Homeopathic reasoning a head-scratcher

To the editor:

To the editor:

I am writing in regard to the column: Open Your Mind To Treatment Alternatives, by John Sherman, Capital News, Wednesday, Jan. 26.

I have now gone over the letter three times and I still find myself scratching my head. Mr. Sherman’s main point seems to be that just because no one can find any active ingredients in homeopathic remedies (as stated in a recent CBC episode of Marketplace) doesn’t mean that they don’t have active ingredients or that they don’t work.

This seems odd. It’s as if Mr. Sherman is saying never mind the evidence to the contrary, homeopathy works and needs no proof to back it up.

The writer goes on to claim that homeopaths practice energetic medicine not physical medicine but he never gives us a definition of ‘energetic’ or how it works. We are given Aspirin as an example of physical medicine. We know aspirin works, it has been tested extensively. But we get no such example for so called ‘energy medicine.’

I hoped he would have included a few alternatives to aspirin to give us a chance to study them and test there efficacy.

As with so many alternatives medicines, homeopathy does not seem to like vaccinations. The reason, according to the column, is that “homeopathic philosophy says we can’t treat some unknown future situation.” He goes on to say that families should decide for themselves about vaccines.

As this take-it-or-leave-it attitude, prevalent in the public’s mind since the late ’90s, swirls around the planet we see diseases that were virtually wiped out 50 years ago once again making a come back. In England, for example, they are recording deaths due to measles and other preventable childhood diseases.

Mr. Sherman claims that homeopathic philosophy says we cannot treat future disease. We can and we do!

Homeopathy it seems is a hodge podge of unproven philosophies and unproven treatment with a history of misleading the public whether deliberately or not.

As I was researching homeopathy, I came across the following phrase again and again: “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”

If Mr. Sherman wants us to open our minds to alternative treatments those treatments must have some scientific validity, must have some active ingredients, must be proven in double blind studies to do better than a placebo. So far homeopathy does none of these things.

David Janzen,

Kelowna