A BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW:
The role of alternative therapies in modern medicine.
It was thirty years ago when Gerard Bocquee first immigrated to Australia. As we sit in his office discussing the cross-continental shift, strong traces of a French accent remain. “I had heard good things about this country, so I decided I was young and adventurous and I would give it a go. I left my family in France and everything I had come to know after studying in South Africa, and haven’t looked back since.” He describes himself as healthy, but at the time, was struggling with a chronic sinus condition and had a propensity for ‘quick fixes’ from his doctor. “I tried countless pills and sprays that were supposed to ease the congestion, but they only provided temporary relief. I found the pain would always come back and, in some cases, it was worse.” Headaches and tooth sensitivity were a constant in Gerard’s day-to-day life until a friend suggested he try homeopathy. “That was a turning point for me – after my consultation, my sinuses cleared up and my general wellbeing improved. I honestly couldn’t believe it.”
With his background as a lab technician, Gerard was immediately interested in the preparation of homeopathic remedies and wanted to pursue further study in the field. This led him to ultimately set up his own clinical practice in 1979, becoming one of very few qualified homeopaths in Brisbane. At this point in our conversation I can’t help but think, why was the scope of practice so small, particularly given success stories like his where they were able to homeopathically derive a cure? Was it because the field of complementary medicine was only just emerging and public awareness of its benefits was low; or had a prevailing skepticism surrounding its scientific value left society with no choice but to keep the alternative therapy at arm’s length? Gerard’s credentials are proudly displayed in his consultation room with diplomas and notarised certificates framed and hanging from the walls, lending themselves to perhaps an even bigger question; how could someone so seemingly pragmatic and well educated be convinced of homeopathy’s efficacy despite its direct contradiction with scientific fact?
Let’s face it, from a scientific perspective homeopathy just doesn’t make sense. The entire system of medicine relies on diluting substances through a process of so-called ‘dynamisation’ to increase potency. This is also known as the ‘Law of Infinitesimals,’ and is the main point of contention between homeopaths and the scientific community. When you consider that each active ingredient has been diluted to the extent that barely any trace of it remains in the final solution, it’s hard to believe that it would have any effect on the body, let alone a positive one. But Gerard is quick to defend his homeopathic principles. “At each stage of the dynamisation process, our solutions are vigorously shaken, or subject to ‘succussion,’ which emanates a healing energy that goes on to be transferred to the patient.” Sensing my apprehension (or at least having encountered criticism for these views in the past), his posture straightens and his eyes narrow, prepared to defend homeopathy against claims it is a pseudo-science.
After a brief pause, he goes on to explain the ‘Law of Similars,’ which is arguably a more plausible theoretical foundation for the alternative therapy. This notion of “like cures like” operates under the scientific premise that small doses of the same substance that may have poisoned an individual can be used to treat an individual. “Samuel Hahnemann was the eighteenth century physician that pioneered this homeopathic method. After a quinine overdose, he discovered that he exhibited symptoms of malaria and, therefore, by homeopathically dynamising a quinine solution, it would act as an anti-malarial, alleviating the fevers and nausea associated with the disease.” For all intents and purposes, his logic aligns with our modern understanding of vaccines and anti-venoms. Gerard also believes that homeopathic consultations go beyond the pathological approach to diagnosis, and it is in this sense, even clinical practitioners can agree. Jon Wardle, from the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), acknowledges that conventional medicine has adopted similar fact-gathering protocols when initially evaluating patients’ needs. He believes whether or not the science is there to back it up, homeopaths may have inadvertently tapped into a powerful placebo effect that has some scientific value. Could it be that just by verbalising their problems, it can improve broader health outcomes?
Homeopathic practitioners abide by a central text, similar to an encyclopedia of naturally occurring elements, categorised alphabetically and according to what symptoms each have been proven to effectively treat. Gerard’s decades of experience have enabled him to remember the different homeopathic properties of specific flowers, herbs and minerals associated with common ailments, but I notice the book’s pages are well-worn and it remains on his desk for reference. “Patients are prescribed certain remedies on the basis of their individual drug pictures. No two remedies will be the same, because no two people are the same. Every course of treatment depends on a holistic assessment of symptoms and lifestyle factors.” Rather than suppressing disease in the body, Gerard has an unwavering belief in the benefits of individualisation as a means of addressing nutrient imbalances, boosting the immune system and triggering a natural response so that the body can begin to heal itself.
The homeopathic approach to healthcare is certainly idealistic – built around centuries of homeopathic knowledge, plants are differentiated in terms of their medicinal value and how they can assist the body’s function through targeted natural interventions. Vials of essences line the shelves of Gerard’s office and I recognise some of the biological names, while others are more obscure. As he speaks, I begin to rationalise it all in my head. I can see how a natural approach might actually help with garden-variety problems and, in fact, be preferable to injecting the body with chemicals; but I cannot deny that it is harder to reconcile the facts of homeopathy when it comes to more life-threatening conditions.
Social media has played a huge role in popularising homeopathy and other alternative therapies amongst the public with wellness bloggers emerging on multiple platforms, advocating their natural lifestyles and commitment to wellbeing. These aesthetically pleasing posts range from information about their diets (featuring anti-oxidant infused breakfast granola with kale and flaxseed smoothies) to their exercise regimes (authenticated by mirror selfies in workout gear and a string of ‘fitspiration’ hashtags). In many instances, these accounts can attract hundreds of thousands of followers who choose to subscribe for updates on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. While you could perceive this to be a positive development in terms of promoting healthy living and raising awareness of how to take better care of our bodies, recently, so-called ‘Wellness Warriors’ have taken it upon themselves to use their terminal cancer diagnoses to publically spruik the benefits of natural therapies in favour of conventional treatments. The practice has been criticised for glorifying homeopathy and other alternative therapies, steering patients away from seeking proper medical attention. For a while there, homeopathy dominated the headlines, receiving prominent media coverage that highlighted the plight of individuals boycotting chemotherapy and overcoming adversity.
Jess Ainscough was arguably the catalyst for the online wellness movement in Australia as she began to document her journey with controversial Gerson Therapy back in 2009. Her blog posts spanned multiple years, culminating in her death as a result of an aggressive relapse in early 2015. Doctors have described Jess as, “just as much a victim of alternative therapies as she was a proponent for them.” At the end of the day, Jess had just been trying to find a treatment that worked for her and sharing updates via the web was her way of coping with cancer’s life sentence. Little did she realise at the time that her personal story would resonate with so many others suffering from the terminal illness and gain such widespread momentum. It is important to note, that in light of her mother’s death and as her condition deteriorated, Jess relaxed her stance on conventional medicine and reached out to a team of specialists but unfortunately it was a case of too little, too late. Another high-profile ‘health crusader,’ who was far less moderate in her views, was Belle Gibson – thrown in the social media spotlight after falsifying cancer claims, but not before developing a hugely successful lifestyle app and publishing a bestselling cookbook. Although her personal story has now emerged as fake, at the time, it was thought that Belle was a young mum struggling against all odds, trying to make a difference by imparting her naturopathic wisdom to others. This proved to be a very lucrative position for her as ‘The Whole Pantry’ attracted more media attention and capitalised on the wellness trend. On more than one occasion, talk show hosts complimented Belle for “how healthy she looked,” to which she would reply, “the benefits of a ‘back-to-basics’ approach to healthcare really speak for themselves,” (or words to that effect). It has only just been revealed in a tell-all interview with the ‘Women’s Weekly’ that Belle’s compelling story and homeopathic conviction masked her pathological need to lie. Just as she had received a lot of positive media coverage that boosted the reputation of alternative therapies as a viable treatment option, the media used her guilty admissions as an opportunity to shift the discourse back to why alternative therapies don’t work. Not surprisingly, the public was outraged that she had unscrupulously profited by misleading the sick and vulnerable, but also because her actions had robbed people of months of their lives that could have been extended had clinical treatment options been explored sooner.
Society’s increasing reliance on these types of celebrity figures for reliable health advice runs the risk of propagating misinformation that could be damaging to both the homeopathic and conventional medicine cause. This extreme case of deceit and others of malpractice prompted a review by the National Health & Medical Research Council into homeopathy, aiming to put a decisive end to speculation about the alternative therapy. Their results found that homeopathy could not be considered clinically effective, and even went so far as to suggest that its ongoing practice was unethical. The scientific community has rallied around these findings, labelling the science “inherently wrong,” and urging the government to remove homeopathy from its list of subsidised healthcare treatments once and for all. But Jon is quick to point out that the review did take shortcuts due to time and resource constraints and while they may have drawn the same conclusions from a properly designed study, they are in no position to unequivocally deny the claims made against them by pro-homeopathy groups. The review may not change that status quo but it has the potential to shut down future research into homeopathy, limiting the scope for improving public health outcomes.
When asked about the real-world implications of the review, Jon does not seem to think it will have as profound an effect as first thought. “At the end of the day people choose homeopathy on the basis of their individual situation and, those that do, represent a very small proportion of the population compared to other countries.” From a clinical perspective, he is less worried about shutting down the practice of homeopathy than he is about implementing frameworks that can better regulate its role within community health care infrastructure. This sort of statutory regulation has been recently imposed on Traditional Chinese Medicine within Australia, and ensures some level of basic training for all registered homeopaths. The Endeavour College of Natural Medicine abides by similar guidelines, making anatomy classes a compulsory aspect of all their graduate’s training so they are able to recognise the symptoms of more serious conditions and refer them to hospitals where more direct interventions are required. By failing to formally regulate the homeopathic profession, Jon’s very real concern is that anyone could pretend to be a medical expert and misdiagnose patients, compromising their quality of care and, in some cases, the likelihood of their survival. By opting to regulate the profession, however, it would be seen to legitimise the profession and anti-homeopathy sentiment would be equally aroused. Can anyone win?
While it may sound far-fetched and slightly implausible, it seems the only discernible way forward is to put an end to the prevailing divisions in society. It should not be a matter of us versus them, especially in the healthcare sector where patient needs should be prioritised at all times in spite of personal inclinations. By acknowledging that homeopathy is a form of complementary medicine, intended for use in conjunction with other clinically trialed methods, maybe society can finally take advantage of its individualised approach to healthcare. The fact of the matter is that homeopathy is a two hundred year old discipline that really is committed to improving people’s lives, whether you agree with the science behind it or not. Gerard has had to defend his profession and bear the brunt of its negative connotations for too long. But countering these perceptions will not happen overnight – they have been deeply engrained in the collective consciousness over time as homeopathy’s credibility has been undermined by the Belle Gibson’s of the internet and too often linked to superficial fad diets.
While Gerard insists there is an ongoing demand for his services, with patient referrals and follow-up appointments dominating his work schedule, he still believes the majority of the public is living with medical conditions that they shouldn’t have to. If people could momentarily suspend their judgment and look at homeopathy objectively, it is possible that they could benefit from a consultation. I take a moment to consider my own situation – sure, reaching for the Panadol when I have a migraine is a convenient solution that may temporarily relieve my aching head and blurred vision, but could a homeopathic remedy actually address the underlying reasons why I get migraines? Through the homeopathic line of enquiry, could I come to understand the factors that lead to migraines and possibly eradicate the recurring symptoms? I must admit that I still believe conventional medicine has the upper hand in terms of dealing with disease; but in terms of general wellbeing, a collaborative healthcare model can only be a good thing as it addresses concerns from both sides of the debate and explores a broader range of clinical options, remaining open to the possibility of finding a cure. It should not be a case of one branch of medicine in favour of the other, because each has a unique diagnostic skillset. Gerard walks me through the waiting room to the door of the Brisbane Homeopathic Clinic; given the final word as he shakes my hand emphatically. “The misconception that we homeopaths would like to clear, is that the cure is not in the bottle, it is in the body.” In this sense, I am not opposed to trying a homeopathic solution, even if it is just a case of mind over matter.
gracewilson.wix.com