Homeopathy is (Mostly) Hogwash
On the docket today: a meaty, slippery, jam-packed can of worms. Makes you just lick your lips in anticipation, doesn’t it? Last week’s direct to consumer health testing post got this one going. I mentioned this do-it-yourself health trend comes with both the good and the bad – as yet unproven and unsound alternative therapies like homeopathy being such a potential snare. From that point, a healthy and robust debate ensued in the comment board. Yes, that’s exactly the way it should be. I always appreciate and, indeed, relish the active discourse of our comment board. Folks offer up their experiences, questions, and perspectives in ways that thoughtfully challenge and extend the discussion of the post itself. It’s the beauty of a blog – and the “Internets” as a whole, wouldn’t you say? At times, I find these conversations stand by themselves. Other times, I’ll pick up on a certain thread that I think could use more Primal-based clarification and a further targeted discussion. Today I’m taking up the homeopathy debate and giving the full of my two cents. I’m up for it if you are. Let’s roll up our sleeves and dig in, eh?
First, what homeopathy isn’t. It’s not herbal medicine, Traditional Chinese medicine, or even flower essences. It’s not naturopathy or isopathy (pus anyone?). It’s doesn’t include nutritional supplements, energy work, or body manipulation. It’s not a catch-all term for all of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine). I say this because the term is sometimes mistakenly used in these ways, and I want to be clear about what I have on the dissection table today.
Here’s, in a nutshell, what it is. First, key caveat… In the space of a reasonable blog post, I cannot tell the entire history of homeopathy or touch on every study ever performed. I’ll go out on a limb and say that my decision to do so does not, by its own merit, discredit my critique. I’ve read many more books and many more individual studies and reviews – from both conventional and CAM journals –than I’ll mention here. Anyone else is free to similarly delve in while forming their own opinion about homeopathy or any other subject. (PubMed is a fantastic, thoroughly addictive site that I spend entirely too much time perusing.)
O.K. now what it is. First, the historical basics. Homeopathy is a medical practice first envisioned and designed by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th Century. As a philosophy, it fit within the vitalist framework and held that illnesses were the manifestations of disturbances to an individual’s life force. Effective intervention, according to Hahnemann, necessitated the rousing or provocation of the life force with a small (understatement) amount of a single, relevant substance. In the spirit of that approach, homeopaths today assess both a patient’s symptoms and overall mental and physical condition – usually through an extensive interview and a varying physical examination. Based on the findings, they determine a particular “remedy” that has been prepared according to homeopathic principles.
We could chat for long, languorous hours about all of Hahnemann’s principles. (PrimalCon, anyone?) Today, let me give particular attention to a few central tenets.
“Law of Similars” (a.k.a. like treats like)
Hahnemann believed that the ideal treatment for a patient’s symptoms was a substance that elicited the same physical signs in healthy individuals. The assigned homeopathic remedy is an artificial means intended to stimulate the disturbed life force into a self corrective mode – based on the similarity of symptoms, yes. In this process, the body will supposedly defuse the observed illness and rid itself of it. (Yeah, I don’t get it either really.)
“Law of Proving”
Because he believed like treats like, Hahnemann focused his proving (i.e. testing) on healthy subjects. He used large groups of volunteers, instructed them on lifestyle restrictions and recommendations during the testing period, and asked them to keep exhaustive journals of any and all symptoms or sensations they experienced. From this standpoint, he initiated early characteristics of the modern controlled clinical trial. (Hat tip.) He then matched these tested substances with diseases that displayed similar symptoms. (See above.)
“Law of Potentization”
Long story short, along the line Hahnemann decided that diluting the original substance would make it more potent. (Yes, do the double take.) He even developed his own scale for diluting his remedies – the centesimal or C measure. Each C indicates dilution by a factor of 100. Given Hahnemann’s penchant for a 30 C dilution, you can imagine – well, actually you probably can’t imagine – how dilute that would be. We’re talking exponentially diminishing here – as in there may or may not be a single molecule of the original substance or not. Ummmm…?
“Entanglement”
The power of a homeopathic remedy solution allegedly resides not simply in the remedy itself but in the full relationship and dynamic interaction among the homeopath, patient, and remedy. (This is one of the reasons those in the homeopathic field reject the applicability of conventional “blind” clinical trials.)
O.K., let me start by saying this. Compared to the rather brutal approaches of the medical community in his time, Hahnemann’s new take on treatment must have felt downright civilized, enlightened, and sophisticated. I’d rather take a small diluted remedy than have my blood let any day. And as irrational as his belief in super ultra mega diluting was, it must have seemed remarkably, even comfortingly precise when held up against the generally sloppy, arbitrary, and clueless practices of apothecaries.
