Efficacy of Homeopathy

“Homeopathy is a fanciful doctrine, which maintains that disordered actions in the human body are to be cured by inducing other disordered actions of the same kind, and this to be accomplished by infinitesimally small doses” (McSherry 89). The fundamental principle of homeopathic treatment is the axiom similia similibus curentur, “the like is cured by the like.” According to the Old English saying, “eat the hair of the dog that bit you.” It is often quoted by drunks, who thus rationalize using a small amount of the same alcoholic drink as they did the previous night, to overcome the hangover. In reality they are natural homeopaths. Even though homeopathy may seem evident, since its first appearance in nineteenth century it has been very controversial. A lot of people have been disputing, are disputing, and will be disputing homeopathy by asking various questions about its efficacy. Why should the substances which cause certain symptoms not make them worse rather than better? How can a dilution that no longer contains the original substance have a physiological effect? Even more questionable is the proposition that diluting increases the homeopathic effect. On the other hand, there are several pieces of evidence which can prove the efficacy of homeopathy such as personal experience, the test of time, basic Ultra High Dilutions (UHD) research, clinical evidence, and holistic treatment. Even though homeopathy has been a subject of much controversy for a long time, this method of curing various diseases has already proved its own efficacy.

To begin with, the first evidence to support homeopathy’s effectiveness is people’s direct experience. Homeopathy’s first major expansion occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century when Hahnemann’s students proved to be so effective in the cholera epidemics that swept Europe. Moreover, the expansion of homeopathy in America in the second half of the nineteenth century and the growth seen in Britain over the last twenty years have been fuelled almost entirely by people’s experience of its effectiveness. The death rates in homeopathic hospitals and hospitals and institutions supervised by homeopaths in nineteenth century America were a half to an eighth of what they were in conventional institutions. What is more, declines, especially the one that occurred in America at the turn of the century, have similarly come about because too many poorly trained practitioners have proved ineffective (Kaufman 507-508). So, it’s easy to see that one of the arguments of the homeopathy efficacy is experience.

For another thing, the fact that homeopathy has stood the test of time makes it hard to ignore. Many cures and therapeutic techniques come and go with remarkable rapidity. What is more, even in conventional medicine, most treatments and drugs therapies are out of date and replaced within a few years. Homeopathy, in its turn, has grown and been refined; however, the principles and the research that led to it are as important and valuable today as they were two hundred years ago. If these principles were not as effective as they are they would require continual adjustment to keep them fitting the facts of the time. Thus, it’s important to notice that homeopathy managed to pass the time test, and, hence, can claim for its efficacy.

Moreover, one more evidence of the homeopathy efficacy is research made in the area of Basic Ultra High Dilutions (UHD). It is the fact that any dilution beyond a certain level, which corresponds approximately to the 12c homeopathic potency, will result in most samples containing no material substance that makes homeopathy so unreasonable to scientists. Yet there are numerous studies of various types which have shown that both in vitro and in vivo effects can be caused by UHDs. Evidence ranges from Benveniste’s work on dilute IgE (Immunoglobulin E) antiserum (Benveniste 1028) and Conte’s work with NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance)