Homeopathy, as everyone sensible knows, is a form of fraudulent quackery masquerading as a treatment of the sick.
Website The Quackometer wrote a piece on the Society of Homeopaths earlier this year, which the SoH objected to and did an Usmanov by issu…

Similarly, those blokes who sell dog piss and coloured water as ‘designer perfume’ along Oxford Street must be selling the real thing, because they still get customers.

Homeopathy is good in one respect, in that it increases the chances the terminally gullible will die young.

If conventional medicine is so brilliant (and free at the point of delivery on the NHS), and homoeopathy is ineffective, why do countless people pay for it and report how good it is? Surely, after 200 years the public that Newsnight treated as a bunch of fools would have found that homoeopathy didn’t work at all.

Orthodox medics talk grandly about “evidence-based medicine”, and write off 200 years of homoeopathic treatment (and therefore millions of successes) as “anecdotal”. This implies the patients and practitioners are making it up! This evidence is, in fact, empirical, and is used by conventional medics every time they prescribe a drug that helps with a condition it isn’t licensed for: they call it “clinical evidence” and will go on prescribing it even if no evidence by their own standards ever emerges.

Homeopathy uses the powerful placebo affect, but that’s all. It’s also likely that practitions spend more time with their hypochondriacs, sorry, patients than allopathic practioners would – which gives the patient a feeling of well-being.

I fought a recent chest infection without any antibiotics (which is the usual practice) and I got over it. Had I taken homeopathic medicine I would have gotten better just as quickly. The anti-biotics would be faster because they actually do what they say; but my body fought and won.