In a system where most of us are lucky if we get five uninterrupted minutes with our physicians, I appreciate the extensiveness of the repertory interview homeopaths undertake with patients. Finally in a very generalized way, I even loosely sympathize with the idea that treating a condition with conventional medications can simply mask it and drive it deeper into the body. (Granted, I see it more as metaphor in these modern times, but it’s a good one. We do a lot of ineffectual “band-aid” work in Western medicine.) Oh, and the life force thing sounds pretty groovy.
I’m afraid that’s pretty much where I part paths with Hahnemann and homeopathy. Call me too close-minded, but I stand with homeopathy’s critics when it comes to its shortfall in the scientific principle department. Let’s say you momentarily accept the life force concept as metaphor and just put aside the law of similar out of sheer frustration. (The alleged vaccine comparison, I’ll simply say, is another ball of wax entirely and fodder for another day.) Even then, there’s still the ginormous elephant in the living room (yes, the one that every critic focuses on because it’s kind of important) – the dilution issue otherwise known as active ingredient-free medicine. Yes, recall that it’s supposed to not simply be present but be more potent. Yes, homeopathy supporters claim that the original substance leaves a residual energy imprint of sorts in the remaining diluted solution (a.k.a. water memory). Theories have been put forward regarding movement and cohesion at the molecular level, “dynamic ‘ordering’” of the water’s intermolecular bonds and the like. (Random thought: if water that contained a homeopathic agent still can retain an active, potent energy imprint, does my waste water treatment plant do a good enough job of removing the imprint of sewage, industrial chemicals, and other refuse particles?)
In all seriousness, I realize that science is still evolving, particularly in the area of nanophysics and the like, but everything about this potentization concept flies in the face of scientific principle, defies all known laws of chemistry and physics, and appears to exist primarily in the hazy, moving shadows of ambiguity. I’m all ears if it’s ever pinned down, but it’s no dice right now.
A few readers last week said it was ironic that I was badmouthing another health related area subjected to the same rejection as many tenets of the Primal Blueprint (e.g. the dietary fat boogeyman.). It’s true that the PB gets its share of quackery accusations. I wholly support being skeptical when the establishment dismisses a health philosophy out of hand. Nonetheless, I don’t see homeopathy in that situation. I’ve read many studies over the years and paid attention to the reviews that have been conducted. When it comes to research, homeopathy just doesn’t bear out.
Reviews suggest that the evidence is inconclusive at best for a myriad of conditions like asthama, anxiety, dementia, migraine, ADHD, cancer, and cancer treatment side effects.
Yes, there’s the claim that true homeopathy can’t be accurately assessed within the current clinical trial system. There’s the issue of individualization of remedy – that an individual’s treatment also is influenced by their overall well-being, personality, etc. Then there’s the concept of entanglement – that dynamic, misty interaction among the perceived triad of homeopath, patient, and treatment. I don’t know how you’re going to overcome those hurdles. Right now it’s a deadlock, but I’m going to have to side with hard science for now.
I’ve given my critique. Here’s what I think works about homeopathy, and – mind you – I’m being wholly earnest. I know what you’re thinking: placebo. Well, yes, but let me explain. The placebo effect, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing to shake a stick at. As mentioned before, it can claim a 30% effectiveness rate, and that number can go higher based on the people receiving the treatment. Some of us are more likely to experience physical effects from a placebo not because we’re gullible saps but probably because we’re more in tune with our mental power, so to speak. Some of us, for example, can creatively visualize our way through the intense physical pain of a medical procedure or the pain of childbirth. Some can’t as much. The placebo effect is such a force that a recent study showed the pretense isn’t necessary. And if your doctor believes that the “placebo” is actually an effective treatment, the effect is even stronger.
Much has been made lately of the therapeutic impact of the doctor-patient relationship itself – the connection, the empathy, the listening, and the basic human touch of the physical exam. Imagine the result if your caretaker took two hours instead of ten minutes to listen to your concerns, asked about your general well-being, and inquired about your life overall. Is it much of a stretch to see that there would likely be a more intensive healing element to this relationship itself?
My final thought on homeopathy is this. I can’t accept it as a medical practice given what is currently known. I leave room for the effectiveness of a few substances when given in a non-traditional formula (actually present in the solution). Furthermore, I respect the humanistic elements of homeopathy practice and wish conventional medicine would learn a thing or two in this department. I understand why people might be interested in its therapies and experience suggested relief from the idea of a gentle treatment that gets them thinking about the power and essential balance of their bodies. The truth of its impact, however, lies outside the bounds of medical science.
The floor is now open. Good Primal ladies and gentlemen, please avail yourself of the comment board.
Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster
Posted By: Mark Sisson
I have tried professionally (by a practitioner) a few times over the last 25 years with good results. I have also used some over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic products scores of times over those years with good results as well. I include homeopathic remedies in my home “pharmacy” along with western herbs and chinese herbs.
I have always been far less interested in whether something “makes sense” or satisfies “logic” – and especially whether it is “scientifically sound”
or not, and much more interested in whether it actually WORKS for me – and believe me, I am as skeptical as the next person, but that healthy skepticism is combined with an open mind — big difference.
