Print Friendly and PDF

What the Homeopathy Controversy is Really All About

Paul Fassa
by
October 13th, 2013
Updated 10/13/2013 at 11:43 am
Pin It

homeopathy 263x164 What the Homeopathy Controversy is Really All About(NaturalSociety.com) A German physician, Samuel Hahnemann, started homeopathy in the late 1700s to early 1800s. This was a period when mainstream medicine consisted of using bloodsucking leeches, mercury, arsenic, and lead to treat illness. His approach was kinder, gentler, and much more effective.

Homeopathy caught on in other parts of Europe and North America during the mid-19th Century and beyond. John D. Rockefeller reportedly used homeopathy for himself and his family.

But he made sure his fledgling pharmaceutical interests and petroleum monopoly would benefit from the manufacture and prescription of petrochemical based pharmaceuticals along with his merger with IG Farban, the largest international pharmaceutical company of that time.

Rockefeller basically bankrolled medical education and licensing for allopathic practitioners to exclude both homoeopathics and herbalists. By the early 20th Century, The American Medical Association (AMA) became a major influence for deciding what is and isn’t medicine.

Homeopathy was displaced from mainstream consciousness as the Medical Mafia took over.

How Hanemann Developed Homeopathy

Hahnemann conducted trials on volunteers and patients. This was truly evidence based medicine for establishing specific results. But his premises were unusual to the Western world.

Hahnemann believed that a vital energy runs through our bodies. This became known as vitalism. Chinese acupuncture had not arrived to the West yet, so this was a startling position to assume.

First he decided that a substance producing symptoms similar to the symptoms of the ailment being treated could heal the ailment. This became known as the “law of similars”. Since Hahnemann was using some toxic plant derivatives at first, he had to dilute those potions with water.

He soon discovered that increased dilutions proved to be even more potent than stronger solutions. First, a sample is taken from a mother solution, is diluted, then shaken vigorously. It can be diluted again and again and shaken each time. This is known as potentization.

Even though a solution can be diluted to a point of containing only one molecule of the original substance, the potentized solutions offer healing by transferring the electromagnetic properties to the water with each shaking. This is how the vital energy or chi is influenced by homeopathic remedies.

The Medical Mafia’s Real Objections to Homeopathy

This is too subtle for average materialistic practitioners and research scientists. So the AMA mainstream medicos maintain that they’re too weak to work. But that’s the cover story for the real reasons why “orthodox” medicine is against homeopathy, even as more from their ranks slip away and choose to use it.

Big Pharma runs Allopathic medicine from top to bottom. They are in the faces of medical students before they graduate and continue haunting them after they get their licenses. The AMA, FDA, and regional licensing agencies are Big Pharma’s Medical Mafia “enforcers”.

Big Pharma and medical equipment manufacturers would be ruined financially if enough discovered that very inexpensive homeopathic diluted solutions can be used to actually heal without side effects from a homeopathic practitioner who requires practically no expensive medical equipment.

Homeopathy requires dialogue between practitioner and patient. It is patient specific. That takes time and patience, something MDs don’t have time for. Practicing homeopathy is more subtle and demanding than cookie-cutter “here’s your prescription” medical practice.

But this is also the one downside of homeopathy. It’s important to consult a good classical homeopathic practitioner to get optimum results.

But it’s hard to go too wrong with homeopathy because homeopathic solutions are without side effects and are much less expensive than pharmaceuticals. Treating an autistic child often comes to a couple of hundred dollars worth of homeopathic remedies over a year’s treatments.

Meanwhile, orthodox oncologists make up to a half-million or more dollars per year off the chemo drugs they drip into their visiting patients. Yes, they get a cut of the action from those hideously expensive chemo drugs that often kill patients before cancer can.

In summary, allopathic medicine condemns homeopathy because it is more effective but less profitable than the Medical Mafia’s racket. You’ve just been told the real truth. Investigate further starting with the sources below.

Additional Sources:

How PhD computer scientist Amy Lansky became a homeopathy advocate when her son’s autism was cured by it - Mercola

How Modern Medicine displaced homeopathy - Sott

ImpossibleCure

DrZimmermann.org

HealthMaven

From around the web:

  • Pablo Hein

    They lack to understand homeopathy through quantum physics. They know it, but will never admit it. Its all about energy, not the molecule in the medicine.

  • rosross

    One other point needs to be made, on the basis that in every ‘curse’ there is a gift. One often overlooked fact is that the anti-Homeopathy brigade is actually doing Homeopathic Medicine an enormous favour because it is pushing the system to improve.

    Any system, particularly any medical system requires professionalism and professionalism requires regulation. That does not mean that there will not still be charlatans, incompetents, mistakes and unprofessionalism as Allopathic Medicine so consistently demonstrates, but it does mean there are regulations in place which contribute to greater professionalism in general and the highest standards in general.

    Regulation is required in all fields, as the banking/economic fiasco in the US some years ago so clearly demonstrated. And that is because without regulation you are relying on the best of human nature and the ‘best’ of human nature, without regulation, will always be pulled down to the worst of human nature because that will be the baseline which is set. There are always people who will rort any system for profit, whether literal or metaphorical, and only regulations can keep them in check and maintain high standards of behaviour and operation.

