The Effectiveness of Homeopathic Medicine

Homeopathic medicine has been a popular source of treatment in the western world for ages. A lot of progressive people believe in its efficacy. However, scientific studies have shown that there is little evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathic medicine. Patients who regularly take this treatment often state that the lack of proof of its healing power is due to corporations doing their best to make sure alternative medicines do not take away their profits. In my opinion, though, it is difficult to accept that a wide-scale operation to discredit scientific studies on homeopathic medicine is underway. In the following paragraphs, I will go into detail about the studies and information about why this type of treatment is not effective in the eyes of science.

Homeopathy rallies against common treatments

One of the most alarming facts about homeopathy is that the industry and its specialists often spread information against normal drugs, treatments, care, and solutions. They also make false or strange claims about the origin of illnesses. This makes it detrimental to patients who truly need to heal and solve their medical issues. These contradictions have been a barb in the side of specialists who desire to treat people effectively (Spence, James).

Positive research results because of chance, bias, and flawed methods

Sometimes, studies on homeopathic medicine come out in favor of its effectiveness. However, systematic reviews of this research have found that they are riddled with results determined by chance, reporting bias, and flawed methods (Caulfield, Timothy, and Suzanne DeBow). To be more precise, in the article Serious mistakes in meta-analysis of homeopathic research, it is noted that “The main flaw was that trials reflect the point of view that the treatment with a specific remedy could be administered in a particular disease. However, homeopathy aims to treat the whole person, rather than the diseases and each case has to be treated individually with an individualized remedy. Furthermore, the commonly known events during the course of homeopathic treatment, such as “initial aggravation” and “symptom-shift” were not considered in almost all the studies” (Vithoulkas, G.). This points to the fact that many studies that were done on this alternative treatment do not stay true to its principles and vie to bend results in their favor.

Negative results of tests are the most methodical

With the most positive studies on homeopathic medicine lacking professionalism, usually the trails that show negative outcomes are the most rigorous. In effect, the Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group concluded that “There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies” (Cucherat, M, et al.). This is a clear indication that the effectiveness of homeopathic medicine should be questioned.

Though the use of alternative medicine is a trend now in the western world, it does not mean it is a good solution to medical ailments. In fact, homeopathy in particular not only sways people away from traditional treatment, but also no hard evidence has been able to prove its efficacy. The positive results of trials have been shown to have an element of chance, reporter bias, and flawed methodology. Finally, most rigorous tests have demonstrated that homeopathic medicine incurs negative results.

Works Cited
Caulfield, Timothy, and Suzanne DeBow. “A Systematic Review of How Homeopathy Is Represented in Conventional and CAM Peer Reviewed Journals.” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, BioMed Central, 14 June 2005, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1177924/.
Cucherat, M, et al. “Evidence of Clinical Efficacy of Homeopathy. A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group.” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK), Apr. 2000, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874.
Spence, James. “Allopathy And Homœopathy.” The Lancet, vol. 59, no. 1479, 1852, p. 25., doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)59148-0.
Vithoulkas, G. “Serious Mistakes in Meta-Analysis of Homeopathic Research.” Journal of Medicine and Life, Carol Davila University Press, 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304371/.