July 15, 2015

The BMJ’s head-to-head debate on homeopathy

Posted By

Tags

homeopathy, The BMJ

Should doctors recommend homeopathy?

That’s the question The BMJ posed to two experts who came out swinging on the volatile issue.

Answering YES is Peter Fisher, Director of Research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, who wrote, “Of all the major forms of complementary medicine, homeopathy is the most misunderstood.” Homeopathy is based on the concept of “treating like with like.” Fisher writes: “The controversial element of homeopathy is that some medicines are highly dilute, including “ultra-molecular” dilutions, in which it is highly unlikely that any of the original material is present. This is a major scientific concern and the source of the view that homeopathy “doesn’t work because it can’t work.”

Excerpts of his arguments:

He questions the methods of a recent review by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council that concluded that “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”
He questioned the methods of a meta-analysis published in the Lancet in 2005 that concluded that there is “weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies,” based on the results of just eight trials.
Both these reviews are out of line with the other three systematic reviews and meta-analyses of homeopathy for all conditions published in the peer review literature, all of which have come to essentially positive conclusions, as have several systematic reviews and meta-analyses for specific conditions.
For practical decisions about homeopathy the most relevant evidence is comparative effectiveness research examining effectiveness in real world situations, which the Australian review did not include. Several such studies have compared outcomes in patients attending family physicians who do and do not integrate homeopathy into their practice.
Doctors should put aside bias based on the alleged implausibility of homeopathy.

That last point is impossible for Edzard Ernst emeritus professor, University of Exeter, whose answer to the debate question is NO. His arguments:

Numerous trials have tested the clinical efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Their results depend critically on the study design: uncontrolled studies almost invariably yield positive findings whereas this is not true for the most rigorous of the 250 or so controlled clinical trials (such as a study in headache by Walach and colleagues). The explanation seems obvious: the perceived benefits of homeopathy are caused by non-specific effects. Once these are adequately controlled for in trials, the results tend to show that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from placebos. Even a former consultant of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital has agreed, writing, “The great majority . . . of the improvement that patients experience is due to non-specific causes . . . Homeopathy has not been proven to work.”
Homeopathy can harm. As the typical homeopathic remedy is devoid of active molecules, it is unlikely to cause serious adverse effects. However, even a placebo can cause harm, if it replaces an effective therapy; in the words of the Australian report: “People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.”
There are financial costs and opportunity costs. In the European Union, the annual expenditure on homeopathic (and anthroposophic) remedies exceeds one billion dollars. These funds could and should be spent more usefully elsewhere. The notion that the NHS must provide homeopathy for patients who want it is disingenuous: patient choice is, of course, an important principle, but the choice must be evidence based and should not be confused with arbitrariness.
In summary, the axioms of homeopathy are implausible, its benefits do not outweigh its risks, and its costs and opportunity costs are considerable. Therefore, it seems unreasonable, even unethical, for healthcare professionals to recommend its use.

The Telegraph was among those reporting that Peter Fisher, the “yes” proponent above, is the Queen’s physician, and added: “The Royal Family has supported homeopathy for generations and there is still a court homeopath.”

And, in the US, a recent Philly.com physician column asked and tried to answer, “Homeopathic medicine: What’s the potential harm?”

Laughter is often the best medicine. So, after all that, maybe what we need is a good laugh, as provided by this classic Mitchell and Webb spoof.

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Comments are closed.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”

The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.