    The better regulated and more professional Homeopathic Medicine is, the better it is for practitioners and of course patients. With such a brilliant and advanced medical methodology, one which is going to be crucial to human health in the future as chronic illness increases due to Allopathic treatments, and Allopathic treatments fail because of abuse and overuse of antibiotics first and foremost but procedures and interventions in general, it is absolutely vital that the profession and the system in which it functions operates to the very highest standards.

    While most of what the opposers put forward is sourced more in ignorance and propaganda than any sort of fact, and that is easily recognised by anyone who knows something about Homeopathy and by ordinary people with high levels of common sense, the reality is that while Homeopathy is excellent, the system in which it is practised is in need of improvement.

    Through reacting and responding to the negativity and the movement which seeks to discredit Homeopathy, the methodology, profession and system can only improve and that is to the benefit of all. And that will place Homeopathy in the best position to meet the needs of a failing Allopathic system and the failing health of billions of people around the world. It will also put it in the best position to be seen as the medicine of the future – a form of energy medicine developed far ahead of its time, but a methodology which will be embraced by Allopathy, as it must be, and play a vital role in re-writing and re-working the understanding and approach of science/medicine in general.

    I believe it is very important that Homeopaths do not get caught up in personal battles with the naysayers, but use the impetus which such challenge brings, to make Homeopathy, methodology and practice, the best that it can be. The movement against Homeopathy cannot hurt it; the only ‘hurt’ it can bring is if Homeopaths are distracted by it and allow their focus to be on the movement and not on Homeopathy and its future.

    Homeopathy does not need defending but it does need to be the best it can be and that is where the focus and the effort must go.

  • ND52

    What a coincidence: the critics of homeopathy sound just like the global warming trolls found all over the internet.

    • nightgaunt

      Is it a coincidence this sounds just like the anti-Global warming trolls? NO.

  • ShunkW

    Bunk, bunk and more bunk.

    • rosross

      How insightful and erudite. Quite a contribution.

      • ShunkW

        Actually much more “insightful” than your rants on the subject.

        • rosross

          :)

      • nightgaunt

        The erudite have already smashed it so well the pro pollution to make more money have been scrambling to fight it. Unfortunately their lies are louder than the truth so like Evolution, very few accept it in this country. Propaganda can win with enough money behind it.

        • rosross

          If propaganda could win then the campaign against Homeopathy, begun in the name of profitable Allopathy and pharmaceuticals, in the early to mid 20th century in the US would have succeeded. It did not. It failed and Homeopathy not only endured it increased, as it does today. While propaganda has made some inroads in the UK, goodness knows why because the British have always led the enlightened way on many counts, it grows in use in Europe and throughout the rest of the world and has begun to be re-accepted by American doctors. The truth will out.

          • nightgaunt

            Well then your studies by independent researches would if they actually existed. But it is easier to blame the AMA and a vast conspiracy instead.

  • rosross

    Effectiveness, Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Homeopathy in General Practice – Summarized Health Technology Assessment

    Bornhöft G.a,d · Wolf U.b,d · Ammon K.b · Righetti M.c · Maxion- Bergemann S.d · Baumgartner S.b · Thurneysen A.b · Matthiessen P.F.a,d

    aChair in Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Germany
    bInstitute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), Inselspital, University of Berne, Switzerland
    cMedical Practice, Zurich, dPanMedion Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland

  • rosross

    Only those who can ‘think outside the box’ will be able to begin to push science toward the place where it can understand how Homeopathy works. Luckily there are a few in the fields of Quantum physics and Cellular Biology.

    In the meantime Homeopathy continues to heal and do no harm and those who make use of it don’t care that science doesn’t understand the how of it. While the noise of doors closing in the minds of many scientists in the UK and the US can still be heard, and will be for a while yet, the Europeans, as always, are more open-minded and sensible and not afraid to push the boundaries of knowledge and challenge the ‘sacred cows’ of scientific belief:

    Quasi-quantum phenomena: the key to understanding homeopathy.

    Molski M.

    Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalized entanglement predicted by weak quantum theory.

    Walach H.

    Source

    Samueli
    Institute-European Office, Institut für Umweltmedizin und
    Krankenhaushygiene, Klinikum der Universität, Freiburg i.Br., Germany.
    walach@ukl.uni-freiburg.de

  • Gil

    Real medical professionals don’t like homeopathy because it’s water and nothing more. Of course homeopathics like to talk how it was better than alternatives of the day forgetting that nothing we would recognise as sound medicine existed until 100 years or so ago. Also note that “allopathy” is a derogatory term coined by Hahnemann. Thankfully the real world has standards for those who want to become real world healers and the probability of dying from cancer is at an all-time low because of hard-working folks using science to detect various forms of cancer early as well finding better directed ways to treat people. Homeopathy is where it belongs – on the fringes where already healthy people can squander their money for stuff that already flows freely out of their taps and faucets.

