HOMEOPATHY

AND THE
NEW
FUNDAMENTALISM
Rx

Pr Px

Lionel Milgrom
 The New Fundamentalism: what
is it?
 It is based on an extremely narrow interpretation of
science and evidence-based medicine (EBM).
 It denies efficacy for any therapeutic modality that
cannot be ‘proven’ in RCTs.
 It ridicules, ignores, or misunderstands any explanation
of homeopathy’s efficacy, and current research data
supporting such explanations, especially from outside
biomedicine.
 It uses experimental bias, hear-say, even innuendo in
order to discredit homeopathy (e.g., Ernst’s recent claim that
negative trial data supposedly obtained by the Nazis has been deliberately
covered up for over 60 years. See Ernst E, The truth about homeopathy.
Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65(2):163-4; and Milgrom LR and Moebius S. Is
Using Nazi Research to Condemn Homeopathy Ethical or Scientific? Bri J
Clin Pharm 2008;66(1):156-7)

 It is itself, therefore, unscientific; indeed, it is anti-

scientific.
 The New Fundamentalists: the most
voluble
 In the UK:
• Edzard Ernst , Professor of CAM at the University of Exeter;
• Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor, academic/author;
• David Colquhoun, UCL professor of pharmacology,
• Michael Baum , Emeritus professor of oncology, and his co-
signatories of the Times letter (23/05/2007) urging health
authorities to cut funding for homeopathy/CAMs.
• Sense About Science , which includes science writer and
broadcaster Simon Singh, and Labour peer Dick Taverne;
• Ben Goldacre, Guardian journalist;
 From the US,
• Magician, James Randi
• Physicist, Robert L Park
 The New Fundamentalists: what to they
want?
 They see themselves as ‘defenders of reason’ against a tide of
irrational belief in, among other things, ‘quack’ medicine.
 After all, how can homeopathic medicines work
if there are no molecules of the original drug
substance present?
 So, New Fundamentalists want to tell us how to think, e.g., the
latest from Ernst and Baum “All serious thinkers should have
a closed mind on the subject of homeopathy: it is anti-
scientific and simply does not work.” (The Worst Medicine, 07/05/2008:
Wellcome Collection http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/wellcome/bestandworst/C142/)
 In the UK, they want:-
 Total exclusion of all ‘quack’ therapies from the NHS:
 Closure of state-funded homeopathic hospitals; regardless of the
many who benefit from them.
 Their activities have lead to reductions in NHS referrals to the
RLHH, which is threatened with closure.
 But 206 MPs signed an EDM to debate the fate of the RLHH.
 Guardian journalist Tom Whipple, sent an email asking them why
and on what evidence they had decided to sign the EDM.
 The New Fundamentalists: what did they
get?
 Some typical responses:
Andrew George:
“The primary purpose behind adding my name to this
EDM is to offer an alternative treatment where
conventional medicine has failed, providing that it can be
clinically proven that the homeopathic option will not
cause harm.” (‘First; do no harm.’ – Hippocratic Oath)
“If the treatment helps some patients then within
reasonable financial constraints and ensuring that
decisions are fully informed then patients with the
support of their GP could be prescribed the homeopathic
option.”

