The Most Common Misconceptions about Homeopathy
The greatest friend of truth is time; her greatest enemy is prejudice, and her constant companion is humility.
While we have tried to introduce you to what homeopathy is on these pages, as much as this medium allows, allow us to briefly present the most common misconceptions about it, i.e., what it is not. It is not phytotherapy, i.e., herbal treatment; it is not bioresonance or vega testing; it is not a radionics or a placebo; it is not miraculous medicine or a panacea; it is not a spiritual discipline or a threat to Christianity; it is not faith healing or psychosomatic medicine; it is not against modern medicine, surgery, or science... the list goes on. Wrong interpretations and controversy have surrounded homeopathy since its beginnings. Even after 200 years, homeopathy remains the most misunderstood or wrongly understood medical science ever. In 1846, it was declared a "ridiculous absurdity" and an "insult to human reason," and more recently, its robust skeptics argue that "accepting the action of infinitesimal doses undermines more than conventional medicine itself; moreover, it destroys the entire edifice of chemistry and physics."
As the late Dr. Peter Fisher, personal physician to the late Queen Elizabeth II for 17 years and clinical director and head of research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (formerly the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital) for 22 years, beautifully summarized: "The debate is not so much about the fundamental homeopathic principle: "let like be cured with like" (Latin "similia similibus curentur").
This idea is reflected in toxicological and pharmacological concepts of hormesis, rebound effects, and paradoxical pharmacology; all of these are paradoxical effects of drugs and toxins depending on the dose or time and depend on the body's reaction, not the primary effect of the drug. Homeopathy is based on the systematic application of such effects. What is a controversial aspect of homeopathy is its use of highly diluted remedies, including the so-called 'ultramolecular' dilutions, i.e., diluted above the point where (according to Avogadro's law) traces of the initial material substance can still be found..." He further notes: "This is a fundamental scientific problem, and some scientists argue that homeopathy 'does not work because it cannot work,' so all apparent effects must be due to the placebo.
There is evidence from clinical trials that homeopathy is effective in conditions such as diarrhea, fibromyalgia, influenza, hay fever, osteoarthritis, sinusitis, and dizziness, and that these are not placebo effects. However, the conclusion of a systematic review of clinical trials (published in 1991 in BMJ) was that we would 'accept that homeopathy may be effective, only if the mechanism of action were more likely'!?”
Humanity is highly irrational, so there is no hope of influencing it with reasonable arguments. Prejudice cannot be overcome.
Dr. J. Arnoldo Rivera, in an excellent article titled "Is the Homeopathic Cure a Placebo Effect?" writes: "It is academically absurd for some 'scientists' to express an opinion on a subject (in this case, homeopathy) without having seriously studied that subject. Most likely, critics of homeopathy think that Hahnemann's writings are outdated and do not deserve to be read, let alone studied; and although some of Hahnemann's ideas are somewhat outdated, his essential concepts are not only currently valid but also very advanced for our time." He continues: "No person of average intelligence and good ethical values, free from intellectual prejudices, will express a negative opinion about homeopathy if they have carefully studied homeopathic theory and practice beforehand."
The latest and reliable data on the effectiveness of homeopathy come from a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled double-blind randomized controlled trials from 2014 , which found that homeopathic remedies, when prescribed during individualized treatment, are 1.5 to 2.0 times more likely to have a favorable effect than a placebo (Ref.. Mathie, R.T., Lloyd, S.M., Legg, L.A. et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 3, 142 (2014). 3, 142 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142)).
And so we return to the question: "If, alongside 200 years of collective homeopathic practice worldwide, there are also contemporary positive studies, why do some people still refuse to accept what the evidence says?" And as Dr. Peter Fisher, among many others, nicely "diagnosed": it seems that the problem lies "in the bias of credibility," i.e., those who already believe that homeopathy is impossible will view the research results differently than those who believe that homeopathy can work or does work. In other words, solid evidence is rejected because it is not compatible with the theory. Or figuratively: "I can't understand how it's possible, so it's not possible."
The paradigm that better describes homeopathy is undoubtedly holistic, i.e., one that considers the context and complexity of the human organism and behavior, as opposed to reductionist, which seeks to isolate and study only individual isolated components. Thomas Kuhn, in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" argues that a paradigm, or a common view, exists for a while, but then becomes outdated because it is disrupted by too many 'anomalies' that do not fit and cannot be explained by the existing paradigm. It is then replaced by a new paradigm that can explain the anomalies. He calls this phenomenon a paradigm shift. I believe we are close to such a paradigm shift. Time will tell.
HR