Homeopathy

Homeopathy

 Introduction

In this paper, I will be discussing Homeopathy in detail. I will look at the homeopathy origin, its concept, any existing research on homeopathy. I will also discuss the controversies surrounding the therapy of homeopathy and the criticism of the treatment. The use of homeopathy in treating many illnesses increased in the 19^th because of the success it had in epidemic outbreaks. Several clinical research shows that homeopathy is effective in curing some symptoms and help in improving the lives of patients. The use of homeopathy still requires investigations for its ethical and scientific merits because of its long history of controversy. The paper will provide an excellent insight into past, present, and future applications of the homeopathy.

What is Homeopathy?

Homeopathy is a system of treatment that believes that the body can cure itself. Homeopaths use a minimal amount of substance, such as minerals and plants. They think that the tiny units of such drugs can stimulate the healing process of the body. Homeopathy is a 200-year-old “science” and used by millions of people worldwide. It is the idea that the body can heal itself using the principle of “like cures like.” Homeopathy suggests that you can use a symptom that causes illness to cure the same disease.

Present Science Criticism

Homeopaths make their medicine or cure through dilutions, through a serial dilution, where a drop of a drug  is added to 99 drops of water or alcohol. Basically, with this 1:100 ratio solution, it becomes a healing substance, having no single molecular in it. The laws of chemistry indicate that there is a limit to dilution, where there should exist at least a molecule for a substance to function. The critics of homeopathy call this a medicine placebo. Scientists believe that for the medicine to work, it must contain a molecular in it. Science believes that a drug can only work depending on the molecule interact with the body when those molecules are absent; the drug cannot work. I do agree that dilution of poisonous remedies work since there is a belief that a substance that is causing symptoms in a healthy individual can cure the same illness of an individual who is not well when given tiny units of the dose. The dose will trigger the body in the process of healing. Using the principle of “like cures like,” I agree the homeopathy of dilution works in treating some illness when using in small amounts.

 Jaques Benvenistes’ Experiment.

Jacques Benveniste was the man who coined the “memory of water” through his experiments. He was studying allergy and allergic reactions. He was examining Benzoyl allergy specifically, where the molecules of benzoyl attach to the cell, and it causes allergic reactions such as sneezing and swelling. He was studying active and inactive benzoyl, but when the substance was diluted, the solution shouldn’t affect, but the benzoyl had been activated. They continued with more experiments and concluded that when the chemical is in the dilution state, the result is “extraordinary” water as if the water remembered the chemical that it once contained. The success of this experiment gave meaning to homeopathy. The findings of the research got the publication in the scientific journal as nature, allowing the world to know and understand what homeopathy treatment. He was a man who made homeopathy more “credible” to a certain extent.

Fraud Buster’s Finding

            A selection of a team of scientists was formed to investigate the laboratory Benveniste ascertain the findings of the memory of water. It was a diverse and broad team that didn’t involve all scientists. Randi addresses the possibility of scientists fooling themselves. In other words, this addresses the challenge that many scientists and experiments have to go through – the inevitability of biases, opinions, and possible conscious or subconscious actions to want them to prove the hypothesis correct. Other researchers, as well as government and non-government health institutions, depict homeopathy as a non-sensical “pseudo-science” with no evidenced-based support. The National Health Service of the UK indicates that the principles in which homeopathy practitioners support their practice are scientifically implausible.   Additionally, the BDHA admits that there is scanty information from research on whether homeopathy is effective.

Most scientific studies have failed to find rigorous and convincing investigations that support the effectiveness of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of 183 publications further confirms extensive evidence of small details about homeopathy. The study found a low number of reliable physiochemical research that proved the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations, as pointed by (Baumgartner, 2016). However, the researchers recognized that there had been an increasing number of investigations on homeopathy. Therefore, from a physicochemical perspective, research discredits the effectiveness of homeopathy. In my personal opinion, having been very much interested in psychology, I understand the concept known as the experimenter bias and the observer-expectancy bias, which is the idea that scientists often want results that will conform to their preferred outcome. Scientists can take control of their tests and investigations to get the desired effect, a finding that sometimes lacks scientific proof.

Double-Blinded Trial Experiment

Carrying out a double-blinded test is essential because the test can weed out the doubts of the trial under investigation. The testing helps in avoiding the mistakes that maybe there before a conclusion is made. The examination helps in doing away with how scientists that charge of their experiments to achieve their desired results. In the case of Benveniste’s studies, the team of scientists asks the experimenters to repeat the experiments, still using two tubes, but without knowing which tube contained ordinary water and the one that was containing the “memory water.” The test became a double-blind test (with secret codes) because the experimenters don’t subconsciously know which tube is the water of memory. The double-blinded trial proves that homeopathy had no scientific support, discrediting the theory of  Benveniste.

Placebo Effect

            Scientists argue that homeopathic medicines are just sugar pills that have no medicinal ingredients in them. Therefore, many benefits patients do report are only the effects of the placebo effect. The placebo drugs work from the point of the psychology of an individual. Patients believe that a particular drug so long as he or she takes it.s The placebo effect is a human phenomenon, where the key is thinking that the pill works, even if the substance is of sugar (the patients do not know that). Studies have discovered that pills that contain only sugar have positive effects on patients who believe the pills work, the larger the pills, and the more colorful the pills, it seems to have a healing effect. The pills itself have no therapeutic value; however, the power may come from the amount of “thought” – the belief that if it works, it will work. The ideology of the placebo effect contributed to the idea of homeopathy.

