Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 525–532 | Cite as

Plausibility and evidence: the case of homeopathy

  • Lex Rutten
  • Robert T. Mathie
  • Peter Fisher
  • Maria Goossens
  • Michel van Wassenhoven
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Homeopathy Plausibility Bias Pre-trial belief Randomised controlled trial Review 

References

  1. Aguejouf, O., F.X. Eizayaga, V. Desplat, P. Belon, and C. Doutremepuich. 2008. Prothrombotic and hemorrhagic effects of aspirin. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostas. doi: 10.1177/1076029608319945.Google Scholar
  2. Bellavite, P., R. Ortolani, F. Pontarollo, V. Piasere, G. Benato, and A. Conforti. 2006. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies-part 1. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 3: 293–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belon, P., J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P.F. Mannaioni, M. Roberfroid, J. Sainte-Laudy, and F.A.C. Wiegant. 2004. Histamine dilutions modulate basophile activation. Inflammation Research 53: 181–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bewley, S. 2011. Authors’ reply to Fisher and 47 colleagues. British Medical Journal 343: d6693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, R.A. 2001. Is paradoxical pharmacology a strategy worth pursuing? Trends in Pharmacological Science 22: 273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Calabrese, E.J., and R. Blain. 2005. The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: An overview. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 202: 289–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Cucherat, M., M.C. Haugh, M. Gooch, and J.P. Boissel. 2000. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy—A meta-analysis of clinical trials. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 56: 27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Early Day Motion 908, session 2009-10. www.parliament.uk/edm/2009-10/908. Accessed 30 January 2012.
  12. Eizayaga, F.X., O. Aguejouf, V. Desplat, P. Belon, and C. Doutremepuich. 2007. Modifications produced by indomethacin and L-NAME in the effect of ultralow-dose aspirin on platelet activity in portal hypertension. Pathophysiology Haemostasis Thrombosis 35: 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endler, P.C., K. Thieves, C. Reich, P. Matthiessen, L. Bonamin, C. Scherr, and S. Baumgartner. 2010. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10−23. Homeopathy 99: 25–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ezzo, J., B. Bausell, D.E. Moerman, B. Berman, and V. Hadhazy. 2001. Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17: 457–466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Guedes, J.R.P., C.M. Ferreira, H.M.B. Guimaraes, P.H.N. Saldiva, and V.L. Capelozzi. 2004. Homeopathically prepared dilution of Rana catesbeiana thyroid glands modifies its rate of metamorphosis. Homeopathy 93: 132–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haack, S. 1998. Manifesto of a passionate moderate. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, K., and K. Kappel. 2012. Pre-trial beliefs in complementary and alternative medicine: Whose pre-trial belief should be considered? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15(1): 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, K., and K. Kappel. 2010. The proper role of evidence in complementary/alternative medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35: 7–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Jacobs, J., L. Jimenez, S. Gloyd, F. Casares, M. Gaitan, and D. Crothers. 1993. Homoeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. British Homeopathic Journal 82: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, J., L.M. Jimenez, S.S. Gloyd, J.L. Gale, and D. Crothers. 1994. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: A randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 93: 719–725.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs, J., L.M. Jimenez, S. Malthouse, E. Chapman, D. Crothers, M. Masuk, et al. 2000. Homeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: Results from a clinical trial in Nepal. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 6: 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleijnen, J., P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet. 1991. Clinical trials of homeopathy. British Medical Journal 302: 316–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linde, K., N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, D. Melchart, F. Eitel, L.V. Hedges, and W.B. Jonas. 1997. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 350: 834–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancet editor. 2005. The end of homeopathy. Lancet 336: 690.Google Scholar
  26. Linde, K., M. Scholz, G. Ramirez, N. Clausius, D. Melchart, and W.B. Jonas. 1999. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999(52): 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lüdtke, R., and A.L.B. Rutten. 2008. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61: 1197–1204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marian, F., K. Joost, K.D. Saini, K. von Ammon, A. Thurneysen, and A. Busato. 2008. Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: an observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 8: 52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Passalacqua, G., P.J. Bousquet, K.H. Carlsen, J. Kemp, R.F. Lockey, B. Niggemann, et al. 2006. ARIA update: I—Systematic review of complementary and alternative medicine for rhinitis and asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 117: 1054–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reilly, D.T., M.A. Taylor, C. McSharry, and T. Aitchison. 1986. Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathic potency with pollen in hay fever as model. Lancet 2(8512): 881–886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riley, D., M. Fischer, B. Singh, M. Haidvogl, and M. Heger. 2001. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: An outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 7: 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rutten, A.L.B., and C.F. Stolper. 2008. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy 97: 169–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rutten, A.L.B. 2008. How can we change beliefs? A Bayesian perspective. Homeopathy 97: 214–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Sainte Laudy, J., and P. Belon. 2009. Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: A sensitive and reproducible model for study of biological activity of high dilutions. Homeopathy 98: 186–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schulz, K.F., I. Chalmers, R.J. Hayes, and D. Altman. 1995. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 273: 408–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Shang, A., D. Huwiler-Müntener, L. Nartey, P. Jüni, S. Dörig, J.A.C. Sterne, and M. Egger. 2005a. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 366: 726–732.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shang, A., P. Jüni, J.A.C. Sterne, D. Huwiler-Müntener, and M. Egger. 2005b. Author’s reply. Lancet 366: 2083–2085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterne, J.A.C., M. Egger, and G. Davey Smith. 2001. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 323: 101–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Teixeira, M.Z. 2007. Bronchodilators, fatal asthma, rebound effect and similitude. Homeopathy 96: 135–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Teixeira, M.Z. 2011. Rebound acid hypersecretion after withdrawal of gastric acid suppressing drugs: New evidence of similitude. Homeopathy 100: 148–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vandenbroucke, J.P., and A.J.M. de Craen. 2001. Alternative medicine: A “mirror image” for scientific reasoning in conventional medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 135: 507–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vandenbroucke, J.P. 2001. In defense of case reports and case series. Annals of Internal Medicine 134: 330–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vandenbroucke, J.P. 1998. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge. Lancet 352: 2001–2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Witt, C.M., M. Bluth, H. Albrecht, T. Weißhuhn, S. Baumgartner, and S.N. Willich. 2007. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—a systematic review of the literature. Complimentary Therapy Medicine 15: 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Witt, C., R. Lüdtke, N. Mengler, and S. Willich. 2008. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?—results from a long term observational study. BMC Public Health 8: 413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lex Rutten
    • 1
  • Robert T. Mathie
    • 2
  • Peter Fisher
    • 3
  • Maria Goossens
    • 4
    • 5
  • Michel van Wassenhoven
    • 6
  1. 1.BredaThe Netherlands
  2. 2.British Homeopathic AssociationLutonUK
  3. 3.Royal London Hospital for Integrated MedicineLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of General PracticeKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Unit of Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and EpidemiologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  6. 6.Belgian Homeopathic Medicines Registration Commission (AFMPS)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations