1.1.4 Research Paper

Introduction

In the U.S. alone, 2.7 billion dollars are spent annually by the six million Americans who prefer homeopathic remedies for their ailments (NCCIH 2020). Homeopathy is “a complementary therapy based on the theory that ‘like cures like.’ It involves a belief that conditions may be treated with a tiny dose of a substance (so diluted as to be indistinguishable from pure water) that in larger doses would normally cause or aggravate that condition. A second principle is a process of dilution and shaking known as ‘succussion’. Homeopathy was developed in 1796 by a German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843)” (McFerran 2021). The practice of homeopathy has been used for years, but there is not much evidence that substantiates it as a logical or effective choice over regular medicines. There are no homeopathic remedies that have documented and proven medical effects, which means that homeopathy is not a legitimate medical practice but rather, a pseudoscience.

To elaborate, homeopathic practices are based on two principles. The first is the Law of Similars, which is the idea that symptoms caused by a substance can be cured by that same substance. The second is the Law of Minimum Dose, which is the idea that the lower the dose of medicine, the greater the effectiveness; both of which are not scientifically proven to yield results comparable to standard medical practices. To put it simply, homeopathic remedies rely on the placebo effect rather than chemical or biological effects that are demonstrably medicinal in value and able to heal ailments and mollify symptoms. We are going to explore in greater details why homeopathy is not a legitimate medical practice from a medical lens, psychological lens, and ethical lens.

Medical Lens 

One example of homeopathic treatment with allegedly successful medical results was published in a long-term study by BMC Public Health. Between 1997 and 1999, nearly 4,000 people were recruited for a study in which their severity of pain and quality of life were measured before and after eight years of homeopathic treatment for conditions like allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis. In 2006, a total of 2,722 patients responded back to the study with a perceived decrease in pain and an increase in quality of life (Witt et al. 2008). Since low-dose treatments following the Law of Similars appeared to improve the health conditions of patients in this and other studies, homeopathic practitioners argued that this alternative medicine was comparable to a live-virus vaccine. However, this analogy fails to consider the cellular biology behind how vaccines work. As explained by Kevin Smith in Bioethics, “the active substances in vaccines are directly quantifiable and elicit a measurable response (production of antibodies), features that do not apply to homeopathic preparations. Finally, the analogy fails in respect of the altogether disparate usages of vaccines and homeopathic medicines. Immunization is preventive, unlike homeopathy which is used to treat existing ailments” (2012, p. 400). 

While it is clear that homeopathy does not share the same chemical components of healing as traditional medicine, Sven Ove Hansson, in “Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience,” held these pseudoscientists accountable for neglect of refuting information. “Science evolves with time, and the assimilation of new knowledge refuting what was previously believed is an essential part of the scientific process. Pseudoscientists are remarkably reluctant to give up their cherished ideas. For instance, homeopathy is still unaffected by the knowledge obtained in chemistry in the last two centuries.” (Hansson 2017, p. 41). The blatant cherry-picking of successful results fails to hold up against the depth and breadth standards of critical thinking by reducing to dig into other alternatives, like the proven science that is medicine.

Dr. Gerald M. Nosich describes the importance of seeing more than one side of an argument through alternatives. “Whenever you reason, there are alternatives… Thinking outside the box means envisioning alternatives where before there seemed to be only the inside of the box. Getting in the habit of searching for alternatives allows us to see many potential paths ahead of us, where before there seemed to be only one” (Nosich 2012, p. 61). Homeopaths would find their small body of proof to be largely outnumbered if they considered other explanations for “successful” medical results. Some of these alternatives are coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc), or psychological manipulation of results. Either way, the disregard and ignorance to interpret medical data from a different perspective makes homeopathy far from a legitimate science.

That being said, the original analysis of the BMC study results focusing on the comparison to vaccines should not be the only interpretation to be considered. Another alternative is to examine the study from a standards of science point of view to discredit the study’s means of measurement. The two quantifying factors, severity of pain and quality of life, are both incapable of being precisely measured. They are subjective, can change every day, and vary from person to person as well as illness to illness. Asking participants to grade their own pain and quality of life with no means of accurate or consistent measurements is not a valid method of study.

To illustrate the aforementioned study, picture this: a child falls off a bike and scrapes her knee. A witness asks how she feels, gives her a candy bar, and once again asks how she feels a little while later. Suddenly, both the child’s day and pain have drastically improved because of that candy bar. This does not mean that a logical conclusion to reach is that candy bars can cure skin abrasions. Sugar is not the same as Neosporin and a bandage, nor is homeopathy the same as medicine, though the results may be perceived the same. Thus, there is no significance to the study’s results.

Psychological Lens 

Success in homeopathic remedies is often derived from psychological concepts such as manipulation and the placebo effect. To exemplify, Edzard Ernst, in the article “Should doctors recommend homeopathy?” from the British Medical Journal argues that homeopathic treatments are often diluted to the point at which they cannot have any effect. He mentions that “One of the most commercially successful remedies, for example, is based on an extract of duck liver in the C200 ‘potency’” (Ernst 2015). This “potency” can be translated to a dilution at the ratio of 1:1×10399. Ernst goes on to explain that “the likelihood of a single active molecule being present in a homeopathic pill is effectively zero” (2015). Without a single active molecule, the only feasible explanation for the success of this remedy is through some sort of psychological manipulation, which in this case would be the placebo effect.

Patients are naturally subjected to report positive results by falling under confirmation bias. A New Yorker article titled, “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” accurately described this bias as “the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them” (Kolbert 2017). To clarify, the brain is essentially trained to accept only what it is told. If people are told that homeopathy is supposed to make them feel better, they are more likely to believe that they feel better regardless of whether or not their health status has changed. This is an example of the placebo effect, or as described by Harvard Health, “the idea that your brain can convince your body a fake treatment is the real thing… and thus stimulate healing” (2019). Upon deeper analysis of documented reports of homeopathic success, it’s clear to see that this psychological effect is the largest contributor to alleged documented medical effects of homeopathy.

Psychology can also be used to explain why and how people think the way that they do. As such, psychology can explain the thought processes behind the belief of homeopathy through the use of logical fallacies, which are often the cornerstone of pseudoscientific theories. An example of one of these fallacies is the genetic fallacy. Andrew Lavin, in his textbook Thinking Well: A Logic and Critical Thinking Textbook, describes the genetic fallacy by explaining that “The genetic fallacy occurs when an arguer critiques the origin of a claim or argument rather than the claim or argument itself” (2020, p. 89). Conversely, this fallacy can also be used as a way to accept or justify a belief. Homeopaths, when defending the efficacy of homeopathy, often reference the fact that homeopathy was founded in the late 18th century. Their fallacious argument is that, due to the age of the practice, it must be effective. Another significant logical fallacy in the argument for homeopathy is the false cause, otherwise known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. Lavin describes this fallacy as the idea that because one event takes place after another, the first event must have influenced the second (2020, p. 110). In the context of homeopathy, the typical thought process is that since the patient recovered from their illness, the remedy must have been effective. A more probable conclusion as to how the symptoms of illness were relieved is through either the placebo effect or the fact that patients commonly seek medicine when their symptoms reach their peak, which typically means that those symptoms will begin declining soon.

A final, and arguably the most significant logical fallacy regarding homeopathy is the bandwagon appeal. As defined by Lavin, the appeal to popularity is, “appealing to the popularity of a thing or idea or practice in order to justify that thing or idea or practice” (2020, p. 97). To elaborate, homeopathy has been established for a long time and was practiced a considerable amount. However, in recent years this practice has exploded in popularity due to the use of social media. Through the use of social media, homeopaths are able to spread awareness of their practice by displaying the “results” of their remedies, as well as testimonies from patients who were treated with homeopathic remedies. These results and testimonies are not accurate and are used only as a way to sell more homeopathic products. The fact that homeopathy relies heavily on these logical fallacies in order to determine its effectiveness suggests that the practice is pseudoscientific.

Ethical Lens 

Homeopathy has many ethically questionable components as well. The ethics of homeopathy must be taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not it is a pseudoscience because as Pigliucci said in his article, “How to Behave Virtuously in an Irrational World,” “Skepticism of pseudoscience shares its core values with science, values that include intellectual honesty, humility, and the other epistemic virtues…” (2019, p. 16). To be considered a real science, homeopathy must be based on epistemic virtues such as these, but if it fails to do so, it is one more point of evidence which points to it being a pseudoscience.

If, for the sake of this argument, we were to assume that the strong research and information indicating homeopathy has absolutely zero biochemical or physiological effects on the body is accurate (NCCIH, 2021), then there is obvious reason to suppose patients of homeopathy are cheated and given a false sense of autonomy.

