Homeopathy, John Stossel (ABC's 20/20), and Junk Science

[Dana Ullman, MPH]

For further background and more documentation on the issues surrounding
20/20’s program on homeopathy and for all types of information on
homeopathy.

For transcripts of this 20/20 program.
John Stossel and 20/20’s Program on Homeopathy:
Junk Science Creates Junk Journalism
--When TV Science Creates Science Fiction
In these days of reality TV, the integration of good scientific
experimentation with television could have turned the trivial nature of most
reality television programs into something more meaningful and educational.
However, “when John Stossel recently got involved in a TV science
experiment, he created ‘junk science’ and ‘junk journalism,’” says Dana
Ullman, who was interviewed by Stossel for a segment on homeopathic medicine
that was aired on 20/20.

On January 30, 2004, ABC News’ 20/20 program aired an
eight-minute segment on homeopathic medicine. The program began by giving a
list of numerous celebrities and British royalty who are advocates of
homeopathy. They then showed part of a promotion for a homeopathic medicine
for the flu, to which Dana Ullman noted that there have been three large
clinical studies verifying its effectiveness (see references below).

The program also noted that there have been numerous other
studies that have shown homeopathy’s efficacy, but others that have shown
that it didn’t work.

After giving a short explanation for homeopathy, 20/20 then sought to test
homeopathic medicine using a laboratory experiment conducted at a London
hospital. This study was originally supposed to be a replication of earlier
studies that have consistently shown statistically significant positive
results for homeopathy, that had been conducted at four different
laboratories and universities, and that have been published in several
peer-reviewed scientific journals.

However, the experiment that Stossel’s program created was
significantly different…and not just different, it was seriously flawed.
This new experiment used a chemical, ammonium chloride, that is known to
destroy the cells that the experiment was supposed to count. The inclusion
of this chemical was but one of numerous serious problems with this “made
for TV” experiment.

ABC News and 20/20 have not given any reason why the experimenter in
the London hospital chose to change the experiment at all, let alone
changing it so substantially. What is particularly surprising and
disturbing is that this experimenter wrote an email to Dana Ullman
asserting,“consensus between all parties is essential when performing this
experiment.” Yet, when he sought to get consensus from Professor M. Ennis
(one of the scientists who had previously and successfully conducted this
experiment and who was the person that Stossel’s producer and Dana Ullman
agreed would be a consultant to the study), the 20/20 experimenter was
denied consensus based on his failure to follow the experimental protocol as
previously designed.

It is hard not to see a serious problem when an experiment was
changed, when approval for it was denied, and yet, the experiment was
conducted as though it was a valid test.

It should be noted that on February 4, 2000, John Stossel produced a
controversial program called “The Food You Eat” where he claimed that
“buying organic could kill you.” The program asserted that organic food had
been contaminated with E. coli (this is a true but misleading assertion
because most E. coli is harmless) and, according to a study that ABC had
supposedly conducted, pesticide residue had not been found on either organic
or conventional produce. And yet, Ken Cook of the Environmental Working
Group in Washington offered hard evidence to ABC that showed that the
Stossel said existed were actually never conducted.

Afterwards, ABC announced that Stossel would give a public apology,
and he did so live on 20/20 saying, “I said our tests found no pesticide
residues on either conventional or organic produce. That was just wrong…I
apologize for the error [and] am deeply sorry I misled you…. All we have in
this business is our credibility­your trust that we get it right­I will make
every effort to see that it never happens again.”

For a detailed analysis of John Stossel’s reporting with an
explanation for why his reporting tends to be supportive of major
corporations, go to this article from The Nation.