Have you noticed that “science” (in its various forms) has always throughout history been cocksure about what it knows is “true” at any given time, but always changes its mind (albeit inexorably) eventually — but is NEVER caught up with the cutting-edge of thought. Consider Gallileo and Copernicus and many others — they were thought to be heretics in their own time, and then science eventually caught up them, whereas what was cutting-edge then was somewhere else already. The point I am trying to make here is that anything you think you know right now about science is nothing more than what you’ve read in books or learned in school (more books) or heard in the media – including the information you are judging/evaluating by — you are using a paradigm (way of thinking) that you’ve learned from this culture — it doesn’t make it “right”, ultimately — many other cultures have many other ways of thinking and interpreting the world — are you arrogant enough to think they are “wrong”?
By the way, homeopathic remedies are not simply “diluted” by adding water. They are shaken in a vigorous and specific way at each dilution step, which is a big difference.
If you are curious about the properties of water that make it an amazing substance to carry the essence of something (as in homeopathy), take a look at Masaru Emoto’s research on water.
As to your cursory discount of “the life force”, this just exposes your own bias for not acknowledging it, not whether it exists or not.
Also, you don’t mention whether you’ve tried homeopathy or not — I assume you haven’t, since you don’t mention so.
I agree that there’s room for debate, but I think you have a weak argument indeed if you are relying on books and other’s opinions (that’s what books are too) instead of your own (hopefully more than cursory) experience.
Again, in my experience, what’s mattered to me more than anything else is whether it actually works, not whether it “makes sense” or not. I say, who cares whether it makes sense! Do people who blindly swallow pharmaceutical drugs
do so knowing the side-effects and the mechanisms of action for those drugs? Almost always not. Being that pharmaceutical drugs kill at least a quarter million people a year (and are backed up by “science” and “research”), I am surprised that you would be so critical about substances that at least are harmless (i.e., homeopathics).
By the way, homeopathy, along with many other therapies, was and is meant to be an ALTERNATIVE to pharmaceutical biomedicine — something I think that’s worth considering.
By the way, I enjoyed many of your points, not the least was whether re-cycled water from treatment plants had residues or essences of funky stuff in it — I think that’s an excellent question!! The quality of the water we drink (not to mention the air) is obviously really important – Grok would probably gag on most of what we drink and breathe) – just as important as what we eat.
This argument is actually upside down. Galileo and Copernicus WERE science that was dogmatically repressed by those who “knew” from personal experience that these observations were wrong. Homeopathy would be widely embraced if it could live up to a double blind study. It can’t.
It is truly wonderful that you have found success in homeopathy, and although anecdotal evidence doesn’t usually rank highly in terms of proving a treatment (compared to a clinical trial for example), there is certainly great merit an anecdotal proof approach to self-care. And as such, it is certainly helpful to have a number of treatment options available to an individual.
However, I think that it is important to point out that, although the substance itself may be ‘harmless’, potential delay of proven treatment in favour of less proven, or unproven treatments may not be so harmless.
Glad homeopathy has worked for you. That said:
“Science” (in quotation marks) may be “cocksure.” Science, in it’s proper practice is not. There is nothing dogmatic about science. You remarked it “always” changes it’s mind. That’s because of it’s very undogmatic nature–that’s a strength of science, not a weakness. When new evidence comes along, the theory changes accordingly. You kind of contradicted yourself there.
As far as science not being part of “cutting edge throught”–well that depends on what you mean by “cutting edge.” If you mean any alternative idea that might get tossed into the social milleu, then yes, science is slow to accept–that is another one of its strengths. Ideas must pass the muster of rigorous scientific inquiry to become sound theory. Homeopathy has failed in that respect, time and again.
Copernicus and Gallileo WERE the science of their time. They were not considered “heretics” by the scientific establishment (what little was allowed to by the church to exist at that time.) Science doesn’t use that label. They were considered heretics by the church. It was the church (centuries later) that caught up to science.
Wilbur wrote: “The point I am trying to make here is that anything you think you know right now about science is nothing more than what you’ve read in books or learned in school (more books) or heard in the media…”
To say “nothing more” is like saying a Porche 911 is “nothing more than a car.” And besides, no, science is also testable and repeatable. Mark could indeed run his own double-blind study on Homeopathic treatments if he wanted. It would be a waste of time however, as the subject has been run into the ground. This isn’t beating a dead horse–it’s stepping on the maggots that fed off it’s carcass.
Wilbur said: “By the way, homeopathic remedies are not simply “diluted” by adding water. They are shaken in a vigorous and specific way at each dilution step, which is a big difference.”
So homeopathic “remedies” are carefully shaken water. That makes it…carefully shaken water. The fact that it’s done in a specific way…well…rain dances are also done in a “specific way…”
Wilbur said: “I agree that there’s room for debate, but I think you have a weak argument indeed if you are relying on books and other’s opinions (that’s what books are too) instead of your own (hopefully more than cursory) experience”
Would you say the same about evolution? The speed of light? Germ theory of disease?