Frank Field
“I support the EDM because I have been a beneficiary of
homeopathy medicine. Sometimes the drugs don’t work.
The NHS has been treating me for eczema for more years
than I can remember without total success.
“I do believe one aspect of getting well is that people
believe that they will get well. It is not the only aspect and
as the health budget has almost doubled in real terms I
The New Fundamentalism: propagating
porkies
 In the history of science, paradigm shifts
are nothing new, but…
 What’s different is that we live in an age
of easily accessible mass
communication.
 The New Fundamentalism’s ‘quack-
busting’ message is propagated by
some (but by no means all) in the media
who share their (mainly biomedical)
scientific backgrounds and beliefs, e.g.,
Ben Goldacre.
 And they are a tad economical with the
 The New Fundamentalism propagates
porkies
 From Nick Cohen: “The cranks who swear by
citronella oil”. Observer; Sunday, 28/10/2007.
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2200815,00.html
.
 “….Yet dismissing homeopathy as quackery given by
and for the feeble-minded is surprisingly hard. Anti-
elitism dominates our society and many feel
uncomfortable saying that the six million people who
take alternative medicines are foolish - to put the case
against them at its kindest. They sincerely believe in
phoney remedies and sincerity trumps sense in modern
culture.”
 And, “(homeopathy’s) effects can be positively deadly.”
 The New Fundamentalism propagates
porkies
 The lie of homeopathy’s ‘deadliness’ has been repeated
in The Lancet. Ben Goldacre. Benefits and risks of homeopathy.
The Lancet 2007;370 (issue no. 9600): 1671-2: Udani
Samararasekara. Pressure grows against homeopathy in the UK.
ibid. 1677-8.
 ….Homeopathic malaria prophylaxis, attacked as
deadly by Simon Singh on Newsnight ….
 ….And the Government’s Chief Scientist, Sir David King
has also got in on the act (evidence to the Select Committee
on Innovation, Universities, and Skills, 06/12/07).
 Presumably, fear over homeopathy/CAMs
‘deadliness’ arises from their replacing
conventional treatments….?
 ….But aren’t they all forgetting something…?
 The benefits of modern
medicine
 In 2006 in the UK there were:-
 940,000 recorded accidents by doctors and hospitals (government thinks
this an underestimate: more like 1,190,000)

300,000 hospital-acquired infections
 250,000 serious adverse drug reactions (again an underestimate, closer to
1,200,000).
 That’s 2.68 million Britons harmed by conventional medicine (4.5% of
the population).
 Chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, said:-
 “These figures would be terrifying enough without our learning that
there is undoubtedly substantial under-reporting of serious incidents
and deaths….” (See, Leigh E. A safer place for patients: learning to improve patient
safety: 51st report of session 2005-06 report, together with formal minutes, oral, and
written evidence. House of Commons papers 831; 2005-06, TSO (The Stationery Office).
6th July 2006).
 Why? Drs don’t want to face legal action from Pxs or disciplinary
action from the GMC.
 In the US, conventional medicine is the third biggest killer after heart
disease and cancer.
 More people die by conventional medicine in the US than by firearms.
(See http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm)
 The benefits of modern
medicine
 Malaria: second biggest killer in the world – ~1,000,000 new
cases/year – a child dies every 30 seconds….
• Big Pharma’s response: New anti-malarial drugs are not profitable so tend not to
get involved in researching them – leaves it to charity, e.g., Bill Gates.
• Current anti-malaria drugs can cause schizophrenia. (See World Health
Organisation: Review of central nervous system adverse events to the antimalarial drug
mefloquine (1985–1990). Geneva: WHO, 1991. Report no: WHO/mal 91.1063). Up to 22%
of Lariam takers have reported serious adverse psychological events
(see Mathew Parris, ‘I THINK I’D RATHER HAVE MALARIA’, The Times
04/04/1998)
 ….Prozac ‘no better than placebo’….Statin side-effects….
 ….Withdrawal of Vioxx, Paxil, Bextra, Baycol…. Northwick Park
antibody trial….only 15% of CM products tested by RCTs….
‘skewing’ of drug trials results in order to protect share price and
investors (See, for example,
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Zoloft%3B+trials+questioned&btnG=Search&meta
=)

 ….Not to mention antibiotic abuse and the rise of MRSA….

