Ernst continued to practise (and indeed receive) homeopathy for many years, remaining open to its potential. If homeopathy could be shown to be effective, then he and his colleagues would have been overjoyed, as it would offer fresh hope for patients and present new avenues of research in medicine, biology, chemistry and even physics. Unfortunately, as Ernst took a step back and began to look at the research into this form of medicine, he became increasingly disillusioned.
One key piece of research that helped to change Ernst’s view was conducted in 1991 by the German pharmacologist Professor W. H. Hopff, who repeated Hahnemann’s original experiment with Cinchona–according to Hahnemann, if a medicine that cured malaria was given to a healthy volunteer, then it would actually generate the symptoms of malaria. Using his own students as guinea pigs, the professor compared Cinchona with a placebo and discovered no difference. Neither positive nor negative. In short, Hahnemann’s results, which provided the foundation for homeopathy, were simply wrong. Such trials made it clear to Ernst that homeopathic medicines are nothing more than elaborate placebos.
Nevertheless, some readers might still feel that elaborate placebos are perfectly acceptable. You might feel that placebos help patients, and that this alone justifies the use of homeopathy. Some mainstream doctors sympathize with this view, while many others strongly disagree and feel that there are reasons why the placebo effect alone is not enough to justify the use of homeopathy in healthcare. For example, placebo treatments are not inevitably beneficial, and they can even endanger the health of patients. Even homeopathic remedies, containing no active ingredients, can carry risks. We will discuss the issue of safety in homeopathy and in relation to other alternative therapies at the end of the next chapter.
In the meantime, we will end this chapter by briefly considering another negative aspect of using placebo‑based treatments such as homeopathy, namely the cost. This issue has been highlighted by Professor David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist who in 2006 criticized the sale of a homeopathic first‑aid kit:
All the ‘remedies’ in this kit are in the 3 °C dilution. They therefore contain no trace of the substance on the label. You pay £38.95 for a lot of sugar pills. To get even one molecule you’d have to swallow a sphere with a diameter equal to the distance from the Earth to the sun. That is hard to swallow.
If a person is going to spend £38.95 on a first‑aid kit, then surely it is better to spend the money on real medicines that are genuinely effective, as opposed to wasting it on fake medicines, such as homeopathy, which offer only a placebo benefit. Perhaps the most extreme example of a homeopathic rip‑off is a remedy called Oscillococcinum. The following paragraph, which is from an article published in the magazine U.S. News and World Report in 1996, underlines the utter absurdity and profiteering that underpins the homeopathic industry:
Somewhere near Lyon, France, sometime this year, officials from the French pharmaceutical firm Boiron will slaughter a solitary duck and extract its heart and liver–not to appease the gods but to fight the flu. The organs will be used to make an over‑the‑counter flu medicine, called Oscillococcinum, that will be sold around the world. In a monetary sense, this single French duck may be the most valuable animal on the planet, as an extract of its heart and liver form the sole ‘active ingredient’ in a flu remedy that is expected to generate sales of $20 million or more. (For duck parts, that easily beats out foie gras in terms of return on investment.) How can Boiron claim that one duck will benefit so many sick people? Because Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic remedy, meaning that its active ingredients are so diluted that they are virtually nonexistent in the final preparation.
In fact, the packaging boldly states that each gram of medication contains 0.85 grams of sucrose and 0.15 grams of lactose, which are both forms of sugar. In other words, Oscillococcinum is a self‑declared 100 per cent sugar pill.
Remedies free of active ingredients worth $20 million derived from a single duck? This has to be the ultimate form of medical quackery.
4. The Truth About Chiropractic Therapy
‘…at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes–an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly sceptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.’ Carl Sagan
Chiropractic Therapy
A form of treatment developed at the end of the nineteenth century, which involves manual adjustments of the spine. Although some chiropractors focus on treating back pain, many others also treat a whole range of common illnesses, such as asthma. The underlying theory claims that manipulating the spine is medically beneficial because it can influence the rest of the body via the nervous system.
CHIROPRACTORS, WHO USUALLY DEAL WITH BACK OR NECK PROBLEMS BY manipulating the spine, are becoming such an established part of the healthcare system that many readers will be surprised to see chiropractic therapy included in a book about alternative medicine. After all, many conventional doctors refer their patients to chiropractors, and many insurance plans are willing to cover such treatments. This is particularly true in America, where chiropractors are most widespread, and where roughly $3 billion is spent annually on chiropractic treatment. As well as being an established part of the American healthcare system, chiropractors are becoming increasingly popular–between 1970 and 1990 their numbers tripled, and in 2002 there were 60,000 chiropractors practising in North America. It is expected that this figure will almost double by 2010, whereas the number of medical physicians will have increased by only 16 per cent.
Perhaps the most significant indication that chiropractors have become part of the medical mainstream is that they are licensed in all fifty US states, and they also have legal recognition in many other countries. For example, chiropractors in the United Kingdom are regulated by statute, which means that they have a similar standing to that of doctors and nurses. So, bearing all this in mind, why do chiropractors deserve to be labelled as alternative therapists?
The chiropractic approach to medicine emerged towards the end of the nineteenth century with a radically new view on health. The founders of chiropractic therapy argued that poor health was due to subluxations, by which they meant slight misalignments of the vertebrae in the spine. In turn, they believed that subluxations interfered with the flow of so‑called innate intelligence (akin to a life force or vital energy), which then led to health problems of all sorts. But there is no evidence for the existence of innate intelligence or its role in health. The concepts of innate intelligence and subluxations are as mystical and as baffling as the concepts of Ch’i in acupuncture or extreme dilution in homeopathy, which means it makes no sense at all from a modern scientific point of view. That is why chiropractic treatment is still considered by many as an alternative medicine–despite its current popularity.