“Homeopathy is not science”
There are critics who claim that homeopathy is ‘pseudoscience’ and only non-scientists are interested in the subject.
In fact, scientists in highly respected universities, research institutions and hospitals around the world are carrying out research into homeopathy using the same research techniques as those used to investigate conventional medical treatments.
Homeopathy research is a relatively new field, but the number of articles published in peer reviewed journals has risen significantly over the past 40 years.
This lag behind conventional medicine is hardly surprising when one considers the lack of funding available e.g. in the UK less than 0.0085% of the medical research budget is spent on research into complementary and alternative medicines.1
International Research Conferences
The inaugural HRI International Homeopathy Research Conference was held in Barcelona in June 2013. The programmed included presentations by 5 Professors and 40 doctors (PhDs or medics) from over 20 countries, covering clinical, experimental and veterinary research. Abstracts, filmed presentations and the conference report can be viewed here.
The 2nd HRI International Research Conference, held in Rome on 5-7 June 2015, continued the ongoing theme of Cutting Edge Research. The programme included presentations on clinical, fundamental and basic research, by 6 Professors and 28 doctors (PhDs or medics) from 17 countries. The abstracts, filmed presentations and conference report can be viewed here.
So in what way is homeopathy ‘unscientific’?
Well-qualified scientists in respected institutions are now carrying out high quality basic research, clinical research and veterinary research in homeopathy, and are reporting positive results which are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Therefore the only basis for the argument that it is ‘pseudoscience’ is that we do not know how homeopathy works.
Usually, when a phenomenon is observed which cannot be explained by what ‘science’ already knows, this triggers fresh scientific enquiry – it is not dismissed as ‘unscientific’ purely because it has yet to be understood.