Young Australian Skeptics

Whether or not Homeopathy is a suitable alternative to conventional medicine is generally a topic of quite intense debate and provokes emotional responses from all sides of the argument. In this essay, it is not my purpose to either advocate or disprove homeopathy, but rather to deconstruct and refute an argument found on the blog ‘Homeopathy Works’, which is entitled: ‘Sixteen Reasons to Chose [Sic] Homeopathy’. The original article can be found here.

In the article which follows, I address the sixteen points and critically evaluate their value as evidence, before concluding that the article fails to provide adequate reason to ‘choose homeopathy’. My apologies in advance for length and the supremely obvious conclusions. This article was originally posted at my blog.

In the following paragraphs, I will operate under the assumption that the conclusion the author hopes for readers to reach is; ‘Homeopathy is a worthwhile alternative choice to conventional medicine’.

Reason 1: ‘Homeopathy has no side-​​effects.’

This argument is surprising because, examined critically, it seems to be an argument against homeopathy. A critical reading of the words ‘side-​​effects’ divulges the fact that these (implicitly undesirable) occurrences are, despite their often unfortunate nature, observable effects. Many modern medicines have side-​​effects, some are negative, some unnoticeable and others are simply inconvenient.

However, the observation of side-​​effects strengthens an inference that the medicine is causing something to happen. This reason, therefore, reveals a type of confirmation bias, in which positive experiences, which could have been otherwise caused, are credited to homeopathic remedies despite the fact that it is unclear that administering the remedy has caused anything to happen at all.

Reason 2: ‘Homeopathy is approved by the FDA and unlike modern meds, has never had a history of even one remedy taken off the market.’

This reason seems more convincing than the former, but still fails to convince a discerning reader that homeopathy is a worthwhile alternative to conventional medicine. The statement, “Homeopathy is approved by the FDA”, appears to be an appeal to the authority of the US Food & Drug Administration, aiming to show that homeopathic remedies are regulated by a government body. This seems to be true, as evidenced by an article (Stehlin 1996) from the FDA website. However, in a caveat to this point, the article also says:

“FDA regulates homeopathic drugs in several significantly different ways from other drugs. Manufacturers of homeopathic drugs are deferred from submitting new drug applications to FDA. Their products are exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating and from finished product testing for identity and strength. Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosage form must have an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and indicates that the drug is homeopathic. The imprint on conventional products, unless specifically exempt, must identify the active ingredient and dosage strength as well as the manufacturer.”

Isadora Stehlin

FDA Public Affairs

Therefore, this appeal to the authority of the FDA is redundant as homeopathic remedies seemingly undergo almost none of the quality control measures which seek to protect consumers from dangerous or ineffective medicines.

Given this fact, the statement that no remedies have been taken off the market is not only unsurprising, but expected. Even ignoring this, the banning or removal of conventional drugs is not evidence of their ineffectiveness, but rather evidence of the advancement of medical science and the discovery of harmful side-​​effects. The stagnation of homeopathic remedies is, at best, evidence of a lack of progress in the field and also regresses to Reason 1, regarding the lack of side-​​effects.

Reason 3: ‘Homeopathy is inexpensive. The cost is $5-$15 per bottle and if a kit is purchased, the cost can be as low as $1.70 each.’

I am aware that I will be accused of ‘shopping in the wrong place’, but in my experience homeopathic remedies are anything but cheap. However, a brief look at Homeopathy​.com and the links thereon revealed some prices in the stated range, but many which were close to (and some over) $600 US (~$843 AUD). It is clear even from this brief look that homeopathic remedies, like all medicines, vary in price. This means that the above statement is (at best) partially true.

However, even if we accept this premise as truth, it is a poor reason to choose homeopathy as a method for improving one’s health or wellbeing. Analogously; a chocolate bar costs less than $2.00, yet this does not often provoke people to declare it a worthwhile alternative to medicine. Apply this argument to even less expensive remedies, such as blood-​​letting with a hammer-​​drill, and find it equally applicable.

Reason 4: ‘Homeopathy has a reputation for being used by the privileged and famous: The English royal family, the Beatles, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, John D Rockefeller, Dizzy Gillespie, Daniel Webster and many American presidents.’

This is a blatant example of the ad verecundiam logical fallacy, or ‘appeal to authority’. It is easily dispatched by noting that the qualification ‘the privileged and famous’ does not in any way imply medical expertise or any reason why the deluge of celebrities are to be trusted on the matter.

Furthermore, the sheer amount of celebrity names mentioned here also flirts with an ad populum logical fallacy, or ‘appeal to the authority of the majority’, which is fallacious for the same reasons.

Reason 5: ‘It is possible to learn Homeopathy at home to address simple acute illnesses.’

While this may be true, the same can be said of conventional medicine to a certain extent. For example, injections of required substances or other medications can be administered in the comfort of one’s own home. It is my assumption that the author is implicitly referring to more invasive procedures in conventional medicine which require hospital equipment or anesthesia. It is my argument that the fact that trained professionals are required to perform administration of medicine is a positive factor of conventional medicine, as it prevents clumsy or poorly performed surgeries, et cetera.

However, in simply addressing the statement at face value, it is found to be lacking in the fact that many Homeopathic practitioners proudly display qualifications from Natural Medicine training institutions. The courses which are required to learn these advanced techniques are (ostensibly) neither cheap nor (hopefully) easy, meaning that only very simple homeopathy can be ‘learned at home’, just as with conventional medicine.

