The Efficiency of Homoeopathic Medicine - Article Example

Research Evidence Review RESEARCH EVIDENCE REVIEW For more than two decades, the term “medicine” has revolved around its use as a way to understand treatment of human afflictions and illnesses and the way to approach them. Therefore, medicine has always carried the assumption as a reference to a level of intervention, particularly as it took a singular approach without regard to varieties within the field, ultimately intended to positively impact on the illness and to progressively improve the patient’s outlook (Stokes, 2009: p40). Medicine as a term, however, has become increasingly differentiated from earlier understanding as technological improvements alter understanding of what is possible. As a result, current medicine tends to relate to pharmacological interventions and/or procedures that are supported by definitive science, technology, extensive research, data, and statistics that reinforce the benefit of specific interventions or pharmacological interventions to patients. This has been to the detriment of more traditional and “earthy” remedies, especially with modernity’s insistence on overall scientific analysis, levels of measurement, and statistical processes, which have increased society’s trust in currently tested and championed approaches at the expense of traditional remedies (Stokes, 2009: p40). As a result, Chen (2011: p1) in his article “The Debate over Homeopathic Medicine” discusses homeopathic medicine’s place in the current world and the changes that it has undergone, especially with regards to current medicine standards. This paper will seek to analyze the mentioned article with the intention of understanding the overall impact of current interventions in medicine, as well as homeopathic interventions, by considering the ultimate advantages and disadvantages of both approaches as currently represented. Moreover, rather than representing one as being ultimately “good” and the other as ultimately “bad” is an oversimplification that this particular author will strive at each and every opportunity to shy away from. Instead, a clear and definitive delineation of pros and cons, as well as a clear and nuanced discussion of benefits and weaknesses for both of these respective approaches will be provided within the following analysis. It is the hope of this author that such a level of discussion will be useful in helping the reader/stakeholder to come to a further level of appreciation with regards to the impact that both homeopathic and current medical intervention can have with regards to a specific patient. Chen (2011: p1) states that majority of the philosophies that underlie homeopathic medicine have been discarded by science and consigned the intervention as being a pseudoscience. This assessment is shared by Bjorndal (2011: p30) who contends that homeopathy is implausible in a number of ways, which has only been increased with more than two decades of scientific advancements. Apparently, even after two decades of work, homeopathy practitioners are yet to make their case to the scientific community and convince mainstream medical practitioners, which this particular author takes to be proof of homeopathy not being a valid medical science. Overall, scientific plausibility is important for this author and it must be taken into account when analyzing any new claims, especially with regards to how well it conforms to scientific evidence in existence. When considering clinical evidence in medicine for potential treatments, the evidence must be considered in the context the treatment’s scientific plausibility. With the extreme implausibility-surrounding homeopathy, it will most certainly involve a great deal of watertight scientific evidence for most scientists to be convinced of its real effect. Homeopathy’s clinical evidence seems so evidently negative that, even isolating the plausibility argument, scientists are still confident that it does not work, concluding that, using any reasonable threshold, homeopathy’s evidence is still negative (Bjorndal, 2011: p30). The overwhelming consensus from the scientific community is that homeopathy is akin to a placebo (Chen, 2011: p1). Analyzing this assertion, the one functional difference that separates believers and skeptics of homeopathy is the threshold to which they accept scientific evidence as compelling and credible. Reichenberg-Ullman and Ullman (2011: p94) addresses in part the level of evidence that would suffice as convincing, contending that any scientific claim without regards to plausibility is considered to be grounded in scientific evidence if it fulfills four criteria simultaneously. To begin with, it must be properly blinded, methodologically rigorous, and powered to control sufficiently and define for variables being tested for. In addition, it must yield positive results that are of statistical significance, as well as possess a reasonable ratio of signal to noise. Finally, no matter who conducts the experiment again, it must be independently