cient healers doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Some bored holes in skulls (trephining) in order to liberate angry demons thought to be causing head pain, and in the process relieved intracranial pressure. This, however, does not validate the Demonic Theory. Also, foul-smelling swamps were drained on the basis of the miasmic theory, which taught that foul-smelling emanations from the Earth caused “bad air fever” (mal-air-ia). Further, Asclepian priests scraped spear shavings into the spear-wounds of warriors believing that the weapon that caused a wound would help in its healing (like-cures-like). Copper sulfate from the bronze spearheads may have inhibited infection. Just as doing these right practices for the wrong reasons did not validate the faulty theories upon which they were based, neither will the success of a “homeopathic” remedy comprehensively validate homeopathy’s theory, pharmacology, and metaphysics. Homeopathy clearly fits Webster’s dictionary definitions of a cult: “A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator,” and a sect: “a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or a leader.” Healing cults or sects cannot progress and retain their identity. Homeopathy is what Hahnemann said it was. To progress scientifically homeopathy would have to accept principles of pharmacology and pathology, which run counter to its “law s” of similia and infinitesimals, its potency theory, and notions of the psora and vitalism. By doing so, it would no longer be homeopathy but biomedicine.
STUDIES OF HOMEOPATHY
Controlled studies involving homeopathic remedies appear to divide along political lines. While the results of most studies do not support the use of homeopathic remedies, some ostensibly well-designed trials have yielded positive findings. Some of these, however, have been done by homeopaths, and their reports contain rhetoric that reflects bias strong enough to undermine confidence in the researchers’ veracity. The best of these studies should be repeated by objective investigators with independent analyses of the homeopathic formulations employed to assure that they have not been adulterated with active medications. A comprehensive review of experimental research in homeopathy was done by Scofield (1984). He concluded: “It is obvious from this review that, despite much experimental and clinical work, there is only little evidence to suggest that homeopathy is effective. This is because of bad design, execution, reporting, analysis and, particularly, failure to repeat promising experimental work and not necessarily because of the inefficacy of the system which has yet to be properly tested on a large enough scale. There is sufficient evidence to warrant the execution of well-designed, carefully controlled experiments.” Scofield’s most encouraging statement for homeopaths was that “homeopathy has most certainly not been disproved.” However, Scofield ignored the scientific process. It is the absence of proof, not the absence of disproof, that is important. This is consistent with scientific dicta (based upon the statistical null hypothesis) that (1) no practice can be deemed safe or effective until proved to be so; and (2) the burden of proof is upon proponents.
A more recent meta-analysis of 107 controlled homeopathy trials appearing in 96 published reports also found “the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.” They also concluded that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, “but only by means of well-performed trials” (Kleijnen, 1991).
In 1988, a French scientist working at that country’s prestigious INSERM institute claimed to have found that high dilutions of substances in water left a “memory,” providing a rationale for homeopathy’s Law of Infinitesimals. His findings were published in a highly regarded science journal, but with the caveat that the findings were unbelievable, and that the work