Homeopathy has, for over two centuries, occupied a contested space in the world of medicine, often positioned between enthusiastic support from its practitioners and patients on one side, and deep skepticism from sections of the scientific community and mainstream medical establishment on the other. This skepticism frequently manifests not merely as reasoned criticism but as outright dismissal, with homeopathy portrayed as unscientific, ineffective, or even dangerous.
One of the most widely circulated examples of such criticism in recent years comes from a research paper authored by a Kerala-based medical team led by “liver doctor”, ominously titled “Dangerous Placebo During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Series of Homoeopathic Arsenicum Album-Induced Liver Injury.” The paper goes beyond questioning homeopathy’s efficacy and directly alleges that Arsenicum Album 30C, a widely used remedy prescribed across India during the pandemic, is not only useless but capable of causing acute liver damage and even death.
This claim has not remained confined to the pages of a journal. It has been seized upon by anti-homeopathy campaigners and amplified across digital and media platforms, often stripped of nuance and presented as categorical proof that homeopathy is inherently toxic. The very title of the paper, blending the language of danger, placebo, and pandemic, serves as a rhetorical weapon, ensuring maximum fear and suspicion around the remedy. For critics, it provides a convenient scientific-looking document to bolster long-standing arguments against homeopathy. But science, if it is to remain credible, must withstand scrutiny not only in its results but also in its methods, assumptions, and logical coherence.
A careful and dispassionate analysis of the paper reveals that its foundations are shaky at best. The arguments advanced rely on questionable interpretations of data, imprecise calculations, and a superficial understanding of homeopathic preparation processes. Basic toxicological principles and elementary arithmetic are overlooked in ways that fundamentally undermine the paper’s conclusions. Instead of providing objective evidence against homeopathy, the study inadvertently exposes how ideology, bias, and scientific shortcuts can distort medical discourse. When examined critically, the paper does not prove homeopathy’s danger but rather demonstrates the dangers of allowing flawed science to guide public perception and policy.
At the heart of the Kerala team’s research lies a startling accusation: that Arsenicum Album 30C, a homeopathic preparation widely prescribed during the COVID-19 pandemic, contains measurable amounts of crude arsenic in concentrations sufficient to cause toxicity in patients. This claim, if true, would be devastating, for it suggests that a medicine trusted by millions is in fact a silent poison. The lead author of the paper, a hepatologist with considerable standing in the medical community, reported that laboratory tests on one kilogram of Ars Alb 30C sugar globules revealed 0.18 milligrams of arsenic. On the surface, this number may appear alarming, since arsenic is universally recognized as a toxic element with the potential to harm multiple organs, including the liver. It is this figure that forms the backbone of the argument: if arsenic exists in homeopathic remedies even in trace amounts, then repeated dosing could, in principle, lead to cumulative poisoning and, in extreme cases, acute liver injury.
However, scientific claims cannot be accepted at face value simply because they come from authoritative figures or are couched in technical language. They must be interrogated through the rigorous lenses of mathematics, toxicology, and logical consistency. When this particular claim is tested against these standards, it collapses with surprising ease.
The first red flag emerges from the simple matter of arithmetic. To evaluate whether 0.18 milligrams of arsenic in a kilogram of sugar globules poses any genuine risk, one must translate that figure into the actual amount ingested per dose. Yet this basic calculation is conspicuously absent in the original paper, leaving readers with the impression that even trace detection is equivalent to toxicity.
Furthermore, toxicology—the science of poisons—teaches us that danger lies not merely in the presence of a substance but in its dose relative to established safety thresholds.
Arsenic is indeed toxic at higher levels, but it is also an unavoidable component of the natural environment, present in soil, water, and food sources consumed daily. A scientifically valid accusation of arsenic poisoning must therefore demonstrate that the amount ingested through a homeopathic dose exceeds typical dietary exposure and crosses into toxic territory. Instead, what the Kerala paper presents is a raw number (0.18 mg/kg) that sounds threatening in isolation but is meaningless without contextualization.
Thus, when the central claim is carefully unpacked, it becomes evident that it is less a discovery of hidden danger than a case of misplaced inference. By stopping at detection without considering dosage, context, or comparison with everyday sources of arsenic, the researchers inadvertently misrepresent the situation. The supposed revelation of toxicity in Arsenicum Album 30C turns out, under scrutiny, to be a weak hypothesis propped up by incomplete reasoning—one that cannot withstand the most elementary cross-examination.
The weakness of the Kerala team’s argument becomes starkly evident when one applies the most elementary arithmetic to their own reported data. Homeopathic remedies such as Arsenicum Album 30C are typically dispensed on small sugar globules—commonly referred to as No. 40 globules—which serve as carriers for the diluted medicinal preparation. A single kilogram of these globules contains roughly 32,000 individual pills. If we take the researchers’ claim at face value—that one kilogram of such globules contains 0.18 milligrams of arsenic—then a simple division reveals that each pill would contain only about 5.6 nanograms of arsenic. This is an exceedingly tiny quantity, far below any threshold that toxicologists would recognize as hazardous.
To put this into perspective, consider a typical dosage pattern: a patient might consume six to eight globules in a day, divided into two or three small doses. Multiplying the per-pill estimate by this dosage yields an intake of approximately 22.5 nanograms of arsenic per day. Even if the figure were doubled or tripled to account for variations in dosing, the resulting amount would still remain negligible. The issue, therefore, is not merely one of scientific accuracy but of proportionality. The study presents its data as though the mere presence of arsenic—however minute—constitutes proof of danger, while failing to calculate or contextualize the actual dose that enters the body.
When this dose is compared with natural dietary exposure, the contrast becomes almost comical. The average adult, through routine food and water consumption, ingests between 12,000 and 50,000 nanograms of arsenic daily.
This range is not speculative but well-documented in toxicological studies and global health reports. Relative to these figures, the 22.5 nanograms allegedly delivered by a daily homeopathic dose is vanishingly small—thousands of times less than what people already consume without harm. Indeed, if such trace amounts were truly capable of producing acute liver injury, vast sections of the human population would be suffering continual poisoning simply from their daily meals.
The arithmetic, then, does more than expose a flaw; it dismantles the very premise of the paper. Numbers, when handled transparently, reveal that the supposed arsenic threat in Arsenicum Album 30C is not only negligible but trivial when set against the unavoidable background of natural arsenic exposure. What masquerades as a finding of danger is, on closer inspection, nothing more than a numerical illusion created by isolating raw data from its necessary context.
To properly evaluate the claim that Arsenicum Album 30C poses a toxic threat, it is necessary to place the alleged arsenic content of the remedy within the broader context of human nutrition and environmental exposure. Arsenic is not some exotic poison that suddenly appears in a bottle of homeopathic globules—it is a naturally occurring trace element found widely in soil, water, and the food chain. Every human being consumes small amounts of arsenic on a daily basis, not by accident but as an unavoidable consequence of living in an environment where the element is present in the earth’s crust. The difference between harmless background exposure and toxic levels lies in the concentration and duration of intake, not in the mere presence of the element.
Consider some everyday foods. Bananas, one of the most widely eaten fruits in the world, may contain up to 0.1 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of fruit. Rice, a dietary staple for billions of people across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, has been shown in multiple studies to contain as much as 0.4 milligrams of inorganic arsenic per kilogram of dry mass. Garlic, Brussels sprouts, and other cruciferous vegetables, often praised for their health benefits, are also efficient accumulators of inorganic arsenic from the soil in which they grow. Even foods often regarded as indulgences—such as honey and cocoa—carry trace amounts of arsenic along with other naturally occurring heavy metals like cadmium and lead.
