If homeopathy is just water and sugar pills, why do doctors get so upset about it?

Hampy

The only reason you are alive is because I have been sending you my special healing thought waves for the last 4 years. You owe me £1457.36. It's not all bollocks, honestly...

James Delingpole

Cheers Hampy. Cheque in the post!

Nick

"Until that day, what harm is there in keeping an open mind?"

But it isn't as if the scientific community has just ignored homeopathy and assumed it is all nonsense.

There's been 100s of investigations worldwide into whether homeopathy works or not over the last 30 years and none of them has showed homeopathy to be effective in the slighest (discounting the placebo effect).

How long do you intend keeping this "open mind" of yours open for ?

Jonathan Lawrence

Nick, a lot of those studies have shown homeopathy to be of value. They are disputed of course by those who would dispute anything that gives any credence to homeopathy, this is known as bias.

maybeitstrue

of course homeopathy is absolute and utter nonsense. As the author states, we are the absolute masters of the universe and know absolutely everything all the time
Its obviously just the placebo effect although it works on babies and animals
Each to their own, I say
Because I would much rather have the placebo effect, if that's the case then the serious side effects of conventional medicine in most case.
To say nothing of the placebo effect of conventional medicine which has billion dollar advertising budgets with it's own placebo effect

Alan Henness

"Perhaps, when we get round to discovering the hidden truth about absolutely everything, it will emerge that homeopathy is a load of old crock. Or perhaps, we’ll be totally amazed to find that despite being so dilute as to contain not a single molecule of the original substance homeopathic remedies yet really do retain a ‘memory’ with incredible curative powers. Until that day, what harm is there in keeping an open mind?"

Until such evidence is produced James, do you see anything wrong with going by the best available robust evidence? And do you think the public should be protected from misleading claims made by homeopaths?

Oh! By the way, this is why it's not such a good idea (as you seem to think it might be) to keep an 'open mind' about pseudo scientific nonsense: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Guy Chapman

Why on earth are the Spectator giving Delingpole a platform for this fatuous wibble? It's pretty clear by now that his main criterion for believing something is when science shows it's not so!

Guy Chapman

Oh, and what's the harm? Here's the harm: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Guy Chapman

@Jonathan: Review studies have shown that actually the bias is the other way round. The more rigorously conducted a trial is, the more likely it is to conclude that homeopathy is simply placebo. This is in line wiht the rest of scientific knowledge, whereas to believe in homeopathy involves several giant leaps of faith none of whihc has a credible evidential basis. Does it work? Yes, for self-limiting conditions placebos work. Does it cure, heal, or offer a treatment for any disease? "Not proven" as our Scottish legal friends would put it.

Graham

Oh dear James whatever sympathy i may have had for your climate skeptic views have been seriously diluted by this demonstration of credulity. Try Occam's razor- what is more likely- that magic water can cure you or- that nearly any other explanation for these anecdotes is correct? People do grow out of conditions such as hay fever you know; sometimes other more serious conditions can also cure themseleves. "If your mind is too open your brains may fall out."

Jo Brodie

I'm intrigued by the device that detects Lyme disease. There are a lot of bogus diagnostic tests and the HPA (Health Protection Agency) has some information about them.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme borreliosis Clinical signs of Lyme borreliosis (LB)
http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1204031510081

Unorthodox Clinical and Laboratory Practices Related to Lyme borreliosis (overview)
http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1204013002855

Mind you, if someone mentioned they'd been feeling a bit under the weather and had recently been camping I suppose I might ask if they'd been bitten by a tick.

Chris Richards

A homeopathic "remedy" made from belladonna actually contains not a single molecule of belladonna. I despair at the state of science education these days when people can leave school without having been taught about Avogadro's Number and cannot understand that something that has been diluted to 12c is simply water and none of the original substance remains.

Homeopathy is a fraud which preys upon the simple minded.

jonathan Lawrence

the majority of review studies show homeopathy has an effect beyond placebo.

phayes

Good grief! Is this a fallacy spotting competition? ...

