How to Settle a Debate With a Homeopath

As soon as I write something critical about homeopathy, some people start claiming that I am biased.
And as soon as even the most respected institution publishes a report on the subject, homeopaths insist that it is fatally flawed. On such occasions, an almost stereotypical debate tends to ensue which could be stylised by the following dialogue:

Homeopath: the medical establishment is biased against homeopathy.
Sceptic: that’s because the assumptions of homeopathy are not just implausible but fly in the face of science.
Homeopath: never mind plausibility; the crucial question is whether homeopathy works or not.
Sceptic: agreed — and there is no good evidence to show that it does.
Homeopath: this is not true; here is a study that proves homeopathy to be efficacious.
Sceptic: yes, there are several such trials, but one must always consider the totality of the evidence.
Homeopath: you mean one should go by the results of systematic reviews?
Sceptic: yes.
Homeopath: guess what, there are several systematic reviews that arrive at positive conclusions.
Sceptic: I know, but either they are not of good quality, or they exclude important evidence.
Homeopath: if you praise the value of systematic review, you cannot deny their findings.
Sceptic: of course I can; have you seen who wrote these articles? They were written by homeopaths or commissioned by the homeopathic lobby – how can we trust such evidence? Look at systematic reviews which do not have these obvious flaws and you will find they all arrive at negative conclusions.
Homeopath: that’s because they were written by anti-homeopaths.
Sceptic: there is no evidence for this claim.
Homeopath: you just don’t want to see it, because you are biased.

Such exchanges can go on forever. In fact, the question whether highly diluted homeopathic remedies are more than placebos has been going on for the last 200 years. Consumers are often bewildered by this endless dispute and many feel that science should have long been able to settle it once and for all.

I believe there might be a way to do just that. What we need is a scientific tool for assessing the available evidence in such a fashion that neither the homeopaths nor the sceptics can possibly refuse to accept the findings. This tool was created some time ago by the Cochrane Collaboration, a worldwide network of volunteers who evaluate the trial evidence on specific subjects.

Read the rest:
Stuck in a tedious debate with a homeopath? Here’s how to settle it | Spectator Health