The upcoming 10:23 campaign has meant that homeopathy is on most skeptic’s minds. A recent blog post by @endless_psych got me thinking about being open minded and what evidence it would take to convince me that homeopathy had something to it. Aside from the obvious positive randomised, placebo (what’s the fucking difference between a homeopathic sugar pill and a placebo sugar pill I hear you cry!) controlled study I wanted to think a little bit about the ‘science’ behind homeopathy and came up with this simple test.
They claim that water has a memory and so therefore despite a 30C dilution containing not one molecule of active ingredient the water retains the memory of the ingredient and this is from where the remedy gets its potency. The more diluted the more potent. If there is anything wrong with my understanding of this then I invite homoeopathists to correct me in the comments.
My simple test is this;
1. Take 10 different 30C remedies; Heph Sulph, Pulsatilla, Lycopdium, Arnica, Apis Mel, Argent Nit, Sepia, Thuja, Kali Phos, Kali Bich. (Purchased from your local Boots store of course)
2. An independent adjudicator should now place the remedies in 10 separate numbered containers being sure to make a record of the numbers to the corresponding remedy. This should be done away from prying eyes.
3. Another independent adjudicator should now take these containers and pass them to a homeopathic practitioner.
4. The homeopathic practitioner is free to conduct as many tests as they deem necessary to identify what remedies correspond to what numbered containers.
5. Should they be able to identify correctly all ten remedies then this would provide some evidence that despite the 30C dilution the remedies still contain some ‘memory’ of the initial active ingredient.
Please Note
While this would not completely convince me that homeopathy worked it would go a little way to proving the fundamental memory premise. While 10 out of 10 may seem a little strict should a similar test be done with 10 traditional medicines, aspirin, paracetamol etc I am confident a chemist would correctly identify 10 out of 10.
It would be great to hear what simple tests you would devise for homoeopathists to take to show the fundamental science behind their ‘medicine’ is sound. Alternatively I would like to hear from homoeopathists as to what evidence would convince them that homeopathy doesn’t work?
7 Responses to “What Evidence Would Convince You Homeopathy Worked?”
uksceptic wrote on January 27th, 2010 2:59 pm :
I also think that a randomised control trial doesn’t really mean much to most people. That is why it is important to pick something very simple and try to conduct a test for it.
Nothing could be simpler than a ineffective overdose of course which is what makes the 10:23 campaign so good.
Melissa Burch, CCH, IsHom(NA) wrote on January 29th, 2010 2:00 am :
What amazes me about the above article is how far off the track the writer is about explaining and/or understanding the principles behind homeopathy. To begin, homeopathy is a different paradigm – a different way of thinking about health and healing. It cannot be compared as if it is another form of conventional medicine. You cannot compare apples with oranges.
One of the difficulties in random trials is that proper homeopathy is prescribed by matching mind-body symptoms to an individual, hence a different remedy might be prescribed for each patient with the same (apparent) diagnosis. For example, asthma might be treated by any number of remedies, depending on the totality of symptoms. It cannot be judged by giving the same remedy to a number of patients diagnosed with the same problem.
Second, there are different treatment modalities for acute and chronic symptoms.
Acute situations (i.e. sudden symptoms like diarrhea from food poisoning or a burn or a pain from hand slammed in a door) would be much easier to assess (as a first step) because the range of remedies one can use is narrower.
To prove effectiveness, start with acutes (take Arsenicum for food poisoning, Cantharis for a hand burn, Hypericum for a hand slammed in a door and be amazed at the results.
Ask any homeopath why they took up this modality. I would venture that it was the result of an amazing healing that took place from one little homeopathic remedy.
And homeopathic skeptics can take as many pills as they want, but why? This actually will prove nothing to anyone who knows anything about the principles of homeopathy.