reproducible for the effect to be reliably detected. Obviously, there is no pattern of compelling evidence for homeopathy and, while it is possible to fulfill at least two of these criteria, it is not possible for all four simultaneously. In fact, while one does hear numerous excuses and pleading for why homeopathy fails to meet all criteria, the evidence itself is never given (Reichenberg-Ullman & Ullman, 2011: p94). This can be explained by the fact that anytime the scientific threshold is lowered, any researcher would end up accepting potentially untrue claims prematurely. Brunton (2009: p43) also argues that the more unconventional, outrageous, and plausible a scientific claim is, the more uncompromising researchers should be in the application of scientific evidence criteria. This is because research on homeopathy and medicine in general is not starting from scratch or with a blank slate, almost as if there is no prior knowledge. Instead, the researcher is beginning from science that is well-established and further extending this knowledge. As a clarification, the fact that a new claim seems to be implausible is not an indictment on its a-priori untrue nature. Simply, it indicates that the evidence threshold require for it to be proven true is higher. Chen (2011: p1) contends that no concrete explanation with scientific backing yet supports homeopathy as being effective, specifically as most of its success is made up of speculation and anecdotal evidence. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, probably captured this concept more than two hundred years ago in stating that a miracle cannot be established sufficiently by any testimony unless this testimony is of a nature that makes falsehood more miraculous than fact (Brunton, 2009: p43). Therefore, it seems an easy decision to make that the claims of homeopathy are wrong than to suggest that what is already known in medicine, physiology, biology, and chemistry is wrong. However, it is also important to note that the overall absence of substantially significant analysis of the medical advantages attributable to homeopathy is possibly the practice’s biggest demerit. Ultimately, only a limited number of studies have been performed with the aim of ascertaining the existence of tacit advantages of homeopathy over traditional medicine (Lockie & Geddes, 2010: p62). While any medical practitioner would obviously be expected to raise relevant concerns about the applicability of homeopathic medicine, it is perhaps important to note that pharmacological medicines have higher profit margins than homeopathy. This means that the level of interest and subsequent funding for researchers aiming to study homeopathic medicine, especially in relation to analyzing and measuring homeopathic interventions is reduced demonstrably and noticeably, particularly when considered alongside traditional medicine (Lockie & Geddes, 2010: p62). However, this should not be taken to mean that traditional medicine has exerted its power and influence to keep the cheaper and accessible homeopathic alternative at bay. Instead, the researcher and society at large should take into consideration the fact that the focus of funding and analytical techniques and approaches is mainly on marketable and viable medicines. As a result, it is up to homeopathy practitioners to provide proof of its viability to attract funding. However, it is also critical to take into consideration that homeopathy’s popularity in the 19th century was mainly due to impressive, albeit anecdotal, evidence in treating infectious epidemics of the time, a fact that skeptics ignore completely. Chirumbolo (2011: p107) contends that it is not likely that placebo response was the reason for the practice’s notable success in treating influenza, pneumonia, typhoid, scarlet fever, yellow fever, and cholera epidemics. Studies that have tested the effects of medicines in homeopathy on cell cultures, animals, and plants have resulted in some statistically significant effects, in which placebo effect is virtually non-existent and homeopathic dose effects are at times substantial. Skeptics of homeopathic medicine have been virtually silent on the hormesis field, which is a multi-dimensional science that evaluates small doses and their power on varied systems of biology. It can be said that this silent treatment given to hormesis is because it prevents a body of evidence that negates arguments against homeopathy. Most of the homeopathic medicine doses usually sold in pharmacies and health food stores across the globe have a low range of dosage similar to hormesis studies related to effects of low doses (Karoussos, 2011: p71). It can be said that skeptical ignorance of the many studies in homeopathic medicine is odd, especially as most of the argument against homeopathy has to do with lack of research. The pharmacological process involved in creating homeopathic medicines has for a long time been insufficiently understood according to Lockie (2011: p29), especially the fact that these medicines are