Homeopathy is a religion. If you have faith in it, I guess you might find some benefit. To try to argue, however, that it should be taken seriously by the academic world, anyone skeptical or the individuals interested in finding an effective cure to their ailement…well…that battle was lost a long time ago.
PS–For what it’s worth, I do agree with you on Big Pharma
“The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.”
– Voltaire
… jus’ sayin….
…creds to Primal Palette…
I’m kind of on the fence with Homeopathy since the principle of symptoms generated in your body from a disease could be an outward appearance of your body trying to regain homeostasis therefore a substance that produces those same symptoms in an otherwise healthy individual could in a smaller amount help the body better gain homeostasis. Take for instance the fact that many drugs that help with conditions may actually cause them in much higher doses.
It’s interesting that you are so fired up about this though Mark. One area I wish you were as fired up about would be MSG and its effects on stimulating our genes to cause us to be fat
The dubious (read: ludicrously stupid) claim homeopathy makes is that water can somehow remember what used to be in it and that dilution makes things stronger. This is simply false (read: tested rigorously and debunked many times) and can lead to people not getting real help for serious problems, and thus dying.
Sam Hahnemann was dissatisfied with the tools available to heal the sick, meaning leaches, mercury, lead, etc. He refused to practice this medicine, but continued his search for a better healing system. He eventually discovered the mechanism of “Like Cures Like”
Although i like homeopathy as an alternative modality and, is in common in medical usage today; homeopathy has yet to find scientific instruments with enough sensitivity to measure and thereby prove homeopathic efficacy.
The Law of Similars is used in vaccination, and let it be stated i am tottally aganist vacciness 95% of tge time it is also used in many incidences of poisoning, such as snakebites, all examples of using the toxic substance to create the cure, (fire aganist fire)
Much of contemporary thought in medicine involves healing with opposite force. We use medicines to cool the heat of fever, to reduce swellings. Hahnemann found this concept suppressive, and believed it forced the disease condition deeper into the organism’s vital force, where it waits until a “like” remedy can be found to counter it.
If you measure symptom, you can easily measure results. If you reduce fever, you can measure the lower temperature of a thermometer. As medicine became more mechanistic and relied on technology, instruments for measurement and removal of symptom has become our definition of cure. And homeopathy is hard to measure. Homeopaths agree that once a remedy is diluted beyond 24x or 12C potencies. They are diluted beyond Avogadro’s number (6.23 x 10-23), which indicates that no molecules are present in the original substance. However, both laboratory and clinical results over the last 190 years have demonstrated definite effectiveness with homeopathic remedies beyond this dilution.
Using modern research techniques, homeopathy has been put to the test. Believers claim results. Skeptics are still skeptical. There is currently much interest in discovering the system by which the dilute remedies used in homeopathy treatment provide their healing effects. The amount of substance in homeopathy remedies is miniscule, as the remedies are diluted and succussed numerous times, beyond Avogadro’s number, leaving skeptics to wonder how something that is not “there” can heal. Over the years, theories about the memory of water, kirilyain photography, and Ie crystals have sought to explain the action of homeopathy remedies. One such study was conducted by Boiron Pharmacy called, “Understanding the phenomenon of high potencies.” This study used spectroscopic methods and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).
Biologist, Dr. Jacques Benviste suggests that “Water can retain the vibrational memory of a substance even after it is diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, where no physical traces of the substance remain,” in an article published in the journal Nature in 1988. Shui-Yin Lo, a former visiting associate at the California Institute of Technology, suggested a possible scientific explanation of how homeopathy might work. He created extremely dilute solutions similar to those used in homeopathic remedies. He then examined these dilutions with an electron microscope, which showed that in some cases the water contained strange ice crystals, which formed at room temperature under normal pressure. The crystals were even stable at high temperatures. These IE crystal (the named meaning ice formed under an electric charge using ions) also demonstrate some of the function of water.
As our technologically-based medicine creates more subtle measuring devices, the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy will continue to be further displayed, adding homeopathy to the arsenal of healing tools.
Ruben
workoutmaster.com
So why doesn’t the water retain the memory of the myriad other compounds that are super diluted within it? e.g. contaminants, the containers it was processed in, and everything else it ever contacted.
“Extraoridnary claims require extraoridnary evidence.” Until then, it’s just a claim.
-Unicorns that phase between this universe and another are my personal guardians
-Invisible Fairies make my dinner every night by guiding my hands at the stove.
-My teeth talk for me without a thought from me–I just sit and marvel at their words.
These are claims that science has not developed strong enough instruments to measure. How come no one is taking my claims seriously?
I don’t have any problem with “like treats like”; think of smallpox vaccinations or the Salk polio vaccine. Here, the mechanism is to introduce something similar (but less harmful) which triggers the patient’s immune response system.
