An Analysis of the Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science and Its Application to Homeopathy

This paper presents a preliminary analysis of homeopathy from the perspective of the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science. In this context, Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend’s solution to the problem will be given respectively and their criteria will be applied to homeopathy, aiming to shed some light on the controversy over its scientific status. It then examines homeopathy under the lens of demarcation criteria to conclude that homeopathy is regarded as science by Feyerabend and is considered as pseudoscience by Popper and Kuhn. By offering adequate tools for the analysis of the foundations, structure and implications of homeopathy, demarcation issue can help to clarify this medical controversy. The main argument of this article is that a final decision on homeopathy, whose scientific status changes depending on the criteria of the philosophers mentioned, cannot be given

NHMRC draft information paper: evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions

This report summarises an assessment of homeopathy undertaken by the National Health and Medical Research Council, including an overview of published systematic reviews, evaluation of information provided by interest groups and the public, and consideration of clinical practice guidelines and government reports on homeopathy published in other countries. Introduction: Purpose: This information paper provides an overview of evidence from research on the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating health conditions in humans. It summarises the findings of an assessment of homeopathy undertaken by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which included an overview of published systematic reviews, evaluation of information provided by homeopathy interest groups and the public, and consideration of clinical practice guidelines and government reports on homeopathy published in other countries. Scope: NHMRC assessed the evidence on homeopathy to answer this question: Is homeopathy an effective treatment for health conditions, compared with no homeopathy, or compared to other treatments? NHMRC did not consider evidence for whether or not homeopathy is effective for preventing health conditions (including evidence about homeopathic ‘vaccines’), or whether homeopathy is good for general health. NHMRC did not assess evidence on the safety of the ingredients of homeopathic medicines.   The NHMRC are asking for submissions by Monday the 26th of May 2014 (5:00 pm).  Click here to find out more about making a submission

NHMRC information paper: evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions

This paper provides a summary of evidence from research on the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating health conditions in humans. Findings There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment. For some health conditions, studies reported that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. For other health conditions, there were poor-quality studies that reported homeopathy was more effective than placebo, or as effective as another treatment. However, based on their limitations, those studies were not reliable for making conclusions about whether homeopathy was effective. For the remaining health conditions it was not possible to make any conclusion about whether homeopathy was effective or not, because there was not enough evidence. Conclusions Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments

Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy

Background Complementary therapies are widespread but controversial. We aim to provide a comprehensive collection and a summary of systematic reviews of clinical trials in three major complementary therapies (acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy). This article is dealing with homeopathy. Potentially relevant reviews were searched through the register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and bibliographies of articles and books. To be included articles had to review prospective clinical trials of homeopathy; had to describe review methods explicitly; had to be published; and had to focus on treatment effects. Information on conditions, interventions, methods, results and conclusions was extracted using a pretested form and summarized descriptively. Results Eighteen out of 22 potentially relevant reviews preselected in the screening process met the inclusion criteria. Six reviews addressed the question whether homeopathy is effective across conditions and interventions. The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing. For isopathic nosodes for allergic conditions, oscillococcinum for influenza-like syndromes and galphimia for pollinosis the evidence is promising while in other areas reviewed the results are equivocal. Interpretation Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy

Unethical aspects of homeopathic dentistry

In the last year there has been a great deal of public debate about homeopathy, the system of alternative medicine whose main principles are that like cures like and that potency increases relative to dilution. The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded in November 2009 that there is no evidence base for homeopathy, and agreed with some academic commentators that homeopathy should not be funded by the NHS. While homeopathic doctors and hospitals are quite commonplace, some might be surprised to learn that there are also many homeopathic dentists practising in the UK. This paper examines the statements made by several organisations on behalf of homeopathic dentistry and suggests that they are not entirely ethical and may be in breach of various professional guidelines

Incommensurable worldviews? Is public use of complementary and alternative medicines incompatible with support for science and conventional medicine?

Proponents of controversial Complementary and Alternative Medicines, such as homeopathy, argue that these treatments can be used with great effect in addition to, and sometimes instead of, ?conventional? medicine. In doing so, they accept the idea that the scientific approach to the evaluation of treatment does not undermine use of and support for some of the more controversial CAM treatments. For those adhering to the scientific canon, however, such efficacy claims lack the requisite evidential basis from randomised controlled trials. It is not clear, however, whether such opposition characterises the views of the general public. In this paper we use data from the 2009 Wellcome Monitor survey to investigate public use of and beliefs about the efficacy of a prominent and controversial CAM within the United Kingdom, homeopathy. We proceed by using Latent Class Analysis to assess whether it is possible to identify a sub-group of the population who are at ease in combining support for science and conventional medicine with use of CAM treatments, and belief in the efficacy of homeopathy. Our results suggest that over 40% of the British public maintain positive evaluations of both homeopathy and conventional medicine simultaneously. Explanatory analyses reveal that simultaneous support for a controversial CAM treatment and conventional medicine is, in part, explained by a lack of scientific knowledge as well as concerns about the regulation of medical research

Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 1

For many years after its invention around 1796, homeopathy was widely used in people and later in animals. Over the intervening period (1796-2016) pharmacology emerged as a science from Materia Medica (medicinal materials) to become the mainstay of veterinary therapeutics. There remains today a much smaller, but significant, use of homeopathy by veterinary surgeons. Homeopathic products are sometimes administered when conventional drug therapies have not succeeded, but are also used as alternatives to scientifically based therapies and licensed products. The principles underlying the veterinary use of drug-based and homeopathic products are polar opposites; this provides the basis for comparison between them. This two-part review compares and contrasts the two treatment forms in respect of history, constituents, methods of preparation, known or postulated mechanisms underlying responses, the legal basis for use and scientific credibility in the 21st century. Part 1 begins with a consideration of why therapeutic products actually work or appear to do so

Complementary and alternative medicine : facts and figures (part I)

Complementary and alternative medical practices are flourishing despite the current fast pace of scientific research and discovery. Traditional practices combine with newer philosophies to make up the vast spectrum that constitute this phenomenon. To describe homeopathy and acupuncture, proposed mechanisms of action, present scientific research to prove or disprove their efficacy and discuss safety issues. Studies, reviews and meta-analyses dealing with this subject were researched from various publications to present evidence for or against the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine. Recent rigorous studies on acupuncture and homeopathy show no results beyond what is attributable to placebo effect. Complementary and alternative medical practices should be researched for efficacy and safety by the same standards used in conventional medicine.peer-reviewe