That's just what Wikipedia says, which has the 'standard' view regarding anything. There ARE actually scientific articles showing that certain homeopathic principles, however strange sounding, do work. For example homeopaths add some substance to water then dilute it, dilute it again and over and over to such an extent that in the final dilution one may not be able to see even one molecule of the added substance. So how could it work? But scientific articles show that this water is different in some way from just normal water. The British royal family has it's own homeopaths! The other part is that the body itself is the biggest healing agent and is constantly fixing itself. But sometimes the self-healing process breaks down. In homeopathy the practitioner takes an incredle amount of interest in every little detail of the patient's life and every little habit, every little feeling.- not the 5 minute allopathic visit. This might get the patient awakened to himself/herself and may reactivate the self-healing. I myself have not had much luck with homeopathy. But my mother's sister took up homeopathy with great intensity in middle age and set up a clinic. After a while she became a sensation as news of healing of incurables began to spread. One case was a woman who had advanced breast cancer with suppurating sores who had been given up on by the allopaths but who was completely healed. Later she abruptly stopped her practice due to personal reasons and for more than a year my mother was besieged with calls from people desperately trying to seif she could persaude my aunt to look at their problems. Then there is the other part which Wikipedia will also deny has any validity - but I've found in my aunt's case and in the case of a friend's wife who is a long time Ayurvedic practitioner (which also involves taking very extensive case history) that it might have something to do with the medical practitioner. The 'Healing Touch' so to say. So some practitioners will be quite useless while others accomplish near-miracles. That make it quite complicated. WIth allopathy it is quite impersonal. Anyone can take 2 500 mg. tablets of paracetamol and the headache will be gone. For now anyway. And if you do it regularly it will have negative effects on the liver. The point is it doesn't matter if you believe in paracetamol or not. I think with homeopathy one can't say my cousin's homeopath prescribed Mag. Phos. so I'll skip the long consultation and just buy some and take it
--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Jogesh Motwani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Jogesh Motwani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [ZESTAlternative] Wikipedia on Homoeopathy - let's put it right guys To: "zest" <zestalternative@yahoogroups.com>, "Dr. Leo Rebello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 12:58 AM Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[4][5][6][7] Common homeopathic preparations are often indistinguishable from the pure diluent because the purported medicinal compound is diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product;[8] the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible[9][10] and violates fundamental principles of science,[11] including the law of mass action.[11] Critics also object that the number of high-quality studies that support homeopathy is small, the conclusions are not definitive, and duplication of the results, a key test of scientific validity, has proven problematic at best.[12] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[13] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience[14] or quackery.[15] -- What needs to be done: Log into Wiki and challenge this pararaph, its location in the piece, and the entire tone of the article. Attack mainstream "scientific" quackery in the same tone. Leo, Jagannath, your move. - Jogesh
