Modern Medicine vs. Homeopathy: How to Determine Your Needs
There has been much debate about doctors who are using modern medicine versus homeopathy. Modern medicine has been proving over and over again that it can be used to cure severe illnesses and even some that have been considered incurable, like cancer.
Homeopathic practitioners however, also have proven that homeopathic remedies can cure many illnesses as well. The question is, how do you determine your needs when it comes to the medical treatment that you need?
Homeopathic medicine is based on the idea that the body has the full ability to heal on its own. The practice of homeopathy views symptoms of illness as normal responses of the body as an attempt to make itself well again.
This practice of alternative medicine takes the idea that if a substance is causing an illness in a healthy person, that person should be given a small dose of that substance along with other natural remedies to help cure the illness. Some of homeopathy uses pills and liquid mixtures containing only a little of an active ingredient to help with the treatment of the illness or disease.
Most homeopathic medicines have been used to treat illnesses such as the common cold, the flu, and allergies. These remedies have also been known to help with arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, and minor cuts, scrapes, and sprains.
This alternative way looks at specific things that could be causing the pain. For instance, let’s say that you have a headache. This type of medicine asks many questions. Where does your head hurt? What brought on the headache? What type of pain is it? What seems to aggravate it? What is your state of mind during the headache? All of these questions, once answered, will be able to guide the practitioner into giving you the remedy that is best for your pain.
Homeopathic medicines are not all FDA approved (and should be clearly labeled saying that) and the vast majority are not habit forming. When you feel that they have healed your illness, you should stop using the medicine immediately.
These medicines are usually inexpensive, all natural, and have almost no side effects whatsoever. They are safe for children, infants, pregnant women, and even animals. One of the downfalls of homeopathic remedies are that they do take a bit longer to prescribe based on your symptoms, while modern medicine is a bit quicker.
These alternative methods of medicine seem to work for minor illnesses and diseases. There are a few cases where they should not be used and you should seek advice from modern medical doctors. Diseases like cancer, heart disease, AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, major infections and communicable diseases, and major emergencies. For these emergencies and other diseases, many doctors look to modern medicine for cures.
Modern medicine has been the go-to remedy for so many years now. Many more people trust modern medical doctors and nurses and have a better sense of comfort in the sterile nursing scrub environment more than they do homeopathic practitioners. Many elderly feel that homeopathic medicine is just a type of the new age nonsense and do not feel it should be used. Modern medicine has it advantages just as homeopathy.
Modern medicine has cured many types of cancers and had many types of vaccines developed to help children and adults from getting sicknesses like the flu or the common cold. Antibiotics have kept many people from dying and their infections from spreading. These medicines are all FDA approved, but some of them have bad side effects and become habit forming.
When it comes to modern medicine and homeopathy, it is up to you to decide what seems best to treat your illness. If you are looking for the healthier route, be sure to check all the natural alternatives. If you do have emergencies and serious diseases, perhaps the modern route is the way to go. Your doctors can help you to make these choices as well. Make sure to always get a professional opinion for your health.
26 thoughts on “Modern Medicine vs. Homeopathy: How to Determine Your Needs”
I think homeopathy is better than modern medicine in day to day health problems. Homeopathy is a scientific system of treating diseases, see http://adidarwinian.com/father-of-human-pharmacology/ Me and my husband always take homeopathic remedies for our common health problems.
Upto the end of year 2010, there have been 307 studies published in 119 medical journals including 11 meta-analysis, 8 systematic reviews including 1 cochrane review (out of approximately 20 systematic reviews published) and 95 DBRPCT (out of approximately 225 RCT published) in evidence of homeopathy.
The problem, of course, is that homeopathy doesn’t work. It is based on doctrines that were refuted over a century ago, its ideas are fundamentally contradicted by basic physics, and no result has ever been produced that can’t be explained by the null hypothesis.
There’s no reason to think it should work, and no way it can.
It involves taking a substance with on objectively provable connection to a disease, diluting it many orders of magnitude past the point where none remains, and pretending that it can cure. If it could, we’d have to completely rewrite all of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology and a few other things besides.
Hahnemann didn’t know any better. He believed (and stated explicitly) that there is no amount of matter so small that it can’t be divided and retain its essential character. He was wrong – matter is atomic and, at the smallest scales, nondeterministic. These facts alone completely undermine the entire field. Modern homeopathy is exactly what you’d expect from a cult of personality that venerates the words of its founder above the findings of scientific investigation – which, ironically, goes directly against the first six oh Hahnemann’s aphorisms of the Organon.