Of course none of this will help after you’ve contracted smallpox or polio.
On the other hand, I can’t follow the dilution idea at all, in fact it (to my mind) is utterly absurd.
If I want Arnica I’ll go for something that’s 10%, not 10xE-3000
Trish, take a deep breath. I do think you’re
overreacting. Daia’s post was perfectly
civil, even though may disagree with its
content.
Some people swear by drinking their own urine. People are going to believe what they want to believe and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.
I was under the impression that the cure for malaria, quinine, is a homeopathic compound. Also I had great success with Zicam when they first came out with the nasal swabs. Neither of these is diluted – they definitely have ‘active’ ingredients that would cause malaria or cold symptoms if you took them when healthy, but they are both homeopathic.
No, they are not. Quinine is a plant compound distilled from acacia bark. It is a legitimate herbal remedy, not a homeopathic one. It is not diluted to insignificant concentrations and acts like any other drug, eliciting observable physiological effects which block infestation by malaria flukes as well as reducing malaria symptoms.
If it is not diluted, it is not homeopathy, strictly speaking. Mark made this very clear. People are misusing the label if they use to describe things like Quinine.
Also, Quinine does not in any way cause malaria or malaria-like symptoms. It’s an anti-inflammatory and a pain-killer, for Pete’s sake. I don’t know anything about Zicam so I won’t address that part.
My apologies. I should have said cinchona bark, not acacia. I was under the mistaken impression that cinchona was a member of the acacia family, but it’s not.
In 2006, Matrixx Initiatives (makers of Zicam) paid $12 million to settle 340 lawsuits from Zicam users who said that the product destroyed their sense of smell (medically termed anosmia). As of 2009 hundreds more such suits have since been filed.
It appears that some of the active ingredient (zinc) in Zicam was not diluted to the degree that “homeopathic” remedies are normally done.
This shows that manufacturers can co-opt the term “homeopathic” for their remedy, even if it is not technically a homeopathic formula, since it is not a regulated term, further confusing the public about what the heck homeopathic means.
The responses to this post show a lot of confusion and misinformation in the public who do take these remedies, and I would add that health practitioners themselves may use the term in a loosey-goosey manner.
Okay, looks like I will be on the opposite side of the fence here. 15 years ago, I went to a registered Homeopathic Practitioner who came highly recommended. I had HUGE HUGE success for a number of issues. Depression, hormonal issues, and best of all, allergies. I have not tried a liquid homeopathic, only in the form of a tiny sugar ball. For me, it put my body, and mind back into balance. I would not hesitate to use homeopathic treatments again. I was lucky to find a practitioner who was well respected in his field, and will always be grateful for his help.
All of your ailements are cyclical in nature. And no offense, but depression and “hormonal issues” require a medical diagnosis, which I suspect you never received. I too have allergies, but they ebb and flow, not with how much homeopathic care I get, but with the pollen count. Sometimes I go years without symptoms.
The homeopathic remedies that you can buy at a health food store don’t work at all from what I can tell. BUT…when I had a systemic candida yeast infection, homeopathy was the ONLY thing that worked. It took several weeks, and I was very, very tired a lot of the time, especially near the beginning of the course of treatment. But my yeast symptoms went away by the end of this course of treatment. I had to get the candida medicine by mail order, and I’m not sure you can still get it.
Or, your immune system finally did it’s job and got rid of it. Correlation and causation are two different things. Either way, I’m glad you’re well!
To the earlier posts on Chiropractic, I have great success with a Chiropractor I trust. I broke my neck when I was 19 in a bad accident (C-3 and C-4), and had bone fragments kicking around in there from a previous accident the year before.
After many years of brutal spasms that would leave me with NO mobility (couldn’t turn my head) and numbness in my arm, hand and fingers..And the only offer of help was a prescription for pain killers, anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxers, I was pretty desperate for relief. I was too young to be in constant pain, but I refused surgery to fuse everything together.
While being treated for a rib injury, (another long story), I developed a trusting relationship with a young chiro who was referred to me by (gasp) my primary physician. As we worked on my ribs and spine, he told me he had gotten a great job offer halfway across the country. But he wanted his DAD to take over my case, and he thought his dad would have the expertise to win my trust and let him work on my neck. I did, thank God. He took x rays, tested my strength and mobility, had me use a different pillow (12 yrs later I still use it!)and worked on straightening me out. It did initially take awhile, but I am SO thankful I stuck with it!
I see him occasionally once a year or two for a few sessions when I get jammed up..we are always amazed how long it has been!
Love my Chiropractor!
I’m going to remain neutral on the homeopathy issue… I just haven’t done enough personal research to decide, and it’s not something I use, so it isn’t a priority. What does worry me is when people use homeopathy in place of nutrition of healthy habits. I know some use it in place of conventional medicine, but I don’t think that is the biggest issue.
