Allopathy Versus Homeopathy

April 15th, 2011   Submitted by Seth King

Most people are unaware of the silent warfare that has been waged between two distinctly different philosophies in the field of medicine. It has been raging for well over one hundred years in America alone and with the passage of the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” it may just be the death-knell for homeopathic medicine. The anarchist community would be served well to learn the differences between these two medical approaches to health care. If decades long trends continue into the future patients and homeopathic doctors may be forced to operate outside of the purview of the state.

Allopathyn. A method of treating diseases with remedies that produce effects different from those caused by the disease itself.

Homeopathyn. A method of treating diseases with remedies that produce effects similar to those caused by the disease itself.

The large majority of physicians in America practice allopathic medicine. And while very few people outside of the health-care industry could define the term, its practice is ubiquitous and almost fully internalized by the general public. An example of allopathic treatment would include elevating a sprained ankle and wrapping the afflicted area in ice in order to reduce swelling. Bandages may also be used to prevent use of the joints. Swelling, the symptom, is attacked instead of the injury itself.

But homeopaths take the exact opposite approach. They believe that the swelling is the body’s natural healing method. When tendons, ligaments and muscles are stressed extra blood rushes to the area to repair the damage. As ugly and frightening as a swollen ankle may look, it is what is necessary to heal the body properly. Efforts taken to reduce swelling can increase healing time and may cause long-term damage. Over the next few days a homeopath may recommend adding heat and light exercise to the sprained ankle to help increase blood flow, quite the opposite advice from the allopath.

In general, allopathy seeks to fight the body’s natural response system by attacking the symptoms of healing. Homeopathy, however, embraces the body’s natural response system by either encouraging the symptoms of healing or attacking the root cause of the illness. Mainstream medicine, or allopathy, would have us take muscle relaxants for headaches and nasal decongestants for runny noses caused by the common cold. But these are merely treatments for the symptoms. The homeopath understands that a headache is a sign that something is wrong. Perhaps the sufferer has a low blood sugar and needs to eat something. Or maybe he or she would benefit from some exercise or a change of environment. The list of examples goes on.

The debate between allopathy and homeopathy seems worthy in a marketplace of ideas. But the question one should be asking is why there is no debate at all. Why has allopathy so thoroughly dominated the medical landscape? Has allopathy taken the lion’s share of the market because it is superior to that of homeopathy? If not, why not?

Historical evidence suggests that power players, as early as the founding of the American Medical Association, have used the heavy hand of government to squelch homeopathic physicians. Regulations and licensure were used to stifle the growth of homeopathy by narrowly restricting which schools can produce new doctors and what their curriculum must teach. Today, students must endure roughly ten years of allopathic medicine education and testing before being allowed to practice homeopathy. After being taught for so long that homeopathy is akin to quackery is it any wonder so few aspiring doctors choose to practice homeopathic medicine?

To make matters worse insurance companies – another tightly regulated industry – do not cover homeopathic medicine. It is a problem, indeed, for patients who choose alternative medicine to mainstream medicine. However, so long as individuals may opt out of the corporate circle there exists a healthy market for homeopathy. In come new regulations mandating all individuals purchase corporate insurance and few people will have money left for alternative medicine, such as homeopathy.

With new governmental regulations becoming more asinine by the day one need not try too hard to imagine a future where homeopathy is strictly criminalized. Our hope then lies in patients and doctors willing to break the rules to receive and provide truly free health care. Anarchists of all professions, including doctors, should take the time to better understand the fascism that pervades American medicine. It will surely serve as an excellent recruiting tool for potential fed-up citizens of all backgrounds alike. I highly recommend a short, yet scary, book on one doctor’s lifelong struggle to practice medicine and the history of American health care. The book is called Medical Conspiracy In America and is available for free online. Its reading time is roughly two hours. But if you give it five pages I am confident you’ll be hooked until the end.

82 Responses to “Allopathy Versus Homeopathy”

  1. Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

    Homeopathy is not medicine, and there’s a good libertarian case for lawsuits against homeopaths who fraudulently claim that they can help their patients.

    And in fact, homeopathic remedies enjoy a privileged status as the only quack products legally marketable as drugs. That’s because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was principally authored by Senator Royal S. Copeland, himself a homeopathic physician, and it recognises as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States.

    Check out http://www.homeowatch.org for real scientific information.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      You’re trying to tell a person like myself who has been healed through homeopathic medicine that it is not medicine. I’m glad you’ve always had such good results from allopathic doctors in your life. But I haven’t.

      I have no problem with you thinking homeopathy is bunk. I really don’t. I do have a problem if you think I should not have the freedom to choose homeopathy if I wish.

      • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

        The comparison of homeopathic remedies to marijuana is inapt, because the amount of active ingredients in marijuana is much greater and can be measured. Homeopathic remedies are just water. Obviously, water is generally not harmful, but if you leave a serious illness untreated because you think you can cure it with water, it’s at your own risk.

        There will be testimonials in favour of any quack treatment because if 2% of people suffering from a given malady will randomly recover with no treatment, and 1,000 of them try homeopathy, there will be 20 people who tried homeopathy and then, for unrelated reasons, recovered. I would be willing to accept homeopathy, though its precepts fly in the face of common sense, if its efficacy had been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials; it has not.

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          With all due respect, I suspect that you have a very narrow understanding of what homeopathy is. It is not just water tablets. While that may be a part of what homeopathy is, I’ve never had any experience with that sort of treatment. In future articles I will write about treatments I’ve had that are homeopathic in nature and involved things like injections, and other remedies.

          The point of this article was less about whether homeopathic medicine is superior to allopathic, and more about the fact that alternative medicine and choice have been under attack in a serious way by the state.

          • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

            If you have had any homeopathic treatment that had not been diluted beyond the point where it could have any possible effect, the practitioner should really call it something else, as it is something different from homeopathy as it has been understood ever since Hahnemann concluded that a smaller dose, even a dose imperceptible to the senses, would produce a larger effect. Even at measurable dosages, though, I don’t know of any strong scientific support for the “like cures like” principle.

            Really, the most disturbing thing about the article is the assumption about the motivations of health care providers. If homeopathy worked, why would doctors and insurers insist on suppressing it to continue providing an inferior product at a higher cost? An insurance company somewhere would use it to reduce their premiums, and all the others would have to follow. The profit motive is too strong.

            • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

              “If homeopathy worked, why would doctors and insurers insist on suppressing it to continue providing an inferior product at a higher cost?”

              Why does government exist? Who is John Galt?

              • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

                Yeah, who is John Galt? I’ve never read that book.

                But seriously, homeopathy is legal, so what’s keeping consumers from switching to homeopathy en masse? The simple answer is that they don’t want to because they have not found homeopathy to be an effective treatment.

                And that is what has been definitively established by science. A 2005 meta-analysis in The Lancet (“Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy” by Shang et al.) looked at 110 trials of homeopathic preparations and found the results of all of them compatible with placebo effects. An accompanying editorial aptly noted that the findings were less surprising than the fact that the debate over homeopathy continues “despite 150 years of unfavorable findings.”

                Mike is right. It’s one thing to say medicine should be unregulated in spite of the fact that it would allow quacks to thrive, but it’s embarrassing to criticise regulation from an outright pro-quack point of view.

                • vapoureyesNo Gravatar says:

                  Re the Lancet 2005 statistical analysis
                  Quote from Manish Batia, from a review of the findings.

                  Following extract published source:
                  http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/homeopathy-research-the-lan cet/

                  “Only 18 studies, out of the total 110 have been classified as ‘classical’. There has been no reference as to how many of these ‘classical’ trials were of ‘high-quality’. If you consider the sample size of these trials and filter only the ‘high-quality’ trials, on which most of the assumptions of this meta-analysis are based, the remaining sample size will itself become statistically insufficient to draw conclusions or to compare it with conventional medicine trials.”

                  …sums up, about how credible the report is. Its pointless lumping all the various modalities of Homeopathy together, given that some ‘schools’ of homeopathy operate similarly to allopathic practitioners – i.e the use of prescribing ‘combinations’. The ‘combinations’ method, although using ‘potentized’ dilutions, departs from ‘classical’ homeopathy considerably, and is considered heresy by some.

                  • KrishnaNo Gravatar says:

                    Well, Homeopathy worked for me for the same Allopathy failed. So i can tell Homeopathy works. I have used all potencies, Some X potencies to 1M.

      • write fight for freedomNo Gravatar says:

        I am writing an argument/research paper. I am proposing that since the PPACA is mandating that most of us purchase health care insurance, that insurance companies should be mandated to cover homeopathy. I know a pharmacist and a Dr. who are both N.D.s as well. I believe insurance companies, medicaid, and medicare should be forced to cover these and other N.D.s since the rest of us are forced to accept one of these programs for our health care. I believe first in preventive medicine. One N.D. I know about stresses this above cure. Indeed, he says you begin the preventive measures to initiate cures. He also concentrates on the cause of the illness to cure it.

        • write fight for freedomNo Gravatar says:

          I am glad to know there are others out there who see that our government is interfering too much in our personal business! However, I hope you all are referring to the “utopian society” definition of the term “anarchist” instead of the “lawlessness and absence of order” one.

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          I can’t speak for others, but I’m not interested in tinkering with the law here and there. I’m putting all of my efforts into abolishing the state, pure and simple. Mandating that insurance corporations cover homeopathy seems like it would help to level the playing field, but then I suspect that even if such a thing did happen(not likely) that it would only go to ruin the quality of homeopathic medicine and jack up the costs. I would rather go to an underground(illegal) homeopath than to a corporate one.

          • write fight for freedomNo Gravatar says:

            I have considered the scary thought of government take over of homeopathy along with Allopathy. My paper is to encourage an amendment to the PPACA for us who believe in homeopathy. At least we would have some legal recourse! Plus, some people cannot afford the herbs and vitamins and so on. If the government made insurance companies, Medicaid, and Medicare pay for these cares also, we could get our prescriptions. Truth be told, I hope that the individual mandate to buy insurance gets repealed! But if it does not, with an amendment, we would at least still have a choice!

            • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

              I understand that what you’re talking about would be a defensive measure. But I think you might still be operating in the old paradigm. That is to say, if the government makes it illegal, we no longer have a choice. I disagree, we still have a choice to purchase our goods and services in the black market. If the “illicit” and recreational drug market can thrive, so too can medicinal drugs.

              I fear that if the homeopaths start jumping through all of the hoops and/or get subsidized by the insurance agencies/government that it will destroy the quality of homeopathy. Everything the government regulates it destroys in quality and increases the costs.

              Some day, probably soon, doctors, nay, people of all professions, are going to have to choose whether they want to work without permission, or perish.

              • write fight for freedomNo Gravatar says:

                I pray not! What does one do about it? I believe in peaceable measures. Martin Luther King quoted someone once saying any “unjust law is no law at all.” To break a bad law is actually civil disobedience like several people in history performed to stand up against unjust laws. (Boston Tea Party, persecuted Christians etc.) I am sure this is what this blog is all about. But besides writing, what more can we do?

                • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

                  Civil disobedience is what this site is all about. Work without paying tithing to the state. Work without permission. Drive without permission. Medicate without permission. Hell, grow food and eat it without permission. The list is endless.

