Judging by recent BBC programmes, and articles attacking homoeopathic remedies, one would think that conventional medical science had conclusively disproved the benefits of homoeopathy. It is always instructive to ask oneself a couple of questions on these occasions:-
1) Cui bono? Who benefits by these attacks?
2) What is the evidence? Have the necessary scientific trials taken place and what do they show?
The answer to the first question is blindingly obvious. The British Medical Association, representing conventional doctors and backed by the pharmaceutical industry, is worried about treatments which we are told cost 0.01% of the NHS’ budget. Why are they concerned, and what do they have to hide?
On the second issue, it has become clear that there is plenty of scientific evidence in favour of some homoeopathic remedies, e.g. Belladonna used to fight Japanese Encephalitis**; and that attempts have been made to undermine positive trials of homoeopathy generally (see What Doctors Don’t Tell You).
** see the printed article:-
But apart from newspaper articles in India (where millions of people depend on homoeopathic remedies), where is the balanced reporting?