"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." This is the
mantra of skeptical thinkers and it provides useful for evaluating claims
that fall outside the mainstream of science. This is part of the network of
corroborating evidence that we demand as we review research claims in medical
journal articles.
One aspect of a claim that makes it extraordinary is that there is no
plausible mechanism that would explain how the therapy works. Therapies
without such a mechanism would be subjected to a higher standard of proof.
Don't reject a therapy automatically, though, just because no known mechanism
exists. Many successful medical interventions were adopted before a mechanism
was discovered that explained how and why that intervention worked.
Another problem is that not everyone agrees on when a plausible mechanism
exists. Proponents of homeopathy argue that their approach works because
water has "memory" that retains the effect of medicines that otherwise would
be diluted out. They point to a series of experiments published in Nature
magazine.
- Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum
against IgE. Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, Oberbaum M, Robinzon B,
Miadonna A, Tedeschi A, Pomeranz B, Fortner P, Belon P, Sainte-Laudy J,
Poitevin B, Benveniste J. Nature 1988: 333(6176); 816-8.
[Medline]
These experiments represent proof of mechanism, according to proponents of
homeopathy. Critics, however, argued that this was an aberrant finding, or
perhaps even fraud.
The editors of Nature acknowledged this unusual finding and then demanded a
supervised replication of the findings. This is just common sense, according
to the critics of homeopathy. The French scientists, however, cried foul. No
other results reported in Nature ever needed supervised replication.
The supervised replication failed, of course, but then the proponents of
homeopathy claimed that the replication was flawed and not the original
finding.
So does a proven mechanism for homeopathy exist? Well, it depends who you
talk to. Here are a few of the viewpoints I found using a simple Google
search on the names of the authors of the Nature publication.
One of the sites has a quote used by Jacques Benveniste, one of the
scientists in the Nature study:
When a new fact does not fit with the reigning theory, one must accept
the fact and drop the theory. Claude Bernard
I would argue that when a new fact does not fit, critically examine the
fact itself, as well as the theory.
One thing that has always bothered me about the extraordinary claims quote
is that it is so highly dependent on subjective judgment. If you have spent
your life practicing homeopathy, any claim about its power would not surprise
you, so you wouldn't demand extraordinary proof. If you've never used
homeopathy, you would view any positive findings more skeptically and would
demand more evidence.
It's a bit disillusioning to review this sort of thing, because one side or
the other in this debate is severely deluded. On the other hand, it's
probably a good thing that people don't drop their cherished beliefs on the
basis of one or two studies. If homeopathy really works, evidence for it will
gradually rise to the level where it will convince all but the most
entrenched minds. If homeopathy really doesn't work, evidence against it will
gradually erode the foundation until the only proponents will be again the
most entrenched minds.