Beyond diet, lifestyle choices further amplify exposure. Tobacco smoke, for instance, is a major source of inorganic arsenic, contributing significant quantities of the element directly into the lungs and bloodstream of smokers. Yet despite the presence of arsenic in all these sources, humanity has consumed such foods and tolerated such exposures for generations without experiencing widespread arsenic-related epidemics. Public health concerns about arsenic arise only when levels rise dramatically, such as in cases of groundwater contamination, not when trace amounts are ingested from normal dietary sources.
Placed against this backdrop, the claim that Arsenicum Album 30C is dangerous because of its supposed nanogram levels of arsenic becomes untenable. If such infinitesimal traces were genuinely hazardous, then the logical conclusion would be that bananas, rice, vegetables, and even cocoa should be treated as far more alarming public health risks than homeopathic remedies. Clearly, no such conclusion is warranted, because the body is well equipped to handle small, naturally occurring doses of arsenic without harm. By ignoring this broader context, the Kerala study magnifies a trivial detail into a misleading narrative, while overlooking the everyday reality that arsenic is a routine, if minor, component of the human diet.
Sometimes the best way to expose the weakness of a claim is to translate abstract numbers into everyday comparisons. Take the case of arsenic levels in bananas, a fruit consumed daily across the globe and even recommended as a healthy dietary choice. A modest serving of 150 grams of banana—essentially one medium-sized fruit—contains about 0.015 milligrams of arsenic. This figure, though higher than the alleged content in homeopathic globules, has never been considered a public health threat. People eat bananas regularly, often several times a week, without any fear of arsenic poisoning.
Now let us apply this benchmark to Arsenicum Album 30C. To ingest an amount of arsenic equivalent to that found in a single banana, a person would need to consume approximately 75 grams of homeopathic globules. This translates to about 2,400 individual pills—a quantity so unrealistic that it defies practical possibility. At the standard dosage of three to four pills per day, it would take more than two years of continuous daily consumption to reach the arsenic equivalent of eating just one banana. The math speaks louder than any rhetorical flourish: the supposed danger in homeopathic dosing evaporates the moment it is compared with commonplace dietary intake.
This thought experiment underscores the absurdity of the claim that a few sugar globules can cause acute arsenic poisoning. If critics insist on consistency, then logic would demand far greater alarm over bananas than over Arsenicum Album. Yet no one warns against the “toxic” dangers of eating a banana a day, nor should they—because the body easily processes such trace exposures. The real danger lies not in the infinitesimal amounts of arsenic found in homeopathic preparations but in the distortion of science when numbers are stripped of context and wielded as tools of fear.
Beyond the problems of flawed arithmetic and misleading comparisons, the Kerala study suffers from a series of deeper scientific inconsistencies that severely weaken its conclusions. A closer examination reveals that the authors not only misapplied toxicological reasoning but also misunderstood the fundamental principles of homeopathy, ignored essential requirements of causality, and misrepresented harmless substances as potential toxins. Each of these issues exposes gaps in both methodology and logic.
One of the most glaring problems in the paper is its failure to account for the process of potentization, the very cornerstone of homeopathic pharmacy. At the 30C potency—commonly prescribed in clinical practice—Arsenicum Album undergoes serial dilutions and succussions that go far beyond the Avogadro limit, meaning that statistically no molecules of the original arsenic compound are expected to remain in the final preparation. For researchers to assert that arsenic persists in toxic levels within such dilutions, they must provide concrete, batch-specific laboratory data. Yet the paper openly admits that “analysis of drugs consumed could not be performed due to inadequate sample availability.” This admission undermines the entire claim: without direct testing of the exact medicines allegedly responsible, no scientifically valid link can be drawn between Arsenicum Album 30C and the reported cases of toxicity. In the absence of rigorous analysis, the accusation amounts to speculation dressed as evidence.
