http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/if_you_open_your_mind_too_much_your_brai.php

It is certainly the case that medical claims go through stages of scepticism before they’re accepted. This is exactly how it should be. Controlled scientific testing is applied scepticism, and it is this that allows us to distinguish things that work from things that don’t. It’s just irresponsible to use a method to treat people before that method has been shown to work, even if there is good reason to suppose that it will. Even if most scientists thought homeopathy was likely to have a beneficial effect beyond the placebo effect, it would be wrong to use it or to promote its use until it had been shown, by properly controlled scientific trials, to have this effect.

If we were talking about other types of alternative medicine such as herbal remedies, I would concede the point. Substances *used* in homeopathic remedies may well have medicinal properties, such as colloidal gold (although I was under the impression that this is merely used as a carrier for other drugs, I’ve encountered this example in the past). St John’s Wort is another well known alternative medicine which has been found to work (although I would note that as soon as this happens, it ceases to be called ‘alternative’ and becomes just plain old real medicine).

However, in these examples, at least the patient is getting something. With homeopathic remedies, they do not, it’s too diluted. The research has been done into homeopathic remedies and it can not be proven that they work. It’s not like they work and we don’t know why. Time and time again homeopaths have been given a vial of remedy and a vial of water, and been unable to tell the difference. Jaques Benveniste’s claim that he can prove water has a memory landed on it’s arse. There are also several anecdotes (which I don’t think are particularly ethical) about people switching homeopathic remedies around, or replacing them with water/sugar pills, and nobody ever noticing.

There is also the issue that for homeopathic remedies to work, there would have to be a massive revision of several laws of physics and chemistry which at the moment seem to be universal. This is a somewhat extraordinary claim, way more unlikely than the possibility that some other alternative medicines could work. As such, it requires some extraordinary, good quality evidence. The odd bad quality trial just doesn’t cut it.

I’d also like to point out that the majority of the research into homeopathy is by genuine scientists. Homeopaths themselves seem perfectly willing to thrive in the anti-establishment mystery which surrounds alternative culture. They don’t seem to want to prove anything. ‘Prove’ in the non-homeopathic sense.

I completely understand your objection to homeopaths making money by promoting products which are clearly ineffective and possibly divert people from pursuing tested conventional treatments. An extreme example of the damage that this might cause would be the use of homeopathic treatments taking the place of AIDs medication in Africa.

However, your CU friend’s comment about medicines going through “stages of skepticism before they’re proven” struck a chord with me. Over the years, the area of ‘alternative’ medicine has been a launching pad for treatments later tested and adopted for use in conventional medicine. One example would be the use of colloidal gold as a homeopathic treatment for improving memory. It has been used as an alternative treatment for many centuries and, although it had been researched before, its effectiveness and prevalence has in recent times brought it more firmly to the attention of medical researchers who have since tested it and are now launching it as a legitimate treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer’s disease, among other things. Who knows whether the use of many current homeopathic treatments, subjected to appropriate testing and research, may lead to similar discoveries.