Frae Wikipedia
Lowp tae: navigation, rake
Alternative medicine
Samuel Hahnemann
Samuel Hahnemann, oreeginator o homeopathy
Claims "Like cures like", dilution increases potency, disease caused bi miasms.
Relatit fields Alternative medicine
Year proponed 1796
Oreeginal proponents Samuel Hahnemann
Subsequent proponents James Tyler Kent, Constantine Hering, Royal S. Copeland, George Vithoulkas
MeSH D006705
See an aa Humorism, heroic medicine

Homeopathy is a seestem o alternative medicine creautit 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. Homeopathic preparations are nae effective for treatin ony condeetion;[2][3][4][5] lairge-scale studies hae foond homeopathy tae be no mair effective nor a placebo, indicatin that ony positive effects that follae treatment are 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. 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. 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. 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 1874503Freely accessible. 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. Februar 22, 2010. Retrieved Aprile 5, 2014.