Homeopathy and the threat of endarkenment
Recently a post of mine describing attacks on homeopathy as “batty and arrogant” that I wrote last year was retweeted. This meant that again homeopathy’s hard-core detractors rushed out with lectures about the scientific method and the need for randomised trials (obvious) but yet again no attempt to actually deal with the issues I raised – that if you are worried about failing to follow the rules of evidence based medicine, homeopathy is not the place to point the finger.
So although I am, as I said, agnostic about homoeopathy, I think it’s worth coming back to the issue because the problems with evidence based medicine as practiced at the moment haven’t gone away, in fact they have become even clearer. For instance, Takeda Pharmaceutical and Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) have just had to pay a combined $9 billion in punitive damages for hiding the cancer risks of their Actos diabetes drug. To me that seems far more dangerous and irresponsible than anything done by homeopaths.
Read the full story at Jerome Burne’s blog.
ANH-Intl comment: For a long time now, the circular and seemingly endless argument between homoeopathy’s supporters and the vocal skeptic camp has carried with it more than a whiff of the religious – but not quite in the way alleged by many skeptics. From the skeptic bunker there emanates a constant stream of invective aimed at the ‘belief’ of homoeopathy users and practitioners in their supposedly evidence-free, implausible and unscientific ‘religion’. However, as Jerome Burne succinctly points out on his blog, by seeing themselves as some kind of bulwark against the ‘endarkenment’, it’s the skeptics who “are engaged in a crusade. Armies of the light battling against forces of darkness. This, ironically, puts them in an ideological or even religious camp rather than a scientific one.”
There’s an elephant in the room, you see: the stark limitations of the randomised, controlled clinical trial (RCT), the complex and hugely expensive keystone of the evidence-based medicine movement. While, as Burne puts it, “the endarkenment myth-making has been very effective in pushing non-drug treatments out to the fringes...measuring the benefits of treatments designed to have a range of effects is not something that RCTs do well. They are good at measuring what drugs do – produce a single effect.” We’d call it the ‘specific therapeutic effect’, but the point is well made. Skeptics appear unable, or unwilling, to admit the disconnect between proclaiming the RCT as the be-all and end-all of scientific medical evidence, and the frequent examples of mass deaths and injuries caused by RCT-approved drugs. Meanwhile, chronic disease rates climb inexorably skyward and the natural treatments that hold the answers are shunned by the mainstream (and skeptics) thanks to a lack of RCT evidence – a technique manifestly unsuited to assessing such multi-pronged interventions. Truly, you couldn’t make it up.
The importance of the latter point cannot be overstated. Alternatives to the RCT, such as comparative effectiveness research, do exist, but they require mainstream recognition, adoption and investment before they can make a difference. The sooner the better, for the sake of humanity – but in the meantime, pharma continues to carve up what it sees as its exclusive turf. With news that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Novartis have swapped assets and heralded the launch of the world’s biggest ‘consumer healthcare’ business, are we about to enter a world where pharma companies not only offer a ‘pill for every ill’ – but a ‘business for every illness’ as well?
We sincerely hope not.
Comments
your voice counts
Oliver Dowding
30 April 2014 at 11:17 pm
Congratulations for publicising Jerome's excellent blogs. What makes them so powerful is that he is making his case from the standpoint that he isn't pro-homoeopathy, and isn't a believer, or one who accepts that it is efficacious.
It's fascinating to see how debate is so polarised. I'm mystified as to why those who condemn homoeopathy, those who would wish it be banned, are so vehement in their actions and with their words. When one looks at the widespread uptake in other countries, notably India, the closer home in France and Germany, one has to conclude that even though we don't know the mode of action, conclusively, would all those people be all gullible. All of the time? No!
Furthermore, and the sceptics love to have a dig at me for making this point when I do, one really must look at the impact and success that can be achieved with homoeopathy when used on livestock on farms. Thus far, and it's extremely telling, none of the sceptics who I've challenged, including some of the best-known ones, have accepted the offer to see round a farm where people are using homoeopathy. They all mumble and make excuses, or simply refuse the offer. One has to conclude they're frightened they're going to find out that their argument is no more than a pack of cards, and the mouse is going to blow them down.