“Can they really afford to be so certain that they know everything there is to know about the scientific truth?”

“Perhaps, when we get round to discovering the hidden truth about absolutely everything, it will emerge that homeopathy is a load of old crock.”

“On the other, I’ve met too many people whose lives have been transformed by homeopathy [...] my summers were ruined by hayfever. Now, thanks to Fiona, it has all but gone.”

etc.

Or a shot at the irony meter busting record by a notorious pseudoskeptic? ...

“I share their belief in the importance of rigour, empiricism and rationalism.”

:/

Guy Chapman

@phayes: when you say the majority, that is only because the majority are published in the notoriously uncritical alternative medical literature. There are five review studies in high impact journals that have carefully reviewed the literature paying particular attention to the quality of study design. These five all report that the better designed a study is, the more likely it is to conclude that homeopathy = placebo. This is consistent with everything else we know in the field, including molecular biology, physical chemistry and so on. Homeopaths' claims of the so-called "law of Similia" and "law of infinitesimals" run completely counter to multiple other branches of knowledge and lack any credible evidential basis. You're not going to persuade any significant number of scientists without addressing this fundamental problem, but the typical homeopath's reaction is "but it works!" - yes, it works, precisely as placebo, a well-understood effect.

"So long as the body is affected through the mind, no audacious device, even of the most manifestly dishonest character, can fail of producing occasional good to those who yield it an implicit or even a partial faith. The argument founded on this occasional good would be as applicable in justifying the counterfeiter and giving circulation to his base coin, on the ground that a spurious dollar had often relieved a poor man’s necessities." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Since Holmes' day we have discovered a lot more about the nature of matter and the nature of disease, all of which is increasingly inconsistent with the core tenets of homeopathy. Homeopathy is the medical equivalent of Piltdown Man.

Lewis

The harm in homeopathy comes when people like taking them for headaches and then decide to use them for malaria prophylaxis. They come back as jaundiced as a lamborgini, the (often) deadly side effect being malaria.
Homeopathy is frequently described as being side effect free or impossible to overdose on. Simply not the case. If its a water based product (not sure what a "tincture" is) then take enough and sure enough you will have water toxicity (hyponatreamia). And if its a sugar pill then take enough and you will risk diabetes.
In addition side effects where you might not expect them are herbal medicines. St. Johns wart can interfere with "anti-depressants" and cause symptoms such as drowsiness. Some rather exotic chinese medicines can cause fulminant liver failure and yet are still offered readily.
Side effects are also caused by the placeboes or more accurately termed recall bias. Patients given placeboes in RCT's often complain of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and headaches putting it down to the medication!
The main harm for me is the hoodwinking of vulnerable people often being milked dry by all forms of "alternative" medicine.
I wont even mention the infamous Mathias Rath, the rather despicable homeopathist who forced his way into SA's AIDS strategy. Shock horror it didn't work.

Glyn

Yet again James Dellingpole proves himself to be a credulous moron. Tom Chivers has written an excellent rebuttal of this article which I will not repeat.

I know this has been mentioned already, but look at www.whatstheharm.net. Quite a lot of people have died, and will continue to die, as a result of articles like this presenting homeopathy as a viable option for those with serious diseases. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dave Fleming

Wow, I cannot recall when my respect for a journalist plummeted so dramatically.

Spending an hour a day praying that the golden unicorns that live at the bottom of my garden give me eternal life won't do me any harm either but that doesn't mean I'm not delusional.

Finton Stack

How very odd that AGW-'scepticism' and 'alternative' views on health and medicine so often tie up. Melanie Phillips and her anti-MMR campaign, waged through these page (and which I note she still hasn't apologised for, despite the study on which her views were based having been shown not just to be wrong but fraudulent), Christopher Booker and his insistence that white asbestos is harmless because it's "chemically identical to chalk", and Christopher Monckton and his self-developed "cure" for HIV, cancer, and Graves disease. I await Mr. Delingpole's article advocating intelligent design, although I'm sure he won't be disappoint that Ms. Phillips and Mr. Booker have got there first. Does anyone see a pattern developing?