                  • write fight for freedomNo Gravatar says:

                    Seth, can I quote you in my paper? You made some very good points. Do you hold a position in this blog or web site that I could point to? Like are you an editor, feature writer or something? I need as much material as possible. I will put you in as opposing my idea. I am on your side, but I came up with this as a possible solution to the Homeopathy plight. Hence, I am writing the argument/ research paper.

        • TriciaNo Gravatar says:

          This has been my stance since Obamacare was first mentioned. I do not have insurance, nor do I want it. I use alt med modalities and am a student of alt med. If the government were to make me have insurance, I feel that it should cover the treatment that I use. Many years ago, I did have insurance that covered Chinese Herbs, energy healing, acupuncture and other modalities…or at least it did with the way the treatments were written up. I was diagnosed with cervical cancer and sought out other treatment. For over 30 years I have been cancer free. No surgery or chemo. Of course, allopathic medical community says they must have got it all when they did the colposcopy! If anyone thinks there is not also a placebo effect in allopathy, they should read some research papers! Our minds/thoughts are very powerful.

      • michelle kennyNo Gravatar says:

        Homeopathy is the only way to go, it is a beautiful healer, unless I was unconscious and had no choice I would never ever walk into an allopathic doctors clinic or hospital again.

        Homeopathy cured my vertigo my nieces verrucas my nephews ears when a hospital told him he’d go deaf in a few yrs, imagine that 12 yrs old and a doctor telling him that, we took him to a homeopath 1 remedy cured 100%

    • P AbrahamNo Gravatar says:

      Why do some so called American scientists think, they are all knowing? they yet aware , every discovery and inventions are not even ex 30% oe totality, by the whole lot bunch of scientists. Throughout the world.
      More than majority is still unknown to human .
      I have experienced the wonders of Homoeopathy.
      Indeed humanbody just needs a natural external support to recover, and not a bulk of chemicals.
      Moreover Homeopathy is the only system of Medicine which is always proved on humans unlikelowanimals in other pathies.
      I think it is all about insrity, ego issues , .. etc Allopaths are going through.
      Please don’t forget, its not just us , but also our posterity / our further generation who will benifit from this latest , ealthy form of medicine ,for overall wellbeing.
      Or is it that Americans can’t digest, that Homoeopathy was discovered by a German Physician ??
      May God help us accept better things n truths, n do ouevpart of betterment.

      • nishant netajiNo Gravatar says:

        In the ancient past, Seers or monks were the ones who cured people. there was no licensing authorities and people were cured accurately. there were days when ants were used for stitching on a human skin, fortunately there were no authorities.
        Life is indeed a wave. When the wave falls, egoists rules the world who just want to dominate the innocent. The dominant thinks he is ruling but he dies with nothing. the innocent too thinks he is ruling but he gives back some experience for others to learn.

        This is indeed a unidentified equation; that which is good does not shout for attention, that which is bad always, always and always tries to grab attention till people are addicted to it or find it as the one and only choice.

  2. Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

    Oh, and here are some cases where people died because they were taken in by the claims of homeopaths: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Over one hundred thousand people die every year in the United States from medical MISTAKES. Why aren’t you pointing that out?

    • SnehalNo Gravatar says:

      Cal, you are an egoistic idiot, who will go to any extent to prove your point. Be humble, or else when you leave the world no one would be around you.

      • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

        Perhaps people will shun me for being an egoistic idiot; but if those people choose homoeopathy and I choose science-based medicine, I’ll at least have the satisfaction of seeing them all die at a considerably younger age than myself.

  3. Ted DunlapNo Gravatar says:

    The fourth leading cause of death in the USA is “medical mistakes” – meaning allopathic medical mistakes. If homeopaths make mistakes, are they held up to a standard of perfection or would just being a better choice for many medical issues be satisfactory?

    • VivekNo Gravatar says:

      ok guys tell me only one thing. if you have a child and he is in a grave condition. where you will prefer to go? nearest pediatric hospital or nearest homeopathic center. why you vaccinate your children if you don’t trust conventional medicine. if you will in any emergency you will call ambulance rather than going to nearest homeopathic center. homeopathy may treat some chronic diseases but conventional medicine is Boss here. it is life saving. well you have to decide.

  4. Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

    Real doctors have demonstrated their ability to help people with their treatments. Homeopaths have not. And really, that’s exactly what you’d expect when they dilute their “remedies” so much that there is practically zero chance of there being even one molecule of the original substance remaining in the resulting solution. Their treatments are placebos at best.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      You’re right. The multibillion dollar corporate pills everybody is popping are way better.

      Your hostility towards homeopathic medicine reminds me of drug-war zealots who say marijuana isn’t medicine under any circumstances. At least tell me you’re not in favor of the state going after homeopaths.

  5. JohnNo Gravatar says:

    Advocate homeopathic medicine if you wish, but this anarchist believes in the right of individuals to treat ailments any way they like.

    The problem is not that the government advocates allopathic medicine over homeopathic, but that government is force.

    Strike the Root.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      The problem is that individuals will get hauled off to a cage for practicing medicine in a way that the government doesn’t condone. If the table were turned I would be defending the rights of doctors to practice allopathy if they wished.

  6. MikeNo Gravatar says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Evidence

    Homeopathy’s efficacy is unsupported by the collective weight of modern scientific research. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the original material in the final product. The modern mechanism proposed by homeopaths, water memory, is considered implausible in that short-range order in water only persists for about 1 picosecond.[107][108] Pharmacological effect without active ingredients is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs,[109] leaving only non-specific placebo effects[4][110][111] or various novel explanations. The proposed rationale for these extreme dilutions – that the water contains the “memory” or “vibration” from the diluted ingredient – is counter to the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the law of mass action.[107] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[23] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have led to characterizations as pseudoscience and quackery,[24][26][27][112] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, “placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst.”[28] Use of homeopathy may delay or replace effective medical treatment, worsening outcomes or exposing the patients to increased risk.[5][31][32][33][113]

    It is opinions and analysis that are as shallow as this that cause people to associate anarchists with cranks and conspiracy theorists. Seriously, this stuff is really embarrassing. Please do some basic research before churning this crap out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Your wikipedia link is broken.

