Recently, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released a statement concluding that there is no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions. Before I get into this blog, I want to clarify; I am not a Homeopath, do not use Homeopathics, and have never received any training in this field. I am a Naturopath, which means I’ve completed a Bachelor of Health Science, with majors in Western Herbal Medicine and Nutrition. I am a science lover, and fundamentally practice according to basic principles of nutrition biochemistry, physiology and biology.
With this in mind, my simple understanding is that Homeopathy treats ailments using minuscule doses of natural substances that in larger amounts would produce symptoms of the ailment (using the “like cures like” concept). Homeopathy is one of the oldest forms of complementary medicine (CAM), and it is estimated that there are hundreds of millions of users of Homeopathy worldwide.
If there is no evidence, why do so many people use it?
Anecdotally, there are a large number of people who will claim, usually with great certainty, that they had been cured or at least helped by homeopathy when orthodox medicine had failed. If this cannot be explained by current evidence, is it simply the placebo effect? Or is it that this modality is just very difficult to prove using a Western evidence based model of science? The mysteries of the interaction between body and mind are far more complex than modern science can pin down.
Simply because mind-body and energy-based approaches to healing are difficult to ‘prove’ in a very literal sense, it doesn’t mean that these things don’t exist, or don’t have merit. If Homeopathy is more about spirituality and mindset then hard science, is that really a bad thing?
Let’s look at meditation, there’s a plethora of good quality studies to show that meditation is beneficial for many conditions and situations. Meditation is a very old practice, and modern medicine has only recently been able to prove how this “spiritual” practice “scientifically” works.
It’s not that I don’t see the merit in evidence based approaches, I do, and many that know how I practice know that I am an evidence-based practitioner. However, since the rise in evidence-based medicine (EBM), there have been concerns that EBM could devalue basic sciences and knowledge that accumulates with clinical experience. Moreover, there have always been questions as to whether findings from “average” results in clinical trials are transferable to real patients, who may not fit the textbook description of disease.
Is Homeopathy dangerous?
Some say that Homeopathy, and natural medicines generally, are dangerous. Although ‘natural’ doesn’t mean ‘safe’, this is a difficult notion to fathom when you compare the tiny number of injuries inflicted on natural medicine patients compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths recorded each year due to medical errors. It should also be kept in mind that modern medicine is relatively new, around 100 years old. In comparison, many natural therapies have been used for over 10 000 years, earning their place in society. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 80% of the world’s population relies on natural therapies. In Australia, while around 69% of Australians use some form of CAM at least once a year, only 6% use Homeopathy.
Having options.
In a recent article where I was misquoted, it stated that although there is a lack of good quality evidence for Homeopathy, “it still doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option for those desperate for options”. For the record, I did not, nor would I ever say something like this.
What I DO believe is that people are entitled to have options within both conventional and natural/complementary medicine. Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Osteopathy, Kinesiology, Reflexology, Acupuncture, Aromatherapy, and Homeopathy are all very different modalities. As I mentioned earlier, I believe these modalities have earned their place in society, and should continue to be assessed as the individual modalities that they are. Although continued monitoring and assessment of both conventional and CAM modalities is critical, we can’t forget the importance of freedom of choice.
Until next time,
Stacey.
