Dalrymple addresses one defense, such as it is, of the sham treatment:
…one may ask why there should be such oversight of products that are sometimes so dilute that the chances are they do not contain a single molecule of the allegedly therapeutic substance. What harm can be done by such substances?
There are two possible answers to this. The first is that it is in principle wrong to deceive the public about the properties of what it buys. Therapeutic claims for homoeopathic remedies are inherently bogus and therefore ought to be prohibited, for falsehood is harmful in itself. And the second reason is that people who use such supposed remedies might continue to suffer from curable diseases for which, because of their resort to homoeopathy, they do not seek proper curative treatment.
Dr. Daniels appears to have supplied arguments for the retention of homeopathy rather than for its abolition: It does no harm and acts as a placebo (neither of which apply to some kinds of conventional medication, e.g., addictive painkillers). It is also worth mentioning that homeopaths by and large spend more time with their patients than do orthodox doctors, thus making them (the patients) feel that they are being treated as human beings rather than as items on a conveyor belt.
Not to mention that pharmaceuticals often have unknown and unpredictable effects – or, in fact, worsen the health of patients.
As a huge fan of Dr. D (A.D.), I am surprised that his bias against homeopathy has blinded him to using his usually acute analytical skills. His article reveals that he has not read the literature and philosophy of homeopathy, and thus it supports all the uninformed organizations’ and biased corporations’ propaganda which would love to see the competition from natural methods banned. And he refers to not even one scientific study! Plenty are available.
For example, the Swiss Health authority surveyed over 20 studies of homeopathy when deciding whether their national system should continue to support homeopathic treatments; and their decision was that the results of homeopathic treatment was weighted on the positive side and therefore that it should continue to be included in their system. I have personally witnessed numerous rapid and remarkable permanent cures from serious problems using homeopathic remedies, prescribed by thoughtful, experienced MDs.
Surely, if one believes in freedom of thought and free choice in personal moral and health areas of life, one should allow for the investigation and use of many systems, philosophies, etc. Let the results reveal the truth! [E.G., homeopathic treatment during the Spanish flu epidemic had a far lower mortality rate than those practitioners using orthodox medicine.]—S. Joseph Arroyo