 ….MMR and the attempts to discredit Dr Andrew Wakefield (See
Martin Walker; ‘The Guardian, the Science Lobby, and the rise of Scientific Corporatism’,
22/01/2008 http://www.whale.to/vaccine/walker13.html)
 ….The invention of ‘new diseases’ to sell more drugs (known as disease
mongering; see, Moynihan R, Heath I, Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry
 The benefits of modern medicine
The vaccination myth?
“Scientific medicine has
taken credit it does not
deserve for some
advances in health.
Most people believe
that victory over the
infectious diseases of
the last century came
with the invention of
immunisations. In fact,
cholera, typhoid,
tetanus, diphtheria and
whooping cough, etc,
were in decline before
vaccines for them
became available - the
result of better methods
of sanitation, sewage
disposal, and
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/ distribution of food and
water." Taken from 'Health and
 AND THEY CALL
HOMEOPATHY/CAMS

!!!DEADLY!!!
The New Fundamentalists: what they
forget
 New Fundamentalists claim there is no

proof or evidence that homeopathy/CAMs

have efficacy (possibly beyond a placebo
response).
 But even if that were true (which it

isn’t)….
 “…. absence of proof is not proof

of absence. In fact, from a

methodological and statistical
standpoint, absence of proof is
very difficult to prove….”
 Dean R Hess, Editorial; Respiratory Care, July 2002,
 BAD SCIENCE?
 2005: Shang et al. ‘Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy
placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled
trials of homoeopathy and allopathy’. Lancet.
2005;366(9487):726-32.
 Lancet editorial (by Horton) proclaims ‘the end of homeopathy’.
 Appeared during August when news is sparse – the media
pounced.
 Actually, this research was outright scientific bias and was roundly
criticised by many scientists working in the field (none of which
was reported by the media). See JACM 2005; 11(5): 779-785:
• Horton Deplores Breach; As Do We His. George T. Lewith, Harald Walach,
Wayne B. Jonas:
• Shang et al. Carelessness, Collusion, or Conspiracy? David Peters:
• Bias in the Trial and Reporting of Trials of Homeopathy: A Fundamental
Breakdown in Peer Review and Standards? Michael Frass, E. Schuster,
Ilse Muchitsch, Jeff Duncan, Walter Gei, Gloria Kozel, Christa Kastinger-Mayr,
Anton E. Felleitner, Christian Reiter, Christian Endler, Menachem Oberbaum:
• Failure to Exclude False Negative Bias: A Fundamental Flaw in the Trial
of Shang et al. Helmut Kiene, Gunver S. Kienle, Tido von Schön-Angerer:
• Understanding Placebo Effects in Homeopathic Clinical Trials.
Trevor Thompson, Marjorie Weiss:
 BAD SCIENCE?
 Deconstructing Shang et al. From Dr Peter Fisher in
PubMed:
• "The final analysis which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of
homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on just eight
clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet’s press release did
not mention this, instead giving the impression that the
conclusions were based on all 110 trials." 
• "One of the most serious criticisms is the complete lack of
transparency (which incidentally goes against the Lancet’s own
guidelines for conducting such meta-analyses): we have no
idea which eight trials were included in the final,
damning, analysis." 
• "The literature references are not given, nor any information on
the diagnoses, numbers of patients, etc., nor can these be
deduced from the article.” 
• “Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the
identity of the eight trials. This is not even a matter of
scientific method, but of natural justice: the accused has
the right to know the evidence against him."
 Memory of water

280 water Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell I, Hoover MR. Mat Res
molecules/icosahedron
http:/www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.htm Innovat 2005;9(4):559-576 (On-line;
www.matrice-technology.com)

The Memory of Water hypothesis is based on conventional physics and

chemistry concepts of supra-molecularity arising from hydrogen bonding and
other well-known weak interactions between water molecules. But MoW has
been dismissed out of hand as a ‘belief in undetected sub-atomic fields’ (See
Sagar SM. Homeopathy: does a teaspoon of honey help the medicine go down? Curr Oncol
2007;14(4):126-7, and Milgrom LR. Homeopathy, fundamentalism, and the memory of water. Curr
 Memory of water
Evidence from the physical sciences
A. Chaplin M. Water Structure and Behaviour. Online
document
at: www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/. Excellent section on homeopathy.
Exhaustive
and regularly updated

B. Thermo-luminscence:
1. Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride
and
sodium chloride. Physica A 2003;323:67–74.
2. van Wijk R, Bosman S, van Wijk EP. Thermoluminescence in ultra-high
dilution research. J Altern Complement Med 2006; 12(5): 437–443.

