Open Minds – Homeopathy and Pseudosciences
Earlier I was reading a very nice blog edited by Dr. Bob Leckridge. His posts are most insightful and did give me a few interesting readings through the morning. Although I feel that there are strong similarities in our thoughts on mind, philosophy and science, Dr. Leckridge is a practitioner on Homeopathy. On a particular post, the doctor gives a lot of very interesting arguments on both sides, although it is obviously more favorable to the homeopathy supporters, which is no demerit to the post, after all, it’s a practitioner’s site. On the many comments on his blog (that seems to be very popular indeed), I found that homeopathy supporters often consider that those who are against alternative therapies are lacking open-mindedness, and that, my friends, is a very serious accusation to be made to a scientist.
The term “open mind” means you are willing to consider new ideas, accept your own ignorance and acknowledge the fact that there is always a possibility that everything you know about a subject can be wrong. It means you are making a willed effort to avoid prejudice; on short, it means that you are trying to be an ideal scientist!
Yes! Although those who have been caught up on the “alternative sciences” discourse will hardly believe (lack of open-mindedness?), science as we know cannot survive unless scientists are always willing to accept new ideas, different conceptions and theories. But, accepting new ideas often means you have to leave some other behind. And being able to abandon old Ideas – that’s the real test to your “openness”.
Imagine how open Darwin had to be in order to let go of all the ideas he had accumulated through the years immersed on a Victorian society, only so that he could embrace a theory that was yet a bit unclear, but that was supported by evidences and conflicted with both the science and the religion of his time. It is true that not all scientists have such integrity, and some fall in love for some theories that it becomes almost like a cult, surviving against all contrary evidence. Just to vary our target here (why shoot at homeopathy when there’s a world of game out there), I’d cite psychoanalysis as an example of such “almost-cult” practices in pseudoscience. In hardcore science, behaviorism is becoming more and more a school of the past, and it’s theories are pretty much insipid when they’re not combined with a cognitivist approach – which the “cultists” among them hold in contempt as an ‘impure’ form of it.
I used to believe in homeopathy. Never took their medications, but, since it’s a specialization of medicine in my country – and I, a laymen, tended to believe doctors always know what they’re doing. I stopped believing in it both because I realized they didn’t really know what they’re doing and also because, apparently, they’re doing it wrong: There was no explanation for why the medicine should work. Still, everybody said it just does, so, why not take them? I became suspicious of it, but, what the hell, they are doctors! If they say it works, then it probably does! Finally I got into college, and stumbled on things like scientific researches, papers and peer-evaluated scientific literature. Turns out The Lancet (to use the example from Dr. Leckridge posts) just wasn’t the best source of information. By that time I read about the efficacy of the different kinds of therapy. In psychology, that’s a major issue, since many of our techniques are – almost like homeopathy – improperly theorized. I studied statistics more carefully after the first semester, when I realized what an important tool it was! And, in doing that, I read many studies showing statistically the efficiency of most therapies (including some alternative ones). I learned of the placebo effect, and I learned that, overall, most of these therapies – homeopathy among them, of course – were proven to be only as effective as the placebo effect.
So, why am I against homeopathy?
1- Because it’s an old theory which, on it’s own, has not been supported by evidence so far.
2- Because the theories that were ever considered as fundaments for homeopathy, besides being weak and unsupported by evidence – as stated in #1-, are conflictive against many strong and verified theories that are supported by a number of evidence.
So, my reasons to attack it are mostly scientific. I have nothing against it as an alternative therapy other than the fact that It’s scientifically inviable. As a patient, I see a psychoanalist every week, and I consider it part of my mental hygiene. On the other hand, if ever I was to become psychotic, that’s definitely not the professional I’d like to be brought to! On a different perspective, a friend of mine swears she did control her intense PMT’s with the help of acupuncture – a pseudoscience I criticize for almost all the same reasons of homeopathy. Of course, she only went alternative after trying the regular approaches unsuccessfully. She’s a psychology student, just like me, and we both know she’s on the statistical range of the placebo effects that applies to this particular therapy; yet, she’s not considering quiting it for as long as it works, independent of being or not a placebo. If you’ve got the money for it and feel that it may help you, either along with your regular therapy or as a prevention factor, be my guest! Stuff your belly with all the water you want, and pierce your skin with as many needles as the acupuncturist will allow! I won’t bother you at that, since I am very gladly using pseuoscientific therapies myself as a patient. As Dr. Leckridge said himself, we still don’t really understand the placebo effect, and, as long as something works for you, well… it means it works for you!