made using the potentization process. This process is unique to homeopathic medicine, and each medicine is formulated in a glass test tube with double distilled water, of which dilution is done in a 1:100 or 1:10 solution, followed by vigorous shaking. One example of this is the silica hypothesis, which is intriguing with regards to the fact that roughly six parts in a million of silica chips or fragments fall off the glass vial wall in the process of shaking. Additionally, nano-bubbles are generated in the process of shaking, as are transient high pressurized localized regions that top over 10,000 atmospheres and alter the water persistently and significantly (Lockie, 2009: p76). Fisher (2011: p202) contends that due to the fact that homeopathic medicine is chosen for its special ability to cause the particular syndrome or pattern of symptoms, which are also acknowledged to result in overdoses, majority of living organisms possess hypersensitivity to even those doses that are extremely small as long as it is the rightly selected homeopathic medicine. For instance, just as a piano’s “C” note shows hypersensitivity to other similar notes, organisms are also very hypersensitivity to extremely minimal medicinal doses made of substances that result in symptoms that are similar to those experienced by the patient. The paradigm that like cures like has been heralded by numerous oriental cultures. The fact that allergy treatments and current immunological techniques derive the “law of the similar” that is a basic principle used in homeopathy provides ample substantiation for homeopathy, especially as an alternative medicine (Jerman, 2006: p22). Conventional vaccinations and allergy treatments are just a selected number of contemporary medical treatments that seek to augment the organism’s immunological response, both of which are derivatives of the principle of similars that underlies homeopathy. The principle of resonance actually acts as a better description of the similars principle according to Lockie (2010: p45), especially with regards to musical knowledge of hypersensitivity and power. This principle of homeopathy is supported by additional wisdom that its utilization results in medicinal prescription that mimics the human body’s innate intelligence and symptoms, rather than suppressing the same. Because medicines used in homeopathy are given due to their ability to mimic symptoms similar to those the patient is experiencing, one may account for those who hold that homeopathic medicine improve mind and body health, as well as augment the competence of the immune system (Lockie, 2010: p45). As a result, homeopathic medicine may be considered as a type of resonance medicine and medical bio-mimicry. While it is quite evident that homeopathic medicine does not yet understand sufficiently how its medicines operate, present day experience and evidence cannot be ignored due to the lack of scientific evidence. For instance, the fact that quite a number of cultural heroes and respected personalities have advocated for and used homeopathic medicine provides more evidence for homeopathy. It is also critical to note that many medical doctors still use homeopathic medicines alongside conventional medicine, especially as a replacement for traditional medicine. In addition, it is also important to recognize that the number of medical practitioners who have undergone homeopathic training and then stopped its use is very small. Considering that homeopathic medicine is representative of a leading alternative to traditional medicine in Asia and Europe, this gives additional insight into the potential significance of this medical science. References Bjorndal, A. N. (January 01, 2011). Homeopathy and archetypes. Homoeopath Bognor Regis Then Northampton-, 30, 2, 29-33. Brunton, N. (2009). Homeopathy. London: Optima. Chen, Y. (2011, August 8). The Debate over Homeopathic Medicine. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from Yale Journal of Medicine & Law: http://www.yalemedlaw.com/the-memory-of-water/ Chirumbolo, S. (January 01, 2011). Randomized blinding in basic research of homeopathy: some comments. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 19, 2, 107-108. Fisher, P. (January 01, 2011). The diversity of endeavour in homeopathy. Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy, 100, 4, 201-212. Jerman, I. (January 01, 2006). Homeopathy and digital biology. Homoeo Times, 3, 21-24. Karoussos, K. (September 05, 2011). Homeopathy: All inclusive. Technoetic Arts, 9, 1, 65-82. Lockie, A. (2009). Encyclopaedia of homeopathy. London: D. Kindersley Pub. Lockie, A. (2010). Homeopathy. London: Dorling Kindersley. Lockie, A. (2011). Homeopathy handbook. New York: Dorling Kindersley Pub. Lockie, A., & Geddes, N. (2010). The complete guide to homeopathy. London: D. Kindersley. Reichenberg-Ullman, J., & Ullman, R. (January 01, 2011). Healing with Homeopathy. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 339, 94-95. Stokes, G. (2009). Homeopathy. London: Teach Yourself. Read More