THinking about homeopathy today...

[headscratcher4]

Thinking about homeopathy today for no particular reason, and I was struck by a thought. There is no progress being made in homeopathy. Whatever it is…and I believe it has no merit…it seems to me that it is essentially a stagnant field. As poor as “modern” medicine can be, it strives to learn more, adapt and change as the science expands. Today, we are seeing the merger of traditional pharmaceutical sciences with biotechnology creating the foundations of a possibly personalized medicine. There are cancer treatments today that, after testing and refinement, are significantly better than those of just a few years ago. And, there are many instances where a medicine designed for one illness or to treat a symptom, proves effective in a completely different field (there was a story yesterday about how a drug developed to treat cancer is proving remarkably effective in the treatment of certain kinds of arthritis).

I am not sure what point I am trying to make, but defenders of homeopathy seem to quibble, literally, about the minutia. But where are the breakthroughs? Why, if it works they way they say it works, is there no cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS little less obvious treatments?

I understand the frustration that many feel with traditional “modern” medicine, but there is a solid record of achievement there…you can see it in increasing longevity and in the number of people alive today who as little as ten years ago would have been dead from one disease or another. In short, it seems to me, that to be real, a healing art has to grow and expand and change as human needs and the human condition changes. So far as I can tell, that isn’t the case for homeopathy, but it also isn’t the case for most of what is described as “alternative” medicine.

Just musing here…

 

[Blue Wode]

Thinking about homeopathy today for no particular reason, and I was struck by a thought. There is no progress being made in homeopathy. Whatever it is…and I believe it has no merit…it seems to me that it is essentially a stagnant field.....In short, it seems to me, that to be real, a healing art has to grow and expand and change as human needs and the human condition changes. So far as I can tell, that isn’t the case for homeopathy, but it also isn’t the case for most of what is described as “alternative” medicine.

Unfortunately, such a lack of progress is irrelevant since most sCAM survives by promoting “info-ganda”:

Wallace Sampson (professor of medicine, Stanford, and editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine) gave a blunt assessment of what he calls “the political takeover in the U.S.” by alternative medicine.
“Never in the history of medicine has there been anything like this before,” he said. “It is an organized invasion of pseudoscience into the scientific edifice of medicine. It is pervasive, surreptitious, and purposeful. It is not a conspiracy; it is simply the way people act in groups.”
How do they do it? By using the “language of distortion” (alternative medicine instead of quackery or pseudoscience) and by demeaning science (postmodernism and relativism), he said. Proponents’ invention of language is calculated to produce a positive response. He said they have become astute in what he called “info-ganda,” the combination of information and propaganda. They have been effective in manipulating opinion in nonprofit foundations, the news media, books, and even the medical press, which “has a bias against publishing negative articles.” They have found abundant sources of funding both from government (especially in the U.S., through the support of key congressional leaders) and from spiritual/ religious organizations. He sees the problem getting worse, not better.

In the Land of Galileo, Fifth World Skeptics Congress Solves Mysteries, Champions Scientific Outlook
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-01/congress.html

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, they're trying new ideas, of course they are. This one courtesy of Badly Shaved Monkey, who follows these trends.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3956

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

Such irresponsible article in reputed journals will mar the crendential of homeopathy...What say?

No, I don't think it can get any worse...

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

One of the problems alt med has is its dependence on authority. Real medicine and science move forwards and change because they adapt to new findings. Alt Med can't open itself to scrutiny in the same way, because it consistently fails such tests. Instead they rely disproportionately on historical legacy information, complete with all its errors and mistakes.

My observation of alt meddlers themselves also suggests that they are inherently attracted to the kind of patriarchical model of patient care that proper medicine has relcutantly been forced to foreswear. The problem is that there is a pubic appetite for an authoritative and confident therapist who tells you with 100% conviction what is wrong with you. Many people don't want any of our namby-pamby collaborative decision-making in medicine. This patriarchical attitude enshrines the opinions of the chosen authority figure with the power of eternal religious texts.

Another shade of meaning here is that the unchanging nature of alt med traditions is itself reassuring to many people. They see these therapies as having "withstood the test of time". We see them as frozen snapshots of ancient errors.

 

[Dragon]

The above post nominated -
and that last phrase nabbed for my sig if that's OK?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The above post nominated -
and that last phrase nabbed for my sig if that's OK?

