Homeopathy – Part 5
| By: Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon; ©2004 |
| Homeopathic practitioners offer two basic lines of evidence for their art, one theoretical and the other practical. |
Homeopathic practitioners offer two basic lines of evidence for their art, one theoretical and the other practical.
Theoretical Argument
Homeopaths observe alleged similarities to scientifically demonstrated realities and suggest that these indications supply theoretical evidence for homeopathy. Here the practitioner appeals to such things as vaccination, allergies, and the body’s hormones and biochemical reactions. How do these relate to homeopathy?
Vaccinations allegedly demonstrate the “like cures like” principle because an individual is immunized against a disease by giving him a small part of that which causes the disease. Allergies allegedly demonstrate that substances which are often in a very weak concentration can produce very powerful and even violent reactions in the human body. Hormones and biocatalysts also demonstrate that minute amounts of a substance can powerfully affect the physical organism.
Homeopaths will cite illustrations. One milligram of acetylcholine dissolved in 500,000 gallons of blood will lower a cat’s blood pressure. Pure penicillin will inhibit the development of some microorganisms even when it is diluted at one part to fifty million; the thyroid hormone is effective at one part per ten trillion of blood plasma, etc.
The problem with these illustrations is that even if they were legitimate applications, they could still not prove homeopathy. They could only suggest it might be true in theory; but, in fact, they are usually not even legitimate applications.
Vaccinations and homeopathic remedies work on entirely different principles and have different effects. Vaccinations deal with physical substances designed to stimulate the production of specific antibodies to act against specific microbes. It is scientifically demonstrated that they are effective in this.
How does this have anything to do with homeopathy? Homeopathic treatments are not intended to stimulate antibodies, do not produce them, and, in fact, often do not contain even a single molecule of the alleged medicine. Vaccinations work on a physical, material level; homeopathic treatments work on an entirely non-physical level, allegedly altering the “vital force” of the body. Or, they claimed to work in a scientifically undemonstrated manner supposedly acting on the immune system in some unknown way. But such supposed action is not much different from magic; magic is also scientifically undemonstrated and works in an unknown manner.
In the cases of allergies, hormones, and biocatalysts, we are again dealing with the demonstrated effect of known material substances on the body. They are proven to work as claimed.
But homeopathic medicines or effects do not work as claimed; they are not material, not demonstrated, and probably never can be demonstrated.
In addition, although hormones, biocatalysts, and the entities producing allergies are much smaller than tiny grains of sand, they are gigantic suns in comparison with homeopathic medicines. Homeopathic remedies are infinitely more minute or even non-existent, yet such “medicines” of homeopathy are said to work even when none of the original medicine remains.
Another approach is to cite the mysteries of modern theoretical physics as a defense for homeopathic practice. The new age movement as a whole, including new age medicine, appeals to the mysteries of theoretical physics as a justification for its practices, but largely upon a fraudulent basis.[1] There are indeed mysteries in quantum physics—wonderful mysteries. But the argument is invalid as a defense of homeopathy or any other new age medicine. Physicists and other scientists around the world are indeed studying the mysteries of particle physics. Why aren’t they studying the mysteries of homeopathy? If what homeopathy claims is true, then the implications are far more important to men than those of theoretical physics. They would virtually demand attention. If homeopathy had even demonstrated genuine mysteries, it would literally command the attention of the scientific world.[2]
Why then does the scientific world ignore homeopathy? In fact, because homeopathy has not yet demonstrated a real mystery exists.
Where is the theoretical evidence for homeopathy? The alleged parallels to classical medicine which attempt to provide a “scientific” explanation or justification for homeopathy are largely irrelevant. The proposed arguments from quantum mechanics are inapplicable. Nevertheless, homeopaths still claim their practices work.
