Evaluating the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s position on the implausible effectiveness of homeopathic treatments

Abstract

In 2009, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) conducted an ‘evidence check’ on homeopathy to evaluate evidence for its effectiveness. In common with the wider literature critical of homeopathy, the STC report seems to endorse many of the strong claims that are made about its implausibility. In contrast with the critical literature, however, the STC report explicitly does not place any weight on implausibility in its evaluation. I use the contrasting positions of the STC and the wider critical literature to examine the ‘implausibility arguments’ against homeopathy and the place of such arguments within evidence-based medicine (EBM). I argue that the STC report undervalues its strong claims about the mechanistic plausibility of homeopathy because it relies on a misunderstanding about the role of mechanistic evidence within EBM. This is not a conclusion for a revision of the role mechanistic evidence plays within EBM, however. It is a conclusion about the inconsistency of the STC report’s position towards implausibility arguments, given the evidential claims they endorse and the atypical situation that homeopathy presents. It provides a further example of the general point that mechanistic reasoning should not be seen as providing categorically lower quality evidence.

Effects of Homeopathic Preparations of Mercurius corrosivus on the Growth Rate of Severely Mercury-Stressed Duckweed Lemna gibba L.

“…(3) medium stress with neutralised effects; (4) severe stress with a significant growth-inhibiting effect after homeopathic treatment; and (5) very severe stress without homeopathic treatment effect (►Fig. 4).…”

Wellness tourism: a perspective article

“…It pertains to excessive service by prescription of unnecessary medical treatments and procedures (Connell, 2013). Second, there is growing Scepticism in academia towards the holistic, therapeutical approach because several studies have reported their questionable outcomes (Turner, 2017; Pinilla and Rodriguez-Caro, 2019). Third, several treatment solutions, including surrogacy, stem cells, abortion, transplantation and “death tourism” (euthanasia), raise concern over patient safety and human morality (Connell, 2013).…”

Homeopathy, Western medicine and the discourse of evidence: Negotiating legitimacy in a public online forum

“…By some measures homeopathy is now one of the most popular forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), with particularly high usage in northern Europe (Ernst, 2016; Fischer et al, 2014; Hart, 2018; Ong et al, 2005) where it is delivered as part of the national healthcare systems in countries including the UK (Turner, 2017), Denmark and France (Frank, 2002). However, as a paradigm, homeopathy is essentially ‘heretical’ (Jones, 2004) as it breaches central tenets of the orthodox Western model (Turner, 2017).…”

“…By some measures homeopathy is now one of the most popular forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), with particularly high usage in northern Europe (Ernst, 2016; Fischer et al, 2014; Hart, 2018; Ong et al, 2005) where it is delivered as part of the national healthcare systems in countries including the UK (Turner, 2017), Denmark and France (Frank, 2002). However, as a paradigm, homeopathy is essentially ‘heretical’ (Jones, 2004) as it breaches central tenets of the orthodox Western model (Turner, 2017). In particular, it uses highly diluted treatments that are said (by Western medicine) to contain no molecular content other than water (Cucherat et al, 2000); it tailors treatments to individuals rather than using a generalised evidence base of effectiveness to make prescription decisions; and it often uses one treatment to cure multiple ailments, rather than using combinations of treatments.…”