There’s no real point telling homeopaths this as they actually already know it and spend a lot of their time trying to rationalise around it.
Homeopathy in its 200 year history has been unable to convincingly show that it is effective for any one condition. When the author stated “that the body has the full ability to heal on its own” is exactly what seems to be going on. People often get better without taking anything. This is the main reason that homeopathy has problems besting placebos in large well designed trials.
I prefer homeopathy to modern medicine as non-addictive and have been using it exclusively since 1991 when I had my last antibiotics. There are up to 4,000 homeopathic medicines, so something for everything!
Homeopathy has been shown many, many times to be nothing more than placebo. It’s 18th century prescientific handwaving.
There’s a reason why modern medicine is *called* modern medicine. It’s evidence based. Drugs, methodologies have to be shown to be effetive to be adopted. Yes, sometimes something bad gets through. It’s pretty rare, fortunately, and medical science will own up to and correct its mistakes.
Homeopaths have no self-check system, no means of detecting error. So ,it’s probably just as well their nostrums have no effect, isn’t it?
No, it has not shown many, many times to be nothing more than placebo. Quite the opposite. Time to update your research.
It is called modern medicine because it is particular to the modern age – it is young. And something bad getting through is not rare – it is common. Iatrogenic death, doctor or medical induced, is now the third biggest killer.
homeopaths do have self-check systems for detecting whether the remedy is correct or not and demonstrable ways of observing effects, which is why they have the check system.
By all means reject, but first find out something about what you are rejecting.
“No, it has not shown many, many times to be nothing more than placebo. Quite the opposite. Time to update your research.”
*checks past 250 years of clinical studies* *notices laws of physics, chemistry & biology haven’t changed recently*
Nope. Homeopathy remains magic water, prescientific hokum about bodily humours – aka miasms – and vital force, and 100% delusion… as the rest of your unsupported assertions demonstrate.
Self check system? Of the 4000 remedies has one ever been taken out use? If so, which one(s)? The self check system seems only to be that if the remedy is not correct, it is just thought not to be correct for that person at that time. The remedy is never taken out of service.
Even provings are not done double-blind. In fact most of the provings that I have read about everyone involved knows what it is. If a healthy person is given one of 4 remedies, could an experienced homeopath tell which one was given? You could even use experienced provers that are sensitive to remedies. If you could do this which a fairly large number of provers, this would be a good start to show that there is something going on. When provings are done double-blind with large numbers, the results:
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Nov;56(5):562-8.
Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C.
Has belladonna been taken out of use?
This article claims that most homeopathic medicines are used to treat minor illnesses — colds, flu and allergies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Along with its success in treating acute illnesses and allergies, homeopathy is famous for its cures of chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, diseases considered incurable by conventional medicine. Anyone wanting to see case records of such cures can find them by googling “homeopathy cured cases” or go to:
For cures of brain tumors, lung cancer, osteosarcoma and cancer of the oesophagus with homeopathy alone see:
http://www.pbhrfindia.org (Click on “Case Studies”)
In fact, the experience of the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation is that for 91 cases treated exclusively with their protocol mean survival time was 92 months. For 11 cases in which conventional treatments were also used the mean survival time was 20 months.
I’ve used homeopathy myself for many years with such complete success and satisfaction that it is now my primary form of medicine — the medicine I turn to first. It has never let me down. When con med could do nothing to help me recover from the disabling effects of an auto accident I turned to homeopathy. Within a year I was back on my feet, working and gardening. I also suffered terribly from chronic insomnia. Conventional doctors had nothing to offer but addictive pills. Homeopathy resolved my problem safely, gently, dynamically, permanently and inexpensively.
I recommend homeopathy highly to anyone. Friends and family who have used it have been equally satisfied.
I could not agree more. Unless it is an absolute crisis, Allopathy should be last choice. I also recently saw some data showing that those who use Homeopathy – with professional help – have much lower rates of serious illness overall. I did not save the link and cannot now find it. Has anyone else seen it?
That rings a bell with me but can’t locate the material at the moment. Will keep looking.
One of the difficulties with Homeopathy is that it is incredibly complex as a methodology, both to learn and to practice and yet too often attempts are made to describe it in simplistic ways. No-one would presume to do this with Allopathy, or what we call modern medicine.
Much of the bad press which Homeopathy gets is because it is not regulated enough as a system and not understood well enough by many, including some Homeopaths.
Just as there is no comparison between the astrology column in the newspaper and professional astrologer, so there is no comparison between buying an over-the-counter remedy and self-prescribing as opposed to seeing a qualified professional Homeopath. To my mind, both the astrology column and the over-the-counter remedies are useless and do the profession no good service – not to mention the reader or purchaser.
It is not correct to say that Homeopathy is more successful with minor diseases or conditions. And this is not the premise upon which Homeopathy is founded anyway. The fact is that Homeopathy can cure any disease but, like Allopathy, it is not always successful. The difference is however that Homeopathy does no harm and Allopathy often does a great deal of harm. Iatrogenic, doctor or medical-induced is now the third biggest killer.
There are two areas where Allopathic or modern medicine excels – in crisis situations and reconstructive surgery. Beyond those two areas it is largely ineffective, maintaining more than curing, disease, dysfunction and chronic illness.
In the best of worlds all medical methodologies would work together and this is what is happening with the new field of Integrative Medicine – the way of the future. The strength of Homeopathy is in keeping people well by taking account of small symptoms and early signs of dis-ease and not suppressing the symptoms as Allopathy does, which drives the dis-ease deeper, and prescribing remedies which help the body to re-balance and in the doing, to heal.
But where there is a crisis, or a need for immediate and temporary intervention, Allopathy is the way to go. Ditto for reconstructive surgery. Many surgical procedures are interventionist and unnecessary and do more harm than good. However, Homeopathy can work well with surgical procedures to minimise any damage done and to aid the healing process.
Modern science is pretty much about drug or cut. Homeopathy can also work alongside prescribed drugs to trigger a healing process which can remove the need for the drug completely.
Vaccines are a potential minefield of medical disaster and Homeopathy offers non-harmful ways to protect the body or to repair damage done by vaccination.
Medical treatments do not need to be and should not be, either/or.
I am a firm believer in alternative medicine as a part of my health care options, especially homeopathy. For example:
Homeopathic Sulphur cured two cases of conventionally treated mange in a dog of my husband’s aunt and another dog belonging to one of my friends.
Two family members with broken bones were facing surgery to repair. Homeopathic Symphytum cured the breaks without surgery. Before and after x-rays and ultrasound documented the healings in both cases.
Homeopathic Silicea opened and helped drain a lipoma the size of a golf ball from our family dog’s right shoulder. No veterinary intervention required. Even on an outpatient basis, the surgery, local anesthesia, bandaging and antibiotics would most likely have cost over $200.
Our family homeopath prescribed a remedy that helped my husband avoid back surgery for two herniated discs at the L4 and L5 level. The herniated discs were documented by both x-ray and ultrasound. He had been in excruciating pain and could only walk with a cane for six months.
Several years ago my cholesterol level was off the charts. After viewing the lab report, my homeopath prescribed a remedy and on repeated lab testing a month later, my cholesterol was within normal limits. It has remained normal since that time. I took no other medication and no dietary change was necessary.
Living in Florida where fleas on pets is a huge problem, I have used homeopathic Ruta graveolens in all my dogs’ water dishes for the past four years. Before I knew that this remedy could solve the problem safely and inexpensively, I had paid hundreds of dollars for flea shots, dips and whatever else I could get my hands on. None worked. I am so pleased to be able to use something this inexpensive and non-toxic for my dogs.
‘These alternative methods of medicine seem to work for minor illnesses and diseases.’
And then when examined by high quality clinical trials, they are found to be ineffective.
Neither the statement in the article or your reply is true.
Then where is the evidence? For example, where are the metastudies that show homeopathy is effective?
There is not enough space here to cite all of the links and articles about mainstream drug clinical trials that fudge the data for their drug testing. There are hundreds of law suits against drug companies for drugs that passed their “high quality clinical trials”, then put on the market based on those results which resulted in many serious adverse side effects, including death.
“many serious adverse side effects, including death”
We all die in the end. Modern medicine seeks to avert it, or at least ease the passing with minimal suffering.
Homeopathy, on the other hand, is proven to be useless. Is that why you rage so against RCTs? Because they show homeopathy for the self-deluded sham it is?
