All these fake meds should be outlawed, so the 'doctors of homeopathy' can start doing more
useful things

excerpt guardian
"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 personalised
care."

Homeopathy was developed in Germany by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 1700s.

Hahnemann, a doctor and a chemist, believed that disease showed the body was out of balance, and
that this could be put right by the "similia principle" - otherwise known as "like cures like". The
theory is that a tiny dose of whatever is the source of the problem, diluted in many parts water,
will stimulate the body into combating it.

Homeopathic remedies are tailored to the individual, which is part of their appeal. A homeopath will
assess not just the physical cause of the illness but also the emotional state of the patient and
their personality and temperament, before deciding what remedy to use.

The argument that many doctors and scientists have had with homeopathy is that the remedies are so
dilute that it is unlikely they can have any effect on the body at all. Some do not contain even one
molecule of the original herb. Homeopaths argue that the water retains the memory of the herb or
mineral's "vital essence".

The authors of the new Lancet study were Matthias Egger and colleagues from the University of Berne
in Switzerland. They looked at 110 trials using homeopathic remedies and 110 using conventional
medicine in matching conditions.

They looked for an effect in both the smaller, low quality trials and in larger, higher quality
trials. Homeopathic remedies were more likely to have had a positive effect in the small, low
quality trials. In the better trials, they say, homeopathy was no better than placebo. "Our study
powerfully illustrates the interplay and cumulative effect of different sources of bias," says
Professor Egger. "We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible, but we have shown that the
effects seen in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy are compatible with the placebo-hypothesis."

Some would argue that the remedies at least cannot cause harm. Edzard Ernst, professor of
complementary medicine at Exeter University, disagrees. Homeopaths expect the remedy to provoke a
worsening of the disease before it effects a cure.

"According to homeopathic thinking, if I find the optimal remedy for you, I would expect an
aggravation which could be very hefty and put you into hospital for several days with your
symptoms," he said. "From the homeopathic point of view, the safety isn't there. They say it is
necessary on the way to recovery."

Opposite view

He has known people who have had to be admitted into intensive care with what a homeopath would
argue is a worsening of the symptoms prior to recovery, but which conventional medical opinion would
say is simply a worsening of an untreated disease.

The new study is published as concern mounts among some doctors about a report, now in draft form,
which has been prepared by an office of the World Health Organisation set up to examine traditional
medicine.

The report, says Prof Ernst, comes to the opposite conclusion from the Swiss team and finds that
homeopathic medicine is effective.

"It is totally scandalous," he said. "It is unbelievable considering it is the WHO. It does all the
wrong things and it is very selective in what it includes and it exaggerates the positive
conclusions of clinical trials and neglects the negative clinical trials."

A further article in the Lancet says that there is widespread concern among "sceptics of alternative
medicine" over the WHO report, which states that most of the studies published in the last 40 years
have shown homeopathic remedies to be superior to placebo and "equivalent to conventional medicines
in the treatment of illnesses, in both humans and animals".

Xiaorui Zhang, acting team coordinator for traditional medicine at the WHO, who is a former "bare
foot" doctor in China who went on to train in traditional medicine at Beijing University, told the
journal that the report was only preliminary and that its purpose was to foster research and not to
act as a recommendation.

Does alternative medicine work?

Acupuncture

This ancient Chinese therapy usually involves the insertion of fine needles into the body to soothe
pains and restore good health.

It is thought to aid the treatment of arthritis, migraines, anxiety, rheumatism and general aches
and pains. Advocates also use it to alleviate infertility, menstrual problems, nausea and dizziness.

Acupuncture is thought to be among the best researched and most effective of complementary
therapies. Hundreds of studies in recent decades have produced strong evidence that it works for
some conditions.

Aromatherapy

This form of treatment involves using essential oils to improve wellbeing. The oils, which have been
extracted from plants thought to have therapeutic properties, are administered through massage,
baths and inhalation.

It is used to treat a wide range of stress-related problems, as well as being used to promote
general health.

Despite about 300 research papers on the subject, there is little evidence to support the
effectiveness of aromatherapy in treating the wide range of ailments that aromatherapists claim it
can be used for.

Osteopathy

Practitioners use manipulation to correct faulty body structures by releasing tension and stresses
to make joints supple. Although similar to chiropractic treatment, osteopaths work on the whole
body, while chiropractors tend to concentrate on the spine.

Osteopaths usually specialise in back problems, repetitive strain injury, arthritic pain, sports
injuries and ailments relating to posture. Last year a 1,334-patient study concluded that spinal
manipulation is a cost-effective addition to standard clinical treatment for back pain.

Alex Kumi

Related articles