Changes

==History of Homoeopathy==

==History of Homoeopathy==

At the time of its emerge, homoeopathy must be conceded quite "scientific" a character, in accordance with definitions valid at that time. After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically, checking theses in self-experiments.  

At the time of its emerge, homoeopathy must be conceded quite "scientific" a character, in accordance with definitions valid at that time. After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically, checking theses in self-experiments.  

One can grant homoeopathy thoroughly "scientific" character at time of its development (according to definition at that time). After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically and checked his thesis at experiments on himself. Due to the increase in knowledge occured since, this theory appears interesting merely from a medico-historical point of view. Due to the lack of evidence of efficacy, homoeopathy cannot be regarded as a serious medical method. At Hahnemann's times, neither clinical thermometers had been invented nor had knowledge of bacteria been acquired, instead there were weird explanations (e.g. miasma theories of pathogenic vapours emanating from the soil), so Hahnemann's model must be seen as quite sensible from a historical point of view. From today's view, after more than two centuries of an enormous gain in knowledge, one can assume that even Hahnemann, given today's knowledge, felt inclined to ridicule his apologists. Thus homoeopathy was fiercely criticized already more than 100 years ago (see links). The law of similars does not go back to Hahnemann; analogical concepts already existed prior to Hahnemann (e.g. in England).

Due to the increase in knowledge occured since, this theory appears interesting merely from a medico-historical point of view. Due to the lack of evidence regarding efficacy, homoeopathy cannot be regarded as a serious medical method. At Hahnemann's times, neither clinical thermometers had been invented nor had knowledge of bacteria been acquired, instead there were weird explanations (e.g. miasma theories of pathogenic vapours emanating from the soil), so Hahnemann's model must be seen as quite sensible from a historical point of view. From today's view, after more than two centuries of an enormous gain in knowledge, one can assume that even Hahnemann, given today's knowledge, felt inclined to ridicule his apologists. Thus homoeopathy was fiercely criticized already more than 100 years ago (see links). The law of similars does not go back to Hahnemann; analogical concepts already existed prior to Hahnemann (e.g. in England).

It is furthermore remarkable that some of the recommendations given in Hahnemann's Organon are not being propagated broadly any longer, such as applying hot turpentine to scaldings. While Hahnemann's teachings thus are, quite appropriately, partly rejected as outdated and unfounded, particulary with treatments showing immediate effect or failure, other parts of his teachings are still being marketed profitably, in particular those allowing a placebo effect.

It is furthermore remarkable that some of the recommendations given in Hahnemann's Organon are not being propagated broadly any longer, such as applying hot turpentine to scaldings. While Hahnemann's teachings thus are, quite appropriately, partly rejected as outdated and unfounded, particulary with treatments showing immediate effect or failure, other parts of his teachings are still being marketed profitably, in particular those allowing a placebo effect.