Oh, and here are some documented examples of deaths and serious suffering caused by reliance on homeopathy http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
I read the material at the whats-the-harm site along with the back-up the site provides on each “case”. The majority of the material was gleaned from newspaper articles, not from credible medical sources. It’s clear that some of the people never used homeopathy at all. In some cases the site confuses homeopathy with other systems of medicine but attributes harm to homeopathy. Some of the people used conventional treatments first and without success before turning to homeopathy. I believe the site includes some 47 cases. Please compare that to the fact that 784,000 Americans die every year as a result of choosing conventional care and conventional treatments. Think of the numbers world-wide — they are mind boggling! The report was based on U.S. government statistics and material published in peer-reviewed journals. It can be seen at:
It’s also interesting to note that the BMJ did an analysis of 3,000 common treatments and found that only 11% were evidence based, that is, proven to be beneficial. It found that 51% were of unknown effectiveness.
Whale.to…Are you seriously citing as a reference a site run by people who believe in Reptilian Overlords, Satanic mind control, that the Holocaust never happened and so forth?
As for the BMJ study: look closer. It includes fringe therapies like homeopathy, so of course there is a skew towards inefficacity. It also specifically states that it is compared treatments, not how often they are used. So 100 people receiving insulin for Type 1 diates carry the same statistical weight as one loon taking sugat pills to ward off flu.
The BMJ states it is analyzing commonly used treatments and those would be conventional treatments since they are the treatments used by most British subjects and because they are the treatments primarily offered on the NHS. It notes that CAM treatments are put into the “unknown effectiveness” category because of the difficulty of doing RCT’s on them or because the body of evidence is still developing. It also puts services such as psychological counseling in the same category for the same reason.
That still leaves a sum total of 11% of common conventional treatments being evidence based. The previous analysis of 2,500 common treatments found 13% to be evidence based. Looks like con med is going backwards instead of forward!
The BMJ also states: “However, the figures above (11% and 51%) suggest that the research community has a larger task ahead and that most decisions about treatments STILL REST ON THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGEMENTS OF CLINICIANS AND PATIENTS.”
And patients repeatedly give very high marks to homeopathy when it comes to satisfaction with their treatment, much higher than marks they give to con med.
As far as reptilian overloads and the rest goes, I suggest that the public go to the site and come to its own conclusion about your statement.
What I find hilmarious about this ranting – you clearly haven’t read a word of the text accompanying the pretty graph – is that homeopaths are always claiming that their brand of magic cannot be tested in RCTs (wrong, it can), but when it comes to therapies that genuinely cannot be tested with classical RCTs, then that is a fault with the therapy.
You want to have your special pleading cake and eat it.
Please read what is actually said about the treatments of “unknown effectiveness”. Some excerpts:
“for example, an intervention may have
multiple indications, and may be categorised as ‘Unknown effectiveness’ for one condition but ‘Beneficial’ for another.”
“â€˜Unknown effectivenessâ€™ is perhaps a hard categorisation to
explain. Included within it are many treatments that come under the description of complementary medicine (e.g., acupuncture for low back pain and echinacea for the common cold),”
“â€˜Unknown effectivenessâ€™ may also simply reflect difficulties in conducting RCTs of an intervention, or be applied to
treatments for which the evidence base is still evolving. ”
And most importantly, the scientific self-checking factor completely absent in any form of vitalistic woowoo such as homeopathy:
“We make use of what is â€˜unknownâ€™ in Clinical Evidence
by feeding back to the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme (HTA) with a view to helping inform the commissioning of primary research. Every 6 months we assess CE interventions categorised as Unknown effectiveness and submit those fitting the appropriate criteria to the HTA via their website: http://www.ncchta.org/.”
I can certainly understand why “skeptics” don’t like the reality that only 11% of common conventional treatments offered on the NHS are shown to be evidence-based.
“Skeptics” claim that homeopathy should not be offered on the NHS because (and this is only according to “skeptics”) there is no evidence to support its efficacy so it must be pretty disconcerting to be faced with the fact that only 11% of your chosen treatments are evidence based.
There are 400+ basic science studies showing homeopathy has biological effects. There are 304 studies published in 119 respected, peer-reviewed journals showing it produces significant to substantial health benefits in a wide array of conditions. 200 years of clinical use around the world prove homeopathic efficacy and safety.
Some of the studies I just mentioned can be seen at:
For case studies of cures of chronic diseases with homeopathy see:
http://www.pbhrfindia.org (click on “Case Studies” for cures of cancers)
or just google: “homeopathy cured cases”
You just get funnier and funnier. Your inability to read anything without embroidering into it it what *you* want ot believe is quite endearing.
Again, I’m not going to respond to all of your assertions beca
“only 11% of common conventional treatments … are shown to be evidence-based.” So you’re freely admitting that there is no evidence for any form of CAM – which was included in the “no proven efficacy section?
You *must* educate yourself re Scopie’s Law!