C. Thermo-chemistry and Electrochemistry:

1. Elia V., Niccoli M. Ann New York Acad Sci, 1999; 879: 241.
2. Elia V., Niccoli M. J Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2000; 61: 527.
3. Elia V., Niccoli M. J Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2004; 75: 815.
4. Elia V., Baiano S., Duro I., Napoli E., Niccoli M., Nonatelli L.
Homeopathy,
2004; 93: 144–150.
5. V. Elia, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli, Ramaglia A., Ventimiglia E.
 Memory of water: composition vs
structure
D. Materials science - epitaxy
 Sceptics claim that since there is no difference in composition
between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no
differences
at all between them.
 Materials science shows “…. that it is structure (not composition)
that
(largely) controls properties, and structures can be changed
in
inorganic phases without any change of composition.” (e.g.,
diamond and
graphite)
 “The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the
structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original
solvent.” Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell I, Hoover MR. Mat Res Innovat
2005;9(4):559-576 (On-line; www.matrice-technology.com)
 Using Raman and Ultra-Violet–Visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy Roy et al
distinguished two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vom and Nat

Mur) and differentiated their 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies.

 MoW and biology?
There is a long way to go, but think of the chemistry inside cells as like
watching a play at the theatre. The molecules of life – DNA, proteins,
enzymes, lipids, vitamins, etc – are the principle ‘actors’ and they transfix our
attention. But the ‘stage’, scenery, direction, even the theatre itself is made
up of coordinated water molecules which allow these principle actors to
perform.

Pressure changes in the membranes of the myelin sheath of long

axons cause tightly-packed cholesterol-lecithin complexes to coil and
stretch which, via lined-up water molecules, causes protein pores to
open and close, allowing transmission of ions across the membrane.
Such a mechanism is vitally important for the transmission of neural
impulses.
 Why ‘believe’ in science?
 Which means it might be possible to eventually
explain homeopathy in scientific terms.
 So why can’t the New Fundamentalists ‘get’
this?
__________________________________________________
 Science is ‘special’: it is based on ‘facts’;

 These are claims about the world established

by careful unprejudiced use of the senses;
 These ‘facts’ are used to ‘prove’ theory.
 But isn’t science also based on assumptions
about the world?

