lifestyle

Science confirms that homeopathy is total bollocks. Well played science.

 

 

 

 

If you have private health insurance, you might well be helping to pay for other people’s snake oil.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that homeopathy doesn’t work, most Australian private health insurers continue to offer rebates on it – sending a clear message that this stuff is medicine rather than mystical.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has just released a report that proves once and for all that homeopathy doesn’t work. It did this by going through not just hundreds of studies about homeopathy’s efficacy, but also doing a metadata analysis of those hundreds of studies.

It found: No reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective for treating health conditions.

In other words? It’s all a bunch of bogus mumbo jumbo. And when it comes to people’s health, their lives even, mumbo jumbo just isn’t on.

A quick refresher on complementary medicine here: Homeopathy is not the same as naturopathy or natural medicine. It’s a very specific subset of complementary medicine based on the principle that you can fix a problem by giving someone a super-diluted (sometimes so diluted there’s literally none of the active ingredient left) potion that contains something which also causes the symptom you’re experiencing.

In other words…

It’s Magic!

Now, if people want to use their own money to pay for their mystical woo-woo potions, that’s fine with me.

But letting people bill their private health insurers – who effectively distribute the cost of any given treatment amongst their members through fees – for something that doesn’t even work? So not okay. When your private health insurer covers a service, it’s not just individuals that pay for that service. It’s everyone.

So even if you believe in science, even if you believe this highly credible report by a highly credible organisation, you still have to pay for other people’s hogwash therapies. In Australia right now, most major private health insurance providers allow their customers to claim on homeopathic treatments.

But why are people turning to homeopaths in the first place?

For some, it comes from a basic misunderstanding, and therefore mistrust, of science. Given how frankly dodgy a lot of big chemical and pharmaceutical companies can be, it’s understandable that people are wary of them. But it’s not the science that’s to blame here; science isn’t nefarious dudes in lab coats putting patents on human genes for profit.

Science is a way of looking at the world that asks for evidence before accepting facts. Science is constantly questioning and evolving, constantly asking for more evidence – and anything that can be proved over and over again will be accepted. Science doesn’t stand for ‘truthiness’, it stands for effectiveness, and when something is proven to be effective it is allowed into the scientific cannon.

Here, I’ll let Dr Branowski explain:

 

People often use the fact that doctors once thought smoking was healthy as an indictment of the medical system – but a history of changing wisdom actually proves that conventional medicine is trustworthy. When the evidence showed that smoking wasn’t healthy, instead of sticking to what they were already doing, doctors changed their tune. That’s how it should be. Medical practice should change when new evidence comes to light.

But there is another thing that makes the bogus world of homeopathy not only appealing but actually very relatable. Unlike a lot of GPs, homeopaths actually take the time to get to know their patients, talk to them, and establish a relationship. Their consultations last an hour, not ten minutes.  There’s a huge value in the personal touch, even if there’s no value in the treatments a homeopath is peddling.

Unfortunately, that personal touch is largely missing from many people’s interactions with their general practitioners. This creates a big problem because it means that people aren’t working closely with their GPs to improve their overall wellness. The way conventional medicine works in Australia currently doesn’t focus nearly enough on preventative healthcare.

If people were able to spend more time establishing healthy practices with their doctors, they’d be less likely to turn to unproven sources like homeopaths to provide solutions for their ailments, or improve their overall health.

Reconfiguring the way we relate to our healthcare practitioners is an expensive and complicated process. But if we can get it right – and cut snake oil merchants off at the head as we do so – it’s absolutely worth it.

If you’re not happy about paying for homeopathy, check to see if your health insurance provider covers it, and if they do, send them an email and let them know how you feel. And tell us  what you think too, in the comments below!

Tags: lead

Top Comments

Steve 9 years ago

The constant repetition of a negative message does not make it correct, unfortunately. This applies to homoeopathy too.

