"When one has eliminated the impossible, what remains must be true, however unlikely it seems. " -- Sherlock Holmes
Many years ago, I treated a woman for hepatitis C. The results have been published and republished before. Neither the fact nor the professional and scholarly dissertation of the events are news. The Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, Homeopathy NewZ and Homeopathy in Practice published articles about the event. (I prefer to discuss people and events--not "cases".) A copy of the July 2003 issue of Homeopathy in Practice is available . Copies of the blood work from the woman's medical doctor, before and after homeopathic treatment, were submitted, along with the original article to the editor of the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy. The doctor who did the blood work was treating this woman totally independently of me. What has never been discussed are the full range of trite ancillary issues. The circular logic of naysayers. The so-called scientists clinging to their epicycles and clearly clinging to a belief system not a science based upon observation. The application of advanced scientific methods such as Occom's Razor appear not to be part of conventional Western 'scientific' medicine.
This woman, Jane we'll call her, had a history of abusing alcohol and drugs. She had seen many friends die, going the route of alcohol / drug abuse, damaged liver, hepatitis, AIDS, death. She had also experienced my suggestions of taking homeopathic remedies for some annoying constitutional conditions. The homeopathic remedy worked as I told it would. She had a reaction to the remedy. Then, got better. She had also seen her daughter's very quick recovery from being bedridden and knocked from a week long "cold virus that was going around". After a week of taking cough syrups and not getting better, her daughter took a homeopathic remedy, went to sleep within 20 minutes and woke up fine. The logical conclusions to draw from these events is that homeopathy works.
So, when she was diagnosed with hepatitis C, she sought my advice. I was not yet an experienced homeopath. I was skeptical in my ability to help. But, how could I refuse? I took a history. Did an analysis. Suggested a remedy. She took the homeopathic remedy. The very next day after taking the remedy, she took a new blood test. In one day, after taking a homeopathic remedy, her blood showed no signs of hepatitis C. That blood test was done totally independently of me. The logical conclusions to draw from these events is that homeopathy works.
Her doctor was in total shock. Her doctor asked her rhetorically, "What did you do? Did you get a liver transplant?"
The woman answered, "I prayed to God and went to a very good homeopath that I know."
An answer the doctor could not accept. The doctor asked again, "No really, what did you do?"
The woman repeated her answer, "I prayed to God and went to a very good homeopath that I know."
Personally, I find the aged argument that homeopathy can't work because "there is nothing in it" as ridiculous and medieval as saying air does not exist because we can not see it. I have seen the results so often, that it would be ridiculous for me to deny that homeopathy works. When I tell skeptics that science is based upon observation and I have repeatedly observed homeopathy work; they respond with "You have come to the wrong conclusion." Who is clinging to their epicycles now?
Spontaneous remission? Really? Another epicycle to cling to. Placebo response? Faith healing? It has been over a decade and this woman is still hepatitis C free. The same results keep on coming up in her blood work. I doubt faith healing would last that long. A placebo response certainly would not last that long.
As for the times that homeopathy does not work vs. when conventional medical treatment does not work; do you say conventional medicine is quackery when you go to a doctor and are not cured? Many people do go to doctors, especially for chronic diseases and do not get relief. The reasons given are the doctor is not a good doctor. The patient is "not responding to treatment". Or, another course of treatment is suggested. Does the same not apply to homeopathy and homeopaths? With an additional caveat, remedies can lose their potency. Sometimes the right remedy is selected but, the quality or potency of the remedy is poor. Let us not forget those (clients) who do not follow instructions (and skeptics who do not follow the rules then complain it does not work).
There is another common scenario of being scientific to consider. Often, a homeopath makes a homeopathic recommendation to a person. The person takes the remedy. Then, the person tells the homeopath, 'It did not work.' When the homeopath goes down the list of ailments the person had complained about, it suddenly dawns on the person, that the person is better. Sometimes, the improvement is observable. I have been through this scenario before.
The individual did not suddenly "believe". The individual thought about what happened, the events. Reflected on their personal experience. Then, came to a conclusion.
Many individuals who "believe" in homeopathy have personal stories of being cured from some chronic disease. Their so-called belief is based upon a life experience. That's science. For homeopaths who treat people and repeatedly see the same results, improvement in health by following a law of nature, that is science: A conclusion based upon a repeated observable fact.
Maybe, it is time you tried an experiment with these off-the-shelf drugs, labeled safe by the FDA (HPUS)? Really, if there is nothing in it, what are you worried about? See for yourself if they do something or not. Just remember to follow the rules of homeopathy while trying your experiment. Which means, among other things, that you will probably have more dramatic results and an easier choice of a remedy, especially for a layman, with an acute disease than a chronic disease. Remember, 'Like Cures Like'. Good luck!