and internal weaknesses within homeopathy itself. This surely must be good news. But, as a rational person, I still ask myself, how is it possible that 1 in 10 Austrians have greater confidence in homeopathy than in evidence-based medicine?
To me, this indicates that much more work is needed to inform the public responsibly about homeopathy and other bogus alternative treatments.
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!
Tolerance is widely regarded as a moral virtue, a cornerstone of pluralistic societies and a safeguard against dogmatism. Yet, tolerance can sometimes be misplaced. Thomas Mann suggested that “tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”. In a similar vein, I propose that tolerance can become unethical when applied to homeopathy.
Homeopathy presents itself as a benign and natural alternative to or complement of conventional medicine. Its appeal lies partly in its historical pedigree and partly in its promise of gentle healing without side effects. However, beneath this veneer lies a system of belief that is fundamentally incompatible with science and ethics. Its core principles – the notions that like cures like and that substances become more potent through extreme dilution – contradict basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology. After more than two centuries of use and more that 500 clinical studies, there is no credible evidence that homeopathic remedies perform better than placebos.
In many areas of life, tolerance for differing beliefs is both appropriate and necessary. However, medicine is different. It is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a field grounded in empirical evidence, where opinions can have direct and drastic consequences for health and survival. To tolerate ineffective and therefore potentially harmful treatments within this domain risks legitimizing misinformation and undermining public trust in evidence-based care.
The ethical problem intensifies when homeopathy is integrated into healthcare systems or endorsed by public institutions. Such endorsement conveys an implicit message of efficacy and legitimacy, misleading patients who may lack the expertise to critically evaluate medical claims. This is particularly concerning in cases where patients choose homeopathic remedies as an alternative therapy, i.e.in place of effective treatments, potentially resulting in preventable harm. Here, tolerance can easily degenerate into complicity.
Defenders of homeopathy often invoke patient choice and patient autonomy. While these are important principles, they do not justify the abdication of professional responsibility. True respect for patients involves providing accurate information and protecting them from ineffective or deceptive practices. Allowing patients to choose homeopathy without clear, despite all the evidence that speaks against it is not an expression of respect but a failure of duty.
Moreover, the commercial dimension of homeopathy raises additional ethical concerns. The marketing of homeopathic products often exploits the language of science and medicine while evading the standards that govern them. Consumers are led to believe they are purchasing effective treatments. In reality, they are buying fake medicines that contain no active ingredients. This practice tolerance has degenerated into exploitation.
A society that prides itself on scientific progress and rational inquiry cannot afford to suspend its critical faculties in the name of tolerance. While civility and openness are essential virtues, they must not be confused with randomness or indiscriminate acceptance. Tolerance has limits, particularly when it intersects with matters of public health and scientific integrity.
Thus, the tolerance extended to homeopathy is not merely misplaced; it is ethically problematic. By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. In this context, I feel that intolerance is not a vice but a necessary stance, one that affirms the primacy of evidence, reason, and the ethical obligation to do no harm.
A position paper of the Associazione Pazienti Malattie Oculari (APMO) evaluated IRIDOLOGY. Here is its abstract:
Iridology is an alternative diagnostic practice that claims to identify systemic diseases and organ dysfunction through visual inspection of iris features, including pigmentation patterns, crypts, furrows, and discolorations. Despite its continued presence within complementary and alternative medicine, iridology has not been incorporated into mainstream medical practice. This review critically examines iridology from an ophthalmologic perspective, addressing its historical origins and epistemological foundations, proposed mechanisms, biological plausibility, and clinical evidence. A systematic appraisal of the available literature, including the most recent government-commissioned evidence evaluation, demonstrates a consistent lack of diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and pathophysiological rationale. The ethical and clinical implications of iridology use are discussed, with particular attention to the risk of delayed diagnosis and patient misinformation. Based on the totality of evidence, iridology cannot be supported as a diagnostic or screening tool in ophthalmology or general medicine.
