Plausibility and evidence: the case of homeopathy
Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from ‘comparable to conventional medicine’ to ‘no evidence of effects beyond placebo’. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence—for homeopathy and for conventional medicine—can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the ‘crossword analogy’, we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence.
KeywordsHomeopathy Plausibility Bias Pre-trial belief Randomised controlled trial Review
- Calabrese, E.J., J. Staudenmayer, and E.J. Stanek. 2006. Drug development and hormesis. Changing conceptual understanding of the dose response creates new challenges and opportunities for more effective drugs. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development 9: 117–123.Google Scholar
- Chirumbolo, S., Brizzi, M., Ortolani, R., Vella, A., Bellavite, P. 2009. Inhibition of CD203c membrane upregulationin human basophils by high dilutions of histamine: A controlled replication study. Inflammation Research. doi: 10.1007/s00011-009-0044-4.
- De Gendt, T., Desomer, A., Goossens, M., Hanquet, G., Léonard, C., Mertens, R., Piérart, J., Robays, D. Roberfroid, O., Schmitz, I. Vinck, L.K. 2011. Stand van zaken van de homeopathie in België. Health Services Research (HSR). Brussel: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE). KCE Reports 154A. D/2011/10.273/12.Google Scholar
- Early Day Motion 908, session 2009-10. www.parliament.uk/edm/2009-10/908. Accessed 30 January 2012.
- Haack, S. 1998. Manifesto of a passionate moderate. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2010. Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy. Fourth Report of Session 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office Ltd.; 22 February 2010. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm. Accessed 30 January 2012
- Lancet editor. 2005. The end of homeopathy. Lancet 336: 690.Google Scholar
- Rutten L., Lewith, G., Mathie, R., Fisher, P. 2010. Homeopathy in upper respiratory tract infections? The impact of plausibility bias. WebmedCentral, 1(11):WMC001126.Google Scholar
- Sehon, S., and Stanley, D. 2010. Evidence and simplicity: Why we should reject homeopathy. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16: 276–281.Google Scholar
- Welles, S.U., E. Suanjak-Traidl, S. Weber, W. Scherer-Pongratz, M. Frass, P.C. Endler, H. Spranger, and H. Lothaller. 2007. Pretreatment with thyroxine (10e-8) and the effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxin (10-30) on highland frogs—A multi-researcher study. Res Compl Med/Forsch Komplementärmed 14: 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar