h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have a question.

As I understand from what you have written, any effect attributed to homoeopathy is due to the placebo effect. Then it seems reasonable to presume that homoeopathy will not work on animals, as placebo is a human phenomenon.

Then why is there a number of practicing veterinary surgeons who also hold qualifications in homoeopathy? Are they deluded, or have they noticed benefits in treating animals with this method?

Also, there are racehorse trainers, some of whom are very prominent members of that profession, who have animal homoeopaths on retainer to treat their equine charges when they are ill. Are these somewhat hard-bitten, result oriented people also labouring under some type of misconception?

It seems to me to be more than somewhat unscientific to dismiss something out of hand because it doesn't fit in with currently accepted scientific dogma. I was under the impression that scientists were positively gleeful when they discovered something anomalous. It's grist to the mill and food for thought, not something to be ridiculed because you don't understand it. I would put it that science has not the appropriate tools to understand homoeopathy, and lacks the intellectual rigour to adequately address it.

There is more in this world, Horatio, than you and me can possibly dream of (sorry Bill!!)

Yes, "scientists are positively gleeful when they discover something anomalous", but there doesn't appear to be anything anomalous about homeopathy. Let me address your points in sequence:

1. Practicing veterinary surgeons are human like the rest of us, with the same inherent tendency to believe things based on minimal personal evidence (if we weren't like that, we couldn't function). Unfortunately, in the case of homeopathy they are _very_ _probably_ deluded about noticing benefits in treating animals with this method. Illnesses either get better, worse or stay the same, and sometimes for reasons not figured out yet, and this goes doubly for animals. Animals can't tell you their symptomes, so veterinaries have to go on second hand information, making the interpretation of results in veterinary medicine even more difficult and error prone than in human medicine.

2. Racehorse trainers are as superstitious and human as the rest of us, prominent or not. They are also very dependent on keeping their animals well, and would probably hire the local shaman in addition to a homeopath, "since it can't harm, and it might help".

3. It is somewhat unscientific to dismiss a phenomenon with proper evidence backing it out of hand, even if it doesn't fit in with currently accepted scientific evidence (science doesn't operate on dogma, even if scientists might). But there is no proper evidence for homeopathy.
Medicine is a tricky field to deal with. Millions of people will swear that their taking large vitamin-C doses every day keeps the common cold away. The idea came, with no real evidence backing it at the time, from nobel prize winner Linus Pauling. 20 years later we have the evidence, but it points to him being wrong. Vitamin C appears to have no effect on the number of people getting colds, _but_ large doses seem to shorten the duration of the illness.

4. Medical science have the appropriate tools to understand medical effects, and homeopathic remedies appear to have none that are not explainable by the circumstances surrounding the distribution of said remedies. That being the case there is no reason to spend the tons and tons of effort required to absolutely address the issue of whether homeopatically treated water, (or sugar pills treated with same water,) which is indistinguishable from ordinary water, (or ordinary sugar pills) have the effects that they don't seem to have in properly blinded studies. I posit that the issue has been _adequately_ addressed, and that what you're really after is the impossible absolute address.

Thanks for the well thought out answer. Food for thought.

I'm not convinced, however, and feel that we'll have to agree to differ about homeopathy. I'm of the opinion that the right questions haven't been asked by science (what's the point?? Medical research is geared towards developing new drugs that will earn drug companies millions: a homoeopathic remedy costs a fraction of a cent. No money in it for a serious look).

If anyone was serious about researching homoeopathy, there are plenty of sources of information. For instance, how about surveying clinical evidence from practicing, properly qualified homoeopaths and homoeopathic hospitals in England and India. That should come up with some interesting pointers for double-blind or controlled clinical studies as done in China and Russia.

From what I have read of the sceptical view, one swallow makes a summer re. research into homoeopathy i.e. if one study comes out indecisive or whatever, then it is proof positive that it doesn't work at all. I still say that this is not good enough. If they released drugs onto the market without extensive clinical trials, we'd all be dead. Well, plenty of people are ... iatrogenic disease is headlining alarming statistics ... but anyway.

Another useful area of study re. homoeopathy has emerged from biological physics. I have read a couple of papers produced from this discipline that suggest quite interesting results. In one, a PhD student did some studies of crystalline structures arising from homoeopathically charged water. He did a baseline (water), showing one structure. Then he tested all the different potencies of one type of remedy. Each potency showed a completely different structure. Interesting, I thought. I also feel that string theory has some pertinent contributions to make to this debate.

And ... whatever you may think of "memory of water", the manner in which the scientist was treated by the editor of (I think) Science or Scientific American, was appalling. It was so unprofessional, disrespectful and closed-minded that I have stopped reading popular American scientific journals. Now I stick to European or Australian. Perhaps an over-reaction but I am suspicious of their agenda.

