Sue Young Homeopathy

With thanks to Jonathan Treasure:

In this cutting and articulate letter to the editor of Homeopathy regarding a NYT article by the infamous Dan Hurley the author of the letter points out the fundamental paradox of mainstream views of homeopathy (and herbs) which is simply that they are claimed to be BOTH dangerous yet ineffective at the same time.

Since no abstract is available, we will quote extensively from this letter Paralogisms of scientific journalism : Rosenbaum P, Homeopathy. 2007 Oct;96(4):285-6, which concludes that such articles imply the need for a serious examination of what he calls the “sociology of scientific journalism”.

But some sections of the media, including important medical journals, have published claims that infinitesimal substances are suspected, not of toxicity, but of the opposite: of not possessing any detectable biological effect in vitro or in vivo. It is here we find the paralogism.

Of course these are partial conclusions, therefore, challengeable. Experimentation in human beings observational studies and studies of health-related quality of life quality of line in health, for instance, strongly contradict these conclusions of inaction.

If the Food and Drug Administration finds empirically that adverse effects are associated with homeopathic medicines, and that they are significant, how is it that they are accused of being pharmacologically inert?

The notorious question: ‘‘does it work or not?’’ carries an unbearable ambiguity: it work, but only to intoxicate. But infinitesimal dilutions are not even ‘‘substances’’ strictu sensu.

If there is not even a trace of active drug, nor any other validated evidence, how can one determine such actions?

We are face—and this article in the New York Times is just a single example—with a superficial analysis of data which impact on both society at large and the community of users.

The surprise here is the size of paralogism. An influential newspaper reports that homeopathic medications may be poisonous. However, until recently they considered they were nothing but water. Any apparent effects are only mirages placebo-effects.

So, either we are witnessing a remarkable epidemic of placebo effects in the poison monitoring centers or a phenomenon that, if verified, should be a top priority list, with public support of research.

Are homeopathic medicine fake? Or are there active poisons in infinitesimal doses? If there are, everything has to be reassessed.

But there is a more radical alternative: to evaluate sociologically what is happening in scientific journalism.

We know that logic alone is insufficient to meet all the demands and possibilities of validity. As shown by Thomas Kuhn, it is supported by the values and needs of a certain culture, at a certain moment.

In his classic book ‘‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’’ he warns that there is a pressing need for the analysis of development of theories and scientific verifications: the psycho-sociology of science, understanding of its motivations and meanings of its discourse.

This means that it is important to recognize the non-universality of regulatory standards. In this case, the need is urgent.