So there! There are people who are tolerant towards other people’s beliefs, even though they strongly differ in opinion. I’ve cited myself and my friend as examples, but, really, the great majority of the scientific community is made out of tolerant people. As for the open-mindedness, are we really the ones lacking of it? After studying health care practices such as homeopathy, acupuncture and the likes, studying the many evidences accounted against them and, more than that, the lack of evidence supporting them, shouldn’t an open-minded person be willing to consider the fact that these theories/practices are obsolete? Shouldn’t an open-minded individual consider changing his/her mind towards ideas that seem more effective, such as, … let’s see… alopathy!
Anyway, I wish a great new-year for us all!!!
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Hi there!
) I completely agree that good scientists do exactly that – they are never content that they have managed to figure out everything about anything.
Thanks for posting this. You know I think you and I agree on a lot! And you are so right that to be open-minded and scientific you have to doubt. I do. I really do. Probably every day! I consider it healthy to not think you’ve discovered the answer to life, the universe and everything (it’s 42 by the way!
I guess it’s fair enough to describe me as a homeopathic practitioner cos I do use homeopathy as my main therapeutic framework but I don’t think of myself that way. I think I’m just a family doctor – I trained as a family doctor and worked as one in Primary Care till I felt I couldn’t practice medicine the way I wanted to. The fact I now work at Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital means I tend to use homeopathic treatments more than anything else but my job is still that of a generalist medical doctor – I refer to my colleagues in psychiatry, oncology, general medicine and so on as seems as appropriate.
You know, I’m far from convinced that the homeopathic method has been proven to not work – best I know studies have tried to look at the remedy versus placebo and to be fair there haven’t been that many studies in the grand scheme of things. I reckon after assessing them for myself that the jury’s still out – not enough evidence to say that remedies are no more effective than placebo and not enough to say they are. But my day to day experience is not about remedies and placebos. It’s about patients who come asking for help and like you with your psychoanalysis, some of them (about 70% actually) reckon the help they get from me is worth coming for. From a scientific perspective then, my starting point isn’t homeopathy can’t work, it’s that the homeopathic method does seem to work – a lot of the time – the question is how? That’s the scientific question.
Is it a kind of psychotherapy? Is it a talking cure actually? Is it a ritualistic therapy? Is it great at stimulating the placebo response, and if it is, what the hell is the placebo response anyway and how does it work? Do those little powders and tablets actually do anything physically? (that last question is the one a lot of people dismiss cos they think it too unlikely – I still reckon its worth investigating.
So, from a scientific perspective, I’m curious. I’d like to understand how it works. What I don’t accept is the statement that homeopathy won’t work cos it can’t work (according to a certain view of things) – it’s kind of a different starting point.
Like how would we prove that psychoanalysis works? And how would we unpick the process to show exactly how it works?
Really, these are fascinating questions.
You know, I love my work cos I find people endlessly fascinating and I’ll never be done wondering, doubting and trying to figure out how to do it better.
Another thing I don’t subscribe to is the view that there are only two kinds of treatments – proven and unproven. At the end of the day, only after trying a treatment can a person know whether or not it is effective for them. Your friend finds acupuncture effective, and didn’t find the previous treatments were. Fine by me. Alternatively, you’ll have other friends who find acupuncture does nothing for some problem they’ve got but a prescription med is just the ticket. That’s fine too. What’s important is to find what works for each and every single patient.
Am I right in understanding that you are a psychology student? How’s that going? When do you qualify and what area of psychology are you going to get into? Has your positive experience of psychotherapy led you to want to develop those skills as a therapist yourself?
Thanks again for your insightful and enjoyable comments on my blog and thanks for taking the time to set out your thoughts here. I hope you don’t mind me popping across to take the discussion a little further?
Hope you have a great new year yourself
best wishes
Bob
bobleckridge
January 2, 2008
cripes! I did go on a bit! Sorry!
bobleckridge
January 2, 2008
Dr. Leckridge! So nice of you to drop by my humble little blog! You’re always welcome here.
