strategy

Defending homeopathy

Context:

The status of homeopaths varies across Europe. In France, Italy and Belgium, homeopaths are not legally recognized but are usually medical practitioners. In Germany, where homeopathy is recognized, you do not need to be a qualified doctor to practise. Britain has the least restrictive regulations -- anyone can practise homeopathy as long as they do not harm patients.

In the late nineteeth century, 15% of US physicians were homeopathic physicians. The American Medical Association (AMA) was seriously threatened clinically, philosophically and economically by homeopaths. As distinct from other unorthodox practitioners, homeopaths graduated from respected medical schools. The AMA was so threatened by homeopathy that from 1860 to the early 1900s a conventional physician would lose their membership in the AMA if they simply consulted with a homeopath. The AMA and drug companies also applied pressure on various funding sources so that the homeopathic schools had difficulty staying alive.

Claim:

There has been good scientific research published in medical journals and other scientific publications. For example, The Lancet of 20 September 1997 published a review of 89 double-blind or randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors conclude that the clinical effects of homeopathic medicines are not simply the results of placebo. In fact, they found that homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo.

Counter Claim:

Nothing warrants the clinical use of homeopathy today. Studies supporting the practice are just statistical noise.

Broader:
Defending
Type Classification:
G: Very Specific strategies
Related UN Sustainable Development Goals:
GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being