To elaborate, supporters of homeopathy often reference the benefits of privacy, cost-efficiency, and autonomy, for example, as reasons homeopathy is an ideal alternative medicine. If homeopathy had clinical trial results providing ample evidence that it is an effective medical treatment, then certainly, these points of privacy, cost-efficiency, and autonomy could be considered legitimate benefits. However, the benefits of privacy, cost-efficiency, and autonomy are all negated if homeopathy has no biochemical or physiological effect on its patients which research strongly indicates, as there is no information providing sufficient evidence (Smith 2012, p. 400).

Since homeopathy can reasonably be categorized as an alternative medicine with no biochemical and physiological effects, this means that when a person buys homeopathic treatments, thinking they are saving money, choosing a safer treatment, and/or making an autonomous decision outside of the mainstream medical world, then on the first two points they have been greatly deceived. On the third point, the biggest ethical issue is that if a patient chooses alternative medicine as a means of feeling independent in their decision, they risk their health and safety if their condition requires effective treatment. Professional medical advice is valuable, and it is important to make the wisest health choices in order to avoid dangerous situations. This is the ethical dilemma on this point, as homeopathy is often presented to the public as completely harmless and effective, while this cannot be true if this deceit leads to an ill individual not seeking established medical advice (Smith 2012, p. 405).

As for the supposed “benefit” of saving money, this can quickly be negated, since as Smith put it in his article “Against Homeopathy,” “…low cost is nullified by non-effectiveness, since ineffective medical treatment is of zero value. Moreover, because homeopathic practice entails financial cost (in terms of premises, facilities and remuneration), this becomes a disutility.” The same argument applies to the promise of non-invasiveness in homeopathy. Since a non-effective treatment is no treatment at all (unless in placebo terms), the logical conclusion is that it cannot be a non-invasive treatment because it does not qualify as treatment (Smith 2012, p. 402).

Another ethical problem with homeopathy is that it is a waste of resources. This is true in two senses, the production of products and the consumption of products. With the production, it is clear that if a product is non-effective, then it’s creation will most likely be wasteful. Since homeopathy has “rather minimal” (Smith 2012, p. 405) benefits, that means that the money and resources put into the production of homeopathic substances, regardless of how small, are a waste of resources, and thus an environmental and economic waste. As for the consumption of homeopathic products, as Smith says in his article:

Considering that homeopathy represents an intrinsically ineffective form of treatment, any resources expended on homeopathy represent a waste of resources that could otherwise have been expended on more effective healthcare. The utilitarian logic is clear: such expenditure is unethical.

Homeopathic preparations are (or should be) inexpensive, since they contain no active agents. However, homeopathy is associated with additional costs, including the cost of homeopathic consultations and the provision of specialist hospitals and clinics. Moreover, when no clinical benefit is obtained from homeopathy, patients are likely to return to conventional medicine: in this way, the public purse pays twice (2012, p. 406).

Overall, homeopathy has underlying ethical problems that are concerning and should not be overlooked when evaluating the practice. In all medical fields, ethics is not an after-thought, as the practice of medicine is primarily concerned with not just curing the patient, but helping the person, to the best of its ability and as humanely as possible. The Hippocratic Oath, which physicians swear to when entering the medical field says at one point: “I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.” (Marks 2021)

It can fairly be interpreted that treating a patient with “warmth, sympathy, and understanding” requires an ethical approach where the patient is not being deceived. Because homeopathy in many ways is based on deceit, it can reasonably be concluded that it cannot be considered ethical from a medical point of view since it essentially goes against the very standard of medical practice, which furthers the argument that it cannot be considered a legitimate medical practice.

Conclusion

Because of the lack of documented evidence to support the practice of homeopathy from the perspectives of the medical field, psychology, and an ethical standpoint, homeopathy must be concluded to be a pseudoscience. The very premise of this practice, the idea of “like cures like” is in-and-of-itself preposterous as it facilitates the ad hoc fallacy (Lavin 2020, p. 238), meaning the argument has an illogical base. While homeopathy may have some value as a placebo medicine—and doctors do at times prescribe ineffective medicine for placebo-result purposes—it can be seen from an ethical perspective that this supposed value can easily be negated by the fact that self-prescribed treatment outside of professional medical advice could very well lead to further complications if the initial ailment requires serious medical attention. As science continues to make advancements over time, homeopathy becomes less credible as a source of treatment, and it can fairly be asserted that this eighteenth-century practice can be left in the past as a creative idea with no scientific results.