In the article itself, the authors drew the following, detailed conclusion: Iridology is a diagnostic practice whose foundational maps were constructed through uncontrolled post hoc observation, without anatomical, physiological, or embryological basis. Decades of controlled investigation – including the most recent government-commissioned systematic review applying GRADE methodology [16] – have failed to demonstrate diagnostic accuracy beyond chance, and no credible mechanism links iris features to systemic organ pathology.
A scientifically rigorous appraisal must acknowledge several nuances: the evidence base itself is limited in volume and methodological quality; a single study using automated photodensitometry produced one marginally significant finding; and one recent unblinded study reported high sensitivity at the cost of unacceptably low specificity. These exceptions do not alter the overall conclusion but illustrate that further high-quality prospective blinded trials would strengthen the evidentiary record.
Based on the available evidence, the Associazione Pazienti Malattie Oculari endorses the following key messages:
- Iridology should not be used or endorsed as a diagnostic or screening tool in ophthalmology or general medicine.
- The epistemological foundations of iridology (chart construction through uncontrolled post hoc correlation) are incompatible with scientific validation regardless of clinical trial results.
- Computer-aided iridology represents a technological advance that has not yet addressed the underlying validity problem and should not be regarded as validated.
- Patient inquiries should be addressed with empathy, scientific clarity, and a clear distinction between genuine ocular signs of systemic disease and unsupported claims.
- Ophthalmologists have a professional responsibility to safeguard the scientific integrity of ocular diagnostics and to protect patients from practices with potential for harm.
All of this confirms what I have been saying and writing for several decades. My recent book BIZARRE MEDICAL IDEAS has a chapter on iridology and his inventor. Here is its abstract:
Ignaz von Peczely (1826-1911) was born into a noble Hungarian family. He became a lay homeopath but later decided to study medicine in Vienna where he graduated aged 36. He then had a thriving medical practice in Vienna. Peczely’s discovery of iridology allegedly goes back to his childhood when he noted discolourings in the eye of an injured owl. Throughout his professional life, Peczely promoted iridology with some success. Other practitioners took over the mantle and made sure iridology is popular to the present day.
What needs stressing, I feel, is the fact that iridology is not just a mere folly, it is dangerous! False negative and false positive diagnoses – iridology is unable to deliver anything else – carry serious, sometimes life-threatening risks.
A contentious debate has just erupted in Germany over the government’s plan to remove homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine from coverage under statutory health insurance (GKV). Former prominent politicians, including Green Party leader Winfried Kretschmann (former Minister President of Baden-Württemberg) and SPD leader Malu Dreyer (former Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate), signed an “open letter” opposing the removal, arguing it would harm patients and violate ethical principles.
The open letter, launched by the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ) on June 17, 2026, claims that removing these therapies would be “an expensive wrong decision at the expense of patients.” It cites studies suggesting homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect and argues that the majority of German citizens value and benefit from these treatments. Signatories include former Federal Interior Minister Otto Schily (SPD), Greens co-founder Lukas Beckman, actress Sarah Wiener, Alo natura founder Götz Rehn, and “Tatort” actors Hans-Jochen Wagner and Felix Klare, along with former BMG state secretaries Marion Caspers-Merk and Edgar Franke.
The German Ministry of Health (BMG) defends the planned removal as part of the “GKV Contribution Rate Stabilization Act,” which aims to save €20–50 million annually. The ministry correctly states there is “insufficient scientific evidence for effectiveness” and that no evidence exists to justify cost coverage for these therapies. Under the new law, statutorily insured patients would need to pay for homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine themselves or obtain private insurance.
The Bundestag’s final reading of the law was delayed from June 26 to July 10, 2026, giving lawmakers more time to review the open letter before the parliamentary summer recess. This delay reflects the political sensitivity of the issue.
Opposition to the open letter comes from major healthcare organizations. The GKV-Spitzenverband (health insurance federation) supports removing services without scientific evidence, the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (doctors’ association) welcomes returning to “proven treatment methods.” and IQWIG, the health economics institute, confirms that homeopathy and anthroposophy lack evidence for GKV coverage.
