News

The latest on everything that matters to student life, from UCD’s campuses and from around the country

Otwo

The University Observer’s award-winning arts and culture supplement features the best in new music, film and fashion

Features

Peek behind the scenes of student life and gain a deeper insight into the matters shaping academic life

Science & Health

Thoughts, debate and commentary on the latest breakthroughs and discoveries about the wider world

Sport

Catch up with the latest UCD sports news and read opinion, debate and analysis on all things athletic

Home » Science & Health

Homeo-phobic

Contributed by Alan Coughlan on Tuesday, 16 February 20103 Comments

It’s one of medicine’s most hotly-debated topics – can ‘the memory of water’ really hold the cure to healing the body? Alan Coughlan investigates the controversial world of homeopathy

It’s often said that ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’. In practice this is a mantra for life’s struggles, and it is this guiding principle that underlies a type of medicine that defies the laws of science.

The first of the two guiding principles of homeopathy is the concept that ‘like cures like’. First formulated in the 18th century, homeopaths attempted to cure hayfever by using a substance which causes the same runny nose and watering eyes as an allergy to pollen. It was allium separ: more commonly known as onion. The modern list of substances administered ranges from the simple to the absolute bizarre. Nylon, red spider venom, deadly nightshade, chalk, snake venom… even the tuberculosis gland of a cow has been used in homeopathic remedies. Something that was quickly noticed in administering these substances, though, was that some of them were highly poisonous.

This brings us to the second guiding principle of homeopathy, serial dilution – the idea being that the more you dilute a substance the more effective it becomes, provided it is done in a special way. 1ml of a liquid is dissolved in 99ml of water, violently shaken and hit against a hard surface (an action all homeopaths regard as essential). This is known as a ‘1C’ solution. 1ml of this is now dissolved in another 99 drops of water to make a ‘2C’ solution.

It is here that the real clash with science begins. At 6C, the medicine has been diluted a million million times – the equivalent to one drop in twenty swimming pools. 12C is equivalent to one drop in the Atlantic Ocean. However, a typical homeopathic solution has been diluted 30C – less concentrated than a single drop in all the oceans of the world. Homeopaths believe that one drop of this solution is sufficient.

Science, understandably, has a problem with this, suggesting that one can only dilute a solution to the point where only one molecule of the original substance remains. According to research chemist Walter Stewart, there is less than a one-in-a-billion chance that one molecule would remain in a homeopathic solution. For a medicine to have an effect on the human body, there must be a sufficient quantity of an active ingredient. Thus, if there’s not even a trace of the original substance, there can be no reaction.

In the 1980s, one of the big names in French science was Jacques Benveniste. With a string of discoveries to his credit, many felt he was on his way to a Nobel prize. It was in his research into allergies whilst working with basophils – a white blood cell involved in allergic reactions – that he made a discovery which ultimately ruined his career. When a person comes into contact with a substance to which they are allergic, basophils become active, causing the telltale symptoms of a runny nose and itchy eyes. Benveniste devised a test using a dye that turned inactive basophils blue. One of his technicians, however, noticed that a solution which had been diluted homeopathic levels was activating the cells. Benveniste was suspicious, and so set about conducting hundreds of experiments, at the end of which he declared to have discovered a ‘special’ kind of water that seemed to be remembering the substance it had once contained. He called the phenomenon ‘the memory of water’.

This was the evidence the homeopaths needed, and Benveniste knew it as he sent his results to Sir John Maddox at scientific journal Nature, who agreed to publish them if Nature could come and inspect the lab. Nature found, in due course, the same results as the ‘memory of water’ predicted. One of the Nature team noticed, however, that Benveniste’s technicians knew which tubes contained homeopathic water and which didn’t, and suspected that this knowledge might be influencing the results. The experiment was repeated blind, where nobody would know what tubes contained what kind of water, and with each tube labelled by a secret code. When the experiment was concluded and the code was cracked, it became clear that the special water was having no effect at all. Benveniste was criticised at large for not applying scientific methods as rigorously as he should, and his reputation was ruined.

Homeopathy has been shown in the lab, time after time, not to work – so why do millions of people use it? The answer may lie with the placebo effect. Doctors have known for a long time that people can be cured with pills containing nothing more than sugar. Bizarrely large pills can work better than small ones, and coloured better than white pills. The key is that the patient believes the pill will help them. This belief is enough to lower the production of stress hormones, with the physiological effect is to feel better.

Another stage in the application of homeopathy may use this effect: the consultation. A homeopath will, before creating a medicine, sit down and talk with their client. Everything is discussed, from eating habits and sleep patterns to tension in their lives, and advice is even given on how to lower stress levels.

On the face of it, the evidence seems to refute the possibility that homeopaths produce anything more than water – and an explanation for the effects of the medicine has not been given by either side. Dr Stephen Novella, a neurologist, says that “homeopaths target the worried well who have self-limiting or chronic symptoms – things that don’t need real medicine,” and points to an anonymous online quote to explain the public’s use of this particular alternative medicine.

“It’s curious that with low grade chronic conditions, like back pain, seasonal affective disorder etc, that people are eager to try alternative hocus pocus – but bring on something virulent, acute and truly terrifying, and roll on Western medicine. Nothing like your eyeballs leaking blood to bring things into perspective.”

3 Comments »

  • Dana Ullman, MPH said:

    Most people who write for a university make some type for accuracy, but this certainly was NOT the case in the above article.

    First, the name of the homeopathic medicine made from onion is “Allium cepa.”

    Secondly, the 12C homeopathic potency requires 12 testtubes of double-distilled water. Unless the writer thinks that the ocean is composed of only 12 testtubes of water, he is grossly in error.

    Jacques Benveniste, MD, was a leading French researcher, who virually always conducted his trials in a blind fashion. ONLY when the editor of NATURE required him to do his studies in a non-blind fashion did he comply to this procedure (it was NOT Benveniste’s idea).

    Finally, if the homeopathic interview process was truly the primary “treatment” from a homeopath, then today’s psychologists and psychiatrists would be the best healers in the world because they conduct a more thoroughly and lengthy interview, and patients seek their care once a week or more. In comparison, people go to a homeopath once a month (sometimes) or every 2 or 6 months (which is more typical).

    I sincerely hope that someone at your university will give this writer (Alan Coughlan) a FAILING grade.

  • Ciccone said:

    Dana Ullman,

    Yours is completely an Ad hominem argument, attempting to counter anothers claims by attacking the person rather than debating the facts and is typical of a defender of pseudoscience.
    Read precisely what was said about the 12C solution. It is the equivalence that matters. The dilution level is EQUIVALENT to one drop in the Atlantic ocean. This is basic Mathematics. It was never claimed that the Atlantic ocean was equivalent to 12 test tubes of water.
    Jacques Benveniste’s credentials were not called into question. However it is completely true that the experiments leading up to the publication of the “memory of water” hypothesis were not carried out in a blind fashion.
    It was also not claimed that the consultation was the primary treatment but rather it would help the patients recovery thus lending weight to the idea that the placebo effect is at work.
    Your immediate leap to the offensive trying to discredit the author makes me suspect you are either a practicing homeopath or a user.

  • homeopathy is a farce said:

    Bottom line:

    If it cannot be replicated in a double blind test, it is hocus pocus. Worse than that, it is hocus pocus masquerading as medicine, taking money and rasing hopes.

    If you have any proof that it CAN be replicated in a double blind, great – let us have it. If not, there is simply no point throwing up deliberately obtuse arguments (that ocean thing, seriously… if you couldn’t follow what was beig said there – the problem is you) to try and direct attention away from your lack of proof that homeopathy works….