to put it succinctly, homeopathy is scientifically implausible. its precepts defy the laws of chemistry, physics and biology. it cannot possibly work.
but it does, claim its proponents! king charles, queen elizabeth and numerous other royals have sung its praises. so have millions of people in india, germany and france. how can this be?
scientists maintain that any benefit of homeopathy can be explained by the placebo effect. no, say homeopaths, as they point to placebo-controlled trials that “prove” homeopathic preparations work.
they don’t prove any such thing. if you carry out enough studies, you will occasionally get positive results by chance alone. that is why in science we don’t set store by single studies, but look at the totality of evidence. and when we do that, it is clear that homeopathy works no better than a placebo.
that, though, does not mean that homeopathy should be swept under the carpet, because the placebo response is in the 30-40 per cent range — certainly not insignificant. but there is a potent caveat here: relying on nonexistent molecules is fine when dealing with minor aches and pains, but placebos can only change the perception of a disease, not its underlying cause. if the symptoms are due to a serious ailment, use of a homeopathic “remedy” can delay potentially effective treatments.