This controversy is unusual because Kretschmann (Greens) and Dreyer (SPD) have in the past been aligned with evidence-based medicine and scientific attitude towards so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Allow me to congratulate the signatories for producing what possibly is the finest piece of health-related BS of 2026!
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) likes to present itself as a champion of disease prevention. Its advocates routinely claim to promote health before disease develops, to strengthen the body’s defences, and to address root causes rather than symptoms. This rhetoric is highly attractive, because prevention sounds proactive, humane, and economical. Crucially, it is also good for the SCAM practitioner’s bank account. Yet there is a snag: almost none of the preventive claims made for SCAM are supported by reliable evidence, whereas the prevention that works comes overwhelmingly from conventional medicine and science.
To show preventive benefit, an intervention must demonstrably reduce the incidence of symptom, disease, complication, or mortality in properly designed studies. That may require randomised trials, epidemiological studies, large cohorts, reproducible findings, and enough follow-up to show that fewer people actually experienced the given endpoint. Mainstream medicine has repeatedly met this standard. Immunization, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, lipid lowering, cancer screening, and risk-factor modification are all products of biomedical research, not of alternative healing traditions.
SCAM, by contrast, tends to use prevention in a loose, impressionistic, and unfalsifiable way. A practitioner may claim that a treatment “balances energy,” “supports immunity,” or “keeps the body in harmony,” but such phrases do not establish a preventive effect. They are placeholders for evidence, not evidence itself. In practice, the absence of disease after treatment is treated as proof that the treatment worked, even though the same outcome occurs every day without any intervention at all.
Acupuncture is a good example. Its defenders portray it as a preventive system capable of preserving general health or warding off illness, but the evidence base does not support that claim. Some reviews do suggest that acupuncture may help with some pain-related and symptom-focused conditions, yet its preventive value is largely unproven. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that acupuncture prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Chiropractic care is even more revealing because preventive claims are often tied to the doctrine of spinal “subluxation” and nervous system dysfunction. Yet the literature on prevention is thin and methodologically weak. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that chiropractic prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Herbalism benefits from the romantic appeal of “natural” remedies, but that appeal should not be confused with demonstrated preventive efficacy. Individual plant compounds have certainly inspired real drugs, yet that is a triumph of pharmacology, not of herbalism as a system. When herbal medicines are tested for prevention, results are usually weak, inconsistent, or insufficient to support recommendation. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that herbal medicine prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Homeopathy is one of the most extreme cases within SCAM. It is often sold as gentle, individualized, and even preventive, but its basic principles are scientifically implausible, and its clinical evidence is either flawed or negative. Preventive homeopathy, including ideas such as “homeoprophylaxis,” is particularly problematic because it can give people a false sense of security while displacing interventions that genuinely prevent disease, such as vaccination. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that homeopathy prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
SCAM speaks almost constantly about prevention, but the evidence for actual preventive benefit is close to non-existent. What we know about prevention, what truly reduces disease incidence and improves population health, comes from conventional medicine, epidemiology, public health, and biological science. SCAM will no doubt continue to borrow the language of medicine and prevention, but – as far as I can see – it has failed to supply the proof.
During outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), public health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) combat “infodemics”, i.e. surges of false information and unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) polluting social media (Bedrosian et al., 2016; Fung et al., 2016; Obol & Nzedibe, 2024). Because these SCAMs are ineffective and frequently dangerous, authorities issue warnings against their use. Here are just a few of the many claims that can be found:
- Bathing in or drinking hot, highly saturated saltwater solutions can sweat out or kill the Ebola virus (Fung et al., 2016). Public health agencies strongly advise against this practice. It does nothing to prevent or treat EVD and can cause severe illness and death from acute hypernatremia (Vijaykumar et al., 2019).