      Do me a favor, will you? Please read American Health Care, published by the Independent Institute and then the book I linked to in the article, Medical Conspiracy In America before you go accusing me of supporting crackpot theories.

      I’m sorry that you’ve been spoon-fed lies about how glorious mainstream medicine is today. You seem to have an emotional attachment to it. Perhaps you, or a loved one, is in the field and would be worried that your entire life you’ve been practicing medicine under a faulty paradigm. I don’t know. I do know that there are a lot of people who cannot fathom any sort of society not built on coercion. People like judges, attorneys, policemen, politicians. They all think anarchists are crackpots. But I think part of the reason they do is because they are afraid deep down inside that they will have been part of the problem their entire lives, instead of part of the solution like they’ve been brainwashed to think.

      The truth is, I don’t know what the best medicine is. And as far as this article is concerned, I don’t care. What I care about is the state deciding what proper medicine is and squishing the competition. If you cannot get behind that then perhaps you need to check your anarchist credentials at the door.

  7. MichaelNo Gravatar says:

    Many of you are using outdated and archaic definitions of what consitutes homeopathy. Modern homeopathy tends to regard dilution with as much attention as modern allopathy does to it’s former use of leeches.

    Allopathic medicine is not what it is praised to be. The public has extremely little idea about how little the world of medical science knows. I would rate allopathy drugs as effective only in emergency situtions where death is imminent. That is a natural process which one desires to stop.

    There are more enzymes, protiens, lipids, etc. than anyone even knows of in the body. They number in the thousands if not greater. The ones which are known of are often poorly understood, let alone their various interactions. Most perscription drugs taken on a regular basis are in-fact nothing but damage control of symptoms. I can’t name a single physician that believes using Statin drugs cures high cholesterol.

    On the example of statin drugs, they actually help toxify the liver and convert cholesterols into the negative LDL variety. I have spoken with many a PHD in Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry on the matter. This is but one very minute example.

    The fault of allopathy is arrogance. Arrogance about the degree of which we understand the human body and the science behind it. Arrogance that dissenting opinnions are heresy. Arrogance that patient’s haven’t the right to choose their school of treatments. The AMA also has a proven history of blugeoning out compeition and absuive protectionist practices that limit the market, the science, and price of healthcare. This last paragraph is a dedication to the central planners.

    As a note to deflect any precieved bias, I hold a degree in BioChemistry & Molecular Biology. I paid for this degree by working as a paramedic and nuclear technologist. I will also be attending (an allopathic) medical school within a number of months.

    • doveNo Gravatar says:

      Good one … educate them more on Allopathy (opposite suffering ) , let them know what can be seen or heard is not , – all the truth … not even the tip of an iceberg .. moreover Homeopathy ( similar suffering ) is the youngest of all medicines , so better nurture it now for the betterment of future —( its so much about insecurity by competitors )—
      Homoeopathy should actually be a SUPERSPECIALITY :-) as I have seen its amazing results , if administered properly , by a qualified, dedicated doctor ..

  8. JustSayNoToStatismNo Gravatar says:

    “Obviously, water is generally not harmful, but if you leave a serious illness untreated because you think you can cure it with water, it’s at your own risk.”
    —Yes. Are you okay with someone taking that risk or not?

    “there’s a good libertarian case for lawsuits against homeopaths who fraudulently claim that they can help their patients.”
    —You must be joking. Unless you’re one of those “political” libertarians who think initiation of force is good when it’s something you like.

    “I would rate allopathy drugs as effective only in emergency situtions where death is imminent. That is a natural process which one desires to stop.”
    —Someone who gets it.

    “There are more enzymes, protiens, lipids, etc. than anyone even knows of in the body. They number in the thousands if not greater. The ones which are known of are often poorly understood, let alone their various interactions.”
    —Anyone with any biochem background would have to agree.

    “On the example of statin drugs, they actually help toxify the liver and convert cholesterols into the negative LDL variety”
    —I once had a professor talk about how medical professionals want the government to put statins in drinking water.

    “The fault of allopathy is arrogance.”
    -For example, the above topic of statins.

    In a free market, it’s ALL about prevention. Weekly blood samples for thousands of people, handled at clinics operated inexpensively by a couple people and a single machine. No need to train these people for 20 years either. Everyone who wanted a reasonable health insurance rate would have to do this…..Too bad there’s no free market. I promise you that the allopathic vs homeopathic debate wouldn’t even be worth talking about at that point.

    • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

      “You must be joking. Unless you’re one of those “political” libertarians who think initiation of force is good when it’s something you like.”

      You think consumers should have no legal recourse against fraud? Okay, you’re the “real libertarian.” Congratulations.

      “Too bad there’s no free market. I promise you that the allopathic vs homeopathic debate wouldn’t even be worth talking about at that point.”

      The homeopathy debate isn’t worth talking about as it is. It is not a debate between homeopathy and “allopathy,” it is a small group of cranks rebelling against doctors who use all measures proved of value to help their patients. Homeopaths try to frame it as homeopathy vs. allopathy as if it were a conflict between two ideologies rather than one ideology and science, but modern medicine is not based on “treating diseases with remedies that produce effects different from those caused by the disease itself,” and the development of the germ theory of disease surely must have forced homeopaths to surrender any claim to be the ones focusing on the underlying causes of illness.

