Is Homeopathic Remedies Effective?

Currently, homeopathic practices are employed by more than 250 million people all over the globe. This natural form of remedy is particularly used when dealing with chronic and acute conditions. The basic principle of homeopathy lies in the fact that small amounts of a certain substance will cure the symptoms that may be caused by large amounts of that same substance (Teixeira 271).

Homeopathy bears a holistic connotation, and this means that each patient is treated in alignment with their unique conditions and emotions. These aspects are believed to majorly contribute to the overall process of preventing and managing all the transpiring ailments. If we take all these factors into account, we will see that homeopaths are keen on selecting the treatment based on the specific symptoms and personal healing ability.

It is also claimed that homeopathy rarely or has never caused unexpected treatment outcomes (Teixeira 271). In other words, if the medications are taken under the supervision of a competent homeopathic specialist, the outcomes will be expected to be positive in patients of all genders, ethnicities, and ages. The most important thing about homeopathic doctors is that their practice does not diametrically oppose itself to the conventional medicine.

In order to diagnose the illness, homeopathic doctors also examine the patient, evaluate their health history, and investigate the available treatment options (Teixeira 272). Nonetheless, a homeopathic practitioner will also be keen on studying the patient in a personal manner and identify possible ways in which the symptoms can affect them. Therefore, homeopathic medicine can be considered effective and beneficial within the framework of therapeutic practice.

Despite the positive outlooks on homeopathy, the question of its effectiveness is still present. Numerous professionals all over the world question the reasonableness of applying homeopathy. For instance, an interesting research was conducted in the area of journalist’s attitude toward homeopathy and its upsides. The study was focused on identifying how journalists’ opinions could influence the public psychological perception of health and how journalists themselves identified homeopathy and other alternative medicines (Arendt 17).

The controversy regarding this topic led to a rather heated discussion concerning the fact that journalists can be influenced by their own outlooks relating to homeopathy. Therefore, it was important to conduct an objective research project so as to investigate the causal public health-journalism relationships and the effectiveness of homeopathy. The researcher surveyed a number of German journalists so as to learn more about their viewpoints about homeopathy and aligned the findings with several variables (such as demographics, professional experience, and overall attitude toward conventional and unconventional types of medicine) (Arendt 20).

The results of the study showed that homeopathy was positively perceived by the majority of the respondents, but the range of answers was highly differentiated. For the most part, positive attitudes toward homeopathic practices were shown by women and senior journalists. It was interesting, though, that the attitudes toward homeopathic medicine did not influence the perception of conventional medicine and vice versa (Arendt 20).

The importance of this argument lies in the fact that journalists can be considered “concierges” when it comes to evaluating the evidence-based research projects and their outcomes. Consequently, the journalists’ outlooks and view of the problem can majorly contribute to the successful future of homeopathic medicine because they will expose it to the wider public. The patients will become informed and willing to try unconventional medicine so as to destroy the myth that homeopathy does not assist in treating patients and extending the evidence-based knowledge base.

Another argument regarding the use of homeopathic remedies dwells on the use of unconventional treatment options when dealing with allergic disorders. The reason behind this is an increased occurrence of the latter in industrialized countries throughout the last decade. As it has been previously mentioned, the level of public acceptance of homeopathy is rather high, so it may be interesting to investigate the real-life effectiveness of homeopathic remedies and compare it to the usefulness of their conventional counterparts (Grundling et al. 12).

The research project conducted to identify the benefits of treating allergic patients (rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and bronchial asthma) with homeopathic remedies showed that the latter did not provoke an allergic reaction and caused no adverse side effects. Moreover, the overall condition of the patients improved significantly, and the use of conventional remedies was noticeably reduced (Grundling et al. 15).

The real-life effect of the homeopathic medicine is visible, and it can be easily considered one of the potential tools intended to manage therapeutic measures and equalize health care costs. On the other hand, one cannot draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy right away. Also, when discussing the eminence of homeopathic remedies, one may pay close attention to the systematic reviews in the area. They showed that homeopathy could significantly facilitate the treatment process in a number of cases (including hypertension, migraines, menopause, and premenstrual complaints) (Izzo et al. 692).

Also, extensive evidence was obtained concerning the use of Aloe vera when dealing with psoriasis and cardiovascular diseases. Further research in the area also presented the adverse effects of synthetic remedies and highlighted the importance of applying herbal remedies throughout the treatment process (Izzo et al. 697). Even though the homeopathic approach is beneficial, the practitioner always has to keep in mind the adverse events that may occur by reason of the herb-drug interactions. Therefore, the medications should be picked carefully, especially when dealing with pediatric and pregnant populations (Izzo et al. 697).

To conclude, one should first understand that there are numerous ambiguities that interfere with the positive effects of homeopathy. The potential of this public health initiative can be explained by two core aspects of homeopathy that are reflected in practice. First, one should take into account that a rather big sample of patients and skeptics believe that the only effect produced by homeopathy is placebo and no real improvements are in place.

On the other hand, one cannot refute that the use of homeopathy became a relatively successful tool in terms of fighting an excessive use of antibiotic remedies. Essentially, this aspect of homeopathy will become even more significant if one finds out that nearly 15% of doctors use antibiotics to trigger palliative outcomes and expose their patients to the placebo effect. Therefore, why not use homeopathic remedies instead of gradually increasing the amount of antibiotics taken and affecting the public health outlooks?

Nowadays, this question is one of the most important for the researchers in the area of homeopathic medicine because the latter provides health care facilities with an imminent option of saving tons of money and improving the public image of healthcare. We should conduct continuous research on the topic of homeopathic remedies because this particular area of health care possesses a great deal of unrealized potential.

We should move forward and investigate the probable benefits of homeopathy so as to remove skepticism from the health care equation and allow the doctors to provide homeopathic care under the guise of a placebo. Even though the placebo effect will not go anywhere (just like antibiotics), the approval of homeopathy by skeptic healthcare practitioners will mean a lot to the overall state of health care.