The Homoeopathy Dilemma

The 10²³ campaign has tried to highlight to the general public that homoeopathy didn't work, the idea was to demonstrate that there was nothing in it. If you ask non-homoeopaths about homoeopathy, many people will say it's a form of herbal medicine. It would be fair to say that many are unaware of what homoeopathy is, let alone how it is meant to work.

Yet professional homoeopaths are aware that there's nothing in it. After all, it's not the material that matters but the vibrations of the material that stem from the process. So what good does it do to point out something that is not claimed to be there in the first place?

And therein lies the dilemma. Since many people think that homoeopathy is a form of herbal medicine, should it be attacked as such? If it's attacked on grounds that it's understood, homoeopaths have every right to say that what is being attacked is not homoeopathy. But what good is it to go after the "true" homoeopathy if people have a misconception of what homoeopathy is?

This applies to more than homoeopathy, of course, as there's plenty out there where the general perception differs from the "academic" one. What good does it to show an internal contradiction in a particular theodicy, for example, when such musings have no bearing of the beliefs of millions?

Perhaps an argument from completeness might be justification. That is, if someone who supports homoeopathy is under the false impression that homoeopathy is herbal medicine, then they could always fall back on homoeopathy working for them even if theirs no active ingredient. Or that one could perhaps find a theologian who can justify a global flood even if they can't themselves.


The great thing about the 10²³ campaign is that I think it transcended specifics by simply showing that homoeopathy doesn't work. Taking an "overdose" of "sleeping pills" and not only being perfectly fine but not sleepy at all demonstrates that no matter what people say homoeopathy is, it doesn't live up to the claims made of it.

Morning Scepticism: Modern Arguments

Focusing on what the modern arguments are for the existence of gods to me misses the point. Modern arguments aren't why those beliefs began, and they certainly weren't what convinced people through the ages. It would seem to indicate that the reasons to believe weren't there until recently, yet its meant to be defending the same basic idea. And besides, a homoeopath talking about quantum vibrations is certainly a modern argument but does it really need to be engaged to dismiss homoeopathy?

Morning Scepticism: Harm

If homoeopathy has no active ingredient, then what's the harm of taking it? The harm is that it fails to do what it's meant to do. Taking a homoeopathic vaccine leaves one susceptible to what a real vaccine would prevent. Taking a homoeopathic cancer remedy doesn't treat the cancer. The harm comes from the reason that one would seek to take it in the first place!

Homoeopathy Is Nonsense, Can We Please Move On?

When it comes to a lot of alternative medicine, I take a sceptical but not dismissive approach. While some things might be based on outmoded ways of thinking, there might be some unforeseen benefits because people can believe in the right things for the wrong reasons. This is the nature of evidence-based medicine, if it works then I don't see a problem with its use.

Where I do draw the line is where there's no possible plausible mechanism. I am referring to homoeopathy, where by now it should well be established that there is no possible way it could work! Not only has it failed tightly-controlled empirical measure, but there is no underlying mechanism that could possibly work, the process sees to that.

A lot is made of how much a homoeopathic solution goes through, and homoeopaths don't seem to see why it is a big deal. It's a big deal because it's taking out any possible possible means of having any form of material solution. And that's just it, the claims aren't about a material solution. So it should be non-controversial that reasonable people would reject it on those grounds alone. For homoeopathy to work, there needs to be something beyond what we understand about how nature is.


But why are we still talking about it?


This is obvious nonsense, it at one point might have seemed to be a miraculous cure but testing has clearly demonstrated that homoeopathy is indistinguishable from a similarly administered placebo. At what point can we take the discipline behind the shed with a shotgun?

This is the problem I find with a lot of ideas that keep seem to come back. It doesn't matter how many times it's shown not to work, there are those who still cling to the belief. It's time for homoeopathy to die because we know that there's no hope of finding positive results. Keeping it in the public eye is now a health hazard, we know better and having people put their trust in it is a health risk not only for them but people around it. When there's the promotion of homoeopathic vaccines or homoeopathic malaria drugs, or even homoeopathic flu remedies - all of these extend the risk to others. And as for giving homoeopathic remedies to children?!?

Homoeopathy needs to die because health is a serious issue. People are harmed by the use of homoeopathy, people die because they put their trust in it. To argue otherwise is to be wilfully ignorant, through which the safety of individuals at risk as well as society as a whole. And while I have little doubt that homoeopaths truly believe their product works, but the fact remains that they are putting the safety of others in jeopardy. It's time to move on, homoeopathy may at one stage have looked promising but now it is clearly unscientific.