      • landstanderNo Gravatar says:

        I am not taking sides in this debate because I do not know enough about either. However, I do believe the individual had a right to choose how their ailments are treated.
        I do not understand how you believe homeopathy is fraud. If the homeopathic doctor claimed that his treatments were something they are not, then it would be fraud. However, if a person seeks out a homeopathic doctor and knows it is a homeopathic treatment then there is no fraud.
        Simply because you do not agree with it does not make it fraud.

        • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

          People have the right to do whatever they want as long as everybody realises that it’s considered an established fact in modern science that homeopathy is about as effective as praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but when a consumer’s only information is a homeopath’s claim that, just to take an example that the FDA has warned someone about, “Influenzinum is a great flu defense to prevent spreading the flu and for relief of flu symptoms during fall, winter and spring illnesses”, the average person is likely to be deceived into thinking that this has been established by standard clinical trials. Is it fraud if the homeopath honestly believes that his treatment works? What right, if any, does the consumer have to be informed by the homeopath of scientific information undermining the treatment? These are issues for the private courts to work out, but when homeopaths sell a treatment long known to be quackery, you can’t say there’s no case for fraud at all.

          • landstanderNo Gravatar says:

            So do you not believe that the consumer has the obligation to educate himself about medical treatments?
            If a homeopathic doctor KNOWINGLY lies about his treatment, then it is a fraud. But, if he unwittingly makes a false statement about the effectiveness of his treatment, then at most it is negligence, but certainly not fraud.
            It is on the consumer to educate himself about the medical treatments. There would be, and currently are, many resources people can use. Just because someone makes a stupid decision does not mean there was fraud perpetrated against them nor does it mean that the provider should be held responsible (if there was no fraud or negligence).

            • JustSayNoToStatismNo Gravatar says:

              Exactly.
              1) If you think in terms of rights, then there are no positive rights
              2) People are responsible for their actions
              3) Private courts would not sue people practicing homeopathy and call it “fraud.” Kangaroo courts would go bankrupt right away.

          • Al SledgeNo Gravatar says:

            “People have the right to do whatever they want as long as everybody realises that it’s considered an established fact ….”
            This is confusing Rights with science, a laughable argument at best. How about instead the statement “People have the right to do whatever they want as long as they do not interferre with the rights of others?” In the communist/socialist world “everybody realises that communism is an established fact”. That however does not a) make the statement true and b) invalidate the idea of human freedom. We could also make the case that allophathy is also a fraud because it does not result is anything like 100% success in treating any ill. Maybe we should shut down all medicine until we fully understand everything about biology and the universe at large? I feel I should be able to use every option at my disposal. I support your right to tell me snake oil is a fraud, but you do NOT have the right to prevent me from using it.

            If I choose to use snake oil to treat my terminal disease, exactly what right do you have to force me (using government/AMA guns) to make me die using allopathy? It seems more like the real problem is the belief in democracy or representative government as a cureall.

            Another thought is Chinese medicine. Their use of needles and plants do not fit conventional medicine or science either, but are used widely there with Western allopathy in a far distant second place.

            The other day a friend of mine quipped, after I was espousing my “important views” on another subject that; “There are well over a billion Chinese that really don’t give a **** what YOU think.”

            • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

              What I was trying to say was that there is obviously no fraud in a case where everybody is fully informed of the case for and against homeopathy, but in a real world of imperfect information, does a consumer who realises he’s been deceived into purchasing a quack treatment (and it’s a fact that homeopathy is a quack treatment) have the right to sue?

              It’s not like the homeopath could defend himself by establishing that it’s true that homeopathy is an effective treatment. If they could prove that in a court of law, they would sue the people calling them quacks for libel. They won’t.

              If a homeopath wants to make the extraordinary claim that his vial of ordinary water cures asthma, and sell it on that basis to somebody who sees no reason to doubt him, doesn’t he have any responsibility at all to make sure his water really does cure asthma? Is it just a moral responsibility, or a legal responsibility?

              • landstanderNo Gravatar says:

                Why do you assume that medicine is different from any other product on the market. Before I make any major purchase, and medical treatment is a major purchase, I do at least some minor research. I read reviews, compare prices etc.
                By your logic almost everyone that purchases something like Rogain, or almost any other hair loss treatment, would be able to sue the company because their hair did not grow back. They make the extraordinary claim that if you use their product you will at least stop loosing hair.
                I am not sure you understand what a fraud really is. As for their being a legal responsibility, the customer may be able to make a breach of contract claim or a breach or warranty claim, but that all depends on the individual circumstances surrounding the transaction. As regular doctors never claim 100% cures or offer warranties because everyone responds different to treatment, I am sure a homeopathic doctor would not either.

                • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

                  The makers of Rogaine and other pharmaceuticals have extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims. They have to, since the FDA has much stricter standards for real medicine. They are telling the truth when they say that “In clinical testing, ROGAINE® Foam regrew hair in 85% of men after 4 months when used twice daily.” (A better example would be the dubious claims made for nicotine replacement therapy.) Homeopaths are deceiving people when they say “Influenzinum is a great flu defense”.

                  Anyway, my central point was not that pushing homeopathy on unsuspecting consumers should necessarily be illegal, but that homeopathy is a quack treatment and I am disappointed in Seth for bringing discredit upon anarchism by using this blog as a forum to promote it. It’s as bad as the anti-science crap Lew Rockwell posts on a daily basis. And while I see a lot of people jumping on me for allegedly wanting to coercively suppress homeopathy, I still don’t see a jot of evidence that homeopathy works.

