Homeopathy is an Effective Alternative

As a medical doctor, I use homeopathy on a daily basis to fill in gaps or improve on the conventional therapies I also use in family practice. There is no doubt that homeopathy works – even in children and in skeptical patients that are willing to give it a try (particularly if they have tried everything else without benefit); sometime even in patients’ pets.

Sure, good interaction and placebo play a role, just as in any therapeutic encounter, but that does not explain the results I observe.

When a group of “top” scientists declare that there is no evidence to support homeopathy, you cannot but wonder at their agenda. In fact, there have been several meta-analyses and governmental assessments that show homeopathy is effective (BMJ 1991, Lancet 1997, Eur J. Clin Pharmacology 2000, Swiss Federal Office for Public Health 2006).

There are numerous positive trials, many of fair to high quality. Medical doctors around the world have accepted homeopathy based on sound evidence and the personal experience that confirms it. In Belgium, for example, 4000 doctors prescribe homeopathic medicines routinely.

Homeopathy is inexpensive, convenient, integrates well with conventional medicine, and patient satisfaction and safety are excellent. It is included in the national health schemes of Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, India and many other countries.

The recent discovery of nanoparticles in homeopathic ultra-dilutions has undermined the “implausibility argument” or “I can’t understand how it works, therefore it can’t work.” This type of flat-earth thinking is not helpful in promoting better healthcare and has no place in medical practice or research.

The main reason pseudo-scientists become quack-busters and criticize therapies such as homeopathy is fear. Perceived as a threat to their world-view, they use the labels “unscientific” or “implausible” to defend themselves against the barbarians at the gate.

It is not really an issue of evidence or science. It’s a subconscious defense mechanism that cannot be overcome, even if the research is piled up to the ceiling. It may be disguised as defending the public, but as Shakespeare says: “The lady doth protest too much.”

The potential benefits of homeopathy demand research such as Dr. Heather Boon’s ADHD study at University of Toronto, and we should not let fixed thinkers get in the way of progress in medicine.

In fact, the criticism here should be levelled at McGill University for permitting its Office for Science and Society to exist and Dr. Joe Schwarcz to continue to “interpret science for the public.”

By Dr. Stephen Malthouse, past president, Canadian Complementary Medical Association, Denman Island, B.C.

Always consult with a qualified Homeopathic practitioner who has undergone extensive homeopathic training at a recognized homeopathic college