John Bowman

Some conditions are transient, some clear up on their own, some attributed to one thing when caused by another, some take longer to clear up if the immune system is under pressure.

Homoeopathy "works" in the same way as meditation does, getting more sleep and exercise, or prayer, or miracles.

It just happens and the recently recovered likes to attribute it to whatever best pleases them.

If they have forked out £50 on homoeopathy or meditation sessions then since nobody likes to think they bought a sack of merde, they will credit what they paid for.

The religious will believe in the power of prayer, and the Chelsea set will prefer high colonic lavage.

In my experience I have found most things clear up in their own good time with no help from anybody. This I call No-opathy.

Georgia Gill

The argument that homeopathy cannot work because dilutions go beyond Avogadro's number has been successfully refuted by not one but two Nobel prize winning scientists. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619.html for details.

Meg Robertson

@whoever it was that said homeopathy is for the simple-minded - what's more simple-minded than believing the earth is flat, which is what you lot are the medical equivalent of....

André Hattingh

Bravo, JD, especially your comments on those Dawkins types who believe they have the answers to everything in the Universe. Perhaps they should read; assuming that they can read, Paul's letter to the Church at Corinth. Just the first three chapters will do. But I doubt they have it within them.

Chatters

Bravo JD indeed! The skeptics drone on and on about how homeopathy doesn't work - and let them. It won't change the way that the public views it, especially those who have not been helped by conventional medicine, harmed by drugs, etc etc. The important thing is to let the public have a CHOICE in how they want to be treated. Just because some scientism devoted closed minds don't want to embrace possibility (I wonder what they think about dark matter and black holes) they want to stop everyone else from having options. Lighten up you skeptic guys and gals! Why are you so against it? Maybe try examining what it is in yourselves that cuts you off from something that offers hope to people. So far UK is still some sort of democracy, where if the public want to consult properly qualified homeopaths, they should be allowed to do so.

Louise mclean

Homeopathy is great! I have used nothing else for the past 20 years for all my ailments. For more info see
www.homeopathyheals.me.uk

phayes

“Just because some scientism devoted closed minds don't want to embrace possibility (I wonder what they think about dark matter and black holes)”

Have you any idea how *astoundingly* ironic that is, Chatters? We are the ones whose minds were open enough (in the positve sense) to conceive of such things as black holes and dark matter in the first place. You are the ignorant and closed-minded priests of stupidity who refuse to open your feeble, deluded and self-interested minds even to the overwhelming evidence that refutes your knuckle-dragging fantasies.

