Homeopathy is one of the biggest scams I know of. The products have no curative properties and yet people spend billions on them. And, as Dara O’Briiain says in the bit below, “It’s JUST WATER.” (h/t Andrew Petto:
First, the NIH describes its uselessness and the principles said to underlie it. Some products could even be dangerous!
What do we know about the effectiveness of homeopathy?
- There’s little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific health condition.
What do we know about the safety of homeopathic products?
- Some products labeled as homeopathic may contain substantial amounts of active ingredients and could cause side effects and drug interactions.
What Is Homeopathy?
Homeopathy, also known as homeopathic medicine, is a medical system that was developed in Germany more than 200 years ago. It’s based on two unconventional theories:
- “Like cures like”—the notion that a disease can be cured by a substance that produces similar symptoms in healthy people.
- “Law of minimum dose”—the notion that the lower the dose of the medication, the greater its effectiveness. Many homeopathic products are so diluted that no molecules of the original substance remain.
Homeopathic products come from plants (such as red onion, arnica [mountain herb], poison ivy, belladonna [deadly nightshade], and stinging nettle), minerals (such as white arsenic), or animals (such as crushed whole bees). Homeopathic products are often made as sugar pellets to be placed under the tongue; they may also be in other forms, such as ointments, gels, drops, creams, and tablets. Treatments are “individualized” or tailored to each person—it’s common for different people with the same condition to receive different treatments. Homeopathy uses a different diagnostic system for assigning treatments to individuals and recognizes clinical patterns of signs and symptoms that are different from those of conventional medicine.
There is no empirical basis for either of these two “theories”, and many homeopathic products are basically water, since the “like” substance has been eliminated through multiple dilutions (see below), and in principle can have no curative properties.
The U.S. Homeopathy Market was valued at approximately USD 4.12 Billion in 2025 and is expected to reach approximately USD 13.38 Billion by 2035, growing at a CAGR of 12.50%.
The U.S. is the second largest market for homeopathic drugs globally in terms of revenues. OTC homeopathic remedies for symptoms such as cough, cold, pain, sleep aid, and pediatric use can be found at major retail outlets like CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart as well as natural food stores. Hyland’s Homeopathic and Boiron are the leading brands. The FDA regulation of homeopathic products under the OTC drug paradigm has been increasingly progressive. The FDA’s risk-based regulatory strategy enhanced product regulation without taking out commercialized products from store shelves.
The world market for homeopathic remedies is $12-15 billion per year, but Americans spend more on this scam than any other nationality (India is second with about $1 billion/year). I’ve seen homeopathic remedies in most of the U.S. chains mentioned, and if you want to see the big array of homeopathic remedies in Whole Foods, go here. (You can go to any of the chains and simply insert “homeopathic” into their search function.)
The author is described in the article: “Mark Crislip, MD has been a practicing Infectious Disease specialist in Portland, Oregon, from 1990 to 2023. He has been voted a US News and World Report best US doctor, best ID doctor in Portland Magazine multiple times, has multiple teaching awards and, most importantly, the ‘Attending Most Likely To Tell It Like It Is’ by the medical residents at his hospital.”
His Wikipedia page also says that Crislip is a co-founder of SBM. Click headline to read:
It’s a bit of a strange article, disursive, and with the author bent on getting attachment to homeopathic remedies classified as a “delusional disorder.” It really is, but I doubt it would make the DSM given that many of us are subject to delusions like this. The problem is that this delusion involves not only a huge waste of money, but also potential damage to health. People should not be diagnosing themselves and buying nostrums when there are doctors around. And so Crislip reminds us again to stop using these fricking remedieds.
A few of the papers that Crislip mentions.
. . . . homeopathy continues to be inflicted on patients by homeopaths and naturopaths in lieu of useful therapy. Much to my ongoing wonder, research on the fiction continues with around 200 papers indexed on the PubMeds in the last year. Like my recent journey down the rat hole that is chiropractic, let’s see what those delusional homeopaths have been up to in the last year or so. Of course I am not going to discuss all 200 plus papers, just those of interest to me. You know, the crazy stuff.
