Editor’s Note: As Alberta considers whether homeopathy and other alternative medicine should be covered under the provincial health-care system, we thought it was time to republish this 2016 column from renowned misinformation expert and University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield.
Health Minister Adriana LaGrange announced last week that the United Conservative Party plans to create “Primary Care Alberta,” one of four agencies that will take over for Alberta Health Services (AHS). As details of the transition from AHS to this new framework are firming up, the province is yet again contending with the question of whether or not to include homeopathy and other alternative medicines in the public system.
Caulfield recently told CTV News that he found it “frustrating” that the province was considering funding homeopathy at a time of such crisis in our health-care system, adding that, “We’re not going to fix the grave problems we have with our health-care system with pseudoscience and magical thinking.”
While Alberta ponders whether or not to make space in the budget for what Caulfield termed “quackery,” read on for more of his take on homeopathy and alternative medicine.
Last week, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a guideline that requires all homeopathic products to have a label that says they don’t work.
Specifically, the FTC states that homeopathic products – which are, to be absolutely clear, nothing more than water or sugar pills – “must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence” or the label must say “there is no scientific evidence that the product works.”
This is a ridiculously sensible move. Homeopathy, a practice meant to treat disease symptoms through non-existent doses of substances that (allegedly) produce similar symptoms, has become a multi-billion dollar industry, is one of many popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) products that have been thoroughly and consistently debunked.
There is no credible evidence that homeopathy works for any health condition. More important, homeopathy is scientifically preposterous .
Bottom line: Homeopathy doesn’t work and there is no way it could work, at least beyond producing a placebo effect. It is pure quackery.
If we believe that science should play a role in how health providers and products are regulated, than the new FTC policy is simply a long overdue application of a logical policy. For the FTC to do otherwise is to allow manufacturers and CAM providers to lie, explicitly or implicitly, about the efficacy of a product.
Unfortunately, this kind of deception (and, given the well-known state of the science, this can only be described as either the conscious deception of the public or self-delusion on the part of the proprietor) is all too common in Canada.
In fact, it has been institutionalized.
Due to Health Canada’s relatively lax regulations, many pharmacies sell homeopathic products that make claims of therapeutic benefit that would clearly infringe the new FTC policy.
Indeed, a recent study led by my colleague Ubaka Ogbogu found that a significant number of pharmacists recommend homeopathic remedies.
In addition, provincial governments have done much to facilitate the spread of unscientific CAM services. In Ontario, for instance, there is a College of Homeopaths – an entity created and surreally legitimized by provincial legislation. In addition, homeopathy is one of the most common services provided by naturopaths, a CAM practice that has enjoyed a recent uptick in provincial support.
A quick scan of websites for Canadian naturopathic clinics finds numerous examples of misleading claims about the efficacy of homeopathy and other bogus services. Worse, many of the claims made on these websites relate to the use of a homeopathic product as an alternative to vaccination.
Worse, many of the claims made on these websites relate to the use of a homeopathic product as an alternative to vaccination.
Let’s reverse this trend. Let’s take steps to ensure that the Canadian public gets scientifically accurate information about the healthcare products and services they are buying.
There are numerous regulatory tools that can be used, right now, to help curtail the spread of misleading health information.
In Canada, informed consent law demands an honest disclosure of the relevant evidence. This is something a reasonable person in the patient’s position would want to know, a standard that applies to physicians, pharmacists and many other healthcare professions.
Profession regulators – such as the provincial colleges that govern healthcare professionals – have the ability (and, I would argue, the stated mandate) to sanction providers that offer evidence-free products, such as homeopathy. If a physician, a nurse or, even, a naturopath ) use misleading language to advertise an unproven therapy or product, that individual should be sanctioned.
Finally, as highlighted by the new FTC policy, truth-in-advertising laws and policies can be used to set and enforce a science-informed standard of disclosure.
To be fair, it seems doubtful that the step by the FTC will have a dramatic impact on the uptake of homeopathic remedies by those who already believe they are efficacious.
History tells us that it is very difficult to convince people to change their views about CAM health. Research has shown that evidence that demonstrates a lack of efficacy rarely has an impact on consumer behaviour. And, as noted by Alan Levinovitz, author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What We Eat, the FTC disclaimer may not be enough to dissuade believers, particularly those who buy into Big-Pharma-and-the-government conspiracy theories.
Still, I like the FTC move. Long term, it seems the only way forward. The public should not be actively deceived.
Of course, there are many other CAM procedures that fall into the same scientifically-preposterous category occupied by homeopathy, including energy healing practices like Reiki and the idea that you need to (and can) detoxify your body. But targeting homeopathy is a darn good start.
So, Canada, let’s all follow the FTC lead and stop the tolerance and facilitation of homeopathic bunk.
I guess you’ve never tried ‘pseudo science’ with a qualified homeopath. I am thrilled to have discovered it. Doctors could never do anything for me except send me to physiotherapists and eventually prescribe drugs. I was crippled. No cure. After two and a half years, I am arthritis-free amongst other complaints that have been cured. I use it on my dogs too. Dogs don’t lie. They have been cured as well. I have no time for someone who hasn’t given it a chance.
