Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared
1467-8519/asset/BIOE_left.gif?v=1&s=3b05bc86c343041a1446a18dd409e5a52324e3dc)
1467-8519/asset/BIOE_right.gif?v=1&s=0d433c41384786c9c12157a472a71b210cad5219)
FOR HOMEOPATHY: A PRACTISING PHYSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE
Article first published online: 17 APR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01949.x
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Additional Information
How to Cite
MOSKOWITZ, R. (2012), FOR HOMEOPATHY: A PRACTISING PHYSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE. Bioethics, 26: 499–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01949.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 14 OCT 2012
- Article first published online: 17 APR 2012
Keywords:
- homeopathy;
- placebo;
- biological activity;
- the law of similars;
- infinitesimal doses
ABSTRACT
This article is a rebuttal to Kevin Smith's ‘Against Homeopathy,’ which was posted on 14 February 2011.1 It contends that his argument rests entirely on the assumption that homeopathic remedies are nothing but placebos. His argumentation is good, but his assumption is false. Evidence is presented to show that the Law of Similars is plausible and that ultradilute remedies do indeed have biological activity.