Homeopathy: 150 Years Of Failure And Still Going Strong

One of the ongoing mysteries of modern medicine is why homeopathic methods and remedies continue to have a following, even though there is no credible evidence for their effectiveness.

The latest news on this front comes from the Aug. 27, 2005 edition of the British medical journal The Lancet. In that issue, a review of clinical trials using homeopathic treatments compared to conventional therapeutic interventions concluded: “This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.” This result will undoubtedly elicit strong reactions from both proponents and opponents of homeopathy.

The study’s authors were from academic institutions in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They matched and compared randomized placebocontrolled trials (the scientific “gold standard” for testing the value of medical interventions) of homoeopathy with randomized placebo-controlled trials of some conventional medical interventions according to the disorder being treated. When their analysis was limited to large trials of high quality, the researchers found that homeopathic treatments did not appear superior to placebo, whereas conventional medical treatments showed clinically significant results.

We commented on the safety and effectiveness of homeopathic drugs in the April 1999 issue of Worst Pills, Best Pills News. We agreed with the conclusion of the editors of The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, an independent drug information source written for physicians and pharmacists:

The chemical content of homeopathic products is often undefined, and some are so diluted that they are unlikely to contain any of the original material. These products have not been proven to be effective for any clinical condition. There is no good reason to use them.

The system of medical philosophy known as homoeopathy is about 200 years old. Its development is attributed to the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. Homoeopathy came to the U.S. in 1825, and homeopathic drugs were officially recognized in this country with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This law, in addition to requiring for the first time that drugs be tested for safety, recognized the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (a pharmacopeia lists the legal standards for drugs). However, homeopathic drugs have never been required to face the same Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutiny for safety and effectiveness as conventional drugs.

Homeopathic drugs are derived from minerals, plants, animal parts, microorganisms and other sources, often not chemically defined. Homeopaths believe that a substance can be used as a treatment when it produces a pattern of symptoms in healthy persons that is similar to the pattern seen in a person with a particular disease. A key motto of homeopathy is, “Like cures like.” For example, strychnine, from the plant Nux vomica, causes vomiting, so it is used to stop vomiting.

The basis for conceiving homeopathic products is primarily homeopathic “provings,” during which healthy people ingest these substances and record their symptoms over various periods of time. Proponents believe that the most potent homeopathic drugs are the most dilute. Substances that are soluble are diluted with distilled water or alcohol or both. Substances that cannot be dissolved in water or alcohol are pulverized and mixed with lactose, a sugar, to form tablets. One part of the diluted mixture is diluted again, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached, with vigorous shaking between each dilution. Most homeopathic products range in concentration from 6X to 30C, with some carrying designations as high as 200C. The “X” and the “C” refer to the Roman numerals for 10 and 100, respectively.

In dilutions higher than 24X or 12C, it is unlikely that even one molecule of the original substance remains in the final product. Practitioners of homeopathy believe that when none of the original substance remains its “informational content” is transferred to the water, alcohol, or lactose carrier.

Two editorials in the Lancet accompanied the review. They were brutally frank and critical of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. One editorial noted that the debate over the relative values of homeopathy and conventional medicine continues “despite 150 years of unfavorable findings” for homeopathy. However, the “let-themarketplace- decide” attitude toward homeopathy is changing. In the U.K., a Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology issued a report about complementary and alternative medicine in 2000. It recommended that “any therapy that makes specific claims for being able to treat specific conditions should have evidence of being able to do this above and beyond the placebo effect.” The Swiss government, after a five-year study, has now withdrawn insurance coverage for homoeopathy and four other complementary treatments because they did not meet efficacy and costeffectiveness criteria.

The second editorial was critical of conventional care and made an important point: Surely the time has passed for selective analyses, biased reports, or further investment in research to perpetuate the homoeopathy versus allopathy [conventional medicine] debate. Now doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy’s lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients’ needs for personalized care.

Healthcare in the United States is profit-driven, with patients too often being treated as nothing more than commodities in the marketplace. This has alienated some who will seek out practitioners in which care is actually an element of the treatment, even if there is no evidence of a benefit. However, abandoning science for any reason is done with the possibility of harm.

Homeopathy and other alternative medicine philosophies may cause a patient to delay seeking help from a conventional medicine practitioner when there is an effective treatment available. As strongly as we advocate for caution in using some of the often-overprescribed, under-effective medications of conventional medicine, avoiding necessary treatment with effective drugs can also have ill effects. Homeopathy does not provide a useful alternative to conventional medicine. It only provides an alternative method for wasting money on unproven treatments.

The survival of homeopathy can be ascribed to the chaos of our present health care delivery system. Entrepreneurs are driven to learn about alternatives in order to capitalize on treatments that are outside the control of and not currently reimbursed by insurers. Many are also interested in the profitable sale of these untested products to their patients. The search for higher profits is driving some doctors and pharmacists to practice a regressive form of their professions.

What You Can Do

Whether you are sick or well, seek health advice and medical treatment from health professionals whose work is based on science, not the baseless system called homeopathy.