But I now believe that, through rigorous trials of my own, combined with analysis of previous trials and an understanding of human psychology, I have unravelled the truth of this controversial medicine and of our own relationship with it.
Homeopathy is based on the theory of treating 'like with like', supposedly giving patients substances that cause the very same problems they are suffering from. Asthma, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome and hormonal imbalances are thought to benefit from the treatment.
Process to make remedies 'disputable'
The remedies are made using a complex process of diluting and shaking, which is disputable in itself. The process leaves the remedies so diluted there are often no molecules of the supposedly active substance in them.
The remedies have been mathematically likened to putting a glass of an active substance into the Atlantic at New York and then sampling the water in Southampton.
And were it possible for any treatment to work without any active ingredient, then we would have to tear up all our physics books and start again.
One of the remedies I looked at in great detail was arnica, which is widely used by homeopaths to treat trauma of all sorts and to aid post-operatic healing.
During our study, we gave two different dilutions of arnica to two groups of patients, and gave a third group a placebo. All subjects had had the same operation.
We then measured and monitored their bruising, swelling and pain. There was absolutely no difference between the three groups and all three groups recovered at the same rate.
In another trial, I looked at the effect of homeopathic remedies on children suffering with asthma.
If any of our trials should have given the remedies a little helping hand it would have been this one, as not only is homeopathy a popular treatment for asthma, but children are also thought to respond better to it than adults.
Nonetheless, once more no differences were seen between the children who took the homeopathic remedies and the control group.
Even more importantly, we carried out a huge analysis of all other trials conducted to date. We summarised all studies on arnica.
In their totality, they failed to show that arnica is any more potent than a placebo. We drew the same conclusion with many other remedies.
What is it then that leads to so many people being convinced by homeopathy?
The striking issue for scientists to consider is that patients do get better - which I know as a homeopath myself and from the people I've talked to. This requires an explanation.
I believe there are a number of factors that make homeopathy appear to work, but the potency of the remedies is not one of them.
The setting of the treatment is an important factor. Think about it this way. When you see a GP, you get ten minutes, if you're lucky, with someone who is busy and often harassed.
A typical first encounter with a homeopath is an hour-and-a-half and the practitioner is usually empathic and understanding. It's entirely conceivable that this encounter is, in itself, of therapeutic value. Certainly, patients tend to leave feeling reassured and optimistic.
Placebo
Which brings me on to the placebo effect. Expectation plays a great role in a drug's efficacy. It is only natural to believe a remedy is working when you've been prescribed it in a clinical setting from a professional.
And there's the fact you've handed over money for it, too.
We must then throw in what scientists call the 'natural history' of an illness. Most of the time, people get better anyway, but it seems easier to put your recovery down to your homeopath than your body's own healing powers.
This is certainly what has happened with many of the studies that have proven homeopathy to work.
Far too often, studies are conducted without control groups.
Were a control group included too, it would be obvious that recovery happens naturally.
Finally, add what is termed 'social desirability' into the mix. It takes a brave person to turn round and tell a homeopath that their remedies had no effect whatsoever. Most of us, fitted with an urge to be polite and a fear of being unkind, tend to give positive feedback.
So it seems that it is not the remedy, but the kindness, empathy and time of the practitioner and the patient's own will that bring about the healing effects.
From the patient's point of view, does it really matter what is happening as long as they get better? Probably not. But in order to advance science and health care, it is necessary to understand what is going on.
It is likely that this debate could go on for another 200 years, but to me it is entirely obvious. The remedies do not work.
What the studies show is that homeopaths are very good clinicians, working in a setting and manner that inspires confidence and expectation. As a result, they are maximising the placebo effect of the powerless remedies they prescribe.
So before we throw away our homeopathic remedies, we should look to the practitioners and see what we can learn from the way in which they work. Other medics may benefit from learning from homeopaths, who manage to cure without an effective treatment.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could maximise this placebo effect with a treatment that actually works, such as a good old aspirin? |
