is homeopathy a good alternative to traditional medicine?

Answer 1

Homeopathy is safe. Unlike other medicines, homeopathic medicines usually do not have any side effects. Their ability to cause structural damage is Nil. The reason for this is that homeopathic medicines act by stimulating the body's own defense mechanism and healing powers. They do not have any chemical action, so they do not have the potential to cause any sustained damage. The doses are given in sub-physiological quantities. So they can be given to children and adults alike without worrying about the dosage. Safe for every one.

Homeopathic medicines are very effective - in both acute and chronic conditions. Homeopathy in fact, is the only system of medicine which offers curative treatment (not palliative) to a large number of chronic ailments which have been labeled as 'incurable' by other schools of medicine. In acute ailments also, homeopathic medicines, if selected properly, give results faster then any other systems of medicine.

Homeopathic medicines are easy to administer. Homeopathic medicines are usually dispensed as sweet sugar pills, which are very easy to take. Due to this reason, children readily agree to take homeopathic medicines.

Homeopathic treatment is cheap. Homeopathic medicines are usually much cheaper than comparable allopathic and ayurvedic drugs. And also there is little stress on costly diagnostic procedures as homeopaths rely on the symptoms to find the right medicine for a person. So the overall cost of treatment is very little. Still this may not appear so to many people in western countries as homeopathic treatment is usually not covered by insurance companies. But that's myopic vision. One has to think of long-term gains. Under proper homeopathic treatment not only the person's immediate complaints improve, but also his/her susceptibility to disease decreases as there is a general improvement in health. So in the long run, there is better health,less medical consultations and the cumulative cost is very low. Even otherwise, hasn't some wise man said .."Health is the real Wealth"?

Homeopathy considers the complaints of a patient in totality. It views a person as a whole, as an integrated entity, and not as a mere collection of body parts. So it treats the person as a whole too. Thus one does not have to visit ten different 'specialists' for his/her ten different body parts. After all our body is more than a collection of parts! So homeopathy saves your time, money and health at the same time.

Answer 2

Homeopathy is a hoax.

For example, they say they can cure pneumonia. It takes quite a long time versus traditional medicine, but pneumonia goes away at the end. Thus, people think that homeopathy worked. Meanwhile, they would have healed naturally at the same rate. Plus, if people really believe it, there is a placebo effect.
I've read brochures about benefits of homeopathy and, it really stuns me that these people are allowed to use such pseudoscientific and absurd claims to prey on ignorant patients.

Answer 3

homeopathy is good since it have no side effects but it takes long time to cure but it definitely cures ,then it depends on the condition and severity of the ailment.

Answer 4

Heteropathy is better than both of those alternatives.

Answer 5

Hmmm. Distilled water versus real medicine.

Let me think...

Answer 6

DEFINITELY HOMOEOPATHY IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

AND PEOPLE WHO DONT KNOW HEAD OR TAIL ABT IT SHOULDNT COMMENT IT. PLEASE IT IS A REQUEST
AS PRINCE CHARLES FAVOURS IT
TRUTH ABOUT Homeopathy-1


Homeopathy is gaining in popularity nowadays with its efficient cure and nil side-effects. But it has always been subject to criticism and comments. Here comes again, an opportunity for Homeopathy to show its stability.

On August 24, 2005, Prince Charles commented that up to 480 million pounds could be saved by the UK government if one in 10 family doctors offered Homeopathy treatment to their patients as an alternative to standard drugs - The Times newspaper. It is well-known that traditionally the British Queen's family favours and follows Homeopathy. Prince Charles always insists that the UK government provide Homeopathy treatment in the National Health Services (NHS).



But on August 27, 2005, the British medical journal 'The Lancet' commented on Homeopathy and stated that it was better than a sugar pill and it has only placebo effect i.e. acts psychologically. Usually, the words of 'The Lancet' are respected by doctors and people all over the world. But this news has stirred the entire world to repose faith in Homeopathy and publish views against this comment.

This news was also flashed in various newspapers and journals throughout the world as a press release. We Homeopaths suspect Lancet was probably prejudiced against someone something. We do not know if it was due to politics or economic, or just a flawed conclusion? Or if it was related to funding of Homeopathy by the World Health Organization, with positive preliminary reports?

It is high time to answer the criticism, to convert all the stones thrown at Homeopathy into stepping stones for its additional uplift. Even though Homeopathy was born in Germany and spread all over the world, Indians are the major users.

Let us analyse the facts and reality of Homeopathy in the face of the Lancet comment. This is not for argument's sake or for kindling a dispute. It is all for the welfare of the patients and the Homeopathy system.

Everyone should keep one thing in mind and should work for it: Cure. Cure is more important than the system of medicine or the doctor. Each and every system has its own advantages and limits. The authentic way is to admire its advantages than to criticise its limits. There are lots and lots of patients who seek only Homeopathy treatment. Also, millions and millions of people are getting attracted to Homeopathy as an alternative system of medicine.

Since the Lancet trials say Homeopathy medicines are nothing more than sugar pills, it accepts that the system has nil side-effects even on prolonged medication. There used to be a fear that Homeopathy may contain steriods or metals, which may affect the kidney.But this has been ruled out now with the Lancet report. The only thing left is cure and how the system works, which is to be discovered by Homeopaths and the advancement of science.

Sources which support efficiency of Homeopathy
Many similar clinical trials which have been conducted earlier have shown favorable results for Homoeopathy. They are
Clinical Trials of Homeopathy - British Medical Journal - Published in 1991
A Meta-Analysis of Placebo Controlled Trials, Lancet - Published in 1997

What actually does Lancet say?
Has Lancet commented on Homeopathy against proper clinical trials?
Is this the right way to analyse?
What is Homeopathy? What is its basic principle?
How does Homeopathy work?
How are Homeopathy medicines proved?
Does Homeopathy work psychologically?

What does Lancet actually say?: Homoeopathy's clinical effects are placebo effects. Matthias Egger (University of Berne, Switzerland) and colleagues had compared 110 placebo controlled, randomized trials of homoeopathy with 110 conventional-medicine trials matched for disorder and type of outcome. The clinical topics studied in the trials ranged from respiratory infections, asthma gastrointestinal problems & surgery to anesthesiology. The researchers looked at the treatment effects in smaller, low quality trials and larger trials of higher quality. They found, in both groups, that smaller trials of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. However, when the analysis was restricted to large trials of high quality there was no convincing evidence that homoeopathy was superior to placebo, whereas for conventional medicine an important effect remained.

In their conclusion the researchers had said that their study powerfully illustrates the interplay and cumulative effect of different sources of bias. They acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible, but they feel that they have shown that the effects seen in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy are compatible with the placebo-hypothesis.

In an accompanying Comment, Jan Vandenbroucke (Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands) states: "Science is an intrinsically human affair. When new theories are created and new evidence sought, judgment will retain a subjective element. This does not mean that it is impossible to sift out which interpretation is more valuable . . . The ultimate proof is that science make progress in changing reality: in allopathic [conventional] medicine by preventing, alleviating, and curing disease ever more effectively."

In an accompanying editorial of The Lancet comments: "It is the attitudes of patients and providers that engender alternative-therapy seeking behaviors which create a greater threat to conventional care - and patients' welfare - than do spurious arguments of putative benefits from absurd dilutions . . . Now doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy's lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients' needs for personalized care."

In a similar vein, the Swiss Government, after a five year trial, has now withdrawn insurance coverage for homeopathy.

Has Lancet commented on Homeopathy against proper clinical trials?
Is this the right way to analyse Homeopathy?

The method of trial followed by the Swiss team is utterly and absolutely wrong. No one can accept this, since the base of research itself is wrong. Also Lancet had not explained its trial wholly. Homeopathy medicines should be given only by individualisation and matching the drug symptoms with the patient's symptoms. It cannot be just prescribed like in other systems of medicines, for any disease as such. Homeopathy treats symptoms of the patients than symptoms of the disease. For selecting the right drug it gives importance to the character of onset of symptoms, its aggravating or precipitating factors, and the characteristic symptoms of the patient, exciting cause, thirst, sweat, shivering, appetite, sleep, stool habit, restlessness, relieving factors and associated symptoms.

Every patient has his own pattern of falling ill, and will experience different sets of symptoms even for the same illness. For example, in jaundice, the disease symptoms are yellow urine, pale stool, fever, nausea, vomiting, yellowishness of the conjuctiva and skin, itching of the body, etc. Apart from these disease symptoms, Homeopathy gives importance to the symptoms of the patient than the disease symptoms which help to individualise him, i.e. some patient of jaundice will have fever, vomiting, nausea, itching, etc., some will have a different set of symptoms like loss of appetite, thirst, profuse sweating, weakness, constipation, etc.

Here the selection of Homeopathic medicines will be different for these patients, even though they are suffering from jaundice. A well-selected remedy quickly supports the body mechanism and clears the complaints at the earliest. A Homeopath may fail in curing the disease but Homeopathy never fails, i.e. cure depends upon the ability of the doctor to diagnose the case and select the right drug. So, unlike any other systems of medicine, there cannot be clinical trials in Homeopathy as specific remedies.

Answer 7

no. it is not..... at all