|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Some people argue that since homeopathic substances amount to placebos in
> practice, the entire phenomenon of homeopathy is more or less innocuous
> (unless you count people spending money on it for nothing).
>
> Not so:
http://www.news.com.au/national/babys-eczema-death-was-parents-fault/story-e6frfkvr-1225708504277
Actually, homeopathy did have one enormous benefit in the past.
Until around 170 years ago, allopathy (what we recognize as conventional
medicine) was still stuck in the quackery that characterized medicine
during the Dark Ages; Mark Twain mentions in one of his essays that the
shift from the ancient quackery to modern competence took place during
his lifetime. Most of the success that allopathy appeared to have back
then was due to the placebo effect, and some of the treatments did more
harm than good.
Then along came homeopathy. Allopathy was so ineffective (and in some
cases, downright harmful) that homeopathy was usually as effective, and
often better. This prompted allopathic practitioners to put aside their
Galen-worship and conduct some actual research, leading to the discovery
of the new, effective treatments that replaced the old, dangerous ones.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |