Frae Wikipedia, the free beuk o knawledge
Alternative medicine
Samuel Hahnemann
Samuel Hahnemann, oreeginator o homeopathy
Claims"Like cures like", dilution increases potency, disease caused bi miasms.
Related fieldsAlternative medicine
Year proponed1796
Oreeginal proponentsSamuel Hahnemann
Subsequent proponentsJames Tyler Kent, Constantine Hering, Royal S. Copeland, George Vithoulkas
See an awHumorism, heroic medicine

Homeopathy is a seestem o alternative medicine creatit in 1796 bi Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine o lik cures lik (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms o a disease in halthy fowk wad cure seemilar symptoms in sick fowk.[1] Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presentit as scienteefic - acause homeopathic preparations isnae effective for treatin ony condeetion;[2][3][4][5] lairge-scale studies haes foond homeopathy tae be nae mair effective nor a placebo, indicatin that ony positive effects that follae treatment is anerly due tae the placebo effect, normal recovery frae illness, or regression taewart the mean.[6][7][8]

References[eedit | eedit soorce]

  1. Hahnemann, Samuel (1833). The homœopathic medical doctrine, or "Organon of the healing art". Dublin: W. F. Wakeman. pp. iii, 48–49. Observation, reflection, and experience have unfolded to me that the best and true method of cure is founded on the principle, similia similibus curentur. To cure in a mild, prompt, safe, and durable manner, it is necessary to choose in each case a medicine that will excite an affection similar (ὅμοιος πάθος) to that against which it is employed. Translator: Charles H. Devrient, Esq.
  2. Tuomela, R (1987). "Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P (eds.). Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 98. Springer. pp. 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4. ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
  3. Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics. 26 (9): 508–512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x.
  4. Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century. Springer. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2. ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. Archived frae the original on 20 Apryle 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2017. within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery
  5. Ladyman J (2013). "Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience". In Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3. Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely).
  6. Ernst, E. (2002). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 54 (6): 577–82. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x. PMC 1874503. PMID 12492603.
  7. Shang, Aijing; Huwiler-Müntener, Karin; Nartey, Linda; Jüni, Peter; Dörig, Stephan; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Pewsner, Daniel; Egger, Matthias (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". The Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589.
  8. "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy - Science and Technology Committee". Breetish Hoose o Commons Science and Technology Committee. 22 Februar 2010. Archived frae the original on 19 September 2015. Retrieved 5 Apryle 2014.