Ironically, ABC’s 20/20 allowed John Stossel to air this segment on
his “Give Me a Break” series. Needless to say…we need to tell John Stossel
(the show’s co-anchor) to “give me a break!”
What Stossel got right:

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately showed Dana Ullman saying “there is a body of
evidence that shows homeopathy is effective,” and they showed on-screen
copies of the numerous studies that have been published in leading medical
journals. To be fair, it is also truthful to say (as the 20/20 program did)
that there have been numerous studies that have not shown homeopathic
medicines to be successful. However, when scientists have reviewed the
entire body of clinical research and have published this research in the
prestigious medical journal “The Lancet,” they concluded that patients given
a homeopathic medicine had a 2.45 times greater chance of experiencing
improvement in their health as compared with patients given a placebo (see
the reference by K. Linde and others below).

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately showed Dana Ullman referring to three large
studies showing homeopathy is effective in treating influenza. Because
people are experiencing the flu in greater numbers this year than in the
recent past and because some people are even dying from it, the evidence
that homeopathic medicines can effectively treat this common condition with
such safe remedies should not be ignored.

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately acknowledged that Dana Ullman objected to the
study that they had developed even BEFORE it was started because they
created their own different study that was poorly designed due to its use of
specific chemicals that are known to kill the type of white blood cells that
this experiment was supposed to count.

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately acknowledged that one of the three British
homeopaths who observed the making of the homeopathic medicine objected to
the sloppiness of the laboratory procedures BEFORE the study’s results were
announced. Please note that these three homeopaths only observed the making
of the medicine. They were not in attendance during the experiment itself,
and none of them nor ANY homeopathic researcher agreed to the mis-guided
protocol that was ultimately used in the 20/20 experiment.
What Stossel got wrong:

** ABC’s 20/20 provided misinformation about the small doses used in
homeopathy. Stossel asserted on air that the “6C” potency of a homeopathic
medicine is equivalent to one drop in 50 swimming pools, that the 12C
potency is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean, and that the 16C
potency is like one drop in a million earths. In actual fact, the total
amount of water used to make a 6C potency is around six test tubes (or
around 6 ounces of water). A 12C potency requires around 12 ounces of
water. Because 20/20 had a London hospital make up the16C of Histamine,
they knew that this pharmaceutical process only required less than a quart
of water (16 test tubes worth!). 20/20 seemingly and incorrectly assumed
that each dilution required “exponential” (100-fold) increases the size,
when, in fact, it only required repeated dilutions in a small test tube.
(It seems that 20/20 is already so embarrassed by the statistics they gave,
they have already omitted reference in their transcripts of the 20/20 show
to the 16C potency.)

** The 20/20 experiment used a chemical, Ammonium chloride, that is
known to destroy basophils, the type of white blood cell that was under
study. The experiment was designed to fail even before any homeopathic
medicine was administered. Because this chemical was not used in any of the
previous studies that have been published in peer-review scientific
journals, Dana Ullman was absolutely correct in asserting that this study
was “junk science,” that the study should not have been conducted in this
unscientific manner, and that any results from this study are of no value.

** The 20/20 experiment also used a chemical called “foetal calf serum”
(the blood from a calf foetus). According to experts in basophils and
experts who had previously conducted this experiment successfully, this
chemical complex is not a “recognized medium” for laboratory experiments of
this sort, and its effects on basophils are presently unknown. It should
also be noted that the experiment produced by 20/20 was created by an
employee at a London hospital who didn’t know the answers to some simple
questions about basophils when asked by Professor Ennis. Also, to be done
correctly, this experiment requires “clean” basophils, and the use of foetal
calf serum alters the binding reactions of the basophils.

** The 20/20 experimenter left the blood containing basophils to be
collected to sit and sediment for 4 hours. It is known that basophils are
extremely fragile, thus, leaving them to sit for 4 hours disturbed their
viability and rendered them useless for scientific experimental purposes.
What Stossel didn’t say:

** The original experiment that 20/20 had planned to conduct was
previously conducted in four separate laboratories in Europe, including a
laboratory at the Queen’s University of Belfast by a professor of
biochemistry who was previously a skeptic of homeopathy. These laboratories
conducted 3,674 tests (!), and they found a substantial difference in the
effects of potentized histamine as compared with a placebo. To read this
study, see: Belon M, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J,
Roberfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by
successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial.
Inflammation Research 1999; 48: s17-s18.

