Evidence for Homeopathy. Is it just anecdotal? If so, what is wrong with that?

Critics of homeopathy have an axe to grind. They are really closet supporters of conventional medicine, so called 'scientific' medicine, whose evidence base is supported mainly by 'randomised controlled testing', or RCT's. Anything else, they say, is 'anecdotal'.

But what is wrong with ‘anecdotes'? Especially when these are no more than ‘stories’ about successful medical treatment. They all take this general form.

• A patient is sick
• The patient is treated with homeopathy
• The patient gets better

Such anecdotes are what proponents of conventional medicine really dislike. They spend so much of their time telling us that homeopathy doesn’t work, that it cannot work, and that it is complete nonsense! So they have to dismiss them - and they do so by calling them anecdotal, and unscientific.

Yet this is exactly what most patients want when they are sick. They don’t want to be ill! They want to be well again! They are not too concerned about ‘how’ or by what means!

So conventional medicine attacks homeopathy because of these ‘anecdotes’. These people get better just by chance. It’s just placebo. The patient would have got better anyway. Or sometimes the patient is said to be mistaken, or even lying.

I first discovered homeopathy because I went through this ‘anecdotal’ process - with one important added feature.

• I had extremely painful gastric ulcers
• I used conventional medicine - and it did not work
• I was persuaded to try homeopathy (which I thought at the time was nonsense)
• I got better

So what sort of evidence does conventional medicine require? What makes drug-based medicine ‘scientific’ in the eyes of conventional doctors?

It is that every drug and vaccine used by conventional medicine has been proven to be effective and safe by medical science, using randomised controlled trials.

And it is true that all pharmaceutical drugs have been scientifically tested, and found to be both safe and effective. The problem is that most of these drugs that have been used during the last 70 years have either been withdrawn or banned (because they have eventually been found to be neither safe or effective).

And even the pharmaceutical drugs that remain are known to have serious, harmful side effects. Doctors are told to prescribe them in the most restricted circumstances. In other words, these drugs will also be banned - in the fullness of time!

So is this what patients want when they are sick? Do they want to take drugs that doctors say are safe and effective, only later to be told they are neither?

So anecdotal evidence is important. Anecdotes should not be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, it is anecdotes that make the world go around! If I find that someone who has suffered from illness has tried something to treat it, and it worked, I listen to what they have to say, intently, and try it myself when I become ill. It is common sense!

Certainly I no longer listen to, or trust conventional medicine when they tell me (as they regularly do) that their drugs and vaccines are ‘scientifically’ tested, so are safe and effective. Far too many pharmaceutical drugs have been withdrawn and banned in recent decades.

So we should never dismiss anecdotes. We should find out what is happening in the real world. And we should certainly see that homeopathy is now the second most used medical system in the world. And this is largely to do with the passing on, from friend to friend, of 'anecdotal' evidence during the last 220 years.

There is now so much more than anecdotal evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy, including many scientific studies, many of them RCT's.

But we should never dismiss anecdotal evidence! It is far more important than anything that medical science can offer. It means that sick people have got well again.

Health. Why anecdotes should take preference to medical science

Most conventional medical treatments start with medical science.

• They are developed and tested in a laboratory.
• Testing shows that they have some beneficial affect on the human body, for some reason.
• Each treatment is further tested for its effectiveness and safety.
• Only after this is the treatment made available to the public.

The history of most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and most conventional medical treatments, is one in which medical science is paramount. It is what conventional medicine calls their 'evidence base'. Anecdotal evidence, usually comes from patients, is not treated seriously, certainly not seriously enough, with conventional medicine wearing this denial almost as a badge of honour.

Okay, medical science is deeply, fundamentally flawed. It does not do what it is supposed to do, largely because rich and powerful pharmaceutical companies have lost touch with anything resembling ethical standards, and can make sure that the medical science it buys produces results that favours company profitability rather than patient safety.

Yet there is another reason to begin to look more favourably on ANECDOTES, why they should take over from MEDICAL SCIENCE.

It is when patients start medical treatment that anecdotal evidence comes into the picture. Patients begin to notice that all is not right, that something is wrong, or is going wrong, and that the treatment might be the cause.