And don’t these assumptions somehow ‘colour’
the facts? Need to go deeper and ask,
• What is science?
• What is evidence?
 Why ‘believe’ in science?
 Deductive vs inductive logic….
• All humans are mortal; John Smith is human; ergo, he is mortal.
• In the farmyard, the turkeys are fed every day; the farmyard operates
in a uniform manner; ergo, the turkeys will be fed tomorrow.
 When we reason with deductive logic we can be sure that the
conclusion will be true if the premises are true.
 When we reason with inductive logic we can end up drawing false
conclusions from true premises (what happens to turkeys on Dec
24th??!!).
 Induction leads us to believe that the future will resemble the
past.
 What has this got to do with science? Science relies on induction!
• It is widely assumed that science starts with observation which
provides a secure basis from which knowledge can be derived via
induction.
• But David Hume (18th C) argued it is all a matter of CUSTOM or HABIT
and that the use of induction cannot be rationally justified at all!
 Science doesn’t ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ anything: the word ‘proof’
should only be used when describing deductive logical operations,
like maths.
 Simple or Naïve
 A large proportion of our Induction
beliefs are obtained by projecting from observed
(past or present) events to cases that are either unknown, unobserved, or
in the future. For example:
• Every swan I have ever seen has been white.
• Ergo; the next swan I see will be white.
 But what if the next swan I see is black?
 ALARM! Is it a swan? Easier to say it isn’t! Or: maybe it was a trick of the
light and I never saw it!
 This arises from what is called ‘Naïve Inductivism’, which asserts that:
• Purely objective observations can be made which lead to
irrefutable facts:
• That generalisations can be induced from these facts:
• That scientific laws and theories result from these inductions
 Karl Popper attempted to address the limitations of Naïve Inductivism
with his Principle of Falsification.
 He argued that if a scientific theory cannot be tested by falsification, then
it is pseudo-science (e.g., Freud, Marx), and should be rejected.
 But scientists don’t work like that and there have been some notable
successes by NOT rejecting theories when falsification apparently has
happened (e.g., Newton’s theory of gravitation and the orbit of Uranus).
 Evidence-based
assumptions
 Evidence is scientific – the result of research:
 “I don’t believe in anything I can’t prove.
My only true belief is in science and its
ability to sort out belief from fact…My
job is to establish whether or not they
(CAMs) are evidence-based. There is no
aspect of belief in this at all.” (Edzard Ernst;
The Times, 24/12/2005)
 Ernst is being a scientistic logical
positivist, i.e., adopting the view that natural
science has authority over all other
interpretations of life, e.g., philosophical,
religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic
 EBM and the philosophy of
 The current notion ofscience
Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)
assumes that:-
 Scientific evidence provides objective ‘facts’ about the
world.
 Scientific beliefs stand or fall in the light of this
evidence.
 But this is a view based explicitly in the early 20th C
philosophy of logical positivism.
 Developments in the philosophy of science since the
1920s have posed serious challenges to logical
positivism (Popper, Quine, Ayer, Kuhn, and particularly
from Post-Modernists – Foucault, Derrida, Feyerabend,
Lakatoé, etc), and therefore to the concepts of EBM
which are based on it.
 Thus, a recent Post-Modernist deconstruction of EBM
discourse compares it to a ‘fascist’ structure for its
intolerance of pluralism in healthcare systems (See,
 Observation is not objective
 Observation is dependent upon and coloured by our
individual senses and our background beliefs and
assumptions (Columbus….!)
 What we see is never what ‘really is’ (goes right back to
Kant in the 18th C, and further to some ancient Greek
philosophers), even under the most highly controlled
experimental settings.
 Kant said we can’t know anything about the ‘things-in-
themselves’ (ontology) from which sensory data
emanates.
 A modern interpretation of quantum theory goes even
further, and says there are no ‘things in themselves’.
All there is, is what we can know (epistemology) about
the world (Zeilinger).
 Does a tree crashing in a forest make a sound if nobody
hears?
 Observation is not objective
 Past experience is involved implicitly in what constitutes
evidence, but this also includes the knowledge and standards
constructed and adopted by ‘epistemological communities’:
 In other words, decisions about what constitutes evidence are also
inherently SOCIAL; for we all experience the world through a
certain lens (paradigm – Kuhn):
 What constitutes knowledge also depends upon cultural and social
values: these are just as subject to critique as the knowledge itself.
 Thus, our acceptance or rejection of evidence can also lack
objectivity, for our natural tendency is to reject evidence which
does not fit with currently held theory.
 Hence positive results from even the highest standard
RCTs in homeopathy will be rejected by those who do
not ‘believe’ in the possibility that ultra high dilutions
can have an effect. Catch 22!
 So don’t expect to collect on Ernst and Singh’s
 So What is Science?
 It may be described as a conformist society
which represents only the currently accepted
paradigm.
 Consequently the ‘society’ of science defines
‘reality’ relative to the accepted paradigm (e.g.,
the size of the universe pre- and post- Edwin
Hubble in the 1930’s-40’s).
 Students are educated in the accepted
paradigm: alternative paradigms tend to be
ignored.
 So, the ‘society’ of science plays a part in
determining what scientists observe – and how
science is funded.
 And as with all things social, there are
‘fashions.’
 So What is Science?
 But the ‘society’ of science now feels itself misunderstood,
and under threat from ‘irrational’ belief systems
(creationism; religion, etc), and a climate of politically-
correct anti-elitism.
 A symptom? In the developed world, between the ages of 9-
16 kids are being turned off science (Japan, the worst).
Schreiner C and Sjøberg S. Science education and youth’s identity construction –
two incompatible projects? In, Corrigan D, Dillon J, and Gunstone R (eds). The re-
emergence of values in the science curriculum. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2007.
 There has been a ‘dumbing down’ of science education:
decline in real ‘hands-on’ experience via health & safety
legislation.
 Very little teaching of the history or philosophy of science.
 The ‘society’ of science feels that its ‘message’ is not getting
across to the public. So, over the last 10 years there has
been a big ‘push’ on the Public Understanding of Science
(PUS?!).
 So What is Science?
 In a ‘media age’, however, the sound-bite rules.
 Science has to compete for time and space in a
crowded and commercialised media market.
 Inevitably, this leads to over-simplification of
complex scientific issues.
 So, naïve inductivism is making a come-back!
 Combine this with a certain crusading zeal to
inform and educate the public, and we have….
 The New Fundamentalists’ attempting ‘to rid
the world’ of unreason, thoughtless belief, and
anything that cannot readily be ‘proved’ and
explained by ‘black and white’ deterministic
science, e.g., homeopathy/CAMs.
 CONCLUSIONS
 If ‘in science’s house there are many rooms….’ then New
Fundamentalists are straight out of the basement: they are
‘old school’ naïve inductivists.