Anyway, have a good weekend.

St. F.

I willingly admit I'm biased here. I have, for example, not done first hand examination of any of the studies. However, my impression goes the other way. One swallow does not make a summer, but believers grab at single studies showing miniscule medical effects, or odd results showing a difference between water and water.

In reality repeat studies, stricter protocols, and many first studies show diminished and placebo level results and no difference between water and water.

Proponents of Homeopaty grab at straws, motivated by personal, second hand and friend of a friend experiences (which is insanely unreliable evidence due to such things as the nature of disease and counting the hits and ignoring the misses), to validate an idea with a truly ridiculous origin. _Yes_, the origin is of no concern for ideas that prove true, but as homeopaty fails, again and again, to have the wonderful effects ascribed to it, it's _hard_ evidence for homeopaty's place of pride among quack medicine.

I'd like to suggest a couple of things here...

Firstly, Question england's National Health System, because it supports Homeopathic Hospitals (I am being referred to one as I type...) which implies that the medical community on the ground at least is willing to use homeopathy and finds it useful even if they cannot explain or 'prove' it.

Secondly, Due to the nature of homeopathy, the way it works, it is entirely pointless giving say thirty people with 'the same' illness the same remedy... (or even 15 0f them so you could give the other half placebos..) because different people will respond to different remedies as we are dealing with a holistic healing system. As you pointed out in your article, western medicine relies on suppressing symptoms until the problem goes away... The holistic idea is that the whole body and everything that goes with it (the mental and emotional states, personality quirks etc) must be taken into account to produce a real cure of the problem not just a treatment of symptoms.

I would never recommend a person went straight to a homeopath and decided to not see a GP, however I do believe it has a place in modern medicine and welcome qualified GPs, vets etc who are open to seeing the benifits even if they dont know the exact HOW yet.

As to animals, I have spoken to a very well qualified Vet. He is also a qualified homeopath and acupuncturist. It's extremely easy to say that vet a or doctor b have let their imaginations run away with them, imagined symtoms and cures etc, but this is not the case with most actual professionals, many of whom are only too aware of their reputations for one, and the well being of their patients for another and I shall give you a for instance...

This particular vet had been treating a horse for Sweet Itch, which is caused when the animal is allergic to the saliva of the midges that bite them. It causes intense irritation and discomfort and the animal will rub itself bald and then some... if left, it will rub it's skin away and leave open sores which will, of course, be bitten even more. There is no cure as such for sweet itch, only prevention (fly sprays and maximum coverage blankets... nice in the height of summer!) and minimising the irritation caused with soothing ointments and so on.

This particular pony had suffered for years and the vet had been treating it for a few of them, watching the allergic reaction get worse and last for longer every year. He eventually asked the owners if they would be willing to try homeopathy, and they agreed. This pony currently (and for the last couple of years) has shown no signs of sweet itch except when his owner runs out of remedy for any reason and his dosing stops... But any symptoms will (and have consistently) cleared up again within days of resuming the dose.

This is as good a trial as you are likely to get, at least with this particular animal. Look at it. give medicine: Animal gets better. Stop dosage: Animal returns to original symptoms. This particular vet at least is convinced that, when you get the right remedy for the animal/person, you will get the right results. In the case of sweet itch, this is the closest you can get to a cure as far as I know... And if there was a 'western medicine' cure, believe me, we'd all know about it because this is a prevalent and debilitating problem for many equines.

Lastly, when one looks into homeopathy, one is advised that a 'healing crisis' (a period where one feels worse/symptoms are exacerbated) is quite likely to occur but should last no longer than a couple of days. It is therefore unfair in the extreme to suggest that anyone who feels a little worse after the initial doseage has actually gotten worse, often they are actually getting better... Ask them a week later and you'l probably get a different response...

I understand you wrote this article from a sceptics point of view, but even sceptics should not gloss over reality (most doctors and vets on the ground arent as likely to get blinded by science as you'd like to imply... They are too aware of the possibility of losing patients or causing harm to go with any given fad as it comes along). And sceptics shouldn't demurr doing research in the enemy camp wither... you never know, you could be convinced... after all, you aren't anti homeopathy are you? Just a sceptic...

I do question the NHS, but unlike skeptics who're actually from England I don't feel the same urge. But NHS support for remedies are political decisions, not scientific ones, and this entry explains quite well why the non-scientific believe in the efficay of homeopathy despite it being plain water and/or sugar pills.

When it comes to horses and ponies, try discussing your anecdotes with the resident veterinarians at the JREF forum, who do know about veterinary medicine, homeopathy-using "colleagues", and homeopathy. They'll explain why you're just plain wrong.