• Many patients do not mention it, they lack confidence to challenge doctors, who they believe know best. 
• Some patients mention it but are assured by their doctor that it is not the treatment - it is something else, that there are so many other factors that could be causing the problem. What have you been eating recently? Have you been feeling stressed? 
• Perhaps you ought to take this treatment too, to deal with the new symptoms you are experiencing!

None of this is recorded, of course. It is just anecdotal. Results from the laboratory, in controlled conditions, have informed us that this does not happen with this treatment. Medical science has said that the treatment is both effective and safe. And this is what the conventional medical establishment stands by! They know best! After all, the patient is just a patient, they are not scientists, or doctors - what does he/she know anyway?

So these patient report are discounted, they are just anecdotes, unscientific, unproven connections. So they are not recorded on the 'yellow card' reporting system, the drug regulator is not bothered with such stuff. This, of course, leads to further denials (what the patients is experiencing is not recognised as a side effect because no-one has reported it)! They don’t count. Indeed, they should not count when set against the rigours of medical science.

In recent months, they have even been dismissed as ‘nocebo', that is, patients have heard about side effects, so they just think they are getting this reaction. But they aren’t. Patients are just imagining it.

So years pass by. But during this time there are more and more such anecdotes. Indeed, they become more serious, in fact too serious to be dismissed, even by the conventional medical establishment! So patient anecdotes begin to be recorded. Denial will usually continue - they are ‘rare’; and after all, we are told, all treatment has to have some side effects! But now they are noted; and when they continue to come in, warnings to doctors are issued - be careful. Don't use the treatment with these patients, or in these circumstances. But don't stop the treatment, it is so important for the patient!

But then it all becomes too serious. The anecdotes reach a level, and a seriousness, that can no longer be discounted or ignored, the evidence can no longer be denied or dismissed. There are just too many, and they are too serious. So the conventional medical establishment has to develop a different strategy - finding some quiet way to ditch the treatment. Not too much publicity, please! We may have been causing these problems for decades, we might not have taken them seriously, and we might have caused millions of patients serious harm... But we don't want anyone to know about this. Here, we have this new treatment, get rid of the old, bring in the new, after all, there has not been time, yet, for these new treatments to be fully experienced and assessed. So we can assume they are safe!

So why should anecdotes take over from medical science?

Well, anecdotes come from patients, real people, who are suffering real experiences, in real life. They may not be medical scientists. They may not be feeling these adverse affects in a controlled, laboratory settings. But they do know how they feel. And they do know when they started to feel that way. And they can assess what part the new treatment has played.

Yet in conventional medicine patients do not really count! What do they know? Doctors have been trained for many years. And conventional treatment are all 'scientifically' tried and tested! Medical science is science! It has to be right.

Science has become arrogant. They are right, they think they know everything, that what they say is unchallengeable, there should be no argument. What they know is scientific, so there should be no argument about it.

And there is no science more arrogant as medical science; nor any science that is so powerfully backed. Forget that it is paid for by pharmaceutical companies, who’s main aim is to make money, lots of money. So medical testing is not done, or it is done inadequately; or test results are misinterpreted; or ‘negative’ results are not reported at all; or safety factors are ignored or discounted; and the benefits of treatments can be routinely exaggerated.

It is important to note that no other industry functions on this basis. If a customer reports that a car, or a dish washer, or a television, or anything else, might be dangerous, it is immediately treated as a 'health and safety issue', and action is quickly taken to protect the consumer. Often the product is suspended, even withdrawn, until its safety is confirmed. The 'fail safe' principle is applied.

But for some reason the precautionary principle is not applied to conventional medicine, or in the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Instead, conventional medicine seems to be more about 'patient beware' than health and safety. If patients believe that a drug, or vaccine, or some other form of treatment might be harmful, they are ignored. Even if a side effect is reported, the treatment is not suspended, and is never withdrawn, until it is proven to be safe. Usually, such prevarication (or negligence) can take years, even decades. In the meantime, millions of patients can be harmed, or even killed by a treatment, but the treatment continues to be used until proven, without reasonable doubt, that it is too dangerous.

     This is why medical science has failed patients.

     This is why anecdote is important, and needs to be given more prominence in medicine.