COMMENTS TO DAWKINS' DOCUMENTARY ON HOMEOPATHY

By Stefano Carlino, M.D.

Scientific Collaborator and Representative of IACH to ECH (subcommittee of Educa
tion)
I have watched this documentary very closely and I was stunned, not so much for
its content (actually there is anything new), but for the destructive attitude o
f its author toward Homeopathy. This kind of slanderers have always followed thi
s science since its dawning, yet millions and millions of people worldwide, now
since two hundred years, continue to benefit from its effects and the number of
conversions to this type of therapeutic system is continuously growing. Beyond t
hese considerations, one thing is sure: organizing and producing such types of d
ocumentaries, certainly requires time and not inconsiderable financial efforts.
So I wonder: what can be the interest of a person or a group of persons investin
g money for trying to destroy a discipline. Perhaps because they are animated by
a strong sense of justice and do not tolerate that poor patients get lost in th
e illusion; perhaps because they are burned by the passion for truth and spend a
ny energy, for making it clear to the world; or perhaps ... this discipline they
are trying to destroy, is a threat to their interests. I leave the reader drawi
ng his own conclusions. Nobody would invest in a documentary to discredit the sc
ientific claim that the core of the earth consists of iron. In fact, no one has
ever been at the centre of the earth to check it, but everyone accepts it and no
one would ever think to discredit it: the fact that the core is constituted by
iron or any other substance does not harm the interests of anyone. In this case
it is different: Homeopathy is a threat to a huge sector of the industry, which
daily speculates on human health, generating billions and billions of dollars, d
espite the continuous and exponential increase of chronic diseases in the world.
Each new patient who converts to Homeopathy, is a patient who will not purchase
drugs, or at least not as before. Each of them represents an economic loss for
this sector. If we consider that today, only in Europe, more than thirty million
people are cured by homeopathy, it is increasingly evident that this therapeuti
c system constitutes a nuisance for someone.
I also want to highlight that, as normally happens, detractors do not say the wh
ole truth, but omits some important things, things that do not come in handy to
prove their thesis. For example, the author of the documentary has clearly omitt
ed that, during the preparation of the homeopathic remedy, there is not only the
dilution. If the process consisted only in diluting the substance, the author w
ould be absolutely right and nobody could contest it. Actually, during the prepa
ration, there is a process of succussion that extracts, from medicinal substance
s, something still unknown, but exerting its potent therapeutic effects. Then, o
mitting an important fact is not giving information but misinformation. The one
who loves the truth, the one who is willing to open new frontiers to science, ha
s not this kind of attitude. Rather, he wonder: if millions and millions of peop
le continue to follow this therapeutic system, if even infants or animals (for w
hich the placebo effect cannot be called into question) continue to benefit from
this "oceanic" dilution, it must contain something therapeutically active, even
if it still cannot be proven with existing physical instruments. History abound
s in this type of conflict, though all, without distinction, have been won by tr
uth. This is because the truth needs no paladins who defend it. It is only a mat
ter of time, but the truth emerges spontaneously, despite the effort that his de
tractors do, to hide it to their eyes and to the eyes of others. Let us remember
of Galileo Galilei, who had to deny a concept which was so evident in his exper
iments, namely that the earth revolves around the sun and not the contrary. He r
isked being murdered, like many other "heretics" of his time. Like now, detracto
rs of this truth saw threatened their influence, their power over the people. Bu
t you will say, that one was a dark time for science; today is different. And wh
at about Albert Einstein, who less than a century ago completely shook the found
ations of the vision of the universe, the concepts of gravity, space and time, c
oncepts which were strongly rooted in the scientific world, since the time of Eu
clid and Newton. Yet, as always happens in these cases, he was not believed by t
he scientific community of his time.
I am therefore aware that it is unlikely that the skeptic can believe, but my wo
rds are not