Again, I can see in your comment mostly words I can totally agree on. As for the merits of homeopathy, there’s no doubt that I endorse the way you seem to practice it – it means, as a complement to your actions as a GP. As I said above, all my problems towards the homeopathy are pretty much restricted to the theoretical field, and I think that responsible practitioners should freely continue their works for as long as people can benefit.
One thing that may help to explain my slight nonacceptance towards the “unproven” theories is my history as a psychology student. I had been wishing to be a clinical psychologist since I was six years old. I was also a fan of the “holistic” approaches, and, as far as I knew, I’d find a way to integrate it on my practice. Back then I was interested in topics on spirituality and alternative health activities. Then, I entered college.
I was determined to be the best psychologist I could, and I did manage to get accepted on the best psychology course of Brazil… our decadent third world equivalent of Harvard
As you should know, Brazil is a country with a very religious and generally gullible people. The universities are pretty elite though, because mostly only the wealthy individuals can afford the kind of educational background you need for getting into one of them. This makes them a haven of critical thinking amidst the ocean of common-sense. The psychology field in Brazil is relatively recent, and it’s been fighting for proper recognition as a science (instead of as a philosophy branch, as it is regarded in many places here). No wonder the Institute of psychology provides intense programs on scientific methodology. As an open-minded person, I frequently looked out for a nice debate on the intervals and, why not, have a cup of coffee with that professor who was so skeptic! But, as time passed, I had to gradually accept the arguments I heard there, as my beliefs on the alternative approaches of health couldn’t stand against the criticism. And, may I point here (with just a little arrogance) that I was quite a well-read alternative-health supporter, and always was a great fan of good debates. If I couldn’t refute their arguments (and I really tried), it’s because they were indeed very good. By that time I met a doctorate student who was working on a thesis analyzing the efficiency of the different kinds of psychological therapies, and I took a lot of interest on such a matter – after all, I wanted to be the best, so I needed the best therapy. That’s also how I became interested in statistical studies on that subject, placebo effects and all the rest. Seeing the success rates of psychoanalysis, for example, compared to the rates achieved by behavioral-cognitive therapy joined with alopathy, I new that was the only “product” I would feel good about selling – I’m not gonna work for free. That’s when I tried to leave psychology and get admitted to a med-school, since psychologists cannot prescribe medications nor order clinical trials. As I didn’t make it through the admission exam of my chosen med-school, and taking into consideration that the government is paying for my university tuitions (it’s a federal university) and just might stop it if I go on taking two classes a semester while preparing for the med-school’s exams, I decided to finish my graduation before trying the medical career again. Accounting the fact that I must conciliate time for studying and working, I’d say I’ll take another four years to get my diploma.
So, this is a bit on how I became a skeptic. It wasn’t an easy way though, since such a transformation means that I had to deal with conflicting ideas that affected me to the core. That is the reason, Dr., why I first sought a psychologist for myself. The government provided me a professional who happened to be a psychoanalyst – although I clearly stated my preference for a cognitive-behavioral one. Still, nowadays I see it as a positive event. The first few sessions were weird, and we did have some energetic arguments on theoretical issues. I went back home with a lot on my mind, and I’m sure he did too. After a while,I found out that this professional not only graduated in the same university as I am, but also worked with some of the same orientators as I have been working. I decided I should give him a chance, and became more cooperative; from then on, it became a lot easier for me to deal with all those disturbing ideas. So, in a way, you could say I possibly wouldn’t be such a resolute skeptic nowadays if it wasn’t for that psychoanalist
Even before I went to college, I fell in love with Voltaire’s works, mostly for he’s acid opinions and his less-then-subtle sarcasm. Although I’m not very found of radical statements, there’s that famous quotation by Voltaire that I read when I was still a child. I still live and die by it: “I don’t agree with a single word of what you say, but I’d defend to death your right of saying it”. That means, Dr. Leckridge, that the little differences that may remain in our opinions will alway be seen with curious, interested and respectful eyes on my part, and, again, I thank you for this most delightful discussion. My blog is always open for it
ego84
January 2, 2008
Wow! What an INTERESTING response! Thank you! I was just three years old first time I said I wanted to be a doctor and I never changed my mind at any time. Being a family doctor (what we call a GP in Scotland) was my great goal and it was a shame that the government changed the structure so I found it difficult to give people the time I wanted to give them and had to fill in so many silly forms and hit their “targets”. But “alternative medicine” was never something appealing to me – still isn’t. I’m curious of course…..insatiably curious…….but not enough to learn or practice any “alternative medicine”. You see, in Scotland, homeopathy has been part of the health service since the very beginning in 1949 and the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital is over 100 years old and was incorporated into the National Health Service at the beginning of the NHS in 1949. I learned some homeopathy only to use in circumstances where I was stuck – believe me there are many patients a GP sees who either have illnesses which escape diagnosis or illnesses for which there are no effective drug treatments and I found that sometimes in those circumstances a homeopathic remedy seemed to work. But the method I found was just in tune with good holistic general practice – so there was nothing alternative about it for me – still isn’t. I’m part of the NHS, I practice as a registered doctor, and I take a holistic, generalist approach, mainly trying to help people with chronic diseases who have failed to find relief from surgical or drug treatments.