UK, 2005
A meta-analysis published in 2005 in The Lancet medical journal looks at 110 previous studies and picks out 8, drawing a conclusion that homoeopathy is no better than a placebo. This prompts an editorial titled 'The End of Homoeopathy.' No details are provided about which eight studies had been chosen, and only under pressure from the homoeopathy community is this information later released. It emerges that other high-quality positive studies had been excluded without any justification given. The Lancet meta-analysis is condemned by several scientists and experts from around the world for poor methodology.

UK, 2010
UK Science and Technology Committee 'Evidence Check' report hearings are mostly stacked with people holding strongly anti-homoeopathy views, including members of Sense About Science, a
anti-naturopathy body that had received substantial pharmaceutical funding. When the negative report comes to a vote, 1 of the 3 Yes-vote MPs is a Sense About Science Supporter, whiile the other 2 join the committee late, but in time for the vote. None of the three Yes-voters has in-depth knowledge of homoeopathy. Chair Phil Willis emphasises “This is not an inquiry into whether homoeopathy works or not…….I want to make that absolutely clear.”

AUSTRALIA, 2012
The NHMRC disregards Phil Willis's message, and uses the 'Evidence Check' report to describe homoeopathy as 'unethical' prior to its own supposedly independent and unbiased review.

AUSTRALIA, 2014
The NHMRC releases the final version of its Homoeopathy Review report in December. Unsurprisingly, it comes to negative conclusions. An FOI request by Complementary Medicines Australia reveals several concerning elements. 2 of 3 experts consulted by the NHMRC have expressed numerous concerns about 'fatally flawed' methodology and the selective use of data, but their concerns have been overridden.

More specifically, these are:

> Excluding randomised controlled trials in favour of systematic reviews, thereby bypassing Level 1 evidence.
> A limited number of databases are accessed, in at least one case for a non-scientific reason.
> Ignoring non-English studies.
> Limiting studies to a narrow 16-year time window.
> Appointing no homoeopathic expert to the review panel.

The review itself is chaired by Professor Peter Brooks, directly after resigning membership of
the anti-naturopathy body Friends of Science in Medicine.

AUSTRALIA 2014 ONWARDS
The NHMRC uses its flawed review as leverage to start attacking homoeopathy through a) criticising pharmacies that sell homoepathic medicine, and b) pushing health funds to stop covering homoeopathy. In doing so, it steps over the line from being a research body to taking on the role of an pressure group. Its allies in the media take on the role of going after homoeopathic training on the basis that some taxpayers' funds are supporting it.

I would suggest that your title could be improved. My idea would be to remove the word 'Science' from it. Just a thought.


Guest 10 years ago

It's amazing how polarising Alternative medicine can be. People who have no understanding of how it works, or have never tried it become so adamant and angry that others have success with it.

Here's a little explanation -
Water seems to have properties that are able to retain different structures once heavily diluted.. almost to the point of nothing being there. Researches have found even though the water has been diluted to a point that it should only be straight water, they're able to differentiate the different homeopathic medicines using Spectroscopy. So on a more subtle than molecular level the substance is retained in the water.

Once western medicine is able to test and measure things on this level more understanding and acceptance will come. It is extremely expensive to run trials that are accepted by the TGA/FDA etc.. furthermore the tests required to show the differences and effects of the substances wouldn't be accepted as they're designed for more dense molecular based medicine that is easier to measure.

Unfortunately it will take time and advancements in a number of areas before understanding/acceptance comes.

Judy007 10 years ago

uh Mr James Randi... are you still out there? Sorry Guest, didn't mean to be abrasive but heck as religions, ufo's and other para's go, homeopathy is surely the worst of the worst? Courtesy James Randi: "Did you hear of the guy who overdosed - he took one pill". But then I guess, if I believe in G-d and I do too, then you have every right to believe in something diluted by water.

Guest 10 years ago

Stick to your meds then Judit. Prove it doesn't work, if people get good results from it and it is curing things that western medicine doesn't why lump it in with Religion and UFO's... actually they seem highly likely to be real as well ;)