SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Many unproven or disproven treatments are currently popular (1). The reasons for this popularity are complex, (2) but incessant misinformation of the public is likely to be a crucial contributing factor (3). There are millions of websites dedicated to one sort of alternative medicine or another; most of them are commercially motivated and dangerously misleading. Our bookshops are full with volumes on alternative medicine, most of which are a risk factor to our health (4). Women’s magazines tend to provide uncritical information that put their readers at potentially serious risk (5). Even seemingly respectable organisations mislead the public (6). In the UK, the newly founded ‘College of Medicine’ (7), for instance, is fast becoming a prominent source of dangerously misleading information (8,9).

Here, I will briefly outline six false or misleading arguments frequently employed by advocates of unproven treatments. As an example, I have chosen homeopathy, as it is a treatment used by many patients worldwide (1), its principles are biologically implausible (10) and the clinical evidence fails to show that it is effective beyond placebo-response (11). The claims and arguments of homeopaths are similar to those of other providers of alternative medicine. In the following discussion, homeopathy could therefore be exchanged with acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy or any other alternative therapy.

Patients are whole individuals

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

As the ‘College of Medicine’ puts it, humans ‘are more than just physical bodies’ (7). Homeopaths stress that they view every patient as a whole, complex individual requiring care for the body, mind and spirit (12). In the view of its proponents, this attitude renders homeopathy an ‘appropriate’ therapy (13). In fact, the ‘College of Medicine’ prominently showcases homeopathy as an example of ‘good medicine’ (7).

All good medicine was, is and always will be holistic (14,15). The fact that patients consist of body, mind and spirit is taught to every first year medical student. Social medicine, psychiatry, psychology etc. are mainstream disciplines. To practice holistic healthcare, we do not need homeopathy or other unproven therapies. In areas where healthcare might be neglecting holism, we need to reform it – but not through ‘a complete paradigm shift’ (8) or by introducing quackery.

We must treat the causes of illness

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

Treating the symptoms of illness does not reflect the ‘complex causality of the real world’ (12). Homeopaths claim to treat the causes of the problem and accuse conventional doctors of merely alleviating symptoms. Patients tend to regard causation of illness as a priority for good healthcare (16). A homeopath exposes layers and layers of symptoms until finally, the root cause becomes recognisable. Only then can true healing commence.

Finding the cause of a disease is undoubtedly important; nobody would ever deny it. However, this process requires plausible concepts of causation rather than the implausible notions such as the ‘like cures like’ principle (10). Illusions of causality are at the heart of pseudoscience (17). Much of the efforts of mainstream medicine are, in fact, focused on discovering the causes of disease. Whenever possible, the therapeutic approaches of conventional physicians aim at the causes of disease, whereas homeopaths tend to ignore them.

We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

Many chronically ill patients are currently not treated effectively by conventional doctors who tend to prescribe drugs that merely alleviate one symptom (e.g. rheumatic pain) and cause another, often much more serious problem (e.g. gastrointestinal bleeding). Homeopaths, on the other hand, appreciate the ‘limitations within the conventional healthcare system’ (18) and, in particular, aim to alleviate chronic suffering (12). Mainstream medicine’s failure to address the chronicity of disease is, according to the ‘College of Medicine’ akin to ‘mopping the floor when the sink is overflowing’ (7).

All medical interventions must be measured with the same yardstick. Only if a therapy demonstrably generates more good than harm, can it be considered for routine practice. This general principle applies regardless whether we are treating an acute or a chronic condition. Conventional doctors certainly know about the importance of chronic disease and suffering. Consequently, they use all effective treatments to ease this burden. Good mainstream medicine is aware of its imperfections and aims to change them for the better. The adoption of unproven treatments can only render healthcare more imperfect than it already is.

Prevention is paramount

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

Mainstream medicine is capable of doing decent ‘repair jobs’ but, when it comes to avoiding health problems from occurring in the first place, it is often woefully inadequate. Homeopathy, on the other hand, has a focus on the preservation of health and wellness (19). The ‘College of Medicine’ certainly puts great emphasis on the importance of disease prevention for ‘good medicine’ (7).

Preventive medicine is a well-established, mainstream specialty. All effective measures of disease prevention known to date originate from conventional medicine and science. Homeopathic treatments have not been shown to prevent a single condition, and the contribution of homeopathy to disease prevention is nil. Some homeopaths even campaign against effective preventive measures such as immunisations (20).

Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

Homeopaths frequently claim that conventional healthcare professionals neglect patient choice. Therapeutic decisions, they insist, must be taken in partnership between the patient and the clinician, and the patient invariably has the last word! Homeopathy is currently popular (1). From this phenomenon, homeopaths tend to conclude that patient choice demands that individuals who want homeopathy must be able to use it (21).

Patients’ right to choose is firmly anchored in all areas of medicine (14), and patient-involvement in clinical decisions can improve outcomes (22). Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics. However, choice that is not informed by reliable advice can be problematic and dangerous. As there is no good evidence for homeopathy (11,23), reliable advice would not work for but against it. Advocating homeopathy in the name of patient choice is therefore nonsensical.

Evidence is not everything

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

Homeopaths are keen to point out that much of conventional healthcare is not evidence-based (24)]. ‘Nearly half of all current procedures would have to be withheld until expenditure of much time, money and effort had firmly ‘proved’ their effectiveness’ (25). Insisting on evidence for homeopathy is therefore unfair and discloses anti-homeopathic bias. The ‘College of Medicine’ thus advocates ‘a fundamental shift in our way of thinking about the relationship between evidence, information from scientific research, expertise, reasoning, clinical knowledge, and good practice’ (7).

