Most people have heard about homeopathy, some good and some maybe not so good.  Allopathic doctors and the community tend to discount homeopathy quickly as quackery and recently the UK is looking at revoking funding for homeopathic research. The reason given is there isn’t enough evidence to support it and it gives no better results than the placebo effect.  Keep in mind that the placebo is at least 30% effective, higher in some studies, and this effective rate has some pharmaceutical companies nervous. This all begs the question, if there is research stating that the placebo effect has positive benefits and homeopathy is no better than a placebo, wouldn’t we want to investigate it as a likely healing modality that at its very foundation is to “do no harm?”

Dana Ullman in his amazing article, The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: The Historical and Scientific Evidence, highlights the successes of homeopathy that is being overlooked by the scientific community. In his opening paragraph he states:

First, to clarify, advocating for or using homeopathic medicines does not preclude appreciation for or use of selective conventional medical treatment. Advocates of homeopathy simply honor the Hippocratic tradition of “First, do no harm” and therefore seek to explore and utilize safer methods before resorting to more risky treatments. This perspective has historical and international roots, and it is thus no surprise that American health care which has been so resistant to homeopathic and natural therapies in its mainstream institutions is presently ranked 37th in the world in the performance of its health care system.(1) In comparison, the number one ranked country in the world is France, a country in which around 40 percent of the population uses homeopathic medicines and around 30 percent of its family physicians prescribe them (2).

This is an important statement because many people assume that if you are an advocate for homeopathy you are against all conventional medicine. And yet, the statistics, ie the facts, show that there is something significantly wrong with America’s approach to health care. If France is ranked number one, then shouldn’t we review and study what they are doing differently?

Ullman goes on to speak about some of the historical successes of homeopathy like:

• homeopathy’s notable successes in treating epidemics of cholera, yellow fever, scarlet fever, typhoid, pneumonia, or influenza
• studies testing the effects of homeopathic medicines on cell cultures, plants, animals, physics experiments, and chemistry trials have shown statistically significant effects
• hundreds of thousands, even millions, of medical doctors learned conventional medicine but have used homeopathic medicines in conjunction with or (commonly) as replacement for conventional medicines
• four double-blind placebo controlled trials has shown benefit from the homeopathic medicine,Oscillococcinum, in the treatment of influenza.
• over 100 million people in India depend solely on this form of medical care

The wisdom and gentle approach of homeopathy is often deeply misunderstood because of its basis in energetic medicine, resonant medicine, and not tangible molecules that can be tested the way most trials are currently ran. When you have an allopathically trained doctor running tests on homeopathic medicines there are bound to be errors; homeopathic medicines by their very nature require a different approach, one that they most often are not trained on. This doesn’t mean we should ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ but rather continue to do research in light of all the benefits that have been received by individuals and whole countries.

I encourage all of you to read Dana Ullman’s great article on The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: The Historical and Scientific Evidence and decide what makes sense to you. If you have had success with homeopathy, either in my practice or another, please share your experiences below. The wisdom needs to speak for itself, not the fear of those who misunderstand.