Apropos Wallfahrten / Homöopathie: Schon vor längerer Zeit hat mich Leser Stephan (danke!) auf eine schöne Geschichte im Guardian hingewiesen: „A kind of magic?“ von Ben Goldacre. Goldacre versucht sich sogar auf den typischen Homöopathie-Gläubigen einzustellen, der leicht erkennbar ist an der Aussage
“Look,” they begin, “all I know is that I feel better when I take a homeopathic pill.”
Er stellt einen Versuchsaufbau vor, der auch diesen Menschen transparent machen müsste, ob es wirklich die Pillen sind, wegen derer sie sich besser fühlen. Man nehme 200 solcher Menschen mit Beschwerden und teile sie nach Zufallsprinzip in zwei gleich große Gruppen. Alle 200 gehen zum Homöopathen ihrer Wahl, alle bekommen ein Rezept für ein homöopathisches Mittel („because homeopaths love to prescribe pills even more than doctors“) und alle gehen in ihre homöopathische Apotheke. Jeder Patient kann was auch immer verschrieben bekommen haben, ganz verschieden, ganz individuell nach den auf Individualität angelegten homöopathischen Methoden. Und jetzt kommt’s: Die eine Hälfte bekommt tatsächlich ihre homöopathischen Mittel, die andere Gruppe bekommt einfache Zuckerpillen. Ganz wichtig ist dabei, dass weder die Patienten noch die Leute, denen sie in diesem Versuch begegnen, wissen, zu welcher Gruppe sie gehören.
This trial has been done, time and time again, with homeopathy, and when you do a trial like this, you find, overall, that the people getting the placebo sugar pills do just as well as those getting the real, posh, expensive, technical, magical homeopathy pills.
Goldacre nimmt keineswegs die Versuchsanordnungen der Schulmedizin in Schutz:
Now there are bad trials in medicine, of course, but here’s the difference: in medicine there is a strong culture of critical self-appraisal. Doctors are taught to spot bad research (as I am teaching you now) and bad drugs. The British Medical Journal recently published a list of the top three most highly accessed and referenced studies from the past year, and they were on, in order: the dangers of the anti-inflammatory Vioxx; the problems with the antidepressant paroxetine; and the dangers of SSRI antidepressants in general. This is as it should be.
With alternative therapists, when you point out a problem with the evidence, people don’t engage with you about it, or read and reference your work. They get into a huff. They refuse to answer calls or email queries. They wave their hands and mutter sciencey words such as “quantum” and “nano”. They accuse you of being a paid plant from some big pharma conspiracy. They threaten to sue you. They shout, “What about thalidomide, science boy?”, they cry, they call you names, they hold lectures at their trade fairs about how you are a dangerous doctor, they contact and harass your employer, they try to dig up dirt from your personal life, or they actually threaten you with violence (this has all happened to me, and I’m compiling a great collection of stories for a nice documentary, so do keep it coming).
Wobei Goldacre durchaus von mehr als einem überaus nützlichen Einsatz der Homöpathie in der Geschichte berichten kann:
Let me tell you about a genuine medical conspiracy to suppress alternative therapies. During the 19th-century cholera epidemic, death rates at the London Homeopathic Hospital were three times lower than at the Middlesex Hospital. Homeopathic sugar pills won’t do anything against cholera, of course, but the reason for homeopathy’s success in this epidemic is even more interesting than the placebo effect: at the time, nobody could treat cholera. So, while hideous medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homeopaths’ treatments at least did nothing either way.
Today, similarly, there are often situations where people want treatment, but where medicine has little to offer – lots of back pain, stress at work, medically unexplained fatigue, and most common colds, to give just a few examples. Going through a theatre of medical treatment, and trying every medication in the book, will give you only side-effects. A sugar pill in these circumstances seems a very sensible option.
Ich empfehle sehr die Lektüre des gesamten Artikels. Am Ende gibt es noch eine genaue Erklärung der angeblich wissenschaftlichen Basis für die Wirkung homöopathischer Mittel, also:
Homeopathic remedies are made by taking an ingredient, such as arsenic, and diluting it down so far that there is not a single molecule left in the dose that you get. The ingredients are selected on the basis of like cures like, so that a substance that causes sweating at normal doses, for example, would be used to treat sweating.
(…)
A 30C homeopathic preparation is a dilution of 1 in 10030, or rather 1 in 1060, which means a 1 followed by 60 zeroes, or – let’s be absolutely clear – a dilution of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.
(…)
How can an almost infinitely dilute solution cure anything? Most homeopaths claim that water has “a memory”. They are unclear what this would look like, and homeopaths’ experiments claiming to demonstrate it are frequently bizarre. As a brief illustration, American magician and debunker James Randi has for many years had a $1m prize on offer for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities. He has made it clear that this cheque would go to someone who can reliably distinguish a homeopathic dilution from water. His money remains unclaimed.
Aber: Religionsfreiheit. Glauben Sie ruhig weiter dran.