Take, for example, some members of my extended family: They still eat grains, sugars, and PUFAs because they are “less expensive to buy” but use over $1,000/month of supplements, homeopathic remedies and herbs. I think supplements and herbs have a definite place, but they are no substitute for a solid foundation in nutrition. I don’t worry so much when I see people avoiding conventional treatment for minor issues, but I do think it is a waste of money to use any of these products if you aren’t giving your body the advantage of a good primal diet. Like I’ve tried to explain to them… you can’t out exercise or out supplement a crap diet!
Absolutely! I have so many people around me like that.
Anyone heard of Masaru Emoto?
He has done some interesting(and very questionable!) research on our thoughts and their effects on water.
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/ephoto.html
Mark,
I appreciate the information and I was completely uninformed about homepathy. But after reading your post, I can say the principles behind it just doesn’t make sense to me. Starting at light force and then dilution, anytime someone saids diluting something makes it stronger I know their science is horrible. I think I figured that out at 8 when I tried to dilute Coke to make more Coke (yes in my sugar addict days).
My anecdotal experience has proven to me that homeopathy does work at times. My daughter used to suffer from horrible growing pains that nothing seemed to touch until I found a homeopathic remedy and tried it. I suspected it was a placebo effect until I ran out of that remedy one night and subbed another that looked exactly the same and she kept screaming her head off. I restocked and again had very positive results. I’m working very hard with my daughter on primal eating and primal supplement recommendations but will continue to use the occasional homeopathic remedy.
Homeophaty is basically an alternative medicine. This is why it is not being recommended by physician per se. However, when the patient would like to try something outside of the traditional ‘western’ medicine, it can be tried out i.e. similar accupuncture and others.
I continue to find the term “hogwash” offensive.
There is no scientific basis for homeopathy. Nevertheless, I believe in it. I also believe in astrology, faith healing and reincarnation. Flame that.
Belief can lead to some dangerous actions. The fact that anyone finds the term “hogwash” offensive does not detract from it’s appropriateness at times.
So you believe in hogwash … bunk, huey, baloney. And now you’re criticising others for merely pointing that out?
This isn’t about “flaming”, it’s about being rational.
I think homeopathy is just as effective as those silly holographic power balance wristbands.
For some reason I find myself disappointed by this post. I’m in school right now studying to be a Naturopathic doctor. I’m also a supporter of the paleo diet. But this post wasn’t really about diet and though I understand there will always be skeptics I’m sad that your voice just might have convinced some people not to try this modality.
Of course people shouldn’t try homeopathy for severe diseases or delay the “tried and true” methods as you might suggest and potentially worsen their condition. But the truth of the matter is, a good practitioner will refer when it is necessary and have no shame in it, they wouldn’t try to treat someone and risk someone getting worse if they knew it wasn’t in their best interest. I also think it’s fair to say that nine times out of ten people try “alternative” medicine when they’ve already tried the western medicine approach and it didn’t work. So at that point, there’s no harm in trying something else.
You also didn’t mention the fact that it’s a constitution-based medicine, very similarly to Chinese Medicine and ayurvedic medicine. Meaning that many people practice it incorrectly if they try to treat themselves from their local herb shop. A proper practitioner should figure out the person’s constitution first, and then treat them accordingly. I hope others can see this blog as a great nutrition source, but seek their medical info elsewhere.
I totally agree, and failed to mention it in my recent post. I think Mark was sharing a strong personal opinion, wrong though I think he is, and it really had no place here. But, since he did share it, I would like to see him research homeopathic use in babies and animals, and follow-up with what he learns. Better yet use homeopathy, correctly, for a year or two…and then let us know what you think!
What makes me very uncomfortable is my boss using homeopathic vaccinations for her horses when traveling out of state. I wonder what the horses would opt to take, given a choice.
For an hilarious skit on homeopathy, go to youtube and look up “mitchell and webb homeopathic”, then click on “That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E”
Yes! I was going to post that! Homeopathic Emergency Room FTW!
I always wondered what homeopathy really was. Cool read.
English is not my native language, so please bear with me.
My anecdotal experience has proven to me that homeopathy works for myself. Also: my wife gave birth to a child a few weeks ago and the nurse told us that they work very successfully with homeopathy to heal vaginal injuries coming from the birth. I also know first hand examples where cows and other animals were healed with homeopathy, because it is cheaper than normal medical treatments (placebo with cows?????).
It doesn’t bother me at all whether “experts” think that the approach is “scientific” or not. Just leave “us” alone then…
People will already have their mind made up especially after reading this post if they have never used homeopathy. That is a shame. I have used homeopathy for a couple issues and with good results. Sorry for those who can’t grasp that is does work. Like everything, it has it’s place and shouldn’t take the place of common sense for treating ailments. I also use chiropractic care and naturopathic doctor, so I guess I’m really nuts. But I spend, especially at my age, much less than others on my health (because I don’t use one prescription or over the counter drugs). I’m here for Mark’s advice on diet and exercise and will just have to excuse him on this one point. Hopefully, someday, why it works will be sorted out. I also was a skeptic, but sometimes you just can’t argue when it works.