Sadly, it is true that many conventional treatments remain unproven (24). However, this is precisely what evidence-based medicine aims to remedy. The existence of evidence gaps is no reason for introducing homeopathic placebos (26,27). This would only introduce double standards, widen the gaps and contravene our duty to render future healthcare more evidence-based.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References

The proponents of unproven treatments such as homeopathy frequently use arguments which, on the surface, may seem compelling (28). On closer inspection, many of these arguments turn out to be classic examples of a misinterpretation of the opponent’s position. Patients and policy-makers can be misled into feeling that the integration of unproven therapies offers the ‘provision of patient-centered, effective and safe healthcare’ (29). However, in reality, ‘integrative care is attempting to lift core attributes of normal good care away from the norm and into their special realm, spiced with placebo pills and acupuncture, which inject the consultation with inherent truths’ (30). If we allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in this way, we are bound to waste valuable resources (31) and fail our duty to provide the best available care for our patients.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Patients are whole individuals
  3. We must treat the causes of illness
  4. We must appreciate the burden of chronic disease
  5. Prevention is paramount
  6. Patient choice is the ultimate arbiter
  7. Evidence is not everything
  8. Conclusion
  9. Disclosures
  10. References
  • 1
    Hunt KJ, Ernst E. Patients’ use of CAM: results from the Health Survey for England 2005. FACT 2010; 15: 1013.
  • 2
    Ernst E, Hung SK. Great expectations: what do patients using complementary and alternative medicine hope for? Patient 2011; 4: 89101.
  • 3
    Ernst E The healthcare show: an evidence-free zone? FACT 2010; 13: 1–2.
  • 4
    Ernst E, Armstrong NC. Lay books on complementary/alternative medicine: a risk factor for good health? Int J Risk Safety Med 1998; 11: 20915.
  • 5
    Mantle F. The risks associated with consumer magazines giving advice on complementary therapies. Nursing Times 2009; 105: 1921.
  • 6
    Colquhoun D. From angelic reiki to patiented centred care. BMJ 2011; 342: 1005.
  • 7
    College of Medicine. http://www.collegeofmedicine.eu/ (accessed October 2011).
  • 8
    Cassidy J. The college of medicine. BMJ 2011; 342: 1344.
  • 9
    Ernst E. The college of medicine. Skeptic 2011; 22: 22.
  • 10
    Sehon S, Stanley D. Applying the simplicity principle to homeopathy: what remains? FACT 2010; 15: 812.
  • 11
    Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 57782.
  • 12
    MacPherson H, Peters D, Zollman C Closing the evidence gap in integrative medicine. BMJ 2009; 399: b3335 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/399/sep01_2/b3335)
  • 13
    Brien S, Lachance L, Prescott P, McDermott C, Lewith G Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Rheumatol 2011; 50: 1070–82.
  • 14
    Baum M. Concepts of holism in orthodox and alternative medicine. Clinic Med 2010; 10: 3740.
  • 15
    Ernst E. Integrated medicine revisited. FACT 2010; 13: 734.
  • 16
    Little CVPatient expectations of “effectiveness” in healthcare: an example from medical herbalism. J Clin Nurs 2011; 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03845.x.
  • 17
    Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA. Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. Br J Psychol 2010; 102: 392405.
  • 18
    Salamonsen A, Launso L, Kruse TE, Eriksen SH Understanding unexpected courses of multiple sclerosis among patients using complementary and alternative medicine: a travel from recipient to explorer. Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2010; 5 (DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v5i2.5032)
  • 19
    Guarneri E, Horrigan BJ, Pechura CM. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of integrateive medicine: a review of the medical and corporate literature. Explore 2010; 6: 30812.
  • 20
    Schmidt K, Ernst E. Welcome to the lion’s den – CAM therapists and immunisations. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2005; 10: 98100.
  • 21
    White C. Local primary care trusts should decide whether to fund homeopathy, says government. BMJ 2010; 341: 221.
  • 22
    Andersen MR, Sweet E, Lowe KA, Standish LJ, Drescher CW, Goff BA Involvement in decision-making about treatment and ovarian cancer suvivor quality of life. Gynecol Oncol 2011. Oct 29:[Epub ahead of print]
  • 23
    Baum M, Ernst E. Should we maintain and open mind about homeopathy? Am J Med 2009; 122: 9734.
  • 24
    Ernst E How Much of CAM is based on research evidence? eCAM 2009. May 21:[Epub ahead of print]
  • 25
    Milgrom LR. When sorry seems to be the hardest word: CAM, free speech, and the British legal system. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 834.
  • 26
    Hansen K, Kappel K. The proper role of evidence in complementary/alternative medicine. J Med Phil 2010; 35: 718.
  • 27
    Atwood KC. Patients have a “CAM” knowledge gap – but who will fill it? Am J Hematol 2009; 84: 7889.
  • 28
    Ernst E Complementary/alternative medicine: engulfed by postmodernism, anti-science and regressive thinking. BJGP 2009; 59 (S6i): 298301. April.
  • 29
    Grace S, Higgs J. Integrateive medicine: enhancing quality in primary health care. J Alt Comp Med 2010; 16: 94550.
  • 30
    McCartney M. The scam of integrative medicine. BMJ 2011; 343: 160.
  • 31
    MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia. Lancet 1996; 347: 56973.