Dr Andrew Sikorski

Well as a good old GP I use homeopathy with acupuncture and a few other complementary practices alongside usual medical care- including anti-biotics, blood tests and referal to my esteemed specialist (partialist) colleagues when appropriate. AND HOMEOPATHY WORKS- whether we know how or not HOMEOPATHY WORKS- like James states sometimes after everything else has been tested, or alongside other medical interventions including lifestyle changes or even DRINKING 3-4 PINTS OF WATER A DAY- HOMEOPATHY WORKS.
My Belladonna moment came at 0300 on a busy hospital Ear Nose and Throat on call take during my training, when a bloke in his late 40's came in unable to swallow his saliva- dribbling his spit after a week on antibiotics from the GP. Not only was his wife worried, but so was I as he had a rapid pulse and a high temperature and couldn't open his mouth far enough for me to lance his Quinsy with a protected scalpel blade. Before I went off to ready a drip and draw up his intravenous antibiotics I popped a pillule of Belladonna betweeen his lips. Imagine my surprise when I returned 10 minutes later to find him chatting with his wife and sipping on a cup of water provided by the helpful nursing staff. His pulse had slowed and his temperature had reduced from a fever to normal. I was somewhat surprised! He went home on oral antibiotics with a warning to come back if things got worse. I was on call for the rest of the week expecting to see him at any time. He actually came back 3 months later to have his tonsillectomy (standard procedure for quinsy). My colleagues were also somewhat surprised- I was just glad to be able to crawl back into bed rather than have to organise his admission and a hospital bed. The financial saving to the NHS was significant.
I have learnt to keep an open mind- and to make sure it isn't so open my brain falls out. If scientific research is so hot- and I am a trained scientist, how come so many drugs stumble at the clinical post-marketing surveillance step- I mean so many 'wonder drugs' have been pulled after a period due to their side-effects as noted in their clinical application yet homeopathy has stood the test of 200 years of time. If scientific tests were really so wonderful you would think the medicines would be true disease killers and humanity should be free of more diseases by now, rather than searching for the next 'magic bullet' again and again?
With cancer my patients get referred to the surgeons and oncologists as well as having homeopathy , lifestyle/ nutrition advice, acupuncture and a mistletoe extract called 'Iscador' on the NHS- when appropriate. The number of times cancer folk have come back to tell me their oncologist has said to them something along the lines of 'how come you're still alive when younger, stronger pateints with less advanced disease than you have died?' is numerous. When the person starts telling the oncologist about the complementary practices they are using the oncologists regularly appear to glaze over, ignore their tale and show them the door. This makes me quite sad, although a recent Dutch study which found the patients of GPs who studied complemetary medicines lived longer and cost their health service less encourages me that I am using my time in a worthwhile manner. Power to your pencil, James, and a heap more lead too! You're damn right HOMEOPATHY WORKS for pateints even when prescribed on the NHS by a sceptical scientist. Wish there were more of us about so that when I got ill I'd be able to visit one!

johnbenneth

Support for homeopathy has come from London South Bank's Prof. Martin Chaplin, top authority on water chemistry: "Water can store and transmit information via its hydrogen bonded network." Case closed

Noam Bar

At last someone who actually analyses the question intelligently rather than approaches it with preconceived ideas. Nice!

Sam

As a scientist I was always sceptical about homeopathy and tended to think it didn't work as I used to read the Guardian and that was where the influence came. However as a scientist I also kept an open mind. When my son became ill and couldn't walk because his legs hurt so much and the GP had no idea what to do, it was a homeopath who made him better in a matter of a few days.
Correctly prescribed medical drugs is officially the number 3 cause of death in the USA, over 100,000 people per annum because of the side effects. Homeopathy has no side effects. It works in a subtle way, unlike the 'shock and awe' of conventional drugs.
I've looked into the science and it does support homeopathy. Unfortunately there is a corporate lobby against it as it is a threat to the billion pound medical drug industry.
In a survey of oncologists, 75% said they would not take chemotherapy if they got cancer. Patients can die from the toxic side effects of the drugs rather than from the cancer itself. Didn't hypocrates say ''First do no harm'?

The nobel prize winning scientist, Prof Luc Montagnier has published research showing that that highly dilute solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, including HIV, "could emit low frequency electromagnetic waves" that induced surrounding water molecules to become arranged into "nanostructures". These water molecules, he said, could also emit electromagnetic signals.

Prof Montagnier was interviewed in the December 2010 edition of Science.
"I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules."

If any warnings are needed I would attach one to The Guardian. 'Reading The Guardian can be bad for your health' as it actively discourages people from trying safer alternatives to medical drugs.

For further information on the so called 'sceptics' and their corporate backers look to see who funds the Science Media Centre and Sense about Science and their allied 'charities'
Monbiot described them in an article entitled 'Invasion of the Entryists'

Philip

Homeopathy works full stop.
The famous American medical homeopath Dr JT Kent wrote 100 years ago:
"Those who say they have tested Homoeopathy and it is a failure have only exposed their own ignorance."
It seems in some ways we have not moved on very much.

