Gripping TV = Science?

(excerpt from Trevor Jackson's review):
'This was gripping television. The preview tape did not show the last three minutes of the programme and I had to wait a week to find out whether or not the experiment had worked. However, I was not surprised to learn that Randi's money is safe, homoeopathy really is impossible.'

Under their premise so, for example, would the existence of God and all religious experience be impossible. Anyone who takes James Randi on under his terms is deluding themselves if they think they will come to any meaningful conclusions about homeopathy.
The whole exercise was meaningless even if 'gripping television'. Homeopathy is already proven by the real results it brings in the alleviation of human (and animal) suffering the world over.That they cannot understand it doesn't make it impossible. Science has always had to play catch up with what's going on in the universe, the problem comes when the 'scientists' pretend that not being able to find the answer to how something works, means it can't work. That is a long way from my understanding of science.
The only thing they have proven is that they don't understand Homeopathy, and that they are frivolous in concluding from their failure that it is therefore impossible. It is a responsibility that the program makers and scientists should take more seriously; to dismiss Homeopathy for lack of understanding thus discouraging people from acquiring real relief from their suffering, does a disservice both to the patients and to science.

Simon King
Competing interests:Homeopath

AND

in reply to Gustavo Iglesias, Intern
Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

To address some points made by Mr Inglesias:
Where he states that: ‘Homeopaths have repeatedly failed to yield proper clinical or scientific evidence, using double-blind placebo- controlled prospective multi-institutional clinical trials, that homeopathy represents a benefit to patients. ...(snip)..No meta-analyses employing well-design trials have validated homeopathic therapies.’ - First let us be clear about one thing, Homeopathy works. How do we know this? Patients get better, that’s how. Why no trials as described? Two reasons.
Firstly funding, there isn’t any. Secondly, there is only one trial that will yield results that are meaningful, that is one that is set up by someone who understands the principles of prescribing homeopathy. Please be clear that homeopathy is proven by the method and manner in which it is prescribed, NOT the nature of the medicine. It is prescribed according to individual symptoms. There is already a perfectly sufficient trial for that , it’s called ‘patients’. You need symptoms on which to prescribe, therefore it should be obvious that with the protocols he requests ‘trials’ will yield no results. The substance ‘Sepia’ (for example) diluted to the 30c and sitting in a bottle in a shop is not a homeopathic remedy. It only becomes that when it is prescribed correctly. This point should already be clear to anyone before trying to set up an experiment, had they first learned something about the application of homeopathy.
Where he states that: ‘The homeopathic medical community accuses scientists and physicians of being dishonest, claiming mainstream scientific and medical communities refuse to validate homeopathy due to conflicting interests.’ - I don’t think anyone would claim that there wasn’t a conflict in interest, so let’s just be honest about that and accept it. A few individuals do not constitute the whole of the homeopathic medical community, however there is understandably a lot of distrust and resentment towards those that persistently pour huge resources into trying to disprove homeopathy, surely their motives must reasonably be called into question?
Where he states that:’ They are suggesting that the vast majority of physicians and scientists consider the financial interests of drug companies more important than the honest, ethical practice of science or medicine. ‘-I would categorically refute this assertion. The homeopathic medical community have the highest regard for the ethics and honesty of the vast majority of physicians and scientists. In fact the majority of early Homeopaths were physicians first, and this is still often the case
Where he states that:’ The practice of homeopathy does not diverge one iota from Hahnemann's original writings nearly three hundred years ago. There is no research, no innovation, no evolution. ‘ - he is completely misinformed, or perhaps simply uninformed. There has been considerable research, extensive innovation, evolution bordering on revolution, and new remedies are being introduced and used all the time.
Where he states that: ‘In order to prove a theory, you should design a set of conditions, called an experiment, which should always consist in an honest attempt to disprove (or "falsify" in Popper's terms) the theory in question.’ -He may be right, but that’s not the issue. There is a difference between trying to prove (or disprove) HOW something works and WHETHER it works. The programme and Trevor Jackson’s article intimated that Homeopathy could not work and therefore did not work: therein lies my contention. (please see my earlier response)

Simon King

AND

Re: Same old excuses 11 December 2002

In response to Adam Jacobs comments:
To take his example of Boiron (I have no idea whether his figures are correct or not), I imagine that homeopathy is not the bulk of their business, so what would be their incentive to fund such trials even assuming they deemed them viable?
According to Robin Murphy ND* ‘allopathic prescribed drugs kill 120,000 people a year, and these are the reported cases only’. There are no reported deaths that I’m aware of by homeopathy. The companies the manufacture allopathic drugs have a need to prove their efficacy and safety, whereas there is not the same imperative to provide such trials for homeopathic remedies because they are so safe. Satisfied clients provide the acid test of homeopathy’s efficacy. These are the very results homeopaths (and patients) want. This is the raison d’etre for homeopaths. This is why it is so popular and why there is no other compelling reason for homeopaths to spend a fortune on proving what is, as far as those who use it are concerned, already established fact.
The trial he suggests sounds like a good idea until you examine it. It presupposes that the homeopaths in question would be prescribing the correct remedy in each case; else an audit would need to be taken first of successful homeopathic practices to determine the height of the bar. Also there is the complication of how to follow up a remedy which hasn’t worked. Was it placebo or was it the wrong remedy? Cure is infrequently effected (in chronic disease) by the first and only dose of a remedy, despite that being a prime goal. There are prescribing strategies a homeopath employs if a well indicated remedy fails. It typically takes four years training to learn these processes. I’m not saying a meaningful trial is impossible, just that it is a lot more involved than might be imagined, because before such a thing could set up one has to get away from the allopathic mindset and comprehend the homeopathic perspective (there are many homeopathy journals and resources **online available). This isn’t an excuse, it is a reality.
I recommend that those who would seriously wish to understand the various issues surrounding homeopathic practice immerse themselves in the study of its principles, rather than give credit to those responding glibly to an ill conceived trial masquerading as science.This will be my final response to this particular discussion.

Simon King

*’Homeopathic Toxicology’ - Homeopathy in Practice October 2002 (presumably referring to the USA)
**e.g. www.homeopathyhome.com
http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/resonance/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/simillimum/index.html