The state of mind can improve health. When the mind is at state, this indirectly affects the level of stress. From a personal point of view, the placebo effect is a powerful reaction that works effectively in patients. Its mechanism of action can be explained more expendable from a psychology dimension than from a physiochemical variant. The effect is more of a product of positive thinking than an actual treatment. Someone who believes that a pill composed of something unrelated, such as chalk dust will make him can feel the perceived effects. The placebo effect indeed can be used to support the instances where homeopathy has been effective. Due to minimal research on its mechanism and effectiveness, I do believe that the placebo effect is highly involved in such cases.

Veterinarian’s Experiment

In homeopathic interviews, much of the questions revolve around stressors. In the world of domestic animals, homeopathy is useful for animals ranging from cows, horses, cats, sheep, pigs, giraffes, lizards, and more. Vets believe that homeopathic is valid, as manifested on animals. Mark, an animal doctor, says that it is not about the placebo effect. When he experimented on the horses using the same homeopathic treatment, he found out that there is a whopping 80 percent success rate on treating cancer. From a journal publication, Irene Camerlink et al.’s article discovered that neonatal piglets were divided into two groups, one group administering antibiotics, and the other group applying homeopathy to reduce E. coli. The results demonstrated that “Piglets of the homeopathically treated group had significantly less E. coli diarrhea than piglets in the placebo group (P<.0001)”. There are other researches on animals that have shown that homeopathy is not a placebo, as outlined by (Mathie, & Clausen, 2015). There needs to be more scientific trial experiment using real medicine versus placebo pills to have more information on the effectiveness (or lack of) of homeopathy. It is essential to add a control group that no one can manipulate.

Control group

            A control group is that group in a study that does not include or have those things that are under investigation. A control group usually forms a benchmark for other groups that are under investigation; the control group helps in eliminating the bias that scientists may have to achieve their desired results. The control group assists in separating the variables under study. A control group would receive no intervention and would act as a baseline that helps to compare and contrast the experimental group. The control group will not be affected. The need for more research, particularly those that apply quantitative techniques is critical, as it will help in solving the constant conflict that has always existed between proponents and opponents of homeopathy.

With scientific research, practitioners will advance their knowledge and understanding of homeopathy and whether it is applicable in contemporary healthcare settings as a treatment option. As for now, there is limited scientific support of homeopathy as described by (Dossett at el.,2016). As such, homeopathy appears to be more of a trial-and-error endeavor than a sure treatment regimen. It does not offer a reliable alternative of treatment nor have a specific condition where it has been thoroughly tested and developed. Such limitations are highly critical, especially for serious illnesses. Overall, homeopathy fails to attract the confidence any treatment regimen attracts. Treatments should be scientifically tested and approved. Though it makes excellent psychological sense, homeopathy is yet to meet the criteria of procedures admitted in mainstream healthcare.

O’Reilly’s Hay Fever Experiment

O’Reilly’s hay fever experiment, where pollen is useful in dealing with hay fever. He assumes that diluted medicines were initially placebo effects. This experiment involved a control group and an experimental group – all participants have hay fever. One group received homeopathic treatment, and the other group the placebo pills. The participants do not know what they were taking. The results from self-surveys, the conclusions presented positive results for homeopathy. Even though O’Reilly conducted numerous experiments, all in which gave the same outcomes, it was hard for him to make these experiments credible, because while it worked, he had no explanations for it. His test needed a scientific backing to make universally accepted in the field of science. Interestingly, even the participants didn’t know what treatment they were taking, much of the answers are subjective. Therefore, the solutions and responses may not be completely reliable.

Criticism on hay fever experiment

There is a struggle between subjectivity and objectivity, where objectivity can be studied with quantitative data, while subjectivity with qualitative data. When the data is objective, with numbers and statistics, it’s much easier to come up with a solution. While subjective data, which are based on opinions, responses, and every individual is different in their thoughts and attitudes, it is hard to rely on such evidence. The experiment needs more analysis and research to have the confidence and approval of science. Everyone’s reaction to pollen and findings to the hay fever differs. For example, some people may have more tolerance for pain and discomfort, while others do not. So, it is hard to address each individual’s “level of pain” and how they are experiencing hay fever.

Conclusion

In the argument where a homeopathic remedy can come from absolutely nothing, there’s the argument that if there is a positive result from homeopathic treatment, then it works. But what’s absurd about this is that there is no long-term effect that is yet to be studied. In other words, there is no evidence to show that the results are useful in the long run. Homeopaths believe that they can get heal using the homeopathy treatment. Homeopaths use their state of mind to heal because they think that water has memory.

References

Baumgartner, S. (2016). Status of basic research in homeopathy. The Current State of Homeopathic Research, 40.

Dossett, M. L., Davis, R. B., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Yeh, G. Y. (2016). Homeopathy use by US adults: Results of a national survey. American journal of public health, 106(4), 743-745.

Mathie, R. T., & Clausen, J. (2015). Veterinary homeopathy: meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. Homeopathy, 104(01),