New research methods required for Homoeopathy.
This article is in response to “Homeopathy is worse than witchcraft - and the NHS must stop paying for it” by Kate Maxwell published by The Daily Mail on 01/05/07.
Click here to see the original article
A major problem with homoeopathy is in trying to fit it to a medical and scientific model that does not lend itself to the complex intervention of homoeopathic treatments.
I wholeheartedly agree that a study establishing negative results of homoeopathic treatments should be published as well as those affirming its efficacy. Yet I would also suggest the research model used to observe the effects of homoeopathy might be re-evaluated. Double-blind randomised control trials (RCTs) are undeniably useful in establishing a causal relationship i.e. testing the efficacy of an orthodox drug. This is because it is the drug’s direct effects that are to be observed. In homoeopathy there is a complex number of variables that are not allowed for in RCTs. RCTs manipulate one variable (i.e. drug) in order to establish an effect on the other variable (i.e. patient’s condition). In this way the observation is relatively simple. Homoeopathic interventions are complex and should be treated as such.
There may be over a thousand different remedies applicable for a single medical diagnosis. While patients with depression, headaches or cancer might receive the same remedy. There are more than twelve effects that the homoeopath might observe in order to decide on subsequent prescriptions, not simply ‘better’ or ‘not better’. The accuracy of prescription or remedy reaction ascertained will affect the patient’s recovery. Homoeopathic remedies treat the cause as well as the effect of a condition. For example a skin disorder that may be partially due to malassimilation of the gut will require treatment of all areas in order to provide a cure that does not harm any other system. It is also commonly understood that the quality of the consultation a patient receives will impact their improvement. This variable cannot be eliminated when testing homoeopathy without seriously impacting on the definition of the homoeopathic care in question. Homoeopathy will often work in ways not recognisable to orthodox medicine, increasing quality of life, mental health and other co-existing conditions before the presenting condition improves. Many patients also report longer periods of health and quicker recovery from short-term illnesses for years after homoeopathic treatment when compared to siblings or similar patients.
Many RCTs and other common research models testing homoeopathy do not actually test homoeopathy. On both sides they state that homoeopathy does or does not work in a select number of conditions. Yet what they are testing is whether the selected remedies had any effect over placebo. No homoeopath can guarantee an accurate prescription as each remedy is chosen on a completely individual basis irrespective of the condition. Moreover, very few homoeopaths would be able to prescribe confidently and accurately while knowing there is a high probability they have prescribed a placebo.
What we need are complex intervention research models to accurately assess the potential continued investment in these alternative and complementary approaches to health. Reduction in publication bias on both sides of the fence would allow for a more open and honest assessment. I would even go so far as to suggest Dr Baum to volunteer himself for homoeopathic treatment as a way of further pushing the boundaries of this controversial debate.
Homoeopathy is not witchcraft. It is based on rigorous testing and centuries of evidence. As health practitioners our sole aim is to improve the health of our patients. Is it not our responsibility to investigate other avenues rather than idly stopping at what we already know?
May 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I would very much like to congratulate you on the development of a beautiful and elegant website but more so i would like to ask you something concerning your article response above. I was curious as to what the ‘twelve’ effects were that the homeopath might need to observe, and also have you had any ideas as to possible models that could integrate the complex homeopathic process.
Thanks Joe
May 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Hi Joe
Great to hear from you. Thanks for your kind words about the website.
You have big questions. I’d be very happy to answer them though warn you that the answers may be longer than you anticipated and generate ever more questions.
I will be running an introductory workshop on Homoeopathy later in the year if you are interested, which may be a better place to answer your questions. If not, then email me and I could send you some more in depth information and possibly other places you can find your answers.
Regards
Fiona