What is so bad about homeopathy?
The social and traditional media are currently full of critical reports about homeopathy. There does not seem to be any discernible reason for this. It is vehemently demanded that the health insurance funds should no longer pay for this quackery. Even the Greens may wish to take a stand at their conference of delegates in November as a result of a motion against homeopathy. All this gives the impression of a campaign...
The social and traditional media are currently full of critical reports on homeopathy. There does not seem to be a recognizable occasion. It is vehemently demanded, the health insurance companies are not likely to pay for this quackery. Even the Greens may be forced to take a stand at their delegate conference in November by filing an application against homeopathy. All this gives the impression of a campaign. So heated is the anti-sentiment that it is stylized into nationwide high-level scandal when a politician occasionally visits a homeopathy manufacturer in his constituency, or takes the patronage of a homeopathy congress. The arguments against homeopathy are largely valid, but the fury with which they are presented and prioritized is very astonishing. Few health insurance companies reimburse expenses for homeopathic preparations. The cost of this is around half a thousandth of the total expenditure on medication reimbursements. The FDP in Lower Saxony, it was worth a claim against homeopathy for the treatment of animals that two (!) Courses for farmers had received state funding. Why is this so hotly debated, and not much more about how to deal with cancer drugs that cost hundreds of thousands of euros per patient per year, or how to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry focuses more on resources that provide real value bring. There would be a high multiple of money to save in case of success. In fact, scientific methods have failed to demonstrate that homeopathic drugs, with their extremely dilute drugs, have an effect that is greater than the placebo effect. But what does that mean? It is said that in controlled trials, where some patients receive the drug, another a placebo, the positive effect is as great in the placebo patients as in those receiving the true drug. Here are a few things to say. 1. The effect of a biochemically ineffective drug on the placebo effect is often quite large, and in the case of homeopathic believers, it is likely to be particularly great if they are given the usual treatment for homeopaths.2. The attraction of homeopathy lies essentially in the holistic approach, which refrains from reducing the human body to biochemical and mechanical functions. Typically, as part of a comprehensive anamnesis (survey), the diet, as well as psychological and social stressors, which are considered as disease triggers, are discussed. This can help patients to improve their diet, attitude or living conditions. In trials geared to mainstream medicine, this probably more important part of the treatment is hidden and the study is reduced to the effect of the globules. But from the good anamnesis placebo patients as well as patients benefit from real homeopathy preparations. 3. Perhaps the whole hocus-pocus of the homeopaths around the memory of the water only serves to provide an effective placebo effect to supplement the other measures. To make it easier for patients to perceive and accept improvement. Then it would still be a good thing if it helps. More likely, the hocus-pocus was and is meant seriously. This does not detract from the positive placebo effect, which may explain why homeopathy has been so successful for so long.4. The people I know, who at least partially trust homeopathy (I do not own one), are all very health conscious, consume little medication, and on average, health insurance companies are on average less costly than those who have full confidence in the power of conventional medicine.5 , Admittedly, there is the problem that people in serious diseases instead of effective medication on homeopathy, naturopathy or other ineffective treatment methods. How common this is is in question. Because the countermeasure is clear. Anyone who supports this as a doctor must be held accountable. That happens too. My conclusion: As the campaign against homeopathy succeeds, our health care system will become more expensive, but not more effective.
Andreas Triebel:
Homeopathy can only be seen in relation to established medicine. In the cash-financed medical company, the doctor represents the society, he alone decides on benefits from the contribution pot and exercises thereby a power function. The patient submits and receives the benefits. Because of the knowledge advantage and the unrestricted authority, the patient has no chance to contradict or to consider individual needs. Otherwise, there is a risk of loss of performance and the prospect of being alone at the mercy of fate. He must therefore completely submit to the mediated by the person of the doctor's claim to power.
The rituals deeply rooted in human history, such as taking pills, obscure this connection. As communion in church history, the sacrament belongs to its secularized form, the prescription of drugs to the essentials of the community relationship.
The inner conflict over the limitless individual needs for oral gratification is transformed into a ritualized form and mitigated. This explains the worldwide triumph of the anti-fat pill (framed with the cholesterol narrative).
The mediators of the globules outside the "science" based system do nothing else, but at the same time allow the patient to present their personal needs and thus create a feeling of autonomy and satisfaction.
Nevertheless, the insistence on magical thinking expresses the resistance to the claim to rule associated with the scientific world view.