JAP

Oh goody! A real humdinger of a debate. Well done JD exactly what we need. Some intelligent open minded journalists not the 'do as we say' type but still let's all keep our proverbial hair on.
I think I am a miracle of modern humanity. I am 55 years old and have not seen a doctor for 35 years now not because I have not been ill but because those funny little white pills the homeopath gives me always seem to sort me out. If there were more people like me just think of the money the poor old NHS would be saving. Mind you that may not be such a good thing if you're a drug company. If your goal is to maximise profits well then people getting and staying healthy is a bit of a problem.
I am a working scientist and some years ago when I started to learn of homeopathy the idea that some sort of vibration passed through water seemed an interesting one to me. We know the scientific idea of 'String
Theory' suggests that at the subatomic level all matter starts as vibrations or 'strings'. Of course that is only hypothesis as we can't do the experiments yet to understand or prove these ideas. That being the case there are so many possibilities about what is happening to all things at energetic or submolecular levels.
I also think we are in grave danger of shooting ourselves in the foot here. Dr. Luc Montaignier has recently accepted a post at a chinese university to study and develop his work about electro-magnetic fields and the possibilty of a 'Memory of Water'. He sighted the opposition to new ideas in Europe as a cause for his move despite being 78years old. We must encourage new ideas otherwise we risk being left behind by the array of miracles and new findings out there waiting to be discovered not to mention loss of potential sources of development. To those who so angrily deny the possibility that homeopathy may work even though we cannot understand how at present I would suggest that firstly you put your prejuiced aside. A good scientist is always neutral and therefore open to all possibilities and also the next time you get an ailment why not try it?

phayes

I once met an English literature graduate who claimed not to have heard of Thomas Hardy but at least she could read the menu. To claim one is a scientist and skeptic and then trot out a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” or an “appeal to tradition” - signals of *extreme* scientific illiteracy - takes irony of that kind to a whole new level.

Clare Lincoln

What a breath of fresh air this aritcle is. it has long since puzzled me as to why such high passions are aroused in the detractors of homeopathic medicine by people who simply want an alternative to pharmaceutical drugs, often because those very drugs have proved ineffectual in helping them or have caused them unacceptable side effects. What is it about this that poses such a threat that it merits the sort of bile that is regularly poured out in the blogs of so called 'skeptics' of homeopathy on a daily basis? it would be a very interesting study for someone to undertake one day.

kevin morris

Yes, the subject of homoeopathy is a bizarre one and there are times when I have doubted it, not because it didn't benefit me but because it seems to fly in the face of generally accepted science. Nowadays, and after 28 years of using it, I merely accpet its power.

The interesting thing to me is that all the arguments rehearsed by the skeptics nowadays have already been considered by homoeopathy's supporters for it does seem mighty strange that a substance diluted (but also vigorously shaken) by stages until not a molecule of the original substance remains should actually gain in power, but homoeopaths for two centuries have observed this over and over. Why this should be so I leave to the Nobel prizewinners.

In a little over two centuries, homoeopathy has grown from an obscure medical 'cult' that developed in a distant corner of the yet to be unified Germany to become a medical system that spans the entire world.

According to the World Health Organisation it is now the second most widespread medical system in the world whilst what we westerners refer to as 'conventional' medicine comes a distant third.

I do understand the skepticism of many health professionals about homoeopathy and even sympathise to a certain degree, but it is inconceivable that it would have gained such widespread support if it didn't work. If as many doctors claim, it is merely a 'talking cure' brought about by the administration of placebos, it is always open for them to listen rather more to their patients.

In the meantime, and in the face of widespread opposition in the English speaking world, homoeopathy will continue to grow.

Dr Andrew Sikorski

HOMEOPATHY WORKS_ Phayes says it well in all his 3 ironic comments? Can he put aside his prejudice and like a good scientist be neutral and open to all possibilities so next time he gets an ailment he tries Homeopathy? My clinical work would be much easier if it were not so, yet; HOMEOPATHY WORKS.

