Homeopathy: A Bunch of Crap

I had a bit of an argument with my mom when I was home for Thanksgiving, wherein we mixed it up about the “science” of homeopathy and its relative merits. The issue arose because I mentioned that I’d have a hard time meeting one of my brother’s friends (who is a naturopath) without getting into my issues with her profession… Basically, my problem is that she *must* either be deluded or actively lying to people in her professional practice, given that homeopathy is both scientifically illiterate and demonstrably ineffective. As a result, I’d probably find it necessary to probe her until I figured out which group she fell into, and then respond to her accordingly – which would undoubtedly be socially awkward and unpleasant. Below, I’ll outline my basic objections to homeopathy and then explain why I’m still thinking about this month-old argument.

[Edit: this paragraph inserted for clarification] As an aside, it is important to note that naturopathy and homeopathy are *not* the same thing… Much like only some chiropractors subscribe to the idiocy known as  subluxation theory, not all naturopaths endorse homeopathy… That being said, the discussion between my mother and I led to this line of thought because I happen to know that my bro’s friend *does* prescribe homeopathic remedies.

Homeopathy is based upon two flawed, non-scientific premises: 1) the law of similars and 2) the law of infinitessimals. This first of these hair-brained notions suggests that ailments can be remedied by ingredients with similar properties (e.g., insomnia can be cured with caffeine). This is just sympathetic magic by a different name! The second premise suggests that homeopathic ingredients gain (rather than lose) potency when diluted with water, based on the totally unsubstantiated suggestion that the water is somehow infused with “patterns” or “vibrations” from the ingredient… this is simply not the way that dilution works (as any grade nine science textbook will tell you). If this wasn’t bad enough, the levels to which these solutions are watered down is absolutely preposterous:

Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro’s number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 10). Hahnemann himself realized that there is virtually no chance that even one molecule of original substance would remain after extreme dilutions. But he believed that the vigorous shaking or pulverizing with each step of dilution leaves behind a “spirit-like” essence—”no longer perceptible to the senses”—which cures by reviving the body’s “vital force.” Modern proponents assert that even when the last molecule is gone, a “memory” of the substance is retained. This notion is unsubstantiated. Moreover, if it were true, every substance encountered by a molecule of water might imprint an “essence” that could exert powerful (and unpredictable) medicinal effects when ingested by a person (Barrett, 2007).

I don’t feel like I need to discuss homeopathy anymore… It’s like having a kicking contest with a legless child. There simply isn’t anything there. As such, my primary issue isn’t with this absurd belief system but instead with the mystical, anti-scientific assumptions that are used to justify it. First, there is this assumption that, since doctors don’t have all the answers, it is necessary to look elsewhere… This is ridiculous. I might not be happy with the service I get from my mechanic, but it doesn’t mean that I should have a witch-doctor cast a spell on my car. Seeing a homeopath makes *precisely* this much sense.  Second, one of the major arguments for homeopaths (and other practictioners of “Complimentary Medicine”) is that they acknowledge your unique needs and health requirements, and tailor your treatment to those particulars. As one homeopathy site describes it, “Homeopathy offers you the opportunity to take charge of your health.  It assumes that you and your experience of the world around you are unique. Your first visit usually lasts 1-2 hours and allows you to describe yourself and your symptoms in your own words. Only you know how a cold wet day in November or a hot humid summer day makes you feel.  Your homeopath will then analyse all the information you have provided and choose a homeopathic remedy that most closely matches your physical, mental and emotional characteristics” (canadahomeopathy.com). That sounds very pleasant and life-affirming. However, one of the reasons that homeopaths can provide “better” service (in the bedside manner department) is that they are not prevented from actively lying to their patients (as is the case when dealing with legitimate physicians who have taken the Hippocratic Oath). One of the most egregious examples of the homeopath’s tendency to tell people whatever they want to hear in order to turn a profit can be seen in a sting operation carried out by British scientist Simon Singh, who found that 10 out of 10 homeopaths happily sold him a homeopathic remedy for malaria when he told them that he was going to be visiting East Africa. Not only that, but the majority told him that these remedies would obviate the necessity of receiving a vaccination. I must state this baldly: these are people whose avarice or incompetence would have allowed Dr.  Singh to travel to Africa and potentially die of malaria.

Anyway, the reason that this is relevant to me is that I’m concerned about my loved ones… I know that some of my family members are occasionally less critical about such things than I am, and the thought of them being misled by a homeopath, naturopath or other charlatan upsets me greatly. Since I know that they read my blog, I figure that this might be a way to get my concerns out there. That being said, I know that you “catch more flies with honey,” but my Thanksgiving argument is evidence that I’m not very good at doing that… I think I need to work on my diplomacy.