              • JustSayNoToStatismNo Gravatar says:

                “What I was trying to say was that there is obviously no fraud in a case where everybody is fully informed of the case for and against homeopathy, but in a real world of imperfect information, does a consumer who realises he’s been deceived into purchasing a quack treatment”

                —In the real world of perfect information, no one has ever been fully informed about ANY purchase. Ever. There are always variables you don’t know and cannot consider. Who should decide how much info is enough? Government to the rescue to establish arbitrary rules and interfere with our choices. Who is to decide whether someone had fraudulent intent? You can’t ever know what their intent was, only their action. If I “believe” in homeopathy and so do my patients, then it’s fine, but if I think it’s fake, then it’s fraud? What if in my practice I did the exact same things as a doctor who believed in them? So I’m a fraud and he’s not? How many hours of research must a patient have done before they are “allowed” to make their own decisions? Who gets to decide what that cut-off point should be? Let me guess, leave it to the overlords to benevolently help the lesser beings.

                Mmmm…the delicious smell of political libertarian stew. Full of wonderful nutrients like inconsistency, worship of an imaginary ‘objective’ authority, and acceptance of initiation of force when convenient. Gotta love it.

  9. JustSayNoToStatismNo Gravatar says:

    “You think consumers should have no legal recourse against fraud? Okay, you’re the “real libertarian.” Congratulations.”
    —That’s as dumb as liberals telling me I hate education when I argue against public schools.

    “it is a small group of cranks rebelling against doctors who use all measures proved of value to help their patients.”
    —Worship their state protected monopoly just a little more. American health care is a fraudulent system. Right now it’s dominated by allopathic medicine. So by volume, most of the fraud is committed by the allopathic branch.

  10. ThinkAnarchyNo Gravatar says:

    Well I read your post as I promised I would in a previous post and feel you make a compelling argument. I am one of those people you mention who didn’t know the difference of the two terms and will do more research before coming to a conclusion.

    The essence of your argument makes sense. I can certainly see how treating the problem is better than treating the symptoms, however I don’t feel I have enough information right now to take an educated stance on this issue.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Thanks for your feedback. I’ve also got some anecdotal articles I will be writing in the not-too-distant future.

  11. Tom in FloridaNo Gravatar says:

    I was victimized at charlotte regional med center, the victim of a failed open heart surgery in 2005. I was also told I NEEDED a right carotid endartectomy, and multiple other vascular surgeries. I could not walk to the mailbox in front of my house and back without stopping because of severe pain in my legs due to 100% blocked right femoral and 90+% blocked left common illiac.
    Instead of allowing these “doctors” to slice and dice a few more times I opted instead for quitting smoking ( now 6+ years, yay! ), change of diet, excercise and intravenous edta chelation therapy.
    After the 10th session of chelation I walked a mile. May not sound like anything but it was an important step in my recovery. I now bicycle 5-10 miles every morning and can speed walk 4-5 miles at an incline on the treadmill. Carotids last checked showed blocked in the less than 50% range, coming down from what they claimed was in the 70′s and surgery needed.
    Pshaw on these quack doctors. Saw a Bentely parked in the doctors parking lot the other day when I was going to the wellness center to work out.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      I’m sorry you had to go through that. Stories such as yours are not uncommon. Thank you for sharing your testimony.

  12. MamaLibertyNo Gravatar says:

    There are MANY more different modalities for medical care than the two mentioned here. The choice is almost infinite and should be limited only by the willingness of people to accept complete personal responsibility for their choices and actions.

    I spent 30 years as an RN in the usual Western medical model, and have since become an alternative medicine practitioner, combining several different naturopathic modalities with the scientific knowledge and experience gained in my nursing career.

    Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      I never meant to say that there were only two methods in medicine. But those two, by definition, are polar opposites. The truth is that all sorts of alternative medicines have been under attack by the government-medical-industrial-complex.

  13. Jane SingletonNo Gravatar says:

    Perhaps Cal Engime is fortunate and healthy. For years I was ill with one thing after another, including increasingly severe and more frequent attacks of asthma and I did what orthodox medicine told me, to no avail. I ended up on a nebuliser. Eventually, 20 years ago, I tried homoeopathy and bingo it worked. Asthma dealt with, no more attacks. I am now 65 and my health has increasingly improved. Why promote orthodox allopathic medicine when it appears only to offer is medicines which seem to have side effects, the knife and various unpleasant procedures . I cannot think of any reason for using orthodox allopathic medicine.

  14. PeterNo Gravatar says:

    Thank you for your good piece. Here are the facts about homeopathy:

    Homeopathy is a 200-year-old system of medicine used successfully by over 200 million people worldwide. It has a laudable and extensively documented clinical record and there are literally hundreds of high quality, peer-reviewed basic science, pre-clinical and clinical studies showing its effects. For more information on this system and the extensive research supporting efficacy, please visit http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-research

    • VivekNo Gravatar says:

      conventional medicine is older than homeopathy. even founder of homeopathy was a physician. but i would like to say that conventional medicine is better choice. we have new modern diagnostic technique. vaccine to control different diseases. even we have eradicated and eliminated some diseases.

      • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

        I don’t know if I would say that modern science-based medicine predates homeopathy, since at the time homeopathy was founded, Western medicine was based on humorism. Despite the tremendous advances made in anatomy during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, treatments were not very rigorously tested, and homeopathic remedies were probably an improvement over bloodletting and purgatives.

