jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (5 posts)

Homeopathy in Medicine.

  1. profile image0
    Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago

    Homeopathic remedies are a big industry today, with more and more people turning to them to treat many conditions.  This angers some, who see homeopathy as unscientific.

    Prince Charles has been criticised this week by Professor Edzard Ernst for selling his dandelion and artichoke detox remedy.  The professor, who does not believe in alternative medicine has received strong condemnation, including from Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who suggested the professor be locked up in the Tower of London. 

    Whilst most homeopathic remedies are harmless, there is nonetheless no proof that they contain anything which is of benefit. The National Health Service is now spending money on some homeopathic remedies, which have not gone through scientific testing, unlike conventional medicines.  Is it reasonable that these products should be accepted on faith alone, and is it really treason to question His Royal Highness on his belief in homeopathy?

  2. fit2day profile image79
    fit2dayposted 6 years ago

    The whole concept of homeopathic medicine being unscientific is preposterous. The medicines used in the medical field are created in a lab, ridiculously over-priced and heavily ridden with side-effects. Big Pharma doesn't want people to use anything natural, because it cuts into their profit.

    I'm not completely against medicine, but I use natural things whenever I get sick and as a result my body's able to fight off sickness, rather than using some antibiotic medicine to worsen the problem. It's not that the natural methods are unproven, it's that they haven't been tested in a lab.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It's not so much that the natural methods are unproven, it's that they haven't really been tested at all!  5,000 cases of a natural remedy working as promised doesn't mean much when there are 1,000,000 cases where it doesn't work or causes damage.  Without blind testing you will never know the difference and that kind work never seems to get done except in a lab.

  3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago

    Are we talking about homeopathic medicine specifically or herbalism being referenced under the generic umbrella of "homeopathic" medicine? Because homeopathic medicine is a branch of herbalism, not a name for the practice in general.

  4. cbl2988 profile image60
    cbl2988posted 6 years ago

    Testing has been done on it and there is nothing to homeopathy: it is no better than placebos. It is pure nonsense. Why are we excusing homeopathy and the nuts who promote it because some think there is no testing (when ,actually, there is)? Let's just assume there really has been no testing on it. Things should be the other way around. No one should listen to these guys because they don't have any scientific support. End of story. The burden of proof is on them since they are making a positive claim. The pharmaceutical companies, scientists, or doctors do not have to test this garbage in order to warn people that it isn't a substitute for real medicine. Anyone with at least a pinch of experience with medicine/chemistry can know that homeopathy is BS without even having to test it in the first place. It is just pure nonsense that has no base in science. No, it is not reasonable that homeopathy should be accepted on faith. We might as well trust our health to idiots and quacks, which is what proponents of homeopathy are doing.