Reason 6: ‘Homeopathy is gentle, safe and can not ever interfere with presently taken meds.’

This is essentially the same point as Reason 1 and is dispatched by the same scrutiny. A lack of interference with conventional medicine could just as easily be caused by a complete lack of effects at all. As for the gentleness and safety of the remedies, it is a regrettable fact that many conventional medical procedures are invasive or have negative side-​​effects, however the gentleness or safety of a remedy says nothing regarding its effectiveness.

Reason 7: ‘Homeopathy works on children, infants, the elderly, pets and livestock. In fact racehorses have been given it for decades.’

The demographic targeted by a remedy (in which the author has, appallingly and confusingly, included pets and livestock) has no bearing on its effectiveness. Therefore, the only useful part of this statement is; ‘Homeopathy works’, which is meaningless, without evidence and entirely circular.

Reason 8: ‘Homeopathy has a following through the world including Europe, India, South America and is only now gaining acceptance in the US.’

This statement is a simple ad populum logical fallacy. The prevalence of a phenomenon says nothing regarding its effectiveness. Furthermore, the fact that homeopathy is ‘only now gaining acceptance in the US’ is not a reason to trust the remedy, but rather one for mistrust and skepticism, as it raises the question of why the remedies were not formerly accepted.

Reason 9: ‘Homeopathy works. I already said that, but it bears repeating.’

Circular argument. Homeopathy works because homeopathy works. I already said that, but it bears repeating.

Reason 10: ‘Homeopathy treats the whole person, not the disease. This allows corresponding and seemingly unrelated issues to fall away.’

This assertion is completely unsupported by any documentary evidence or citations. The statement is a clear mark of pseudoscience, as it is an irrefutable hypothesis; seemingly unrelated issues are cured by homeopathy, if it can be proven these issues were not cured by homeopathy, the hypothesis is unchanged. This is also an example of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, in that the fact that unrelated issues disappear after taking a homeopathic remedy does not prove homeopathy cured these issues.

For example, suppose Jane’s RSI goes away after taking a homeopathic remedy for heartburn. Her homeopath takes credit for this and claims a victory for natural medicine. However, Jane then remembers she recently purchased a new chair which alters her seating position. She tests her old chair out and finds her RSI returns. The Homeopath’s response? “This particular unrelated issue must not have ‘fallen away’, though others may have, you might not notice, as they are seemingly unrelated.”

Reason 11: ‘Homeopathy can be life saving.’

The same circular argument, repackaged in different words. Homeopathy works because Homeopathy works.

Reason 12: ‘Credentialed, homeopathic consultants are available on line, so when you’re stuck on a problem, there is professional help readily available.’

The same accessibility is true of conventional healthcare professionals, who can be found at Doctor’s surgeries and hospitals all over the world. The fact that consultants are available on the internet does nothing to lend credibility to Homeopathic treatments.

Reason 13: ‘Homeopathic philosophy follows specific laws and principles based on the Laws of Nature. These have been proven so that they are no longer considered theory.’

Again, a lack of citations for the supposed ‘proof’ of the ‘Laws of Nature’. I assume that this refers to Scientific or Physical Laws of the Universe, such as Newton’s laws of Physics.

The implication in this statement, that conventional medicines do not adhere to the laws of nature, is preposterous. It is seriously doubtful whether there are any medical treatments which defy Newton’s General law of gravitation, for example.

Reason 14: ‘Homeopathy is easy to dispense. Kids love the taste and pets accept it easily, too.’

Refer to my chocolate bar example above. The fact that children and animals appreciate the taste of Homeopathic remedies says nothing about their effectiveness.

Reason 15: ‘Using homeopathy gives us a sense of self mastery and independence that we so crave in a world of medicine of commerce and dictatorial medical staff.’

Whether Homeopathy causes us to feel independent or (instead) to feel the same dependence to a different type of physician is debatable. Leaving that aside, the fact that Homeopathy may cause a feeling of independence has no bearing on its efficacy. Furthermore, referring to medical staff as ‘dictatorial’ is an ad hominem attack and demonstrates nothing. While it is plausible that conventional medical staff are more demanding, this could easily be an example of the formulaic and methodical nature of modern medicine.

Reason 16: ‘Remedies will last decades, as long as they are not left in very hot settings. They may have stale dates printed on them, but that is because this is required by the FDA for all products. They can be ignored.’

This baffling conclusion to the list seems to directly contradict Reason 2; “The product has FDA approval, but disregard the information which the FDA require us to disclose’. Ignoring this, as with the other reasons, the fact that a remedy does not go stale proves nothing regarding how effective it may or may not be. Nuclear waste has a famous (and troubling) longevity and, yet, this does not give it credit as medicine.

Conclusion

Summarily, articles such as this one and others which supply similar reasons do not succeed in convincing a skeptical reader with what the author refers to as ‘a thread of doubt’ that homeopathy is a worthwhile alternative to conventional medicine. The ‘about’ page of this blog leads me to believe that the article is written by a Homeopathy professional, who, one would hope, would be able to supply better reasons for adopting her preferred form of remedy.

As is generally the case with non-​​professional skeptics, please feel free to correct me in any points in which you feel I am mistaken.

Tags: Argument, Homeopathy, Pseudoscience, Refutation

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Daniel Carabellese, Skeptic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.