    • rosross

      If what you call ‘real’ medical professionals, and I assume you mean MD’s, Allopaths, don’t like Homeopathy then why are there millions of MD’s who have also trained as Homeopaths? All French Homeopaths are also trained MD’s by law. Many Indian Homeopaths, a country where Homeopathy is growing very fast, are also trained MD’s. So why do you think, if ‘real medical professionals’ know it is water, they are making use of it?

      Homeopaths do not like to talk about how it was better than the alternatives of the day, they merely cite the historical fact that Homeopathy was developed because of the barbarism of the medical practices of the day. Interestingly, those Allopathic doctors who decide to train as Homeopaths, some then give up Allopathic medicine (but not all) and concentrate on Homeopathy, do so because of the barbarism and ineffectiveness, not to mention the destructive nature, of so much of what is called modern medicine.

      What Homeopaths like to talk about is a world where all medical methodologies are utilised and a world where Homeopathy works alongside the best of Allopathy. I say the best because much of Allopathy is not just ineffective it is destructive if not deadly. But no-one would deny its usefullness in materialistic and mechanistic terms, i.e. in a crisis or where your body has been seriously injured and requires surgery to be repaired or restored.

      I am not sure what you mean by sound medicine but if you mean the use of soundwaves for healing then this medical methodology is actually thousands of years old. But that is a digression.

      Hahnemann did not coin Allopathy as a derogatory term and if you knew anything about Homeopathy, which clearly you do not, you would know that. He coined it to differentiate between the two systems of medicine. And, for what it is worth, many medical practitioners don’t have a problem with the name either and allopathy has become increasingly used to label what we call modern medicine.

      You are wrong about cancer rates as you are wrong about so many things. There have been one or two areas where rates have improved but generally they have not. What is more sobering is that with all the ‘wonders’ of modern medicine cancer rates have done nothing but increase. In 1900 one in ten people got cancer and now it is one in two. Childhood cancer is now at astronomical levels and still rising. Ponder that.

      Why would that be happening if Allopathy was all it claimed to be?

      Statistics are a moveable feast and assessing the accuracy of data showing improvement rates is difficult if not impossible unless you know, which most of us do not, who was studied, what was taken into account, what data was crunched and who paid for the study to be done. Much medical research is paid for by drug companies and they get the results they both want and need.

      As to your comment about ‘early diagnosis’ the latest research shows it does not impact survival rates and in fact does more harm than good.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/medical-testing-that-does-more-harm-than-good_n_1503192.html

      As to Homeopathy being where it belongs, in essence you are right. It is the fastest growing medical methodology in the world and for good reasons:

      a. it works
      b. it is cheap
      c. it does not have sensitive use-by dates. (homeopathic remedies 100 years old have been used and shown to be effective)

      The Third World in particular, for the reasons cited above, is showing the greatest rise in Homeopathic use and India in particular where it is now supported by Government – for all the reasons cited above – and healing where healing is needed.

      A new and fast-growing area of medicine is, guess what, Integrative medicine, a very sensible approach which has taken a long time to come into being but is now becoming firmly entrenched, where all medical methodologies are utilised in a healing process. It is Allopaths who are pushing Integrative medicine. No doubt because they are aware of how many of their patients are turning to traditional medical methodologies, but also because they can see how ineffective and often deadly their allopathic methods can be. The third biggest killer in the world today is Iatrogenic – doctor or medical induced – that’s right, Heart disease, Cancer and then Allopathy is what kills people.

      And within integrative medicine of course you find Homeopathy. We are all fortunate that the ignorance and prejudice toward Homeopathy is not shared by most people in the world, and increasingly, is being discarded by Allopathic doctors, who, after all, do want to heal but are limited by the materialistic, mechanistic (I would add moralistic and militaristic) profit and fear driven approach of what is called modern medicine.

    • rosross

      If what you call ‘real’
      medical professionals, and I assume you mean MD’s, Allopaths, don’t like
      Homeopathy then why are there millions of MD’s who have also trained as
      Homeopaths? All French Homeopaths are also trained MD’s by law. Many
      Indian Homeopaths, a country where Homeopathy is growing very fast, are
      also trained MD’s. So why do you think, if ‘real medical professionals’
      know it is water, they are making use of it?

      Homeopaths do not like to talk about how it was better than the
      alternatives of the day, they merely cite the historical fact that
      Homeopathy was developed because of the barbarism of the medical
      practices of the day. Interestingly, those Allopathic doctors who decide
      to train as Homeopaths, some then give up Allopathic medicine (but not
      all) and concentrate on Homeopathy, do so because of the barbarism and
      ineffectiveness, not to mention the destructive nature, of so much of
      what is called modern medicine.

      What Homeopaths like to talk about is a world where all medical
      methodologies are utilised and a world where Homeopathy works alongside
      the best of Allopathy. I say the best because much of Allopathy is not
      just ineffective it is destructive if not deadly. But no-one would deny
      its usefullness in materialistic and mechanistic terms, i.e. in a crisis
      or where your body has been seriously injured and requires surgery to
      be repaired or restored.

      I am not sure what you mean by sound medicine but if you mean the use
      of soundwaves for healing then this medical methodology is actually
      thousands of years old. But that is a digression.

      Hahnemann did not coin Allopathy as a derogatory term and if you knew
      anything about Homeopathy, which clearly you do not, you would know
      that. He coined it to differentiate between the two systems of medicine.
      And, for what it is worth, many medical practitioners don’t have a
      problem with the name either and allopathy has become increasingly used
      to label what we call modern medicine.

      You are wrong about cancer rates as you are wrong about so many
      things. There have been one or two areas where rates have improved but
      generally they have not. What is more sobering is that with all the
      ‘wonders’ of modern medicine cancer rates have done nothing but
      increase. In 1900 one in ten people got cancer and now it is one in two.
      Childhood cancer is now at astronomical levels and still rising.
      Ponder that.

      Why would that be happening if Allopathy was all it claimed to be?

      Statistics are a moveable feast and assessing the accuracy of data
      showing improvement rates is difficult if not impossible unless you
      know, which most of us do not, who was studied, what was taken into
      account, what data was crunched and who paid for the study to be done.
      Much medical research is paid for by drug companies and they get the
      results they both want and need.

      As to your comment about ‘early diagnosis’ the latest research shows
      it does not impact survival rates and in fact does more harm than good.

      (I removed a link to the Huffington post as that required moderation for this post but you can find the story easily enough, and many others, in regard to the above comment.)

      As to Homeopathy being where it belongs, in essence you are right. It
      is the fastest growing medical methodology in the world and for good
      reasons:

      a. it works
      b. it is cheap
      c. it does not have sensitive use-by dates. (homeopathic remedies 100 years old have been used and shown to be effective)

      The Third World in particular, for the reasons cited above, is
      showing the greatest rise in Homeopathic use and India in particular
      where it is now supported by Government – for all the reasons cited
      above – and healing where healing is needed.

      A new and fast-growing area of medicine is, guess what, Integrative
      medicine, a very sensible approach which has taken a long time to come
      into being but is now becoming firmly entrenched, where all medical
      methodologies are utilised in a healing process. It is Allopaths who are
      pushing Integrative medicine. No doubt because they are aware of how
      many of their patients are turning to traditional medical methodologies,
      but also because they can see how ineffective and often deadly their
      allopathic methods can be. The third biggest killer in the world today
      is Iatrogenic – doctor or medical induced – that’s right, Heart disease,
      Cancer and then Allopathy is what kills people.

      And within integrative medicine of course you find Homeopathy. We are
      all fortunate that the ignorance and prejudice toward Homeopathy is not
      shared by most people in the world, and increasingly, is being
      discarded by Allopathic doctors, who, after all, do want to heal but are
      limited by the materialistic, mechanistic (I would add moralistic and
      militaristic) profit and fear driven approach of what is called modern
      medicine.

      The simple reality is that Homeopathy will come into its own when there is no longer an antibiotic to fight bacterial infection and we are getting closer to that day. Science/medicine has abused this resource in ways which are criminal and when the day comes when antibiotics are useless, then even the naysayers will turn to Homeopathy. Needs must is often the way that humanity changes course for the better.

  • jondaw
  • vic

    I have never met an honest homeopathic/herbalist who will say or even suggest their methods will cure anything once you have a disease .It is offered as a preventative only as an alternative to the shitty western diet we are so fond of from which most if not all of our major diseases stem .Only one has proven to be a definite provable cure and that is hemp oil curing cancer.

    • rosross

      Then you have not met a professional homeopath. I know less about herbalists but suspect you are wrong on that count also. Of course Homeopathy can cure, that is the point of it. And yes it can be used as a preventative but its major focus is healing, i.e. curing as opposed to Allopathy which manages, maintains or ‘removes’ symptoms most of the time.
      There is no doubt that when the body is subject to serious disease the task is greater, whether Homeopathic or Allopathic, and there is no doubt that Allopathy is useful in crisis or mechanistic (when something needs to be surgically repaired) situations, but the point of Homeopathy is always healing. Homeopathy sensibly takes the position that dealing with minor symptoms (as opposed to repressing or removing them which is what Allopathy does) as they arise means that disease does not become major. Studies have shown that people who see a professional Homeopath regularly – and that may be every couple of years – experience less serious disease.

      • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

        No, it really can’t. There is not one single authentic case where homeopathy can be objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

        • rosross

          Never let facts get in the way of propaganda. There are thousands of cases but your comments just indicate to people your prejudice and ignorance and negate your argument. Keep up the good work.

  • vic

    hemp oil cures cancer period .
    proven in double blind tests

    succes rate near 100% versus chemo/radiations 1 %
    google “run from the cure ”

    doctors who contract cancer refuse chemo/radiation treatments
    if hemp oil is homeopathy it is the only one proven effective conclusively in or out of the lab.

    • rosross

      Hemp oil is not homeopathy.

      • Ashlee

        “Hemp oil is not homeopathy” ? What rock are you living under?

        • rosross

          If Hemp seed is used as the base to make a homeopathic remedy then you have Homeopathic hemp. Hemp oil is not a Homeopathic remedy. The Homeopathic remedy is Cannabis Sativa – Hemp Oil is not homeopathy.