I had severe nerve pain from a fall on my tail bone and could hardly walk when given a remedy for nerve pain and found relief, as in being able to sit and walk without pain. It was a little sore still, but the relief was welcome and came about in just a couple doses. Again, sorry, but I just won’t go without because someone says it’s not scientifically probable. I know it is possible. And don’t even begin to tell me it was all in my head.
If people are interested in this subject I’d strongly recommend they check out the book “Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre.
Not only does it contain a thorough debunking of homeopothy, but also has a great section on the placebo effect, and how to spot bad science yourself.
+1
Excellent read and it provides some good ammo against Big Pharma.
There are some general patterns here with those who argue in favor of homeopathy:
1. They produce personal anecdotal evidence
2. The conditions that they claim homeopath is effective in improving are usually conditions that are quite “fuzzy” when it comes to symptoms, and they can often improve on their own (“it comes and goes”).
3. They emphasize that they keep an “open mind” but they ignore the fact that homeopathy failed in properly conducted double-blind trials, saying that “science doesn’t know everything”.
About 1: The human mind is not a computer. I strongly recommend the book “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)” – it’s about how our mind can play tricks on us, we are subject to problems like confirmation bias etc..
About 2: The problem is obvious. Remember the experiments with pidgeons, where pigeons in a cage would get a reward (food from a food dispenser) in random intervals? After a while the pidgeons will repeat behavior which they were doing when they received a reward, thinking that the behavior triggered the reward. They will keep doing this even if repeating the behavior clearly doesn’t trigger the reward. Similarly, people will become convinced that a homeopathic remedy has an effect if they once took it and *remember* that it seemed to work. The key is the word “remember” – as I explained in the previous point, the mind can play tricks on us. As time goes by, our rememberance of a specific event can get distorted … our brain tries to resolve dissonances. In the book I mentioned they used the analogy of a pyramid. When an event just occurred, you’re at the top of the pyramid. As time goes by, you slide down one of its sides – until you’re quite removed from the original facts. In the case of homeopathy, you can either slide down the skeptic side, or the “there must be something to it” side.
About 3: I’ll just paraphrase Douglas Adams:
“It’s good to be open-minded – but not so much that your brains fall out”
I’d like to think that I’m keeping an open mind. But when it comes to homeopathy, there are two facts:
- It’s only water/sugar. None of the initial “active” chemical is left in the pills or drops.
- Randomized/double-blind trials fail.
The latter is often ignored by people in favor of their personal anecdotal evidence. But like I explained above, that evidence has been shown to not be reliable. Especially when you’re faced with objective evidence that’s in conflict with your personal opinion, I think it’s clear that independent of concepts like “open-mindedness” letting go of your personal opinion in favor of the objective evidence is the better choice.
Lifted this from Wikipedia (yeah, yeah) but it is illustrative of the scale we are talking about:
30C is a common homeopathic dilution and the one advocated by Hahnemann for most purposes: on average, this would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient. Must be all about the life force in the water…unless it’s in the sugar pill delivery system that some use.
Hi folks, just came across this debate and am finding fascinating.
I’m a nutritional therapist, and work in a multi-discipline clinic with all types of practioners, two of which are homeopaths.
All I can say is people never question what works for them, i have used homeopathy very successfully with tri-athletes competing at very high European competition levels with great success, for many sport related traumas and injury.
As for what science says, much of what is advocated by Mark and this website/blog would be regarded by main stream nutritional science to be excessive and potentially dangerous to ones health, say with regards to recommended daily allowances of nutrients, Traditional food pyramids, or indeed what a traditional clinical dietitian would recommend. There s a mountain of “reliable science” which advises a diet of wholegrains and 5-a -day to keep you ticking over nicely!
So does that make what Mark says wrong? yes to some and no to others. To me, what is advocated in Marks book and site regarding nutrition and exercise makes perfect sense, excellent read, loads of really good science behind it.
As for his opinion on Homeopathy, I’ve heard it all before and appreciate that this system of healing is easy pickings when comes to discrediting. As for water memory, if its good enough for the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences its good enough for me, maybe one step closer to understanding Homeopathy?
As for laws of physics, reliable science, etc, its a bit about content, allot about context, relative versus absolute, Newtonian vs Quantum, allopathic versus the world, cause if everyone believed “reliable science” we wouldn’t need nutritional supplements, cholesterol would be the most significant predictor of cardiovascular risk and all be prescribed statins over 50yrs old, need not worry about mobile phones, or global warming and just accept that our genes control everything anyway!
mark, bought your book last year and have thoroughly enjoyed the advice and this website. Having grown up the son of an acupuncturist/chiropractor, i probably have some different views on some alternative health modalities, and,yes, i am aware you are far from extolling the virtues of conventional medicine. Wondering what take you might have on something such as energy medicine, such as yuen method? Here’s a great link: chineseenergetics.com. Not a regular viewer of Dr. Oz but i hear that he has been showing this attention on the show lately and i know it wont be the last time he does. Thanks for your service .