I’m not an expert on homeopathy, but medicines are rarely scientifically studied unless they’re profitable, that’s a fact. Big pharma is in charge of almost all research and are only overseen by the same people they fund. They have been known to hide dangerous side effects and produce medicines with little or no real benefit. They have also been known to manipulate data, to make anything potentially promising but a threat to their profits look dangerous or useless. I’m not saying homeopathy is the answer, just that trusting this currant system is what’s “patently absurd” Didnt finish reading another, too irritating.
While I agree that homeopathy is not good science, I would argue that privately funded scientific studies on conventional drugs is inherently flawed and not to be trusted. Yet these products are promoted by health care professionals regularly. Cherry-picking data and researcher bias has been found in over 25% of studies published in so called “reputable” scientific journals. Stop blaming alternative medicine for a lack of good research, when their anecdotal supportive data far exceeds that of most conventional medicines. Quackery in Science is alive and well my friend!
Exciting New Evidence for Homeopathy – just published in the journal “European Journal of Pediatrics”…
One hundred eight newborns delivered at 37 to 42 weeks gestation were randomized at birth (1:1) to receive either homeopathic or conventional primary care for any acute illness over the study period. In the homeopathic group, conventional medical treatment was added when medically indicated.
The findings?
Homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, was more effective than conventional treatment in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illnesses in the first 24 months of life. It necessitated fewer antibiotics and its overall cost was lower. This study supports homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first 2 years of life.
Source: Oberbaum, M., et al., Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life—a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Pediatrics. October 2024
Thanx…THAT study was just published this week…and there are now around 500 controlled clinical trials published in the peer-reviewed medical literature, including studies published in The Lancet, British Medical Journal, Cancer, Pediatrics, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, Rheumatology, The Oncologist, amongst many others.
Therefore, people who say or even suggest that there is “no scientific evidence” that homeopathic medicines work are either providing misinformation or are simply uninformed (a more crude term may be “ignorant” on this subject…maybe even purposefully ignorant). The good news about ignorance is that this condition is easily curable, though it seems that some people do not wish to be cured of this problem, especially if they have an axe to grind.
I see that you CENSOR comments where I post solid scientific evidence that counters your absence of knowledge of homeopathy…but NOW, I know this about you.
“Healthy debate”? Really? How can there be debate when you allow only one side?
How can there be debate when you choose to ignore a significant amout of controlled scientific studies published in leading medical and scientific journals?
To learn more about research in homeopathy, please visit the Homeopathy Research Institute https://www.hri-research.org/
I have a suggestion for Tim and his readers. Read the research on homeopathy yourself. Or attend this webinar to hear from an actual homeopathy researcher. https://homeopathycoalition.ca/2024/10/10/have-you-actually-read-the-research/
You make thoughtful points, part of me worries that the soapbox you stand upon in attempt to quell is actually fear mongering it itself.
If it has scientifically not been backed, transparency is great. But the choice is up to you if you want to explore other options. Your ranting suggests and further isolates, people looking for connection and meaning in vulnerable tough times. CAM can be a beautiful addition to people’s health journey, maybe it is not quantitative in a way that scientifically makes sense, we are not all the same. We have our own traumas, life experience that weave into the fabric of our health. Who is doing a study on how CAM has impacted their journey?
The medical field being so unable to embrace other approaches, so adamant that science is be all end all creates further divide. Science counts where it counts, but other things have their place too. Saying there are many other CAMs in the scientifically preposterous category is straight ignorance as well. No people shouldn’t be looking to Reiki to cure their cancer, but it could be an incredible tool for them to have a place to surrender and connect. There are many beautiful CAM approaches. I genuinely wonder what happened to you? Why are you on such a tirade against people finding comfort, healing (if not physically but spiritually or psychologically), and above all feeling like they can make their own choices but also having support to do as they please. Not make them feel like they are a bunch of dumb dumbs. Maybe it’s less about no to this or no to that, but hey here is a guideline on how to thinking critically about decisions you make and information you consume.
Don’t get me started on the AB gov’t, this leadership and party are rubbish in what they are doing to education and health care. My fear, is that singling out one option, will potentially erase opportunity for many other modalities. Making accessing these spiritual/psychological treatments or options only for the super rich. Will they remove naturopathic access altogether? Will my acupuncture no longer be covered? Shameful if it did. In those places people find connection and healing, it’s a different feeling entirely walking into a doctor’s office. Take time from work, wait 45 minutes, one problem, 15 minutes, goodbye, here is some cream that you probably don’t need, here is a req. Instead of going after these modalities, shouldn’t we be focused on how we can change the doctor client experience altogether? More time, real head to toes including not just the person’s physical well being but spiritual and mental everytime too? Just a thought. Don’t get me wrong I appreciate your advocacy, I just wonder if your words are harmful to CAM fields as a whole, which is unfortunate.
Thank you Tim for highlighting basic steps that should be taken to have an informed public if nothing else.
“…honest disclosure of the relevant evidence” is something I definitely want to see.
Well said Tim. I suppose another question is should pharmacies be allowed to sell homeopathic products or any product for that matter, that do not meet whatever evidence-based medicine standard criteria available ie. government supported guidelines producers, systematic review producers etc.? Where does one draw the line and how is the line determined for what products pharmacies should be allowed to sell and market?
The arrogance of this known anti homeopathy activist is beyond belief. Time to retire from the Ministry of Propaganda.
Let’s stop the lie for all naturopathy , acupuncture, homeopathy , etc etc etc