23. February 2016 · Comments Off on Answering the critics · Categories: Homeopathy

This is my personal view, I might add from the start. Occasionally, I like to write something positive to combat the negativity in the press about Homeopathy. I actually think you won’t “prove” Homeopathy using double blind clinical trials (exception being maybe Arnica and trauma) because that it only helpful with medicines based on the medical Law of Opposites. Homeopathy is based on the Law of Similars and is holistic – we can use that law to treat a totality of symptoms with one remedy rather than a drug for this symptom and a drug for that symptom. We can treat the person not just the disease  and for each complaint we have thousands of remedies to choose from to match a unique individual. So, to my mind clinical trials on one Homeopathic medicine prove little. The critics say that must mean Homeopathy is a placebo but as most people know Homeopathy works on animals and children (ask the organic dairy farmers!) and so cannot be. Our studies, our evidence is experiential – like the massive longitudinal study done at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital with over 70% improvements in people who had already been through the NHS before arriving there. I recently asked a roomful of people in a talk I gave – when did a drug from the Doctor ever cure anything? Silence. Modern medicine is wonderful in many many ways (think new limbs, transplants etc) but Homeopathic medicine is in my opinion very different to modern drug therapy as it works on a different law of medicine allowing holistic treatment and the possibility of cure rather than palliation.

Comments closed.