** After 20/20 acknowledged that Dana Ullman questioned the protocol as
considerably different, 20/20 said that their experts described the
experiment as “technically sound” and “meticulously conducted.” 20/20 has
yet to come forward with the names of these experts. Dana Ullman seriously
doubts that these “experts” are knowledgeable about experiments with
basophils. Just because 20/20 used so-called “experts” does not mean that
they are experts on this subject.

** Although 20/20 asserted that the National Institutes of Health
considers some principles of homeopathy to run counter to the apparent laws
of physics and chemistry, there are many things in nature that do not
initially make rational sense but later prove to be true. 20/20 was given
specific reference to two studies recently written about in the respected
scientific magazine, The New Scientist, which discussed new research in
major physics and chemistry journals testing homeopathic doses (to obtain
these articles, go to www.newscientist.com and search under the word
“homeopathy”). Further, although the “nano-doses” used in homeopathy may
not be adequately understood and explained using Newtonian physics, the new
or quantum Einsteinian physics is better able to help us comprehend,
describe, and predict extremely small (or extremely large) systems.

** 20/20 didn’t acknowledge that although we don’t know precisely how
homeopathic medicines work, we also do not presently know how many common
drugs work, including many used for anesthesia in surgery. Certainly, no
one suggests that these valuable drugs be avoided just because we do not
adequately understand how they work.

** According to the World Health Organization, the most serious public
health problem in the world is childhood diarrhea, which leads to millions
of death as a result of dehydration. A leading pediatric journal recently
published a review of three double-blind and placebo-controlled studies that
have confirmed the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in treating childhood
diarrhea. Information about this good clinical research might have been a
lot more useful than a seriously flawed laboratory study.
References:

K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of
Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials,"
Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Even critics have called this
meta-analysis "completely state of the art." It reviews 186 studies, 89 of
which fit pre-defined criteria for its meta-analysis. Homeopathic medicines
had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo.

J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood
Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized,
Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This
metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the
duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008). It should be noted that the World
Health Organization consider childhood diarrhea to be the number one public
health problem today because of the millions of children who die every year
from dehydration from diarrhea.

R. Papp, G. Schuback, E. Beck, et al., "Oscilloccinum in Patients with
Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Evaluation,"
British Homeopathic Journal, 87(April, 1998):69-76. This study of 372
patients replicated an earlier trial of 487 patients. Both trials found
statistically significant results with "Oscillococcinum" in the treatment of
patients with influenza-like syndromes. Earlier trial: JP Ferley, et al., A
Controlled Evaluation of a Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of
Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March,
1989,27:329-35.
For references to other research, see:

** “Homeopathic Family Medicine eBook: Homeopathic Family Medicine” (an
ebook available at www.homeopathic.com) by Dana Ullman, MPH (this ebook
provides a comprehensive and up-to-date review of clinical research in
homeopathy)

** Paolo Bellavite, MD, and Andrea Signorini, MD, The Emerging Science
of Homeopathy, Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2002 (this book provides an
excellent overview of homeopathy in the light of various clinical and
laboratory studies and in light of recent understanding in the medical and
natural sciences.
Newest study: The highly respected journal, RHEUMATOLOGY, published by the
British Society of Rheumatology, just published the below article on the
homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. Not only did these researchers find
efficacy from homeopathic medicines, they found significant changes in EEG
readings from those patients who were given the homeopathic medicines as
compared to those given a placebo.

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with
individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin
CM.
To provide feedback to 20/20:

To post your feedback to other 20/20 viewers:

To support getting this message out, please support:
The Foundation for Homeopathic Education and Research
2036 Blake St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(510)649-8930
All contributions are tax deductible
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]