The science of Homeopathy
The arguments against homeopathy are not that it doesn’t work but that there is no scientific proof therefore it doesn’t work. Taking this stance ensures that no matter how many case studies are presented with good outcome, the defense is that “this is the placebo effect”.
I wish I were that good a practitioner that I could rely on the placebo effect.
This word “scientific” is being grossly misused in this instance. The use here also implies that those making the criticism are scientists themselves – but often they are not, or at least not in the broad sense. Some are medics, or were trained as a medic, many are just working journalists peddling a story.
The science they have is from a medical background not a physics or botanical or, in some cases, even a chemical background. There position is that medicine, in the form of drugs, is scientific because double blind experiments can show that everyone responds the same. BUT these drugs are usually poisonous and so one would expect the reaction of a poisoned body to be much the same as any other (the hot poker scenario) – a sort of fight or flight reaction. In fact the main reason for developing the double blind trial is to establish efficacy i.e. that the drug is relatively safe, that it causes minimum harm. Its curative properties were established well before the trail, in a laboratory using other forms of testing. They would not embark on an expensive double blind trail if they thought the drug didn’t do its medical stuff.
The question then arises. Would homeopathy be any better off for double blind trials. The answer in general is no. We individualise the patient, allopaths individualise the condition, the patient is immaterial to them, to us every case is different, the patient is important. Any sort of trail for homeopathy needs to be outcome based.
But what of this science? Newton established his laws of motion but it was 400 years later before any understanding of “what is gravity” started to emerge.
Newton’s laws state:
- First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.
- Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object.
- Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Within Newtonian physics these laws are dependent on Gravity as a major accelerating force but Gravity cannot be defined by them – to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Third law) – but where is the source of gravity, where is the very large mass that’s causng this force to be applied to us?
Yet all of Newton’s observations are based on this force existing. In our current critics words – “completely unsubstantiated and should be ignored”. It is only with the emergence of quantum mechanics and fundamental energy laws based on Einstein’s predictions that Gravity is starting to be understood.
Since homeopathy is an energy medicine rather than a material science, the answers to how the dilutions in homeopathy work are somewhere down the line in this new understanding of the universe – possible in the small forces, possibly in string theory. Homeopathy relates more to Einstein than to Newtonian mechanics.
The basic law of homeopathy “treating like with like” is also evident in medical science. Observe radio therapy, where minute amounts of radiation are used to “cure” cancer while we all know that radioactive materials cause cancer. Equally Ritalin (methylphenidate) is a stimulant but is used extensively to calm hyperactive children.
However the way in which we prepare our remedies, the potentisation causes homeopaths so much controversy. Dilution beyond 12 times take you away from the material world, as demonstrated by Avogadro’s number, but every homeopath has hundreds of cases where dilution of a thousand times or even ten thousand times have brought about profound reactions.
This dilution is the method of homeopathy not the science. The science is treating like with like.
So what are the motivations for this continued assault on homeopathy? The obvious issue is cost and efficacy of allopathic drugs. Homeopaths, using such benign dilutions, can safely explore and develop new remedies and can work with seriously ill people with out causing more harm with their treatments. The average cost of a remedy is minute and infinitesimal compare to the cost of a new allopathic drug. So, you can’t get away from the bottom line for most of this aggression is old fashioned market economy – NOT science.
However another source of anger with homeopaths is that we are in a position to observe closely reactions to the vaccine programme. It isn’t that the allopathic profession and drug companies don’t also see these events but their training allows them to separate them from the vaccines. The drug companies themselves regard one in a million bad reactions as a fair level of safety (compared to all the child deaths from a mass outbreak of a particular disease). When this “one in a million reaction” is an individual and the reactions have a spectrum of symptoms this sticks out like an iceberg to homeopaths. Add to this that homeopathy is one of the few therapies that can bring about some resolve in some of these cases. This all makes homeopathy a big threat to the status quo and, as such, needs to be got rid off.