Even where data is invoked, the numbers unravel under scrutiny. In one of the cases cited, the researchers reported elevated arsenic levels in the patient’s hair and nail samples, interpreting these as definitive proof of poisoning from Ars Alb 30C. But toxicological reasoning demands dose-response consistency. Based on the researchers’ own claim of 0.18 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of globules, a patient would have to consume more than 38 kilograms of sugar pills—or roughly 1.2 million individual globules—to reach the arsenic burden detected. The patient in question had consumed only 24 globules over three days, an amount so trivial that it could not possibly explain the laboratory findings. The arithmetic discredits the conclusion: the reported levels of arsenic in biological samples simply cannot be reconciled with the alleged source.
Perhaps even more troubling is the way the paper makes sweeping causal claims without establishing direct connections. The three cases of liver injury presented are riddled with confounding factors that were never adequately ruled out. One patient already had cirrhosis, a well-known condition that predisposes to liver failure. Another presented only vague gastrointestinal complaints, with no documented history of liver injury. In none of the cases did the researchers systematically investigate other possible sources of arsenic exposure—such as diet, water, or environment—despite the fact that these are far more common routes of toxicity. Yet, without toxicological verification, dose-response analysis, or elimination of alternate causes, the authors hastily attributed causation to a few doses of homeopathic globules. This leap violates fundamental principles of medical science, where causality must be demonstrated, not presumed.
The inconsistencies do not stop there. In their analysis of the sugar pills, the researchers reported finding two sugars—D-mannose and melezitose—and implied that these compounds might contribute to toxicity. Such a claim reveals either a lack of basic biochemical knowledge or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
D-mannose is a simple sugar commonly found in fruits such as cranberries and apples, widely used as a safe dietary supplement for urinary tract health. Melezitose, a naturally occurring trisaccharide, is present in plant sap and honeydew. Neither compound has toxic properties; on the contrary, both are harmless components of the natural diet. By insinuating toxicity where none exists, the study not only weakens its scientific credibility but also risks spreading misinformation about perfectly safe, naturally occurring substances.
Criticism of homeopathy, like criticism of any medical system, is both necessary and valuable—but only when it is grounded in verifiable data, sound methodology, and reasoned analysis. The scientific process thrives on questioning, testing, and refining ideas, and homeopathy should not be exempt from such scrutiny. Yet what the Kerala study presents is not genuine scientific criticism but a troubling example of how weak assumptions and flawed reasoning can masquerade as medical research. When claims of acute liver failure and even death are attributed to a handful of highly diluted sugar globules—without batch verification, dose-response analysis, or elimination of alternative causes—the discussion leaves the domain of science and enters the realm of propaganda. Such approaches risk undermining the very credibility of scientific inquiry.
It is important to emphasize that this article does not seek to make sweeping claims about the clinical efficacy of homeopathy, which remains a subject of ongoing debate. Rather, the focus here is on the principles of scientific integrity. If researchers or critics wish to challenge homeopathy, their responsibility is clear: they must present data that is precise, reproducible, and interpreted within the proper toxicological and clinical framework. Anything less reduces complex questions to caricatures and risks misleading the public. Science, by its very nature, demands objectivity—it cannot afford to indulge in selective reasoning or ideologically motivated misrepresentation.
Public health, more than any other domain, deserves the highest standards of honesty and rigor. In times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the responsibility of scientists and physicians is even greater: to inform people with clarity, not alarm them with unsubstantiated claims. To vilify an entire system of medicine on the basis of weak evidence not only undermines trust but also distracts attention from genuine health risks that require urgent attention. When ideology is allowed to dictate conclusions, the public loses twice—first by being deprived of reliable knowledge, and second by being drawn into fear and confusion.
For homeopathy, as for any branch of medicine, the path forward is clear: encourage transparent research, welcome rigorous testing, and allow evidence to shape conclusions rather than the other way around. Only by upholding these standards can we move beyond polemics and work toward a scientific discourse worthy of the name. In the end, the issue is not about defending or attacking homeopathy; it is about defending the integrity of science itself.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 
Leave a comment