Sarak

We have been using homeopathy for 5 years with a yard of 30 racehorses - because I've used it with myself and my family highly successfully for over 20 years.
We have had 2 horses this year already, written off by the vets. Last year the vet wrote of another 2. All 4 horses are alive and well thanks to nothing other than homeopathy.
A "broken down" horse with tendons stretched and swollen is a desperate site. Within 6 days the horse was off pain relief and sound on homeopathy. Within 3 weeks the leg was cold and the horse was walking out and within 3 months he was turned out and cantering in the field. 1 year later, he is being re-trained in dressage. That's not placebo and it had no intervention from the vet because he said "shoot it". I could go on with more evidence but it would become "samey".
The fact is that while you sceptics spend all my tax payers money at your local GPs and chemists, the likes of JD, myself and other homepathic users are saving you a fortune by using homeopathy.
I think it's about time you started putting your energy into asking why it's OK for our pharmaceutical companies to fill us with toxic chemicals and burden us with miserable and dangerous side-effects when there is a cheaper and safer alternative in homeopathy. Or are you all afraid that the pharmas will be put out of busines???

Lex

On the 5th February, 2011, The JREF (James Randy Educational Foundation) issued a million dollar challenge to homeopathy manufacturers and retailers (shortly before this article was published). So far, no one has stepped forward, or at least no one has publicly announced their intention to do so. I personally take this to be a sign that manufacturers of homeopathic remedies are aware of their own quackery. However, I could be wrong. So by all means, ask your miracle working local homeopath to take up the challenge.

phayes

@Clare Lincoln There's nothing puzzling about it: quackery is a (sometimes very) harmful fraud of the most despicable kind perpetrated on the weak and vulnerable. Count yourself lucky that 'we skeptics' understand that many of its perpetrators - perhaps most - are themselves weak-minded and deluded. (See e.g. Tom Chivers' Telegraph blog response to this article if you think of it as harmless or a simple matter of personal choice).

@JAP “A good scientist is always neutral and therefore open to all possibilities”

Absolutely not. That's a description of a wilfully ignorant fool who would ignore a mountain of evidence and remain ever ignorant and ever credulous. It's not a description of a barely competent scientist, let alone a good one. No amount of inane wibbling about vibrations and string theory¹ etc. or appealing to crackpot and crank 'authorities' such as Montagnier will change the fact that homeopathy is absurd pseudoscientific nonsense which cannot and does not work.

@Dr Sikorski If I tried homeopathy, and my ailment improved, I wouldn't be stupid enough to infer a causal connection. You must know that by now, so I don't know why you even ask.

¹ Water does not have a memory and even if it did, homeopathy would still be risible pseudoscience:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=40

Appeals to frontier ideas in physics in defense of homeopathy (especially high energy physics) are even pottier than the water memory nonsense. If there is no room for homeopathy in the everyday (d+d')²=j etc. world - and there isn't - then there is no room for it anywhere:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

A. MacAulay

Yes, as Dr. Sikorski says, homeopathy does work and I can confirm this from personal experience. Also to having accompanied a hopeless cancer case who recovered after having taken a misteltoe therapy.

That it also is simply unavailable to scientific method is unsettling but obviously requires a refinement of science rather than a blanket rejection.

In general though, alternative, complementary medecines function best when patients are not ill in the sense that a doctor trained in allopathic medicine would recognise. But instead of re-examining their definitions, medical science says that they are not ill, hysterical, fakers, etc., etc. And this is not good enough. In other words, the question is, who decides who is ill, and why?

That said, I also owe my life to modern medicine and an emergency operation that saved me when I was as good as dead. I'm all for it.

Lex

Delingpole states "If it’s a Hippocratic principle to ‘first do no harm’, then what is the problem with tinctures so dilute that you couldn’t overdose on them if you tried?". The problem is that gullible people believe in this flim-flam quackery and use it to treat potentially serious debilitating or life threatening illnesses. Take, for example, the case of Russell Jenkins. After stepping on an electric plug, he self-treated the wound on his foot using honey on the advice of his homeopath. A diabetic, his foot became gangrenous. He died, but doctors said if he'd sought help just 2 hours earlier he could have been saved.
You can find many more stories such as this at http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

phayes

@A. MacAulay, who wrote “That it also is simply unavailable to scientific method is unsettling but obviously requires a refinement of science rather than a blanket rejection.” and all the other “it worked for me / my cousin / my horses...” merchants.

