Hallowed by History,But Not by Facts: “Evidence-Based” Assessments of Homeopathy

Dear Editor:

From its beginning, homeopathy has encountered intense criticism from the medical community. Calls for its dissolution have occurred consistently throughout its history.

Conventional medical historiography names the rejection of homeopathy in the 1830s and 1840s as a defining event in the advancement of medicine, supposedly marking the birth of the modern evidence-based medical era. Of course, this version of history is a fairy tale, as the evidence used to discredit homeopathy was utterly bogus. ¹

It is important to keep this in mind when considering current assessments of homeopathy. Then as now, significantly flawed studies with inappropriate designs and grossly manipulated data were conducted by publicly declared opponents of homeopathy and cited widely by critics as proof of homeopathy's inefficacy. Then: Andral (1834 and 1835). ¹ Now: Shang. ²

Then as now, high-quality positive data were suppressed or ignored. The majority of early homeopathic trials showing positive results either were sabotaged midtrial by medical authorities (e.g., Stapf, 1821) or had data confiscated post-trial and withheld from public dissemination (e.g., Wislicenius, 1821). ¹ In the few instances where studies avoided these perils, results were systematically disregarded: The most methodologically sound early homeopathic trial (Marenzeller, 1828), which happened to come to positive ends, was not mentioned anywhere in the orthodox medical literature. ¹ Currently, there exists the systematic bias of medical journals against publishing positive homeopathic trials ³ and a complete and total refusal of homeopathic critics to acknowledge the basic science research, which clearly demonstrates biologic effects of homeopathic remedies. There is also critics' consistent reference to Shang while omitting higher quality meta-analyses such as that of Linde et al. ⁴

Then as now, governmental bodies used this faulty data to issue conclusive statements condemning homeopathy. Then: the French Academy of Medicine. Today: the British Parliament Science and Technology Committee.

Then as now, homeopathy was said to be dangerous because it was used in place of “scientific” medical care. This argument was made throughout the 19th century—an era in which allopathic medical practice routinely brutalized patients. Currently, it might be argued, conventional medicine is clearly more effective and safe than homeopathy, but of course this is precisely the same argument that was historically given, with similar ardency: one, which in retrospect, was clearly in error.

So it is that in a recent article, Caulfield and Rachul, citing weak, biased, negative data and ignoring high-quality positive data, called for the abandonment of homeopathy by the naturopathic medical profession in Canada. ⁵

Despite a body of controlled clinical research that, though not conclusive, certainly favors beneficial effects, ⁶ the authors judge that homeopathy has “been shown to be ineffective.”

Despite several systematic reviews affirming the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of respiratory allergies, ^7,8 the authors contend that the use of homeopathy in allergy “raises serious ethical and legal questions.”

Despite a sizable amount of basic science research data demonstrating biologic effects of high-potency homeopathic remedies, ^9,10 the authors call homeopathy “implausible.”

Caulfield and Rachul would have us believe that their conclusions represent an objective, neutral assessment of the evidence. History teaches otherwise.