Is homeopathy scientifically proven?
If there is no doubt anymore about the benefits of acupuncture or the preventive effects of some vitamins and supplements, there is still some controversy about the action of homeopathic remedies and this is for 2 main reasons:
1. there are no molecules left after the 9ch dilution (1% 9 times in a row)
2. the results of the clinical trials, although interesting, do not show the phenomenal results
claimed by a majority of homeopaths.
As a matter of fact homeopathic remedies work quite differently from conventional drugs because of an absence of molecules. Their action is that of an informative agent acting on the nervous system and pineal gland. The mistake of the traditional point of view is to assume that if there is no matter, there are no possible effects. An analogy that might help explain this would be of someone refusing to believe in radio frequencies since the weight of the transistor is the same before and after you turn the radio on.
Another reason for unsatisfactory clinical testing is due to the criteria for prescription of homeopathic remedies. It will work only if the associated symptoms are present because the prescription of a homeopathic remedy is made according to the symptoms or the condition but also varies according to the accompanying symptoms and the constitution of the patient. As an example, there are more than a dozen remedies to treat a simple fever. This explains the extreme difficulty to prove the action of one remedy according to a classical double blind study.
Some alternative treatments, such as naturopathy and homeopathy lack accepted scientific data to be fully accepted. Nevertheless, it's a fact that homeopathy is a 150 year old therapeutic method used by more than 300 millions people throughout the world. In France alone, more than 7000 medical doctors have a diploma in homeopathy (after a 3 years post-graduation program).
1. there are no molecules left after the 9ch dilution (1% 9 times in a row)
2. the results of the clinical trials, although interesting, do not show the phenomenal results
claimed by a majority of homeopaths.
As a matter of fact homeopathic remedies work quite differently from conventional drugs because of an absence of molecules. Their action is that of an informative agent acting on the nervous system and pineal gland. The mistake of the traditional point of view is to assume that if there is no matter, there are no possible effects. An analogy that might help explain this would be of someone refusing to believe in radio frequencies since the weight of the transistor is the same before and after you turn the radio on.
Another reason for unsatisfactory clinical testing is due to the criteria for prescription of homeopathic remedies. It will work only if the associated symptoms are present because the prescription of a homeopathic remedy is made according to the symptoms or the condition but also varies according to the accompanying symptoms and the constitution of the patient. As an example, there are more than a dozen remedies to treat a simple fever. This explains the extreme difficulty to prove the action of one remedy according to a classical double blind study.
Some alternative treatments, such as naturopathy and homeopathy lack accepted scientific data to be fully accepted. Nevertheless, it's a fact that homeopathy is a 150 year old therapeutic method used by more than 300 millions people throughout the world. In France alone, more than 7000 medical doctors have a diploma in homeopathy (after a 3 years post-graduation program).