          • Ashlee

            My mistake rosross. I read hemp & my brain said cannabis lol. Cannabis is what I was referring to so let’s just forget I even commented shall we? ;)

            • rosross

              No worries Ashlee. We all hit post before we have thought carefully and the naysayers for Homeopathy and other traditional medicine do it more often than anyone.

        • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

          If hemp oil cures cancer then a homeopathic preparation of it would cure not having cancer. Like cures like, after all…

          Just as well it doesn’t, really.

          • rosross

            I think you are a powerful force in support of Homeopathy because people reading your posts can easily see the ignorance, bigotry, irrationality and prejudice. You don’t make sense and so they rely on their own intelligence and common sense. Keep up the good work.
            p.s. so you don’t subscribe to chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatments then? You know, they cause cancer and are used to cure cancer.

            And I would add, Homeopathy believes that something which triggers certain symptoms in a healthy person can be used to treat an unhealthy person who is presenting with the same symptoms.

            Allopathy does the same: Ritalin, used to treat hyperactivity causes the same symptoms in healthy people: Digoxin, used by cardiologists has the same effect in that it causes in healthy people the same symptoms it treats in unhealthy ones. These are but two of a long list.

            The difference however is that the Allopathic method is synthetic, ham-fisted and can do harm or cause death while the Homeopathic treatment is gentle, harmless and more effective.

  • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

    I wonder if homeopathists are even capable of honestly representing the nature of scientific objections to homeopathy? I realise that articles like this are for the faithful, whistling in the dark and all that, but it raises unnecessary hostages to fortune when you pretend that an enmity that was consciously started by Hahnemann himself, and which is maintained today despite the fact that modern medicine bears no relation at all to the “allopathy” of his day, is of others’ making.

    There are exactly three reasons that scientists and the medical world reject homeopathy. First, there is no reason to suppose it should work; second, there is no way it can work; third, there is no proof it does work.

    Science can (and does) fully account for all observations. The null hypothesis: placebo effects, expectation effects, regression to the mean, natural history of disease, inferential errors – all the things medicine had to learn to exclude in order to drag itself out of the dark ages. And this explanation is both complete, and consistent with other science. The same absolutely cannot be said for the speculative and often ridiculous explanations advanced by homeopaths.

    If homeopathy worked, it would be part of medicine. It is not part of medicine because it doesn’t work. It really is that simple! You think it works due to a number of cognitive biases and errors that are well understood, but it doesn’t – and if it did e’d have to completely rewrite the very science that allows this website to exist. The science that contradicts homeopathy is the same science that makes semiconductors and lasers work.

    • Thoma Phillips

      If “natural medicine” would even have the slightest effect, why people did invent the science based medicine? Exactly… because natural medicine never worked well enough.

      If herbs and fruits and veggies would heal all our physical hurts, there would not exist even one pharmacy company.
      There would not even be some native-medicine-man or what-ever-the-crap-healer.

      Bad Pharmacy Companies keeping Homeopathy and “Natural Cancer Treatments” secret for financial reasons?
      Well, sounds reasonable… but… How can it be that all this “information” about all those “natural cures against cancer” is available on thuosands of websites for free and still people are dying from cancer every day? Who actually is keeping it secret?

      I worked once in a chemistry lab by myself. And I can tell You, dear Homeopats, even inside a professional equipped lab it is impossible to keep liquids, substances and glass instruments 100% clean.
      So if You potentiate a serum by multiple factors there is at the end much more “dirt” and “other substances” in the liquid than from the wanted serum.

      And No: Water can’t take up information.
      And if it could it would store way much more information from the dirt in the glass instuments than from the actual serum. Just because the serum gets thinner and thinner but the amount of dirt remains stable.

      Learn to distinguish between believe and knowledge.

      Just because somethings sounds nice and just because something sounds reasonable to You it mus not necessarily be the truth.

      • rosross

        A little bit of research goes a very long way. What you call ‘natural medicine’ is simply medicine. Human beings have been practising medicine since time began, for all sorts of understandable reasons.

        In the more sensible past they utilised all healing methodologies that they could; they used the mechanistic, surgery; they used herbal; they used energy healing; they used emotional/psychological and spiritual methodologies and they used a great deal of common sense.

        Medicine has always had its charlatans and incompetents and still does or iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced, would not be the third biggest killer in the world today. No-one ever got it all right.

        A very big change in the application of medicine happened with the era of witchburning. Women were the traditional healers and the church feared their power and set about removing them. It was very effective. It certainly played a part in medicine being taken over by men. It was men who turned medicine into an industry and a highly profitable one. And those male doctors, practising what you would call medicine, managed to kill a lot of people through the centuries that medicine was mechanised, and patently still do.

        I am not sure why on a thread talking about Homeopathy you seem to think a counter argument is the fact that herbs and fruits and veggies would heal all our physical hurts but I can only presume you do not know that those things can be the source of medication and in fact are the source for pretty much every drug used by Allopathy. The difference is a herbalist would use the natural product and BigPharma uses a synthetic version it can patent and therefore own and from which it can profit. Homeopathy would use the energy quotient, the signature of the ingredient.

        As to what BigPharma might keep secret – who knows when money is involved. The big oil companies have certainly worked hard to prevent development of cars which do not use petrol. But you are right to some degree – truth will out and more so with the internet.

        When it comes to health there are charlatans, nutters and incompetents in every branch of medicine and that includes Allopathy. One must be wary and discerning.

        As to working in a lab and saying nothing can be completely clean, I suspect that there might be a modicum of truth in that but I also suspect that things are kept as clean as possible – ask any chemist, doctor or scientist – or drugs and tests would not be acceptable and that also applies to Homeopathy.

        However, given the fact that Homeopathic remedies are not about the material it probably doesn’t matter – in fact, it would matter even less than if there were some dirt in a vaccine for instance which is injected into a baby or a child. And you are suggesting that no-one can ever get something completely clean. Perhaps that is why Homeopathy does no harm and Allopathy does so much harm. You might be on to something.

        You say water cannot take up information? Luckily quantum physicists don’t dismiss as readily as you do. Watch that space, you might learn something.

        And don’t just learn to distinguish between belief and knowledge – learn to identify prejudice, subjectivity and ignorance.

        The proof, as they say is in the pudding and most if not all of those who condemn Homeopathy have never even seen the ‘pudding’ let alone tasted it.

      • Dutch

        Rhetorical questions, or flat denial of proven facts does not make a relevant scientific argument.

        Maybe you should “learn to distinguish between believe and knowledge.”

        And maybe get a clue that the word you’re looking for is ‘belief’…

    • rosross

      Don’t wonder, do some research. Professional homeopaths study all research carefully and ponder scientific objections carefully as well but the reality is that the science/medical system is mechanistic and materialistic and limited in its nature. It simply is not able to research something like Homeopathy because of the prejudice inherent in its paradigm. That will change, but until it does, the way science/medicine currently tests runs counter to the philosophy and system on which Homeopathy is founded.

      Running conventional ‘double blind’ tests on Homeopathic remedies can only ever be partially successful even when it takes into account the basis on which Homeopathy works – and mostly it doesn’t.

      And your ignorance of Hahnemann as well as Homeopathy is revealed with your comments. Hahnemann did not seek to encourage emnity; he was horrified by the barbarism of the medicine of this time and would be horrified by a lot of the barbarism of medicine of this time. He looked for an alternative.

      In Hahnemann’s day and for the next hundred years or so, ALL homeopaths were also medically trained doctors. Hardly an argument for your theory that he encouraged emnity. Such a theory runs counter to the facts and logic regarding those facts. But never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

      More to the point, all French Homeopaths are also Allopaths; most Indian Homeopaths are also trained as MD’s and many Homeopaths around the world practise both Allopathy and Homeopathy and find that they can do so effectively. Allopathy would be last, not first choice, but no-one denies it is invaluable in two situations – crisis/emergency and mechanistic surgery where repair or reconstruction are required.

      As to your reasons why science/medicine rejects it:

      a. if rejection were based on supposing something should work most of scientific research would stop tomorrow.

      b. categorically saying it cannot work because it does not fit the mechanistic/materialistic paradigm which has trapped science for a few hundred years would have meant that quantum physics would never have developed and neither would the research into cellular biology. Science/medicine managed to get past its prejudice and ignorance in regard to bacteria – after killing a lot of people – so no doubt it will in time get past its prejudice and ignorance in regard to the Homeopathic process.

      c. as to there being no proof that it does work your statement is patently ridiculous. There is as much proof that Homeopathy works as there is that gravity works and science does not understand how gravity works or what it is but is happy to accept it on the basis of observation of its effects. Ditto for Homeopathy. Homeopathy works and heals, and demonstrates those facts and so billions of people around the world accept it. The fact that some like yourself and many in science/medicine do not is irrelevant, and, when one takes something like gravity into account, hypocritical and foolish to boot.

      Homeopathy does work and it was and is a part of medicine. It is just less a part of medicine because of ignorance, bigotry, the power of the drug companies and the limited paradigm of science/medicine. It really is that simple.

      You touch on the real point when you say if it did work then science would need to be rewritten. And yes it would, not all of it, but some of it. There is a place for the mechanistic in science, which is why this website works, but only a fool would think that is all there is to this world. It is patently clear, which is why quantum physics was developed in the first place, that there is far, far, far more to this world than the materialistic and mechanistic.

      Fear not, lasers, semi-conductors and this website will continue to work when science has advanced enough to understand how and why Homeopathy works.

      • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

        I have done an immense amount of research. This shows that (a) there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, its doctrines were refuted a century ago; (b) there is no way it can work, and no remotely plausible mechanism has ever been proposed; (c) there is no proof it does work, all observations are fully consistent with the null hypothesis.

        Hahnemann hated the medicine of the day; he said that anybody practicing both was committing “treason against divine homoeopathy”. Homeopathists use precisely the same rhetoric today although medicine has changed beyond all recognition.

        You can indeed run double blind tests. When you do, you find that all effects are due to the consultation (i.e. are placebo effects): Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial

        I don’t blame you for not understanding, it is part of the narrative of homeopaths to systematically misrepresent the reality-based consensus, because they cannot address the actual facts, only misleading caricatures of them.

        • rosross

          But have you done an immense amount of work into Homeopathy? I am sure you have done an immense amount of work into propaganda against Homeopathy but that is quite a different thing.
          The simple reality is this, for anyone who has done an immense amount of work into and with Homeopathy your comments indicate your ignorance, not your knowledge and reason which has taken that information to reach a conclusion. Those who know nothing about Homeopathy may not pick it up but your prejudice is pretty clear and I am sure that makes many, think twice and do their own work, at which point of course they realise how much you get wrong.

          Your comment about Hahnemann is ludicrous – perhaps you could provide a link to the book and page where it can be found. Most Homeopaths have all the books Hahnemann wrote so it would be easy to find. If he did say as you have quoted then context would be crucial but I doubt very much that he did. But please provide me with the name of the book and the page where you found it.

          But here is the simple reality, in Hahnemann’s day all Homeopaths, including himself were qualified MD’s as well and they were for more than another hundred years. People training as Homeopaths without also training as MD’s is historically recent although many Homeopaths are also Allopaths and in France for instance you can’t be a Homeopath without also being an Allopath.

          So how do you reconcile that reality with the founder of Homeopathy demanding, as you suggest, that Homeopaths had to choose? Clearly everyone ignored him for more than a hundred years and many ignore him still. You see, things have to make sense and your comment, as with many of your comments, does not make sense. Nor does it fit the historical facts which are available. But never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

          Yes, you can run double blind tests. What I said was they can only ever be partially successful for reasons which anyone who understands Homeopathy can know. But yes, some double blind tests have shown the efficacy of Homeopathy, it is just that the system is predicated on the materialistic/mechanistic paradigm which controls and limits science/medicine and therefore limits its ability to understand a medical methodology which is far more advanced.

          As to your ridiculous statement that it is all placebo, even The Lancet has published results showing that Homeopathy is effective and it most definitely is not a placebo effect. But, as I said before, never let the facts get in the way of propaganda.

          And your last phrase is a wonderful example of prejudice and ignorance. Keep up the good work. It just makes it so much easier to identify your lack of argument.

          N.B. It is useful to understand the meaning of Allopathy – from the Greek,’ allos’, meaning other, as opposed to Homeopathy, from the Greek meaning,’ homeos’, the same. Homeopathy uses ‘like treats like’, ergo, the same and Allopathy uses that which is other, or the opposite.

          As Steven Goldsmith, MD, points out in his book, The Healing Paradox, while Allopathy has been accepted as a label by mainstream medicine, a better term would be Antipathic medicine from the Greek meaning, ‘against,’ because mainstream medicine takes an adversarial approach as one can see in words like: antibiotic, anti-inflammatory; antihypertensives; anti-arrhythmics; anticonvulsives; antacids and so on and so forth with its militaristic and mechanistic approach.

        • whateverdude

          you can run ”double blind tests”

          do you really understand science? are these tests being carried out on clones who are identical in all significant aspects?

          your whole paradigm of “double blind tests” is a scam. it’s a barrier put up to keep “Scientists” halfway honest. but it’s not some sort of cornerstone of Teh Holy Truth of Teh Science God

        • Dutch

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Research! HAHAHAHAHA!

          Why didn’t you just point us to all this ‘research’ you have done? I’m sure its quite compelling. Where have you been published? Who supplied your grants? Who are your co-authors? Will you be presenting at any academic symposia in the near future?

          Googling through blogs that support your point of view does not constitute ‘research’. Just another manner in which you are totally ignorant to how science actually works.

        • Phoenix

          Research and scientific study also conclude that anti-depressant medication is no more effective than a placebo in treating depression. Turns out “medicine” isn’t all it’s shaped up to be either.

    • ShunkW

      The thing I love about these guys is the claim that “big pharma” is ignoring homeopathy because they want to make big money off of real drugs….Of course they do….Just like homeopaths want to make big money off of fake drugs that require almost no research and cost very little to make. If “big pharma” could get away with selling homeopathic substances they would be all over it in a heartbeat.

      • rosross

        You are right. If BigPharma could make synthetic versions of Homeopathic remedies and therefore patent it as they do with drugs then they would be all over it in a heartbeat.

        But they cannot and so it is useless to them but dangerous because Homeopathic remedies are effective, incredibly cheap and they do not have a use-by date if a couple of simple precautions are taken, which means they don’t have to be constantly replaced – which means less profit.

        In addition, Homeopathic remedies are never taken for life, as drugs are, or for years as drugs are, but may only require one dose or perhaps half a dozen over a couple of years depending upon how chronic the illness is and therefore have a vastly reduced profit factor.

        Another factor is that the correct Homeopathic remedy will bring permanent cure while most prescribed drugs are for maintenance and since the disease is never cured, only managed, maintained or repressed, then the profit factor for Allopathic drugs is gauranteed and extremely high.

        • ShunkW

          You mean the way they make billions off of those patented medicines like acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen, rantidine, and omerprazole? Oh wait….NONE of those are patented. And “big pharma” still sells them because they are effective. I notice you neglected to address the issue of “big homeo” making money or are you denying you have any financial stake whatsoever in pushing these fake drugs?