Practical Argument
The other major evidence cited by homeopathic practitioners is that homeopathy works. This is the one claim we find repeated again and again. Believers in homeopathy offer endless testimonies to its curative powers.[3] Homeopaths themselves claim, “The best reason to use homeopathic medicines in self-care is that they work,”[4] and “…homeopathy must be judged by its results….”[5]
As Coulter remarks,
- When asked how he can be sure that his theory is valid, the homeopathic physician will respond that it has served for one hundred and fifty years as the basis for the successful homeopathic treatment of disease and the preservation of health. And if the homeopathic physician can cure his patients consistently and methodically on the basis of this theory, this set of assumptions, who is to say that it is wrong. Practice is the only test.[6]
Iridologists and believers in endless other new age techniques say the same thing. Claims to healing are cheap; proof is another matter. So then how do we really know it was homeopathy that cured any practitioner’s patients when there is no proof? Often the anecdotal evidence is the weakest of all because it is wholly uncontrolled and subject to the errors of observation or logic of both patient and practitioner. Astrologic medicine has made similar claims for much longer than one hundred and fifty years. Astrologers also think their practices have served as the basis for successful astrological treatment of disease. But, like homeopaths, they are wrong and have been proven wrong.
Another claim is that homeopathic medicines have been demonstrated to work on infants and animals. This allegedly proves homeopathy is effective, because placebos would not work on babies or dogs. But if such an effect had really been proven, we think everyone would know it. It would have spurred a multi-billion-dollar research program, and homeopathy would have been accepted long ago. For Americans, the discovery of a dramatic new healing power for their infants and pets would hardly go unnoticed. Furthermore, corporate interest would have been secured by the promise of vast profits in the neo-natal industry and veterinarian care. Such a discovery would have caused a public sensation from the implications alone. This is why we do not think homeopathic cures have ever been proven in such cases.
Regardless, homeopaths often say they don’t care how it works or why it works, only that it does work. They are content to wait for “further research” for the explanation. For most homeopaths explanations are irrelevant, and that is the danger.[7]
Consider that even the scientifically oriented homeopaths are willing to discard homeopathic theory. They use it merely because it works. “In fact, many doctors who use homeopathic remedies dismiss the [homeopathic] interpretation of disease and human history as nonsense and claim that even the medicines are impossible and unbelievable. They go on practicing only because it works.”[8]
Of course, the same could be said of psychic healing and a variety of other occultic methods of curing. They may indeed work. But knowing why something works is just as important to knowing that it works. Many things work and yet are still dangerous.
None of the claimed evidences offered in support of homeopathy, theoretical or practical, proves that homeopathy is an effective medical procedure. The parallels to medicine are inapplicable; quantum theory is no help; and the supposed cures of homeopathy, including among infants and animals, are undemonstrated. This means that people who trust homeopathy to cure their diseases are being deluded.
Notes
- ↑ Stephen N. Shore, “Quantum Theory and the Paranormal: The Misuse of Science,” The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall, 1984, pp. 24-35; See D. Stalker, C. Glymour, “Quantum Medicine” in Examining Holistic Medicine (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985), pp. 108-110.
- ↑ For example, consider the furor over the French research reported in Nature for June 30,1988; Martin Gardner, “Water with Memory? The Dilution Affair: A Special Report,” The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter, 1989; c.f., Wallace I. Simpson, “When Not to Believe the Unbelievable,” and Elie A. Shneour, “The Benveniste Case: A Reappraisal,” in The Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 14, no. 1, Fall, 1989, pp. 90-95..
- ↑ E.g., Jane Roberts, The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book (New York: Bantam, 1978), pp. 236-237.
- ↑ Dana Ullman, Stephen Cummings, “The Science of Homeopathy,” New Realities, Summer, 1985, p. 17.
- ↑ George Vithoulkas, “Homeopathy,” in Berkeley Holistic Health Center, The Holistic Health Handbook: A Tool for Attaining Wholeness of Body, Mind and Spirit (Berkeley, CA: And/Or Press, 1978), p. 91.
- ↑ David Sobel, ed., Ways of Health: Wholistic Approaches to Ancient and Contemporary Medicine (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, 1979), p. 293
- ↑ Ullman, Cummings, “The Science of Homeopathy,” p. 21.
- ↑ Richard Grossinger, Planet Medicine: From Stone Age Shamanism to Post-Industrial Healing (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980), pp. 191-192.
[…] Read Part 5 […]