Should anyone want to know more about the potential for homoeopathy on farms, I thoroughly recommend http://www.hawl.co.uk/
Keep up the good fight!
Anonymous
30 April 2014 at 11:31 pm
I feel we must be mindful not to fall into the trap of the "evidence based medicine" argument because until we start collecting all the data of what works then we are just joining a circus that is going nowhere. Evidence based does not mean clinical trial outcomes, it means looking at the various populations on a treatment and measuring the clinical outcome. Until GPs, and other practitioners, start feeding the information of what actually clinically happens to patients on their various treatments (not what the drug does but what happens clinically) then we can't have any data for measuring the evidence of what works (isn't this what Sir Muir Gray is on about?) The overwhelming "evidence" that we do have is that despite all the treatments (conventional and alternative) we are becoming sicker where around 40% of the western world is diagnosed with one or more chronic diseases. So clearly we are going in the wrong direction. Shouldn't our efforts be focused on the cause of sickness - and again you don't have to be an Einstein to work this out.
Peter Scripture
01 May 2014 at 12:58 am
Only morons don't believe that homeopathic meds work. I an 75. have an IQ of about 200, and have used one for years for my arthritis pain, and IT DOES WORK!!
James Davies
01 May 2014 at 11:37 am
Yes, after reading all the hoo ha about the latest studies apparently disproving the effectiveness of homeopathy and all the skeptics that came out of the wood works I came to the conclusion that SCIENCE IS THE NEW RELIGION! Except the skeptics wave their scientific papers in front of your face instead of doctrines and make absolutes such as "like does not cure like" etc etc.....
So take it with a pinch of Arnica 200c and a spray of rescue remedy for good measure.
Paul Carline
08 May 2014 at 10:03 am
I'm surprised that the skeptics are rarely challenged on their own ground i.e. on the soundness of their assertion that ultimately matter (understood as particles) and energy provide a sufficient explanation for all natural phenomena. A very wise man predicted in the early 1900s that if science only remained true to its principles (primarily truthfulness to its observations) it would inevitably be led to the reductio ad absurdum of its own premises. That happened in the 1930s, but the philosophical and epistemological consequences of the quantum revolution have largely been suppressed and are in practice ignored. There are no 'ultimate particles'. Reductionism is a chasing after will o' the wisps in a desperate attempt to deny that there are other forces in nature than the purely 'material' (whatever that is). Molecules and particles do not explain form and growth. I'm reminded of what Craig Venter said at the end of the Human Genome Project (which found a wholly inadequate number of genes in the human genome - reckoned by conventional wisdom): "This tells us nothing more about what it means to be human".
Louis Kervran proved that organisms transmute substance. In reality, nature is an alchemist. The billiard ball model of modern science has had its day. That's why homeopathy is attacked - because it reveals a different (and far richer) reality than the sterile dogma of philosophical materialism which in reality has no objective basis.
Laurie Willberg
22 May 2014 at 5:17 pm
These skeptics are peddling nothing more than the philosophical card of Scientism. Since they perform no actual research, treat no patients and are not responsible for patient outcomes, their opinions on medical subjects are entirely irrelevant.
Their insulting and arrogant demeanour aren't winning them any credibility.
Interestingly they always post under bizarre pseudonyms and it's not uncommon for them to adopt multiple IDs.
Sandra Courtney http://fighting-for-homeopathy.blogspot.com
22 May 2014 at 6:24 pm
Fortunately, history continues to validate the fact that homeopathy skeptics are still not having any significant effect. The body of circumstantial evidence by millions in at least 80 countries has 'convicted' homeopathy of curing disease that conventional medicine cannot. In realty, the 'debate' of homeopathy vs conventional medicine was over decades ago. Homeopathy won. It is now a question of how much money will it take for the drug companies to make health care consumers believe their hype. It's not about safe, inexpensive and curative health care. It's about money.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences