The British medical journal has an excellent debate between Dr. Peter Fisher, director of research, Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, London and Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor, University of Exeter on the topic of doctors recommending Homeopathy.
The debate is available below in mp3 format for our subscribers to gain a better understanding of both sides of the argument and how to better address critics of Homeopathy.
Peter Fisher presents extremely supporting arguments for the efficacy of homeopathy which can be found in this recording. Fisher says “Homeopathy is part of a family of toxicological and pharmacological phenomena that are attracting growing interest, characterised by secondary, reverse, or paradoxical reactions to drugs or toxins as a function of dose or time or both. These include hormesis (the paradoxical, stimulatory, or beneficial effect of low doses of toxins), paradoxical pharmacology, and rebound effects.
The controversial element of homeopathy is that some medicines are highly dilute, including “ultra-molecular” dilutions, in which it is highly unlikely that any of the original material is present. This is a major scientific concern and the source of the view that homeopathy “doesn’t work because it can’t work.”
However, recent in vitro research shows repeatable effects (for instance, inhibition of basophil degranulation by highly dilute histamine1) while basic physical research shows that the homeopathic manufacturing process changes the structure of the diluent, including the formation of nanoparticles of silica and gas.2 The physical research is of little clinical relevance but provides a possible mechanism of action for the controversial high dilutions.”