So, what you say about your interest in “alternative medicine” interests me – what was it that interested you and attracted you? And I am REALLY interested to hear what arguments against what appealed to you changed your mind about the subject. If you feel you’d like to, then please write a post about it hear. I’ll come and read it with great interest. Or maybe you want to either respond to this comment or email me privately? Any which way is OK by me – I just want to hear more about your story and how you got to where you are now – and, yes, after that, to hear your dreams and you ideals to know where you are heading, whether as a psychologist, or, (I hope your wish comes true), as a medical doctor.
Bob
bobleckridge
January 4, 2008
Dr. Leckridge;
It is indeed a tempting idea to write a proper article with the arguments that convinced me into adopting the opinions I hold as of today. The problem is that such changes of mind didn’t happen at a single debate, nor have I a transcript of the long hours of conversation and even inner-monologues that I had to go through in order to change my strong convictions
. Also, “alternative medicine” stands for several different kinds of therapies, each holding it’s own flaws and it’s own fundamental theories (which, in some cases, are more than one). To criticize acupuncture, for example, one must not only demonstrate the absurd of classical chinese explanation (I don’t even dare calling it a theory) but also the flaws it’s modern day adaptations – seems like the most accepted explanation nowadays is the ganglia stimulation (instead of the chi-flow). All that considered, I’ve come to the conclusion that rebuilding all the arguments that changed my mind and write it down with appropriate method is not something I can do recklessly on a blog. Yet, your comment did arouse in my mind the idea of writing a proper article during these summer vacations. Anyway, I’ll sleep on it and maybe next week I’ll start researching the data-bases… in case my trip to the northern beaches happen to fail 
ego84
January 6, 2008
I will have to agree with this post but will say this: I do not take medication. I take medication. So will there ever be a median between the two? I want to believe that there will be a median however if you are for medication how could you possibly be against it?
Now on yet another note:
If these medications are just placebos but still work. Mentally you are convincing yourself of such progress. But in any case, progress is progress so why try to change it?
icedhot
January 6, 2008
Hi Mandy; I’m chatting with you on MSN right this minute, but, what the hell, I should answer to you publicly also, so other people can enjoy our discussions here too (You know there are things I only tell you in private
.
Anyway, I have two things to answer on your comment. First, I consider using the placebo effect in the benefit of a patient as completely ethical, although it’s almost impossible to do so when the therapist is actually aware of the “trick”. Second, I’m not preaching the bible of pharmaceutical companies. Alopathy has many flaws, specially concerning the side effects and the possibility of abuse. Yet, it is very effective in many cases and, if responsibly administered by an expert, it can be the very best option for the patient. You don’t give medication for a mild case of depression, for example; the “conversational therapies” (I don’t know the correct term in english) might be enough. On the other hand, you won’t try to talk a full-fledged maniac out of an episode.
So, I believe the correct use of medicines is a matter of good judgment by the professional.
Oh, and back on the matter of placebo effect, one of it’s characteristics is to be ephemerous. It’s not really a solution for chronical problems. On the other hand, it’s very good at helping patients to mask their symptoms without ever addressing to it’s causes, which can be disastrous.
ego84
January 7, 2008
Bloody BUSTARD
Anonymous
October 26, 2009
whatever…
ego84
October 30, 2009
I’m a student of HOMEOPATHY…
wasif saleem
November 1, 2009