Plus I have successfully used homeopathy for years and would much rather you spend your energies trying to get rid of the so-called scientifically proved medications that are now proving to cause serious side-effects, addictions and complications to health. Homeopathic remedies do none of that.
uksceptic wrote on January 29th, 2010 8:03 am :
Thanks very much for your comments. Can you tell me exactly what I got wrong about homeopathy. Your defence was essentially special pleading I don’t see why homeopathy should have some special cause for not getting tested the way any other medicine should be, to suggest otherwise is dangerous and irresponsible. How else can you find out if something works if you don’t test it? You can’t just think differently about life and it is so, there are fundamental laws of physics and nature that aren’t just broken by the way you think about life. Medicine isn’t about belief it is about the science and evidence neither of which support homeopathy. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
You also did not answer my other question; what evidence would it take to convince you homeopathy didn’t work? Do you think you could pass my test? Can you answer any of Ed’s questions?
Milan Vrekic wrote on January 29th, 2010 8:16 am :
Melissa,
You talk about not mixing apples and oranges as if we are not dealing with real diseases here, as if homeopathy is curring a different “kind” of disease. You don’t feel it’s right to compare your “medicine” with mainstream medicine even when treating same real-world illnesses? where is logic in that?
Mark wrote on January 29th, 2010 9:39 am :
@Melissa Burch
Homeopathy is either a totally individualised method of treatment, or anyone can walk into a pharmacy and buy a bottle of pills to self medicate. Homeopaths seem to want it both ways.
Either way, the placebo effect will kick in – this is why people see ‘amazing’ results. The body has an amazing ability to treat itself merely through suggestion, but it is unethical to prescribe placebos.
Odd that you need to try several different pills before you get an effect.
Aspirin (for example) doesn’t work that way – each and every time, aspirin works, you don’t have to mess about with aspirin: ‘oh that didn’t work… let’s try paracetamol; oh , hang on, not that good, let’s try ibuprofen instead…’
Ed B wrote on January 29th, 2010 9:57 am :
Melissa: in addition to my 3 questions, you might like to consider a 4th.
I came across this rather interesting blog post that seems to suggest homeopaths are misguided in thinking that water can be purified beyond the purity required for approx. 4C remedies: http://lesmondine.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/homeopathy-theres-something-in-it/.
While I am not a scientist, the arguments presented there seem pretty water-tight. Perhaps you would like to read it and give us your opinions?
As a side note, lesmondine’s blog posting is about water, yet I imagine that the purification of the sugar used for pillules must be even harder to achieve. Or is normal sugar used?
One might also add that the purity of both sugar and water (and alcohol, since I believe that this is also used for h’pathy) was presumably extremely poor in Hahnemann’s day, and h’paths are still following his teachings (e.g. via the Organon, correct?) as if everything has stayed the same.
That’s enough to be going on with, I think, so I’ll just look forward to your comments.
Nice post – it’s good to get away from the minefield of “my randomised controlled trial is better than yours!”
In addition to your suggestion, I would offer another three areas in which the homeopathic “scientific method” could be investigated, namely:
1. SUCUSSION. What reasons led them to substitute automated succussion for “banging on a big leather book”? Has research been conducted in this field as to the differences this has or has not made? If so, what were the results? If not, why not?
2. POTENTISATION. If remedies are potentised, how long does this potentisation last? That is: do homeopathic remedies have such a thing as a “sell-by date”? If not, why not? If so, how is this determined? Research? Bonus “paradox” question: what happens to potentised remedies that enter the water supply — as they indeed must if taken by healthy people (since we have homeopaths on record as stating that remedies have no effect on healthy people)?
3. PROVINGS. Lastly, what is the procedure for designing remedies to match illnesses or conditions? We are aware of the “provings” aspect, which this addresses. Yet how does this work with new illnesses (such as new strains of flu), new conditions (e.g. RSI, which was less widespread before computers) or rare (genetic) disorders? Is the system standardised? If not, why not? If so, how?
That’s all just off the cuff, but it should be enough to keep them going for a while.