 They attack homeopathy as un- or even anti-scientific but:-

• The New Fundamentalism is itself deeply flawed:
• It is challenged by Popper’s ideas on falsification, Kuhn’s
notions on paradigms, and Post Modern deconstruction of
logical positivism and EBM:
• New Fundamentalists ignore, ridicule, or have no
comprehension of evidence that supports homeopathy (e.g.,
claiming that the Memory of Water hypothesis constitutes ‘a
belief in undetected sub-atomic fields’):
• They use misinformation, misdirection, bias, hear-say
masquerading as evidence (e.g., appeal to Nazi research) to
ensure their views prevail:

 As such, New Fundamentalists are not only themselves

unscientific, they demean science.
 CONCLUSIONS
 THIS IS A BATTLE FOR HEARTS AND MINDS….
• Against skilful, crusading, implacable opponents who want neither
peace nor rapprochement;
• Who see themselves as ‘defenders of Enlightenment values against a
rising tide of irrational beliefs’ (Richard Dawkins);
• And are hell bent on ridding the NHS of homeopathy/CAMs provision.

 THIS IS UTTER HUBRIS AND MISDIRECTION.

• They proselytise a narrow one-size-fits-all interpretation of evidence,
medicine, and science which is NOT the epitome of Western
Enlightenment.
• A pluralistic, humanitarian outlook on life which respects individual
human rights, is.
• The New Fundamentalism threatens the rights of patients to own their
own health and healthcare, and to express their freedom of informed
therapeutic choice within the NHS.
• In this respect, it is doubly dangerous, so….

 TIME TO ‘LOCK AND LOAD’.

ANGRY; to get UNIFIED;
• Time to get to get BUSY
DEFENDING homeopathy/CAM.
 FAMOUS LAST WORDS….
 “There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, than are dreamt of in your
philosophy.” From Hamlet by W. Shakespeare

 “Science appears as what in truth she is; not

as our glory and absolute boast, but as a
succedaneum, and a prop to our infirmity.”
William Wordsworth

 “Science is a broad church full of narrow

minds, trained to know even more about even
less.” Prof Steve Jones (geneticist and science populariser)

 “I tell you; we are here on earth to fart around;

and don’t let anybody tell you different.” Kurt
Vonnegut (writer)