Published 26 March 20157 April 2015 · Main Posts / Science You can take them to water Matilda Whitworth My first experience with a homeopathy advocate was during a clinical skills class in my first year of medicine. A volunteer patient had attended with her baby so that we could practice taking a paediatric history with our newly acquired history taking skills. Unused to talking to ‘real patients’, we went around the circle with each of us nervously asking the mother a different part of the protocol. ‘Were there any complications during birth?’ ‘Does your baby have any medical conditions?’ ‘Is your baby meeting all of its developmental milestones?’ Everything was going fine and the mood had somewhat relaxed. That is, until the following question was asked. ‘Is your baby up to date with all its vaccinations?’ The response to this seemingly innocuous question was met with an awkward silence. ‘We don’t believe in traditional vaccinations. My baby has had homeopathic ones instead.’ Although I often find it difficult to do so, I try to be as open-minded as possible when it comes to alternative and complementary therapies. If a cancer patient wants to combine juice therapy alongside their regular chemotherapy, then that’s fine with me. I don’t believe at all that the juice will cure their cancer, but it is cheap and healthy, and if it makes them feel good then who am I to judge? But no matter how much I try to be open-minded, there are some practices that will never sit right with me. At the top the list is homeopathy, just edging out a yoga pose I learned in India that reportedly cures diabetes. Homeopathy is the belief that ‘like cures like’, or in other words, substances that produce unwanted symptoms can (if heavily diluted) also be used to cure them. The thing that angers me most about homeopathy is not that the principle behind it makes no sense, but that many purveyors of homeopathy believe (or pretend) that homeopathy is based on science. There are homeopathic institutes worldwide with fancy buildings and slick websites claiming to do ‘high-quality scientific research’. In Australia, homeopathic remedies are often stocked in pharmacies where they masquerade as medicine, and there are private health insurers offering rebates for homeopathic treatments. There are even taxpayer funded homeopathic training courses accredited by the government’s Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TESQUA), giving the subject credibility it does not deserve. These deliberate misrepresentations fool people into buying expensive but ineffective concoctions of predominantly water or alcohol, something I believe is unforgivable. I’m therefore immensely pleased, and not at all surprised, by the announcement from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that homeopathy is no more effective than placebos for treating any medical condition. That conclusion was reached after this top medical research body undertook a systematic review of 225 research papers on the topic, discarding any study that was too small or of low quality. The NHMRC also made a public statement that ‘people who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness’. This study is a big win for evidence-based medicine, the practice whereby a treatment is only used for the care of patients if there are rigorous scientific trials supporting it. This is the sort of medicine we learn about at medical school. I don’t believe that this announcement will sway any of the homeopathic bigwigs (the study has already been labeled ‘biased’ by the Australian Homeopathic Association), but my hope is that someone sitting on the fence might be persuaded that homeopathy isn’t as effective as the advocates claim. Or that companies will reconsider stocking or subsidising these ineffective ‘remedies’. That would be something to celebrate, perhaps with a Mitchell and Webb homeopathic lager. Matilda Whitworth Matilda Whitworth is a final year medical student who would like to combine a career in writing and community medicine. She has previously written for the Big Issue magazine about her work with Perth's homeless population. More by Matilda Whitworth › Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places. If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate. Related articles & Essays First published in Overland Issue 228 8 September 202315 September 2023 · Main Posts Announcing the 2023 Neilma Sidney Short Story Prize ($6500) Editorial Team Supported by the Malcolm Robertson Foundation, and named after the late Neilma Gantner, this prize seeks excellent short fiction of up to 3000 words themed around the notion of ‘travel’; imaginative, creative and literary interpretations are strongly encouraged. This competition is open to all writers, nationally and internationally, at any stage of their writing career. First published in Overland Issue 228 8 September 202326 September 2023 · Main Posts Announcing the 2023 Judith Wright Poetry Prize ($9000) Editorial Team Established in 2007 and supported by the Malcolm Robertson Foundation, the Overland Judith Wright Poetry Prize for New and Emerging Poets seeks poetry by writers who have published no more than one collection of poems under their own name (that is writers who’ve had zero collections published, or one solo collection published). It remains one of the richest prizes for emerging poets, and is open to poets anywhere in the world. In 2023, the major prize is $6000, with a second prize of $2000 and a third prize of $1000. All three winners will be published in Overland.