Kudos to u guys; u both seem to be very well educated and well read about Homoeopathy. And our dear friend modemnoise seems to be handling the PR for his native palmist.I wonder if u people know how many types of arthritis are there, seeing u comment so liberally on a subject that people have spent lifetimes studying and researching. It immensely pains me to inform sharath that homoeopathic (yes its HOMOEOPATHY, not HOMEOPATHY) medicines are not ‘water’, but are prepared in 94% alcohol in manufacturing units the size of any allopathic pharmaceutical unit. And I being a doctor very well know what ‘Placebo Effect’ is. As for it, let me inform all the uninitiated that homoeopathy has successfully treated new-born babies, infants, as well as dogs, horses, cattle and many other animals of ailments varying from intractable infections, chronic diarrheas, food poisonings, as also assisting in speedy healing of fractures, preventing secondary infections. Needless to say, most of the ‘patients’ failed to respond to allopathy. According to u people, maybe all the animals were told in their respective languages that they were being given medicines, leading to ‘placebo effect’; hmm…maybe that’s possible. Most of the people, (including the ones behind Lancet studies) are doctors having little, if any, knowledge about homoeopathy and its modus operandi. If a homoeopathic journal today prepares any allopathic medicine in the way a homoeopathic medicine is done, and tests it on volunteers, it’s sure not to work. Does that mean that allopathic medicines do not work at all? Get my point???
Just as an allopathic study is conducted in a pre-determined way, homoeopathic trials are also conducted under set norms, the procedure being known as Drug proving under Single-blind and double blind method. Just as I being a homoeopath cannot voice my comment on the efficacy and dosage of allopathic medicines, no non-homoeopath under the sun can comment on a science that they have no knowledge about. I have known allopathic physicians and surgeons who have converted to homoeopathy, and I have also had the privilege of studying under surgeons, orthopedists, gynaecologists, paediatricians and other medical stalwarts who use homoeopathy freely in pre-operative, post-operative, acute conditions like acute exacerbation of asthma, neonatal conditions as also in conditions which would otherwise require surgery. For the record, I have also studied under homoeopathic physicians who have successfully treated end-stage brain-tumor patients who had been sounded the death-bell by oncologists, failing chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. I would rather stand by the testament of such true healers in their belief in a science that they see curing patients day in and day out since decades, than those who would rather sit beside a laptop passing comments on a subject that they have chosen to rubbish indiscriminately with skeptical spectacles, without any knowledge of it at all.
I do not say homoeopathy is a complete science; I say it is just as complete or as incomplete as any other branch of medicine including Ayurved, Unani and Allopathy, with its own merits and limitations.
The question is never about which science is better or which branch is rubbish; it is always about what will benefit the patient best at what point of time. That should always be the mantra of a True Practitioner of the noble profession of Medicine.
I rest my case.