Homeopathy and the popular
voice
“Our expectation of an explanation for a mechanism of action is that it
is both scientifically plausible and demonstrable. We should, however, add
that, while we comment on explanations for how homeopathy works, it is not a
key part of our Evidence Check. Historically,
some medical interventions were demonstrably effective before anyone understood
their modes of action. For example, after 150 years of use, there is still
debate about precisely how anaesthetics work. It is more important to know whether a treatment works—its
efficacy—than how it works.”
Extract from UK Department of Health Evidence Check 2:
Homeopathy - Science and Technology Committee (circa 2010) (my bold italics)
The world is a mad place. Tears For Fears weren’t
wrong when they penned that massive 80’s hit. Despite the madness though, it’s still a very compelling and
hospitable planet for the most part – some might say despite the human race yet I say, perhaps because of us.
We just haven’t been given our say; perhaps what we say is going increasingly
unheard or more optimistically maybe we’re actually starting to be heard.
I recently engaged in a debate on social media about
homeopathy, taking a devil’s advocate stance against some pretty heavy hitting ‘sceptics’.
While I firmly accept the crucial
role of science in establishing the paradigm in which we exist in this material
realm, I think we should take pains to acknowledge that honest scientists are
the first to admit they don’t fully understand how certain things work and this
may simply be attributable to an inability to adequately measure the efficacy
of those things.
I’m neither for nor against
homeopathy. However, I am sceptical that the means whereby the benefits of the
modality are measured may sit outside the paradigm of the science that would
attempt to understand it.
The UK Dept of Health evidence check report makes the point
that any effects of homeopathy were placebo effects – it may induce improvement
simply through belief in it. There have been exhaustive tests conducted over
the years involving RCT’s (Randomised Controlled Trials) usually taking the
form of double-blind medical studies, almost exclusively funded by the
pharmaceutical industry with, it must be stressed, heavily vested interests in
specific outcomes.
The definition of a double blind
medical study is given as follows: “An
experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the
persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the
experiment; a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter
bias and placebo effects" All of that makes perfect sense. What
doesn’t make any scientific sense, however, are the psychological and
psychophysiological impact of the placebo effect in these trials, effects which
inevitably occur.
Dr Howard Brody, Director of the
Institute of Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch defined
the placebo effect as "a change in a
patient's illness attributable to the symbolic import of a treatment rather
than a specific pharmacologic or physiologic property". In other
words, changes take place within a patient’s physiology either for better (placebo)
or for worse (the so-called “nocebo” effect) simply as a result of that
patient’s belief that a change is inevitable due to the medication that’s being
taken.
This is an inexplicable, invisible paradigm that’s occurring that science
cannot begin to adequately explain and we certainly don’t have the means with
which to monitor or test the placebo effect.
Only one thing is for certain, however, faith, religion
and belief often mixed with nutritional regimes – work. The belief in something
(a thought sequence) has a manifest physical effect on matter. We can alter our
wellbeing and wellness simply through a pattern of belief. It’s never worded
that way in the double blind studies but indubitably that’s what’s happening.
It is perhaps most obvious in
those who become convinced that their illnesses will kill them. Inevitably,
however, all such discussions are cloaked by sceptics who argue against doctors
holding strong religious beliefs because such beliefs, lead to patients living
longer and so using up more money
Fritz Albert Popp, a
bio-physicist, claimed to have discovered and even demonstrated that photons
provide the vehicle for information transmission in living systems –
“biophotonic” activity took place in specific cell tissues and organs within a
patient’s body merely by concentrating one’s thoughts on that particular spot.
The Sceptic movement in its
beginning was highly vociferous against such ‘science’ because it posed real
problems for the profits of pharmaceutical companies. Sceptics have done
everything they could to wreck such theories. The late French scientist,
Jacques Benveniste was bitterly attacked when he discovered the invisible
bio-messages travelling through water, because it enhanced the idea held by
homeopaths that immeasurably small quantities of a substance could affect
matter.
The idea of faith or even immeasurable
(invisible) quantity may go a long way to beginning to explain the placebo
effect (more plainly; mind over matter) and I have no doubt that it will be
empirically measurable in time to come, however, it currently obtains as an
effect that cannot be adequately measured or explained under the circumstances
or with the equipment used in contemporary RCT’s.
Okay, so let’s accept for a moment
that homeopathy is nothing more nor less than a placebo form of treatment - to
accept this we have to forget about using homeopathic principles with children
and animals. If we accept that as offered by the mainstream medical
establishment as a dismissal of homeopathy, we see how truly disingenuous that
argument appears to be. If the effects cannot be understood or adequately
measured during the double blind studies, how can the medical professionals
analysing these data, call for the results to be dismissed if there is even the
possibility of a placebo effect or, as the homeopaths claim, the stimulation of
the body’s self-healing mechanisms? They have no demonstrable way of measuring
this unless we begin to introduce the complexity of Popp’s experimental
methodology into the mix.
The concluding dig of the UKDOH report
runs: “Our expectations of the evidence
base relevant to government policies on the provision of homeopathy are
straightforward. We would expect the Government to have a view on the efficacy
of homeopathy so as to inform its policy on the NHS funding and provision of
homeopathy. Such a view should be based on the best available evidence, that
is, rigorous randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses and systematic
reviews of RCTs. If the effects of homeopathy can be primarily attributed to
the placebo effect, we would expect the Government to have a view on the ethics
of prescribing placebos.”
Indeed and why not, with costs to
consider one might have imagined that this was, in the absence of scientific
‘proof’ one of the first principles of policy?
It goes on: ‘Homeopathy is a 200 year old system of medicine that seeks to treat
patients with highly diluted substances that are administered orally.
Homeopathy is based on two principles: "like-cures-like" whereby a
substance that causes a symptom is used in diluted form to treat the same symptom
in illness and "ultra-dilution" whereby the more dilute a substance
the more potent it is (this is aided by a specific method of shaking the
solutions, termed "succussion"). It is claimed that homeopathy works
by stimulating the body's self-healing mechanisms.’
My own
experience of homeopathic remedies utilising these solutions (not to be
confused with herbal or natural remedies) was one of distinct success when I
sought them out to aid with seasonal allergy problems and viral conditions such
as colds and flu. They appeared most efficacious, however, that could simply
have been my belief in the remedies or even my own natural immune system
kicking into gear or my focus on my personal restoration in the vogue of Fritz
Albert Popp – through thought and intention. I don’t really know but the
results were always more rapidly efficacious than the conventional meds my
buddies were taking. Or at least that’s how it appeared to me.
The point
is, one cannot rule out the importance of the symbolic and psychological
factors on the outcome. They’re manifestly evident. To this end, we had
forgotten the popular voice on these matters – had that is until the populist
call in Switzerland circa 2005 and again in 2016 (intended to be reintroduced
in 2017) demanded that homeopathic practitioners and medications be included in
their national health care system and subsidised accordingly.
This
simply reveals that there is a significant number of people who either know it
works or at very least believe it does, which, if it’s merely a placebo
dynamic, should surely be sufficient. In Switzerland, according to a recent article on the
topic, “homeopathy,
holistic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture and traditional Chinese
medicine will acquire the same status as conventional medicine by May 2017 when
it comes to health insurance.
“After
being rejected in 2005 by the authorities for lack of scientific proof of their
efficacy, complementary and alternative
medicines made a comeback in 2009 when two-thirds of Swiss backed their inclusion
on the constitutional list of paid health services.”
Let me
reiterate that statement - two-thirds
of the population backed the move. Unlikely that it was an initiative of a
financial thrust alone – this is health management we’re talking about.
People have a voice and they are making it heard when
it comes to health and wellness.
We cannot and must not lose sight of the significance of that collective
popular lay voice.
Two of the largest consumer
organisations on the planet – viz: McDonalds and Coca-Cola have been forced
through public demand to offer healthier options to their consumers. It isn’t
that they grew a conscience overnight – their businesses are still driven by
profit – the crux is though, that the people spoke in sufficient numbers to
make that demand viable on the balance sheet and more importantly, we started
to make better choices about our health. We forced a change.
Another manner in which people
lack the insight into their innate power is to apply the don’t-go approach. You
want to make people change a pricing structure or a service offering? Then
simply boycott that business. Collectively, if people did this, businesses
would have no choice but to accede to these ‘demands’ or face financial ruin.
We have that power. We don’t use it. We tend to make much more acquiescent
choices in our daily lives.
That said; many are starting to
make the same noises about vaccines and demand that they be made safer and that
all information being suppressed regarding that safety should be made public so
that ‘informed consent’, a fundamental democratic right, can be realised
instead of the medical fascism that currently obtains in the US, UK and
Australia to name but three modern democracies forcing unsafe vaccines on their
populations against threat of financial punishment or even incarceration.
I’m not for one moment advocating
that we suspend our faith in medical science or technology but I am saying –
use your voice and demand that what we partake in and of, is designed to be safe
and the best it can possibly be.
Medication is understandably
crucial in aiding the correction of imbalances in the body but there is a
growing consensus of people who posit that one’s health is more holistically
maintained through proper balanced nutrition and healthy lifestyle choices,
which more often than not is distinguished by a marked absence of prescription
drugs.
At the very least, you should be
able to make up your mind about what goes into your body regardless. Remember
well - there are corporations out there relying on you not making that choice.