On the contrary: what “obviously requires a refinement” is your awareness of some basic facts about science and nature and how easily we can be fooled by perceptual and cognitive errors if we are unaware of them. Dr Harriet Hall has written a good, short and easy to understand article on the subject:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=729

Lex

The following is taken from The Skeptic's Dictionary:
some studies show that placebos are effective in 50 or 60 percent of subjects with certain conditions, e.g., "pain, depression, some heart ailments, gastric ulcers and other stomach complaints." And, as effective as the new psychotropic drugs seem to be in the treatment of various brain disorders, some researchers maintain that there is not adequate evidence from studies to prove that the new drugs are more effective than placebos.

The power of the placebo effect has led to an ethical dilemma. One should not deceive other people, but one should relieve the pain and suffering of one's patients. Should one use deception to benefit one's patients? Is it unethical for a doctor to knowingly prescribe a placebo without informing the patient? If informing the patient reduces the effectiveness of the placebo, is some sort of deception warranted in order to benefit the patient? Some doctors think it is justified to use a placebo in those types of cases where a strong placebo effect has been shown and where distress is an aggravating factor. Others think it is always wrong to deceive the patient and that informed consent requires that the patient be told that a treatment is a placebo treatment. Others, especially complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners, don't even want to know whether a treatment is a placebo or not. Their attitude is that as long as the treatment is effective, who cares if it a placebo?

While it may be unethical to knowingly package, prescribe, or sell placebos as magical cures, the CAM folks seem to think they are ethical because they really believe in their chi, meridians, yin, yang, prana, vata, pitta, kapha, auras, chakras, energies, spirits, succussion, natural herbs, water with precise and selective memory, subluxations, cranial and vertebral manipulations, douches and irrigations, body maps, divinities, and various unobservable processes that allegedly carry out all sorts of magical analgesic and curative functions.

John Dodes notes:

Patients can become dependent on nonscientific practitioners who employ placebo therapies. Such patients may be led to believe they're suffering from imagined "reactive" hypoglycemia, nonexistent allergies and yeast infections, dental filling amalgam "toxicity," or that they're under the power of qi or extraterrestrials. And patients can be led to believe that diseases are only amenable to a specific type of treatment from a specific practitioner (The Mysterious Placebo by John E. Dodes, Skeptical Inquirer, Jan/Feb 1997).

Lex

The problem with this article is plain and simple: Delingpole is confusing solipsism with science.

A. MacAulay

@phayes. Yes, of course, but an argument is only as good as the premise upon which it is based. The whole question of subject and object in medecine seems to be hardly addressed let alone understood. The implications in the placebo effect are astonishing and I wanted to say that it is simply not good enough for doctors to ignore it because they don't understand it. If my doctor gives me the pills indicated by the symptoms I've described and I say I am cured is it because of the medecine, the placebo effect, homeopathy or might I just have got better anyway?

Sarah

@ Nick, there's been millions of cases over the past 200+ years to show that homeopathy does work very effectively, that's why millions still use it globally. And a recent study has shown that the homeopathic substance in a remedy can now be traced through nano technology. Bearing that in mind, and if we're ever to evolve scientifically, shouldn't there be more of a willingness in the scientific community to research this further, instead.

naturallyhealthy

Thank you Spectator for having the courage and vision to allow a debate that is long overdue. The denialists have so far, not been able to PROVE that homeopathy does not work; their rethoric is based on personal opinions. There is plenty of evidence that homeopathy works. We have two hundred years of clinical evidence. We have research, like the recent study carried out by the Finlay Institute in Cuba. We have the work of Dr Luc Montagnier. What is baffling is: why, suddenly, we have a group of denialists making it their mission to discredit homeopathy? The answer is simple - it's because homeopathy works, and more and more people are choosing alternatives like homeopathy, because allopathy has failed to help them. People are voting with their feet. How are the denialists going to change that? Ranting and behaving in such an exaggerated way will only show them up for what they are - ignorant, ill-informed and well out of touch.