  15. dr.mangesh bajadNo Gravatar says:

    here,i am glad to mention that in mumbai,maharashtra state,india one of IT institute going through the research of homoeopathic medicin with latest NANOTECHNOLOGY and obviousely they found there is medicinal content in the dilutions of homoeopathic medicin hence it concurs that homeopathic science is one of the best to serve to sicks…

  16. mkNo Gravatar says:

    I am not supporting allopathic treatment fully because i was suffering from both itching allergy and weak intestine problems, i was taking allopathic treatment from past 1.5 yrs but still the problem continued. Then i started using homeopathy medicines and in just 5 months i was cured with both the problems.
    I don’t understand why people hesitate to take homeopathy medicines and the awareness is also not there.

  17. indyNo Gravatar says:

    I used to be a socialist anarchist and i walked away from it because of it’s stupid obsession with throwing the modern world away in favor of some fairy tale primitivist future, only to come across libertarian blogs like this promoting the same kind of bollocks that I thought I had left behind me. Homeopathic ‘medicine’ being debated!? There is no debate, the trials have been done, again and again, and again, and guess what – it has no greater value than a sugar placebo, because it is a sugar placebo!

    The miracle of a solution dilated to beyond molecular detection, that magically ‘remembers’ the original drop of juice but forgetting the sewers it had previously passed through. But wait, the homeopath taps it against his hand, thus ‘imprinting’ the memory into the water. Silly me, we should just bin the last few centuries of physics, chemistry and biology, homeopathy has found the answer.

    Real medicine is hard, difficult, laborious, people die. Get over it. It takes years and millions in dollars to genuinely come up with effective treatments. Peer-reviewed, evidence-based, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled medicine. Might be tricky to understand all the statistics, but deal with it!!!

  18. EdNo Gravatar says:

    Indy, you missed the point and then some. You’re making the ludicrous argument that “Tom in Florida” should have listened to to the doctors (and by extension, You). Instead of what he did, which proved successful. Where were your so called trials when Tom chose so wisely.

    Anyway, the point is not the debate about methods.. but about the right to choose… and obviously we could sit here and site thousands of cases.
    Why do you care what Tom chooses.. BUTT OUT OF HIS LIFE

    By the way: I always love phamaceutical advertisements that are 50% side effects.. and how those same ad’s quietly disappear after it is found that that there miracle drugs were misrepresented to the tune of tens of millions in profits.. did I hear fraud?

  19. vapoureyesNo Gravatar says:

    Re the Lancet 2005 statistical analysis
    Quote from Manish Batia, extract published source:
    http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/homeopathy-research-the-lan cet/

    “Only 18 studies, out of the total 110 have been classified as ‘classical’. There has been no reference as to how many of these ‘classical’ trials were of ‘high-quality’. If you consider the sample size of these trials and filter only the ‘high-quality’ trials, on which most of the assumptions of this meta-analysis are based, the remaining sample size will itself become statistically insufficient to draw conclusions or to compare it with conventional medicine trials.”

    …sums up, about how credible the report is. Its pointless lumping all the various modalities of Homeopathy together, given that some ‘schools’ of homeopathy operate similar to allopathic practitioners when prescribing ‘combinations’.

  20. MonicaNo Gravatar says:

    I’m new to the ideas of anarchism. Though I simpatize with many I felt I can’t be a ‘real’ anarchist because of many of my beliefs. A belief in a universal energy I want to call, ‘god’. A belief human mind and science do not own ‘the truth’. As a Gestalt therapy student I’ve found personal truths in my body and in my emotions, truths that my mind would have been an obstacle in finding. I believe in homeopathy, I feel diferent when my homeopathy is changed. I’m no longer suffer from high blood pressure. Twice the ovarian cysts I’ve had have dissapeared without surgery or hormones.
    I find in the anarchist blogs I’ve read, particularly in atheist anarchists blogs, a rejection to my ‘not scientifically proved’ deep beliefs. It’s refreshing to find a more open-minded anarchist.

  21. Well in allNo Gravatar says:

    Cal Engime is fixed.Holding on dilutions like always.

    “in mumbai,maharashtra state,india one of IT institute going through the research of homoeopathic medicin with latest NANOTECHNOLOGY and obviousely they found there is medicinal content in the dilutions of homoeopathic medicin hence it concurs that homeopathic science is one of the best to serve to sicks…”
    _I still don’t wanna change Cal Engime’s views.let go where it wants..
    But I won’t say in rush which one is the best.

    Its only a believe that one develops as one fixes oneself in Allopathy that ‘Homoeopathy is quack’.
    Homoeopathy is much younger than that of Allopathy.For over 200 years homoeopathy has been supressed by governments all.
    But still researches are going on in Homoeopathy.

    Why people say Allopathy is great I don’t understand.Homeopathy have the treatment for cancers without affecting our cells. Whereas Allopathy have much more chances to cause affect(also its not what it does,its done by MRI). My Grandma died paralyzed. Allopathy didn’t save Her.Doesn’t mean I’m going to say Allopaths are quack or fraud.
    Similary you should have that common understanding in your mind.
    If you say Homoeopathy is quack, means you are a blind supporter of Allopathy,who doesn’t even atleast tries to except the truth or don’t have a bit knowledge in Homoeopathy.
    Its true that you must have the right to judge,but doesn’t mean you will talk nonscence.
    I am very much disturbed by Cal Engime for his ‘dilutions’ crap.Free suggestion: gain some knowledge or stop talking nonscence.

    Its the lack of awareness only that one suffers from.
    -With best hopes for a change,
    Well in all.

    • Cal EngimeNo Gravatar says:

      Whatever traces of “medicinal content” may have been found in these preparations, it’s still necessary to demonstrate their effectiveness in clinical trials. Positing hypothetical mechanisms by which homoeopathy could work is pointless as long as we know from experiment that it doesn’t.

