Q - How can you criticise homeopathy if you haven’t studied it?  How can you say it doesn’t work if you haven’t tried it?

All too often this criticism is code for “Only someone who agrees from the outset that homeopathy is effective is qualified to judge the discipline”.

This argument is often heard when discussing theology as a means of countering arguments put forward by non-believers and in homeopathy it is used in exactly the same way, betraying homeopathy’s real appeal which is that of a belief system rather than a rational system of medicine.  The intent of course is a sweeping negation of any of the arguments of non-homeopaths with which a homeopath may disagree, thus avoiding the need for further debate involving actual issues.  When looked at closely though this argument fails for the very reason that its proponents believe it to be so unassailable.

Anyone who uses homeopathy, particularly on animals, who have no say in the matter, or who has gone further and spent time and money learning about the discipline, its history, internal rules, the minutae of dilutions, potencies, sucussions and provings; how classical Hannemanian homeopathy relates to modern day practice, the teachings of Kent and Hering and so forth will have very good reason to not only believe in homoeopathy but to argue its case most firmly.  Such investment represents a heavy commitment, both materially and in terms of self interest and ‘face’, or self belief.  Additionally, during the process one will have made the acquaintance of like minded tutours and colleagues who will have an expectation that you will remain loyal to the peer group.  Consequently a volte-face with subsequent renouncement of homeopathy is most unlikely in one who has seriously tried or studied it to any depth, not because of the quality of the evidence but because of personal commitment and conviction.

Homeopathic believers, when employing this objection to criticism forget that homeopathy can be investigated in more than just one way.  There is an assumption that anyone who studies the subject must be doing so in order to gain a sort of “personal fulfillment” by learning how to apply homeopathy, having already made the decision that to do so is worthwhile.  In many cases students may have had a negative experience of conventional medicine and its practitioners or some positive experience of homeopathy at a crucial point in their life which has nudged them on to a certain path but for whatever reason they are already inclined to be positive and accepting rather than neutral or independant.  They are learning, not so much about the validity of homeopathy, which point has already been passed, but about its internal details and workings.

Homeopathy can also be studied, however not from the point of view of an insider seeking enlightenment but with the desire to learn more about the evidence behind it.  Why, for instance are homeopathic journals full of positive reports but mainstream publictions are not?  Why are most conventional scientists are unconvinced about its merits - is this simply widespread prejudice or could it be that homeopathy really doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny?  The only way to get proper answers to these and other questions is from a position of disinterest.  It can be strongly argued that, far from practitioners being the best qualified to critique homeopathy, they are actually the least likely of all to offer an impartial view of the subject.  It is only a neutral observer who is best placed to see what is both good and bad about homeopathy, to offer a “warts and all” view.  This is what the peer review system is concerned with - the scrutiny of evidence, checks, balances and rechecks by independent reviewers with no vested interet in what the final results prove.

While you are looking into the merits or otherwise of homeopathy it is important to believe from the outset that practitioners on both sides of the debate, conventional and homeopathic, do what they do for genuine reasons and believe they are acting in the best interests of their patients.  It is obvious then that practitioners who have studied homeopathy as critical outsiders and found it lacking would be most unlikely to use it.  Particularly in groups incapable of giving informed consent such use would be highly unethical in their eyes.  Hence the argument that only insiders can judge is further invalidated as not only are homeopathic practitioners the least likely to be critical of their discipline but anyone who has found it lacking is most unlikely to be a practitioner.

On your journey to investigate homeopathy if you want to know the relative merits of Quebracho over Argentum or what psora, sycosis and syphillus are and how they relate to tuberculinism then you need to speak to a homeopath.  If, on the other hand you want to take a step back and look at the wider picture - the science and the ethics, then you need to talk to an ‘outsider’, an independant observer, only that way will you be able to think for yourself about the subject.

Occasionally one such person does break cover however.  There are a few practitioners who have studied homeopathy and found it lacking.  For instance [refer to VT letter]