Penelope Harrington

Phew at last a refreshing and objective point of view asking a few pertinent questions instead of the present 'mouthing off'which is based on fear, near hysteria, a veritable witchhunt against homoeopathy based mainlyon bias, nonsense and complete prejudice. Have any of these critics ever experienced or taken a homoeopathic remedy I wonder? How can these opinions be taken seriously if they are formed on empty and fatuous fears or intellectual assumptions that are not based on sound experience nor on Modern Science! Its the'flat-earth brigade' swearing blindly that the earth is flat because thats the way it looks! Huffing and puffing to try to blow Quantum Physics out of the Window! Oh Dear! Wake up World! Well done James and well said and about time!

Tom

Thank god. Until recently, Delingpole was in danger of being taken seriously. Luckily homeopathy - the shibboleth of the scientifically illiterate - is on hand to bring out his ignorance.

Quite simply, stating a belief, even tentative, in homeopathy - something that is not just without proof, but also barking mad (and no - to my previous commenter, as a quantum physicist I can tell you that's not the explanation) - is immediate disqualification from mainstream scientific discourse. There is no other belief - not withcraft, not ghosts, not fortune tellers - that is so telling. To believe in homeopathy means you cannot understand the scientific method, and have not the faintest understanding of biology, physics, or chemistry. To be persuaded that something so fantastical is true should require extraordinary evidence. ie, more than just delingpole's hayfever clearing up. Do you trust this man to explain global warming to you?

GregWilliams

I hadn't paid much attention to homeopathy but it has been brought to my notice by all the controversy so thought I would give it a go and bought Arnica which is supposed to help bruising and black eyes. I had heard that several athletes use it. It gave almost instant relief and I don't care what anyone else thinks aboutme saying this.

Matthew

The popular idea behind homeopathy, that water has a memory, is utter nonsense! But water is fundamental to explaining homeopathy, although it is not based on anything to do with a possible memory; this is a misuse of the word memory. It is in fact all to do with water vibrations. By stepping away from explanations lodged in biochemistry and appreciating the importance of other fundamental factors of science, such as vibrations, is to make sense of homeopathy. If you understand vibrations, homeopathy is very simple and actually works scientifically.

It is the fact that water changes its vibrational frequency to that of any substance that it comes into contact with. This fundamental discovery provides a new and exciting explanation as to why homeopathy works. If you take all of the chemical substance out of the water it does not matter if there are no chemical atoms left, as the water will have changed its vibrational frequency to that of the chemical. It is this vibration that the body reacts to. It works on the principles of physics and not biochemistry.

To read about the research that supports this argument read the chapter ‘Water’ at www.blindedbyscience.co.uk

Matthew Silverstone

The popular idea behind homeopathy, that water has a memory, is utter nonsense! But water is fundamental to explaining homeopathy, although it is not based on anything to do with a possible memory; this is a misuse of the word memory. It is in fact all to do with water vibrations. By stepping away from explanations lodged in biochemistry and appreciating the importance of other fundamental factors of science, such as vibrations, is to make sense of homeopathy. If you understand vibrations, homeopathy is very simple and actually works scientifically.

It is the fact that water changes its vibrational frequency to that of any substance that it comes into contact with. This fundamental discovery provides a new and exciting explanation as to why homeopathy works. If you take all of the chemical substance out of the water it does not matter if there are no chemical atoms left, as the water will have changed its vibrational frequency to that of the chemical. It is this vibration that the body reacts to. It works on the principles of physics and not biochemistry.

To read about the research that supports this argument read the chapter ‘Water’ at www.blindedbyscience.co.uk

Chuck

The ignorance of the anti-homeopathy folks blows my mind. Homeopathy has been proven to work, plain and simple, both in controlled trials and in hundreds of years of practice. Anyone can test it. I would use it for piles and have. I would also try it for cancer. In many cases it works better than regular medicine. I am going to continue to use it regardless of these crappy arguments on blogs, and I will pay for it out of pocket, if necessary. Paid Big Pharma shills all over the web try to denigrate and ridicule one of the best health care system ever created. What a waste of time to try to respond to them. I think its time for homeopathic organization to sue these dim wits for libel.