And right of the chute, first reference, first paragraph, is gibberish in Homeopathy at a Turning Point [JAC: this is in the journal Homeopathy as a “letter to the editor” so it’s not a paper]:
In the Hippocratic conception, medicine is a synthesis of technique, philosophy and humanism, but in essence it is nothing more than the expression of the living being to counter predestination. Its foundation is the dose–response relationship that a living organism expresses when perturbed by an external agent. In practice, however, this interpretation is defined by the knowledge, thought, economic means, politics and religious sentiment of the community to which the organism belongs.
The author is out of Italy and perhaps this is the best translation ChatGPT could do, although the paper does not get much more coherent. For example, what to make of
These findings lead me to define a homeopathic remedy as a “clathrate of clathrates of gas molecules”, present as nanobubbles.
Well, I doubt that “peer review” in this journal means anything, though it looks as if the letter was reviewd, but the letter is long and typical of the word salad involved in defenses of homeopathy.
The Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine has a big summary of all the theoretical underpinnings of homeopathy:
Not everyone agrees that homeopathy is a “clathrate of clathrates of gas molecules”, present as nanobubbles and there have been numerous attempts to justify the delusion by a variety of mechanisms by which water could have a therapeutic effect. Some are summarized in Mapping the Theories and Models on the Mode of Action of Homeopathy: A Scoping Review and found 72 theoretical approaches to justify homeopathy but reduced them to 14 largely nonoverlapping frameworks. Those frameworks are water structures, general physics, nanostructures, mathematical models, chemistry, quantum physics, biochemistry, weak quantum theory, hormesis, quantum analogie, biophotons, complex systems, electrodynamics, and humanities.
Another tendentious paper from the journal Homeopathy. I quote the SBM article:
Why does homeopathy fail to show efficacy in clinical trials? Not because homeopathy doesn’t work, but that
In homeopathy, however, where treatment is individualised, past and present context-sensitive, and closely related to the therapeutic encounter, RCTs cannot readily capture the core principles of practice.
or so says in Improving the Relevance of Research in Homeopathy. It suggests other, less rigorous, more pragmatic, evaluations of the delusion, since
While it’s important for us to understand how homeopathy works, it’s equally important to demonstrate that homeopathy does work
This paper is a “special editorial”, and tries to dismiss randomized control trials as ways to test homeopathy. From the article (bolding is mine):
Reading these pages and having attended the recent congress of the Homeopathy Research Institute, I’ve been heartened to see an increasing quantity and quality of scientific research in homeopathy being conducted from around the world. While it’s important for us to understand how homeopathy works, it’s equally important to demonstrate that homeopathy does work and I would like to see more practice-related research submitted to Homeopathy.
As readers are well aware, clinical trials are regarded as the gold standard in medical evidence and randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), in particular, are central to the concept of evidence-based medicine. In homeopathy, however, where treatment is individualised, past and present context-sensitive, and closely related to the therapeutic encounter, RCTs cannot readily capture the core principles of practice.
Indeed, the RCT model is built on assumptions that directly conflict with homeopathic principles, focusing on uniform interventions and outcomes, imposing strict eligibility criteria that exclude many potential beneficiaries, and minimising interaction between the patient and the practitioner. Such demands for homogeneity strip away the features that define homeopathy and create an artificial clinical environment for the sake of trial design,[1] a mismatch that helps explain why results from homeopathy RCTs are often equivocal or contradictory. Two systematic reviews led by this journal’s esteemed Editor found only limited convincing efficacy after methodological flaws were accounted for.[2] [3] Does this mean homeopathy is ineffective…or rather that the RCT method is an inadequate basis for forming such a conclusion?
Note the list of reasons why the “gold standard” of testing medicines cannot be used here (e.g., it “minimizes interaction between the patient and the practitioner”, which of course you want to do so there is no placebo effect). Indeed, the author (Lee Kayne) says that homeopathy has its own methods of demonstrating efficacy (they suggest case studies and “long-term cohort studies”. That, of course, is a red flag indicating quackery. From the paper:
Opponents argue the former and that, by virtue of our claim that homeopathy cannot be forced into a conventional trial framework that seeks to measure efficacy within tightly controlled parameters, we are admitting it does not work. Yet at the same time, they refuse to accept that alternative methods of investigation and reporting might better reflect the effectiveness of homeopathic practice and outcomes in the real world. So it’s not evidence unless it’s ‘their’ evidence? Except when their evidence does not produce the outcomes they desire – then they may fail to publish the results or simply note that “many RCTs can render…results of little relevance to clinical practice”.
To be sure, the journal does publish failures of the method. From the SBM article:
. . . if you have a rigorous study, like Homeopathy for Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain: Randomised, Double-Blind, Crossover, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Investigating the Efficacy of rigorhe Biotherapic Lumbar Vertebra (BIOVERT Trial), you find
No specific effect of the Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic was demonstrated. Improvements are likely due to non-specific effects such as the therapeutic environment, patient expectations and placebo response.
Although I could not find what the standardized homeopathic biotherapic (Lumbar Vertebra, LM2 potency) was. I was curious what was used applying the so-called Law of Similars. How does one use, say, chopping wood (gives me low back pain) as a homeopathic remedy. Not out of the question for a delusion that can prescribe moonlight. And homeopaths want to be taken seriously.
Here’s one in which Crislip cites a paper in the Journal of Ayurveda and integrative Medicine. It’s a case study, of course:
I do not think homeopaths are intentionally funny, but you have to wonder with articles like
Following a thorough case evaluation, the patient was prescribed Ruta graveolens 200CH, followed by Thuja occidentalis 200CH. The anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, and anti-cancer properties of both these medicines have been thoroughly demonstrated via many scientific experiments.
One in vitro paper each, both evaluating actual chemicals, would be two, so technically many. And where is the like cures like in the treatment?
The paper above touts homeopathy as a cure for cancer, and I believe “200CH” means the “curative” substance is diluted 1:100, and this is done 200 times in succession. Nothing remains of the original “curative” substance. This is considered “high potency”! Be sure to look at the dilution factor if you are foolish enough to buy homeopathic remedies. Also be sure to see what else is in there.
Cancer and tuberculosis? No problem for homeopathy. The last quote from the SBM paper:
Some papers seem to be written to scare those attached to reality:
Integrating Traditional Medicine with Conventional Therapies to Combat Tuberculosis: A Comprehensive Review. Yeah. Let’s treat TB with homeopathy. That’s gonna work.
and
Exploring Holistic Healing of Cancer: German New Medicine (GNM) and Homeopathic Treatment Beyond Traditional Therapies And let’s treat cancer with homeopathy, since cancer is due to emotional trauma and amenable to homeopathic treatment. OH GOD, OH MAN, OH GOD, OH MAN.
And that’s what I could suffer through, er, I mean, found for homeopathy in 2025.
I get angry when I see homeopathic “remedies” sold in presumably reputable stores, and think about the waste of money involved when poor suckers (and I include the ignorant) buy the stuff. And ignorance of science is no excuse, because it takes only a few minutes to find reputable sources online that tell you why homeopathy is worthless (e.g., here and here).
Alchemy.
Literally – dressed up in flattering modern language abuses.
VITRIOL :
Vitia
Interiora
Terre
Rectificando
Inuenies
Occultum
Lapitem
I still think that some creditable organization or the FDA needs to test some of these homeopathic compounds to see whether there is any difference between them and water.
You can easily see that some of them have other stuff in them, as noted above. Sometimes the solvent was ethanol. What they can do is see if any of the “causative” compound that was diluted is still in there. If it isn’t, then the theory collapses and with it the rationale for homeopathy.
Yes, that’s what I meant. Clearly things like ethanol don’t count.
