Homeopathy is constantly under attack, even though it has been used as a medical therapy for over 200 years, and it is currently growing in popularity throughout the world.
It is time that the reason for these attacks on homeopathy are properly investigated and fully understood by the mainstream media in the UK.
Most of these attacks are made by anti-homeopathy groups, and are part of a worldwide campaign. It is being orchestrated by people associated with groups like ‘Sense about Science’ (SAS) in the UK, and other similar or linked groups funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry.
(For SAS funding see http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Sense_About_Science)
The real objection that SAS, and the Pharmaceutical Industry, has to homeopathy is that it has been, and continues to be, highly successful in treating people, with all kinds of ailments and diseases. After all, if the anti-homeopathy campaign is right in stating, ‘there is nothing in homeopathy’, or ‘there is not evidence to support homeopathy’ why do they bother attacking it?
Homeopathy is under attack because it is am effective medical therapy. Moreover, it has an additional benefit. It is entirely safe. This, of course, is in stark contrast to recent patient experiences with conventional pharmaceutical drugs, from Thalidomide, Benzodiazepines, HRT, Vioxx, Avandia, Reductil, Co-Proxamol, Prexige, Effexor, and many, many others.
The evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy is twofold.
- The empirical evidence for homeopathy is now quite overwhelming. Many millions of patients, throughout the world, and for over two centuries, can testify to its effectiveness. Something of the range of people who have been treated by homeopathy through this time can be found in Dan Ullman’s book, “The Homeopathic Revolution: why famous people and cultural heroes choose homeopathy”, published in 2007. Homeopathy users have ranged from leading US and UK politicians, to composers and musicians, to artists and stage/film celebrities, to religious and spiritual leaders. And this is not to mention the millions of ordinary people who have chosen homeopathy for its effectiveness and safety.
The primary requirement of sick patients is to be treated effectively, and safely.
Homeopathy has consistently passed this important test.
- RCT Evidence. Those opposed to homeopathy regularly state that “there is no scientific proof” supporting homeopathy. Hitherto, this anti-homeopathic mantra appears to have been a widely believed. But it is entirely untrue. There are now nearly 250 randomised controlled tests which clearly demonstrate that homeopathy works, and often that it works better than placebo, and better than conventional drugs.
For a list of these scientific papers that support the effectiveness of homeopathy, go to
or to
Even the question of the mechanism through which homeopathy works seems to be close to having a genuine scientific explanation. Professor Luc Montaigner, the French virologist, and Nobel prize winner in 2008, stated (in an interview in the December issue of Science Magazine).
"I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules."
Professor Montaigner has already published research showing that high dilutions contain nano-particles that emit electromagnetic waves from their DNA which can be measured, and have an effect. For more information about Montaigner’s work, which he is now pursuing at Jiaotong University in China, see the following:
And, in response to his article in Science, Professor Josephson, of Cambridge University, wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy (and that includes those planning the weekend anti-homeopathy demonstrations) saying,
"The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."
This evidence in support of homeopathy might be uncomfortable news for its opponents, and the supporters of the conventional drugs industry. But it is important to recognise that their opposition is based on the success of homeopathy, and not its failure.
If homeopathy was failing its patients it would have died many years ago as homeopathy does not have, nor has it ever had, significant state support or funding.
Homeopathy is recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as the second most used healing modality in the world, and since it has much greater success and safety than the conventional toxic drug model, the pharmaceutical industry has decided to attack it, and establish groups like SAS to do so.
It is also clear that these attacks on homeopathy are based on the ongoing failures of the conventional drugs industry, a failure that has been sadly under-reported by the mainstream media in the UK. The attacks on homeopathy can therefore be seen as a smokescreen, to divert attention from the current problems of the pharmaceutical industry.
- A number of high profile conventional drugs have been regularly withdrawn by drug companies, because they have been found to be ineffective, or dangerous, or both.
- A number of drug companies have had to pay out multi-billion $ claims to patients who have been damaged by conventional drugs and vaccinations.
- In some cases, the courts have revealed that drug companies have failed to report, or actually lied about clinical trials that indicated that new drugs were potentially dangerous for patients.
- New drugs are now extremely expensive, stretching national health services throughout the western world to near breaking point.
So anti-homeopathy publicity arises from the fact that homeopathy is an effective and safe alternative to conventional, drug-based medicine; and that an increasing number of people are realising this.
Unfortunately it seems that SAS, and other opponents of homeopathy, are blinded by their own blinkered views and prejudices. And, of course, it is not mere coincidence that these views reflect those of the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical establishment as a whole.
For homeopathy, this has always been so. To place current attacks on homeopathy into an historical context, please refer to Louise McLean’s article, ‘Why the constant attacks on homeopathy?’, at