- Solutions containing silver nanoparticles act as powerful natural antimicrobials capable of neutralizing the Ebola virus inside the body (Fung et al., 2016). The WHO has explicitly stated that Nano Silver is an unproven compound with no demonstrated efficacy against Ebola. Authorities recommend avoiding these products, as silver accumulation can cause irreversible organ damage and a condition called argyria (which permanently turns the skin blue/gray).
- Consuming large quantities of specific botanical items, such as raw onions, ginger, or alligator peppers, can stave off infection (Nsoesie & Oladeji, 2020). These “natural cures” possess no therapeutic effects capable of stopping viral replication of the filovirus family. Relying on them creates a false sense of security, which delays life-saving, evidence-based triage and supportive care (Fridman et al., 2025; Nsoesie & Oladeji, 2020).
- Ebola has been attributed to spiritual curses or witchcraft that can only be reversed by traditional spiritual cleansing (Bedrosian et al., 2016). Public health organizations work alongside local communities to pivot away from these practices. Delaying medical intervention to seek traditional spiritual healing drastically increases community transmission and prevents patients from receiving SOTA antiviral therapies and fluid replacement, lowering survival rates (Obol & Nzedibe, 2024).
- A homeopath market “e-remedies” online, claiming that the “energy signature” of a remedy could be digitized into an audio file (Moffitt, 2018). He claimed that listening to a specific, hissing MP3 file could stimulate the body’s immune system to fight off Ebola. This prompted an investigation by the Medical Board of California into the doctor’s license for promoting unscientific and unproven online remedies (Moffitt, 2018).
- Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulations can prevent Ebola infections, because misalignments interfere with the nervous system. Since the nervous system coordinates the immune responses, these misalignments weaken the body’s ability to recognize and destroy the Ebola virus (Terry Chiropractic Boulder). People “have nothing to fear but fear itself” regarding outbreaks if they keep their spines properly aligned to maximize their natural innate immunity. Global public health authorities and mainstream scientific institutions strongly reject these claims. There is zero credible scientific evidence demonstrating that manual spinal manipulation enhances immune competence or protects an individual against Ebola (Côté et al., 2020).
Ebola infection requires immediate, professional medical treatment. Treatments include monoclonal antibody therapeutics along with intensive supportive care. Relying on internet remedies significantly delays proper clinical treatment and increases the risk of mortality.
References
Bedrosian, S. R., Young, E. C., Smith, L. A., Cox, J. D., Manning, C., Pechta, L., Telfer, J. L., Gaines-McCollom, M., Harben, Kathy, Holmes, Wendy, Lubell, K. M., McQuiston, J. H., Nordlund, Kristen, O’Connor, John, Reynolds, B. S., Schindelar, J. A., Shelley, Gene, & Daniel, K. L. (2016). Lessons of Risk Communication and Health Promotion — West Africa and United States. MMWR Supplements, 65(3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6503a10
Fridman, I., Boyles, D., Chheda, R., Baldwin-SoRelle, C., Smith, A. B., & Elston Lafata, J. (2025). Identifying Misinformation About Unproven Cancer Treatments on Social Media Using User-Friendly Linguistic Characteristics: Content Analysis. JMIR Infodemiology, 5, e62703. https://doi.org/10.2196/62703
Fung, I. C.-H., Fu, K.-W., Chan, C.-H., Chan, B. S. B., Cheung, C.-N., Abraham, T., & Tse, Z. T. H. (2016). Social Media’s Initial Reaction to Information and Misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: Facts and Rumors. Public Health Reports®, 131(3), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491613100312
Moffitt, M. (2018). State doubts Los Gatos doctor can cure ebola with hissing MP3 files. SFGATE. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/dr-bill-gray-medical-license-homeopathy-treatment-12954925.php
Nsoesie, E. O., & Oladeji, O. (2020). Identifying patterns to prevent the spread of misinformation during epidemics. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-014
Obol, S. J., & Nzedibe, O. (2024). Critical perspective on infodemic and infodemic management in previous Ebola outbreaks in Uganda. Frontiers in Public Health, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1375776
