NHS should stop funding homoeopathy, MPs say

Mr. Norman contribution makes claims against “homeopathic
researchers” and yet provides no references to whom he refers.

If he is pointing his finger at me, it is a tad strange that he has
not chosen to respond to any of the controlled clinical trials I have
referenced above. He seems to epitomize the very same problems to which
he blames homeopaths. BMJ readers deserve more substantative comments.

In responding further to Mr. Norman’s comments, any advocate OR
skeptic of homeopathy that says that randomized double-blind placebo
controlled trials “cannot” be done is simply showing their ignorance of
homeopathy and the scientific method. Such studies ARE possible, but good
research on homeopathy must be respectful of the homeopathic method. Good
science requires internal validation as well as external validation. Just
because a trial is “perfectly” conducted according to DBPC standards does
not necessary mean that it is good science. One can conduct a perfect
DBPC trial, but if you use the wrong drug for the wrong condition, it
isn’t good science (whether this research is testing homeopathy or
conventional drugs).

Many trials are set-up to test a SINGLE homeopathic medicine for
everyone with a specific disease. There are a small number of instances
in which one specific homeopathic medicine has a history of efficacy in
treating a specific disease (such as Oscillococcinum in the treatment of
influenza, Kali bichromicum in the treatment of people with COPD and who
have increased tracheal secretions, and a couple of others), however, the
vast majority of homeopathic medicines require individualization of a
patient’s syndrome, not just their localized pathology. Testing only one
or even a small handful of homeopathic medicines will often not be an
adequate test of homeopathic treatment (such studies have inadequate
external validity).

Ultimately, the House of Common’s Science and Technology Committee’s
Report will prove to be an embarrassment to the British government. It
was so sloppy and so academically weak that it did not differentiate
between homeopathic medicines that are “low potency” and “high potency”
doses. Boots and most pharmacies sell homeopathic medicines that are in
“low potencies” and for which there are molecular amounts of medicinal
agents in them, and there are literally thousands of studies in the field
of hormesis (the science of low dose effects) that show the biological
activity of homeopathic medicines (1)(2). Further, a recent report from
the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration showed the benefits of low
potency homeopathic medicines for people with cancer (3).

Lumping together ALL types of homeopathic medicines is simply sloppy
thinking and is akin to those who are pro-homeopathy and/or pro-CAM who
say that all vaccines are ineffective or all surgeries are “bad.” Such
lumping together various treatments is intellectually weak, for good
science requires much greater specificity and detail. Finally, when
science gets smug, it gets sloppy, and
science and medicine wilts.

(1) Calabrese, Edward. Hormesis: a revolution in toxicology, risk
assessment and medicine. EMBO 5,2004: S37-S40.
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400222.

(2) Calabrese EJ, Linda A Baldwin LA. Applications of hormesis in
toxicology, risk assessment and chemotherapeutics. Trends in
Pharmacological Sciences, Volume 23, Issue 7, 331-337, 1 July 2002.
doi:10.1016/S0165-6147(02)02034-5.

(3) Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P.
Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004845. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD004845.pub2.

Competing interests:
Author/publisher/educator specializing in homeopathic medicine