  22. Well in allNo Gravatar says:

    Who cares if anybody says anything.
    In India there were some backward people before I know who changed their minds as they were been sent back home with Allopath’s verdict that they are gonna die in few months for sure, and later as they tried Homoeopathy with almost no hope, they were absolutely saved by a Homoeopath.
    Its about the doctor.How much brilliant he is.No matter what he is,Allopath or Homoeopath.
    Its sad that due to misconceptions most of the people want to become Allopath not Homoeopath.
    Its pretty surprising for me too.Even now in a modern world you get to hear this sort of comments!

    Cal Engime’s last post is exactly like as it happened to Avery,MacLeod,McCarty’s experiment on ‘Biochemical Characterisation of Transforming Principle’,concluding that DNA is the hereditary material. Not all biologists were convinced at that time but later.

    But at this case I don’t understand about the ‘Hypothetical’ thing.
    If you are absolutely not with this or not interested then in my opinion, one shouldn’t comment on a thing one don’t have an idea.
    Totally unfavorable.

    You think Homoeopathic medicines are water right? Then try curing your Asthma(e.g.) with only water!If it cures then Allopathy rocks.

    Actually if you don’t want to believe then no one is caring.Really.

    Again I want to say the same thing,
    Its the lack of awareness only that one suffers from.
    -With best hopes for a change,
    Well in all.

  23. LaceNo Gravatar says:

    I understand both sides of this debate and am personally an advocate of free choice. People using common sense to decide which form of care would benefit them most efficiently. Given my personal experience I have had better luck with homeopathy regarding my psoriasis than years of allopathy. Years of steroid creams, injections of toxic drugs that would make me physically ill for days and the results of little or no change to my skin, I chose to chat with a homeopath. Just a chat. He suggested I try a all natural coconut milk lotion. I figured what the heck. A week into using it, there has been improvement. I know this is a genetic issue that will never completely be cured but if I can manage the symptoms I will take it. However if I were to get into a car crash and break a bone or need surgery then of course I would want a allopathic facility to handle the broken bones and surgery. Call me crazy but being a medical assistant I trust certain aspects of the mainstream medical field. But have enough common sense to know ice will help my sprained ankle more than a handful of pharmaceutical drugs.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Allopathy is better for trauma whereas homeopathy is better for chronic illness.

      Also, I would say heat is better for a sprained ankle than ice. Ice reduces the swelling. The swelling is good, as that’s what is necessary to heal your sprain.

      Putting ice on a sprain to reduce swelling is allopathy. They are treating the symptom instead of the cause.

      In that case, putting ice on the sprain is actually detrimental to the healing process.

  24. imran mehdi(pharmacist)No Gravatar says:

    i think there should be a neutral trial of homeopathic medicine effect in fully controlled patients . then actual result should depict the figure either homeopathy is fraud or has any effective result

  25. Abhijit Kr. MedhiNo Gravatar says:

    I am 44 years now. Based on my own health history, I must appreciate both the systems-allopathy and homeopathy.I was rescued from an appendix burst with surgery which is an allopathy treatment.Recently I was diagnosed with typhoid and has been cured by allopathy.However, I must admit that I did not opt for homeopathy for my typhoid at all.

    But during my High School and College years I was immensely benefited by homeo treatment in curing my laryngitis-faryngitis and chronic diarrhea in both of which allopathy miserably failed to give me long term relief let alone a cure.

    Presently, I am taking allopathic treatment for my 4 year son’s asthma. Here I am disappointed at allopathy literatures’ declaration that asthma is incurable.Isn’t such a declaration shameful for a system backed by multi billion dollar industry, best of the best brains in pharmaceutical science, Governments of rich countries and what not?

  26. rahul ...No Gravatar says:

    ALL THE DEAREST CRITISIZER OF HOMOEOPAHY PLEASE WHENEVER YOU WILL NOT GET RELIEF FROM ALLOPATHY THEN EXPIRIENCE THE CURE NOT ”JUST RELIEF” BY HOMOEOPATHY….
    AS IT CURES NEVER SUPPRESES……..
    AND DEAR FRIENDS REMEMBER IN THIS WORLD CRITISIZER ARE TO THOSE WHO IS THE BEST NOT THE WORST ….

  27. Andrew PeaseNo Gravatar says:

    Homeopathic: Aid the body in healing it self. The practice in aiding the body’s natural healing properties. Patient centered.

    Aollpathic: Use of man made patent able substances to attack the disease. Doctor centered.

  28. vinod sharmaNo Gravatar says:

    really i m confused. I thought in emergency allopathy is good and some chronic medicine homeopathy is very effective.

  29. HinaNo Gravatar says:

    From the past 10 years, Homeopathy has helped me in almost every problem. Even for my child. The best part is that whenever we take any allopathic medicine for any problem, the symptoms usually go but leaving behind a number of side effects. Whereas the homeopathy does not give such problems. Whatever allopathy could not do for my family, homeopathy has done it. So whosoever is having problems with homeopathy does not know what kind of harmful chemicals/steoroids/antibiotics and what all they are taking inside their body, the so called treatment medicines of allopathy.

    • DRJAGDISHNo Gravatar says:

      Yes Hina you are absolutely right and i m very happy to hear this!almost all allopathic medicines have serious side effects.I am a homoeopathic physician myself.Though in some emergency cases,allopathy doesnt have an option still homoeopathy can cure most chronic incurable cases as declared by allopathy.So thanks for your belief in homoeopathy!!

  30. HomeoNo Gravatar says:

    One – independence to choose the form of treatment should not be curtailed ( irrespective of coverage)
    Second -Whether to use or not to use the body functions (for the cure/correction of the ailment ) has to be decided by an experienced doctor ( one who is allopath and homeopath or seeks the assistance of another)
    Third: Positive or negative Results must not decide which to embrace. They are mere functions.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.