Terry Chiropractic Boulder. (2014). Hold On Ebola: How Bolstering Your Immune System Can Help You Avoid Disease. https://terrychiropracticboulder.com/blog/hold-on-ebola-how-bolstering-your-immune-system-can-help-you-avoid-disease/
Vijaykumar, S., Jin, Y., & Pagliari, C. (2019). Outbreak communication challenges when misinformation spreads on social media. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação e Inovação em Saúde, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.29397/reciis.v13i1.1623
I found an interesting article in the hilarity-prone journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’. I hope it might amuse you:
The concept of antidotes in homeopathy holds a central place in classical doctrine and daily clinical practice, yet remains l argely unexplored in scientific literature. Antidotes are traditionally defined as substances, remedies, environmental factors or physiological and emotional influences capable of suppressing, altering or interrupting the action of a homeopathic medicine. From a classical homeopathic perspective, any factor capable of modifying the totality of symptoms—thereby influencing remedy selection and follow-up—may be regarded as a potential antidoting influence. Unlike conventional pharmacological antidotes, which act through molecular interactions, homeopathic antidoting is conceived as an interference with the organism’s adaptive and regulatory response. This review revisits the historical foundations of antidotes, examines their clinical importance and explores potential scientific re-interpretations grounded in contemporary neurobiology, psychophysiology and systems medicine. Classical authors, including Hahnemann, Kent, Allen and Boericke, are critically reviewed, and the phenomenon of antidoting is discussed in light of stress physiology, placebo–nocebo mechanisms, hormesis and network regulation. We propose that antidotes represent early empirical descriptions of system-level modulation rather than substance antagonism. Finally, research perspectives are outlined to encourage methodological investigation of antidoting using modern biomedical tools.
Homeopaths administer an antidote when they fear a remedy produces too strong a reaction, to moderate the response. According to homeopathic belief, accidental antidoting commonly occurs through exposure to things like:
- coffee,
- camphor,
- mint,
- menthol,
- eucalyptus,
- strong odors.
- essential oils,
- perfumes,
- toothpaste,
- emotional shock,
- physical shock,
- dental work,
- numerous drugs.
An antidote, according to homeopathic teaching, specifically stops the previous remedy’s action. Each remedy has particular antidotes; for example, Natrum muriaticum is antidoted with mint, while Arnica may be antidoted by coffee. I should add that this concept is, of course, not scientifically validated and therefore pure fantasy.
Has anyone seen a reaction to a homeopathic remedy that is too strong and needs moderation?
No?
Me neither!
Hold on, Arsenic D1 perhaps?
But I am sure the author does not refer to this scenario. Homeopathic remedies are understood to be highly diluted; they contain nothing – even if it says Arsenic on the label. Placebos do not need antidotes because they don’t cause strong reactions.
Therefore, antidotes to homeopathy are a nonsense!
Hold on, this might not be correct. I just thought of a powerful antidote to homeopathy:
SCIENCE!
Homoeopathy and I is the title of a paper that I published in 2009. My aim was to denounce the popular notion that held I had started my research with a grudge against homeopathy. The honest truth is that – if anything – my attitude was even slightly positive. Here is the key section from this 2009 paper:
In 1993, I was appointed to the world’s first Chair in Complementary Medicine, and it became my job to investigate scientifically all sorts of complementary treatments, including homoeopathy. In the course of this activity, my co-workers and I published numerous articles on homoeopathy. Systematically, reviewing the totality of my publication list, I found a total of 46 papers with ‘homeopathy’ in the title. The following quotes from these articles were selected to best describe my attitude toward homoeopathy at the time:
• Homeopathicremedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe (8).
• It might be argued that arnica …is ineffective but homeopathy may still works (9).
•…only 23% of Australian homeopaths believe that immunisation is important (10).
• Homeopathy, I fear, has soon to come up with … more convincing evidence (11)…
• Future evaluations of homeopathy should be performed to a high scientific standard (12)…
•…studies on the safety of the practice of homeopathy must not be ignored (13)…
•…systematic reviews based on Medline searches can lead to similar (possibly slightly less positive) overall conclusions (14)…
•…a detailed eye-witness account claiming that all attempts [by researchers during the ‘Third Reich’] to show that homeopathy works has led to negative results (15).
•…the best way forward is clearly to do rigorous research (16)…
• Thus, the question of whether homeopathy works or not has remained unanswered for 200 years (17).
• The most pressing question, ‘Is homeopathy clinically more effective than placebo’, needs to be answered conclusively (18).
• There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus (19)…
• Some of the well-argued cases against homeopathy should become essential reading for all homeopaths (20).
•…the published evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies … are more efficacious than placebo (21)…
•…homeopathic remedies are associated with the same clinical effects as placebo (22).
•…the picture painted by Linde and colleagues … may well be slightly more positive (23)…
•…[our] goal is to conduct rigorous, impartial research in [homeopathy] (24)
• The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials (25).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are not uniform (26).
•…at present, the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies is not known (27).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are obviously far from uniform (28).
•…the trial data … do not suggest that homeopathy is effective (29)…
•…the definitive answer, in my view, has to come from a series of rigorous trials (30).
• Large, multicentre trials of homeopathic remedies … represent the best way of advancing the debate (31).
•…the re-analysis of Linde et al. can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos (32).
•…randomised clinical trials … do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies (33).
•…both homeopaths and university heads of medical departments clearly advocate further research into the effectiveness of homeopathy (34).
•…homeopathy is not different from placebo (35).
•…the best clinical evidence … does not warrant positive recommendations (36).
•…the evidence is insufficient for firm recommendations (37).
•…the results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo (38)…
-
- This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies … are superior to placebo(39).
•…this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists (40).
•…Mathie’s methodology was not as strong as it should have been, and this deficit has led to conclusions that may be falsely positive (41).
•…homeopathy may actually be more expensive than good conventional care (42).
•…the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies … do not outweight the potential for harm (43).
•… homeopathic remedies are placebos, but homeopaths can be skilled doctors who may significantly help their patients (44).
• Our analysis … found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy (45)…
•… promotion can be regrettably misleading, dangerous and counterproductive (46).
•…do we condone treatments because of their popularity or their effectiveness? (47)
•…homeopathy is not based on solid evidence and, over time, this evidence seems to get more negative (48).
• The evidence from rigorous clinical trials … testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition (49).
• There is no evidence at all that homeopathic remedies can change the natural history of any cancer (50).
•…context effects of homeopathy … are entirely sufficient to explain the benefit many patients experience (51)…
• Amongst all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one (52)…
•…recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence (53)…
[all references can be found in the original paper]
Since then (2009) I – often together with others – have published several further articles with “homeopathy” in the title. This means that my original paper needs updating. Here are the titles of (and links to) these articles (appologies, if I missed a few):
- Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy?
- Homeopathy
- Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us?
- Homeopathy, non-specific effects and good medicine.
- A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
- Homeopathy, a “helpful placebo” or an unethical intervention?
- The ethics of British professional homoeopaths.
- Homoeopathy debate. Protecting patients?
- Pharmacists and homeopathic remedies.
- Homeopathy in severe sepsis.
- Call for doctors not to practice homeopathy or refer to homeopaths.
- Homeopathy for eczema: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials.
- The most thorough assessment to date of homeopathy
- Should doctors recommend homeopathy?
If you study these articles, you will find that my arguments around homeopathy remained entirely evidence-based. The overall point is, I hope, clear: I did not embark on my research into homeopathy aiming to disprove it or to dismiss it outright [a claim I still hear with some regularity]. To begin with (in 1993), I was not only open but positively inclined. At all times, however, I was keen to follow the best available evidence. If my attitudes/verdicts became less and less positive, it is merely because the evidence became more and more overtly negative.