This has made for a very interesting series of comments.
Personally I believe that the body has evolved and is programmed to heal itself and it does its level best to keep the right balance in order to reproduce and continue its genetic pattern. After all the very success of that evolution is evidenced by the fact that we all come to be sitting at individual screens all around the world pontificating the finer nuances of what is science and what is not!
For many of these conditions I think the body heals itself – if we have taken something we assume it has worked but not taking something might have worked equally well. As Mr Grok is very fond of saying ‘we can’t know the path we didn’t take’.
I also believe that we have a far greater control over our wellbeing through harnassing our mental energies than many believe. And I don’t mean this in a mystical sense at all. There are studies that show that folks in old people’s home can show increased bone density and muscle strength from being taken through weights routines in their heads. They do not raise any weights, they simply think through the exercise. What appears to be happening is the brain is firing all the appropriate physical/neurological pathways that would be involved in the actual movement.
The very fact you can raise your heart rate by thought alone to trigger stress responses shows me there is most certainly an untapped power available to us.
So, perhaps with homeopathy the people that believe it works are simply receiving the necessary thought stimulation (the placebo effect!) to heal themselves.
What I do know is that we are the most incredible collection of nuerons, hormones and all the rest (and we don’t understand even 10% of it yet) and we owe it to our fabulous evolution to feed and move right and live in a way that nurtures us so we can do Grok proud.
Hey, really great blog post… I’ve enjoyed reading through it because of the great style and energy put into the writing. I actually run my own health blog where I muse about diet and lowering cholesterol. If you’re interested, I would love to have you on as a guest blogger. Please send me an e-mail: bob.mauer65(at)gmail(dot)com, and I can give you more information.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
(Sigh)… Sorry to be a bit didactic here, but it is VERY important that we distinguish here between Science, and its myriad conceptions, an the Scientific Method, which is easy to define, and which guides all logic and reason in our culture. Science describes a collection of an enormous number of disciplines studying subatomic particles, galaxies, kangaroos, trees, the price of cheese, fashion trends, and rocks, to name a few. Some of these disciplines are better at using numbers to describe what they study, and each discipline has some practitioners who are awesome and some who totally suck. What enables people to evaluate these disciplines, the individual findings, and the people doing the research is the Scientific Method. There are slight variations in the way this is defined, but this link is pretty good at summing it up (with pretty pictures, too!): http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Basically, if I believe something to be true (Oh, I dunno, say… saturated fat causes heart disease, to pick a completely random example). I then try to design a study as best I can to DISPROVE my hypothesis. Ideally, however I design the study initially, anyone collecting data will know as little as possible about the people and things they are researching (by which I mean the identities, not the science), so bias is minimized; so, if I am on the team of people gathering data, I won’t know if the blood I am analyzing is from someone in the group that ate steak and drank coconut milk, or from the group that ate couscous and drank juice. Then the data is analyzed, and a bunch of fancy statistics are calculated, and we can make a conclusion (or not). THEN, people who don’t like the results can make their own study and try to DISPROVE mine. That is the scientific method, more or less. It ain’t perfect, but it is far superior – when discussing what is good or bad for EVERYONE – than anything else we’ve got, including “I used it, and now I feel great; in fact, I can see the future and read my cat’s mind!”Individuals making choices for themselves can use any method they like, but professionals making recommendations for others should be doing their homework regarding the research. The problem with homeopathy is twofold: the Principle behind it has been proven false by a basic knowledge of Chemistry (Avogadro, to name one awesome person), AND it has never been proven to work better than placebo in scientific studies. This makes sense, because a substance diluted down to zero or near zero molecules IS A PLACEBO. All of this is coming from someone who takes many vitamins and herbal supplements, meditates, and occasionally plays the lottery, so make of it what you will: we are all irrational in our behavior from time to time, but when have a discussion about acts, Reason Rules. Okay, I’ll shut up now.
I miss the good old days with leeches and bleeding out the bad humors…
… and when they put those funny little glass bulbs vacuumed onto your body?
(chuckling) that “bring out your dead” skit from Python….
They still use leeches (to remove congested blood from wounds)! and maggots (to remove dead wound tissue)!
They have very reproducible results in treatment though. 
Thank you Mark for explaining the difference between homeopathy and naturopathy. I admit to once being a person who used the terms interchangably.
I would like to point out to some other commentators who seem to be mocking old medical practices that leeches and maggots do have a place in medicine today. The leeches are used to help encourage renewed blood flow into amputated and reattached body parts and the maggots used to debride dead and decaying tissues from wounds without damaging new tissues.
I will admit to not knowing of any current use for blood letting except in the form of blood donation.