This has no valence with the essence of the phenomenon – a sort of intuition-led maverick DIY medicine.
Or, the word I used up top – alchemy – but in a post-alchemical, literate world.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
-Richard Feynman
One example, many years ago.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124826/ and https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml
Many others. The comparison has been done.
Unfortunately, the delusion persists.
My favorite succinct commentary on homeopathy: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qoddydflu6vm0iimrxd7d/Dara_OBriain_homeopathy.mp4?rlkey=m49at8hkugo99s6eldm0rk9o0&st=shrwek9s&dl=0
The only defense of its original development is that the frequently poisonous and often fatal practices of “heroic medicine” practiced up to the 19th century were clearly not effective, adding pain and suffering to people already weakened by illness. The idea of “just enough” medicine to cure an illness is one of the persistent principles of homeopathy that we still use in modern medical care.
Unfortunately for treatments based on grand theories of illness (humors, balance, spinal manipulation, homeopathy, and the original osteopathy), the emergence of “scientific” medicine (aka evidence-based practice) that emerged early in the 20th century actually did (and does) work better and reduce suffering, illness, and premature death.
Thanks; I put the video in the post with a credit to you. I had forgotten that and it’s hilarious. I wonder what happened to O’Briain?
He’s still around, hosting a tv show called Mock the Week.
Plus, there’s the whole “nutritional supplement” industry hyped by countless celebrities, influencers, and hucksters. Selling hope to desperate people is big business!
Time for an old favorite from Tim Minchin.
https://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U?is=nc9iKg0Ryl_9eq3c
Per an article in the July/August 2026 issue of Skeptical Inquirer by Robyn E Blumner (CEO of the Center for Inquiry)There is now a bill in Congress H.R. 7050 that would prevent the FDA, FTC, and the courts from policing the homeopathic industry. It also bars lawsuits for deceptive labeling and marketing.
With billions of dollars at stake, aggressive lobbying, and the anti-science stance of the current administration I fear that this bill might pass.
There is apparently a huge market in Israel for homeopathic remedies. One can certainly find them in many pharmacies and in specialized stores. They are very popular among the ultra-Orthodox religious population, but others buy them as well. A pharmacist friend of mine has told me of many cases of relatively poor people who say they cannot afford conventional medicines (many of which are highly subsidized by our state medical system) who then scrimp and save to by the homeopathic remedies, which (so she informs me) are relatively costly. Needless to say, the topic infuriates her.
I suppose we should not be too surprised that this nonsense persists. After all, we live in an age when nonscientific beliefs and practices flourish: astrology, crystal healing, aromatherapy, belief in auras—etc. At a time when medicine has advanced exponentially (though we still have a long way to go), so has belief in nonsense.
Homo sapiens are strange creatures indeed.
I’m curious how the market analysts distinguish homeopathic products from other herbs, remedies, and supplements in the alternative care universe. Among lay people who are into “natural” treatments, I have noticed they conflate homeopathy with a broad array of products and practices. Peppermint tea, St. John’s Wort, garlic oil capsules, silver drops, kava supplements, multivitamins from “natural” producers, foods “without chemicals,” chiropractors, naturopaths, holistic doctors, and even osteopaths all get dumped in the same alternative bin. I doubt that many who do so are even aware of the two tenets of homeopathy that Jerry reports.
These types of “remedies” are easy to dismiss, and they understandably prompt anger, eye-rolls, and laughs. But I still think there is a learning moment for our corporatized medical system. I find it here: “Improvements are likely due to non-specific effects such as the therapeutic environment, patient expectations and placebo response.” Treating people like they are people rather than problems to be solved or customers to ram quickly through their appointments can have its own benefits. I’ve heard people rave about the lengthy personalized attention given to them by their alternative practitioner, and it stands in sharp contrast to the brief, bureaucratized encounters that many have in a modern clinic. Doctors who have (or could take) the time that both they and their patients would like for real connection might go some way toward fixing this problem.
