How do you explain Homeopathy?

Most non-homeopaths have been misled into thinking that homeopathy is based on the prescription of highly diluted substances. This is what Wikipedia states and is also what many professional organisations for homeopaths state in their websites. Most individuals and even patients also believe that homeopathy is about the potentised remedies. It is this belief that attracts scorn from the scientific world, press, broadcasters, comedians and a lot of the public, but it is incorrect.

Also, most, if not all, scientific trials test for the efficacy of these potentised substances and these tests do not test homeopathy. Even so, the scientists conducting these trials believe they are testing homeopathy. How could they get it so wrong? Why do we let them get away with it? As homeopaths, we have been trying to explain homeopathy for years and so far we have apparently done a really bad job. It is time for a change. We need a simple explanation of homeopathy that we can all agree upon, something we can all unite behind.

The explanation, not a definition, that we have come up with is in two parts. Two parts are needed to emphasise an important point that is missed in other explanations.

The first is: Homeopathy is a prescription that causes a reaction in the patient.

A remedy becomes homeopathic only when it matches the symptoms of the patient, so it is the act of prescribing that makes it homeopathy. Notice that there is no mention of dilutions because this is not a requirement for homeopathy.

The second part is: this reaction cures the patient.

Many times we slip into the short-hand thinking of believing that it is the remedy that does the curing and that is where our detractors also go wrong: this is allopathy. This second part, although short is actually complex and contains the idea of similars and the vital force. Of course you could make the explanation more detailed but that isn’t the point at the moment.

If the homeopathic community can unite behind this single explanation we can at least partially silence our detractors.

What is currently used as an explanation is the phrase "like cures like". While this is a succinct explanation and useful for homeopaths, it allows non-homeopaths to believe the prescribed remedy does the work and not the reaction from the patient. This then leads to the inevitable focus on the remedy and its ‘strength’ instead of the way the remedy is selected. Without meaning to, we mislead by using this phrase.

To recap on the new explanation: Homeopathy is a prescription that causes a reaction in the patient; this reaction cures the patient. This is an explanation that allows for single or complex prescribing or any sort of prescribing as long as it is the reaction that does the curing. Correct remedy selection is also implied and minimum dose is a natural next step.

Allopathy can then be explained in a similar way as: a prescription that removes the problem. Usually using an anti-drug (antibiotics, anti-depressants, anti-inflammatories, anti-virals), taking little account of the patient. This explanation could be accepted by both homeopaths and allopaths. And now the difference between the two therapies can be clearly seen.

Adopting this explanation would take away the ability to pour scorn on homeopathy because the emphasis has shifted to the method of remedy selection and away from diluted substances.

There are many hypotheses as to how potentised remedies may cause a reaction in a patient but as yet there is no scientific explanation. While so many of us hold different views about how potentised remedies cause a reaction they are all speculations, it is probably better to just know that they can cause a reaction, rather than make claims as to how.

John Boulderstone

If this was helpful to you, please e-mail me and leave a comment on John's website:

www.explainhomeopathy.com