Aw, shucks. I'm flattered. (There should be a smiley of a monkey dimpling its cheek)

 

[Nucular]

There's an interesting parallel development arising since the publication of issue 1 of the 2006 Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews.

I'm doing a research project on psychological approaches to the management of asthma right now, and in searching for literature came across an interesting thing. In this month's issue of Cochrane, There is a review of psychological treatments for asthma (a separate one for children and adults), and a review of homeopathic treatments for asthma. (Full text link is on the right of these pages)

Both reviews have similar findings: not enough evidence, poor existing studies, no grounds to recommend this approach, more research required.

But what strikes me is the difference between the two fields, clinical health psychology and homeopathy, in the way they approach these types of findings. Clinical health psychology has already identified this problem itself: both on the theoretical level and the experimental/intervention level, there is widespread recognition that something is amiss in the field of psychological health intervention, its rationale, and its application, particularly in relation to asthma (see e.g. Smith, et al., 2005 in their health tech assessment on psych approaches to asthma); and, most importantly, a rush to do something about it. This is where my thesis comes in; and a glance through any of several health psychology journals will show a ton of theoretical, experimental, and applied research aimed towards resolving this situation. Health psychologists and researchers are asking, both before and after the review, 'how can we predict what might work? How shall we test it? How shall we develop new strategies to replace the old ones that don't seem to work?'

Homeopathy, on the other hand, has a proven track record of simply quibbling with the nature of the review, and doubtless will again with this new one. More complaining about a lack of resources, the inapplicability of the RCT paradigm, etc. etc. will inevitably ensue as it has in the past, and, as Headscratcher points out in the OP, nothing will change.

People will still be treated for asthma by homeopaths, and no homeopath will challenge this or call for more research. We'll just see a little more posturing, a little more maneuvering, and all will be exactly as before.

I was just struck by the contrast. I don't consider clinical health psychology one of the most 'scientific' of psychological disciplines - and this is partly why I wanted to choose the area for this thesis - but I couldn't help but be struck by the difference between a valid and honest academic area, and, well, the other one.

Btw, acupuncture doesn't work for asthma either.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Homeopathy is made from natural stuff. We came from nature and when we put things into our bodies that were made by a drug company, then obviously it's going to be bad for us. We were designed to live in nature and that is why everything natural is safe and good for us.

Before people moved into cities and lived in artificial settings they were much healthier than they are now. The drug companies want you to get sick so they can sell you their unnatural treatments. But they don't want you to know about the cures made of things from nature...

Such as these natural remidies.....

These companies which made good healthy products are no longer around because BIG DRUG COMPANIES and the government have shut them down.

These products do work. How do we know they work? Because they say so right on them! These companies are not afraid to tell the truth. There remidies DO WORK! They even have stories to prove it.

Think about it...when was the last time you saw a drug company make something that was 100% effective and had zero side effects? I didn't think so!

 

[steve s]

Whatever it is…and I believe it has no merit…it seems to me that it is essentially a stagnant field.

Isn't that true of all woo? Are there any creationists out in the field digging for fossils? How many observatories have been built by astrologers in the last century?

Steve S.

 

[TimmyBerry]

Just out of curiosity.. wouldn't intentionally infecting self with some sort of intestinal parasite actually make you lose weight?

 

[Rolfe]

Just out of curiosity.. wouldn't intentionally infecting self with some sort of intestinal parasite actually make you lose weight?

Not necessarily. Someone actually did a study on this and found that bloating and so on associated with tapeworm infestatioin was more prevalent than weight loss. Sorry, this is old information and I've no idea where to find the study.

Rolfe.

 

[Deetee]

Just out of curiosity.. wouldn't intentionally infecting self with some sort of intestinal parasite actually make you lose weight?

That's what the ad implies. Eat, eat eat and always stay thin...

Recently my wife bought me (at my request) a book on medical quackery through the ages.
It is fascinating, with areas such as radium therapy covered in some detail.
You can see the inherent appeal - a (often visible) mysterious energy source which was shown to cure cancer, and therefore thought to be good for just about anything. Some of the ads for the radium cures are truly frightening - I guess tens of thousands of gullible folk ended up with cancer because they tried these products.