Nevertheless, we will always have people willing to part people from their money—and that is just as true for an unnecessary knee replacement, dubious “testing,” or fruitless end-of-life “care” as it is for quack concoctions.
It’s identical to the reason people swear by acupuncture. Laying in a dim, quiet room and getting personal attention from another human being for an hour turns out to make a lot of people feel better. Quelle surprise.
Research indicates that the complexity and elaborateness of a placebo intervention, as well as how convincing the theory behind it’s supposed efficacy is, are positively correlated with the placebo response. This is why elaborate shamanic practices have endured for millennia in many cultures, and why placebo surgery is more effective than a placebo pill.
Acupuncture is a good example. Studies where the control group had the same number of needle placements, but with the needles in the “wrong” areas (unbeknownst to the patients), were just as effective as the treatment administered “properly” according to the theory of it.
Homeopathy drives me crazy angry. Once I wrote an article about Richard Dawkins’ Center for Inquiry filing a lawsuit against CVS for selling homeopathic bs.
Evidently it was unsuccessful as I believe they still sell that snake oil there. (sigh)
D.A.
NYC 🗽
I was in CVS yesterday and they do continue to sell some homeopathic remedies.
As a scientist, its frustrating to see dubious “remedies” being sold in TV and print ads. Recently, I’ve been seeing heavy advertising for a liver health product, as if marketers have discovered a new organ to exploit. More organs will inevitably follow.
In the past few years, I’ve noticed that the word “support” has become the operant buzzword for all these potions. We have products for blood pressure support, heart support, prostate health support and, of course, brain support. “Support” is a good word. It’s anodyne. It doesn’t claim too much. When I hear the word “support,” I know that there’s no real there there.
I wish that these companies would have to prove safety and efficacy in order to be marketed, but the segment has been unregulated for so long and has become so economically huge that it will remain up to the consumer to decide what might work and what might not. It seems like the phrase caveat emptor was created for exactly this reason.
You are quite right to point out that “support” has become a weasel word simply because it makes no claim that requires justification. Perhaps the only usage where it actually implies something useful is being done is in “life support.”
“Remedy” has hung around because it is archaic and twee. But it actually implies that it reverses a condition, so look for it to be completely replaced by “support.”
I have harangued a pharmacist for filling his shop with homeopathic trash, purely for profit and screw the fact it irritates the local physicians. Said pharmacist started advising my patients to see another physician.
🎯
Orwell – Politics and the English Language
Pieper – Abuse of Language … Abuse of Power
Also – consider the thought-terminating cliché (Robert J. Lifton, 1961). :
“The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed.”
Drug makers have had to prove efficacy and safety since 1938 in the US, when the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was passed. Before this law, anyone could sell anything and the US had a large patent medicine industry selling all sorts of useless and often dangerous snake oils. The law put the patent med makers instantly out of business since they couldn’t do the work required to get their concoctions to pass. Homeopathic substances were exempted from these requirements.
Reason for the loophole had nothing to do with merit, but because Sen. Royal Copeland, who authored and pushed the 1938 legislation, was also a homeopathic physician. FDA currently considers homeopathic drugs to be “unapproved new drugs” and still has the power to remove them from the market if necessary (in other words, if enough people die).
Dietary supplements can also be sold and marketed without scientific backing for their health and medical claims, due to the 1994 Dietary supplement heath act, sponsored by Sen. Hatch of Utah, which happens to be a center of supplement manufacturing. I mention this because there now is legislation (mentioned above by Lee) moving through Congress aimed at removing what little discretionary power the FDA currently has over homeopathic drugs.
Only way to stop this, I suspect, is if enough people complain enough. However, the influence of Big Supplement, the distrust of the mainstream medical industry, and desire for “health freedom” whatever that is, may be too strong.
Dara O’Briain and Tim Minchin are brilliant on the subject of homeopathy as others have mentioned. This sketch by Mitchell and Webb is also hilarious:
https://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0?si=POpAu0wdnZeKHP7H
Placebo effect, paid for.