          • rosross

            I have absolutely no financial stake in any medical methodology. I happen to believe that over-the-counter Homeopathic remedies are not a good idea and clearly sourced in commercial interests given that they run counter to the very premise upon which Homeopathy is based. But we live in a commercial world and every system has those who will seek to profit from it.

            However, because Allopathy exploits many I doubt you would condemn it in general and to operate from a basis of principle, then neither would you condemn Homeopathy in general because some seek to commercialise it.

            Even with commercialisation of some aspects of Homeopathy, the reality is that compared to Pharmaceuticals it is minor and it does no harm and Homeopathy as professional medicine remains cheap and does no harm. Something one cannot say for Allopathy.

    • Dutch

      Clearly you are clueless about anything that falls under the category of science or medicine. Your snooty sermon on the dogmas behind your faith in the factually baseless, is a million miles from scientific reality. The statement that “the science that contradicts homeopathy is the same science that makes semiconductors and lasers work.” is a knee slapper, absolutely 180 degrees opposite the facts substantiated by 2 Nobel Prize winners including (former) medical establishmentarian Luc Mongaigner. Electromagnetic signatures in water have been verifiably measured, digitized, e-mailed and inserted into new water in a remote location. This fact has been proven by world class researchers and published in prestigious peer reviewed journals. Thus the easily substantiaed fact is that semiconductors and lasers, in fact, VALIDATE that which you claim to be false. One can only ponder in amazement the mental dysfunction in your mind that would lead you to proclaim such blatant disinformation. But at the very least you obviously haven’t checked your facts, if you’re working with any at all.

      The other big truth you are willfully denying is that there is NO science in medicine. Only correlative statistics. Smoking causes cancer,? HIV causes AIDS? Genetics predispose disease risk? PROVE IT! None of these things has ever been proven mechanistically, NOR DOES THE ENTIRETY OF THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT HAVE THE MEANS OR UNDERSTANDING TO PROVE THEM. These are the facts and I defy you to present one shred of evidence to the contrary. Your claims and all the things you clearly have put so much faith in are nothing more than factless dogmas. Furthermore you lump them under one heading “modern medicine” so that you can hitch its many, many, many failures to its few proven winners, like advanced surgical techniques, which do work, but are scarcely even related nor share any of the same scientific foundations.

      The truth is that the medical establishment has so perverted how it does science that any number of valid and provable conclusions can ever be supported within its confines. It is not even possible to test or verify the very basic idea that a disease may have two causal factors within existing establishment guidelines. Through the single variable, double blind model medical science has arbitrarily established and mandated that every disease, malady, or ailment has a SINGLE causative factor. This absurd idea has never been proven, nor has anyone ever established a good reason to believe it might be true. Yet it is the gospel in medical ‘science’. Anyone with the vaguest understanding of science knows that this is as far from real science as you can get.

      Do you cast your same aspersions on acupuncture and massage? Or health management through diet and exercise? These don’t require medication either. Are they then wholly incapable of impacting physical well being, or preventing injury and disease? Following your lines of logic leads to a point of impossible lunacy, idiocy and denial. All while you give all faith and credibility to your magical drugs because they ‘perform’ 5% better than a placebo under controlled conditions, and only cause rectal bleeding and death in a small number of users.

      Yeah pal, you’ve made it quite clear who the scientific ignorant is, but its not who you think…

      • nightgaunt

        The problem is all with the homeopaths as to proving their techniques work. So unless you have double blind studies you really have nothing at all but talk of conspiracies and secrecy.

        • rosross

          The reality is that Homeopathy does not have to prove their techniques work and never did. Proof is constantly demonstrated. The issue science has is that it does not understand how it works because it is locked within a materialistic and mechanistic paradigm and Homeopathy works in ways beyond that narrow mindset.

          Science is a system and systems drive behaviour and profit and peers and careers rest on the paradigms and Homeopathy, when it can be explained, will cause a radical rethink and rewrite of much of the scientific system and so will profit and careers be diminished. Of course, there will be new ones developing, for that is the way of it, but people fear change and never more so than when their ego is threatened.

          But here is the simple reality, science may demand that it is the arbiter but it isn’t. Science may rage for as long as it likes that Homeopathy cannot work because it does not fit the materialistic/mechanistic system which underpins science today, but, most people don’t care. Homeopathy has continued to grow in use for more than two centuries because it works. Human beings only care if something works – they don’t care how it works. Most people spend their lives making use of things with no understanding of how it works, and no ability to understand even if someone tried to explain it to them – and they don’t care.

          Most of the people in the world do not care what science thinks or says about Homeopathy and the fanatics who have taken on the ‘role’ of defending the position of science, represent no more than fleas on the back of an elephant. Such is the way of things.

      • rosross

        Well said and a reminder that fundamentalists and fanatics of any kind never let facts get in the way of propaganda. The anti-Homeopathy brigade are at least consistent in displaying their ignorance. I suspect like any crusade, and fanaticism of any kind always has religious overtones, there is a strong element of ego involved and that rarely encourages common sense, balance or reason.