Zuletzt aktualisiert am
We can’t and don’t want to “ban” homeopathy. However, we have good reasons why we do not consider it useful or helpful in medicine. Of course, everyone can apply homeopathy privately – and pay for it privately. But we want to make sure that these people know what homeopathy really is. Because especially homeopathy advocates often have an astonishingly stubborn ignorance. The hope that homeopathy may work is justified and understandable in each individual case. However, it is not true that it works as Hahnemann had thought up 200 years ago and as many homeopaths still believe today. Today we have good explanatory models for the “successes” of homeopathy, which have little to do with homeopathy itself. We would like to make every effort to ensure that you can obtain more information about them.
We think it is important that you know that adhering to homeopathy does not mean better medicine.
Homeopathy today stands for:
Loss of scientific competence
The natural sciences have a clear judgement: homeopathy cannot work for scientific reasons. Natural sciences are taught at schools and universities. We should not confuse knowledge and faith here and teach both in false tolerance.
Loss of epistemological-philosophical competence
The philosophical question “How can we get knowledge?” is an important question. There are rules that ensure that we are not constantly mistaken. Rules that protect us from wrong conclusions and wrong decisions. If we acknowledge homeopathy, then we disregard the epistemological rules – and also accustom ourselves to incorrect handling of important rules.
Natural laws are not made by humans. The laws of nature exist; we humans can only recognize (or not recognize) them. We cannot change them. Those who accept homeopathy also accept that the laws of nature can change at will and can be adapted to their own needs. Those who accept homeopathy no longer have any arguments when it comes to the existential question of unicorns, trolls, fairies, elves and other fairy-tale creatures.
Loss of freedom of choice
Anyone who believes in homeopathy is helplessly exposed to all its promises. He has no valid decision criteria on the basis of which he himself can decide whether something is meaningful or possible, nonsensical or impossible.
There is no peaceful coexistence
Statements like “One can nevertheless use both – medicine and homeopathy” or “medicine and homeopathy can nevertheless coexist peacefully” testify to ignorance and incomprehension of homeopathy. One cannot combine “sense” with “nonsense” and hope that things will get better. The best “mixture” of sense and nonsense is 100 % sense and 0 % nonsense! Everything else is a dilution and deterioration – especially for you as a patient.
Wrong health education
Children, who get globules in all their aches and pains, learn that there is a homeopathic “switch off” for every small disturbance of well-being. One is educated to carelessness towards one’s body and learns that one would need a “medicine” for everything. However, this is rather the opposite of natural growing up.
We are not simply “against” homeopathy, we are also committed to better medicine.
Of course, people want to be seen and treated as individuals and not as “cases” or even “numbers”. Here we can learn something from homeopathy and its treatment of patients. But the alternative to bad medicine is not nonsense and an ultimately untenable promise, but better medicine. Effective medicine and again more humanity in the medical business!
From our point of view there is something to improve at many corners:
Patients are allowed to inform themselves about homeopathy. They should not frivolously dilute or even replace the scientific basis of our knowledge with esoteric beliefs – even if the latter somehow sound or feel good.
Health insurance companies should not pay for homeopathic therapies and remedies. Otherwise, it is a case of misappropriation of insured funds. Just because patients like homeopathy is not a sufficient reason to reimburse them. It would be better if instead, doctors could have longer conversations with their patients again (and this could also be billed) if psychosomatic basic care could be expanded further and patients could feel more comfortable in medicine again. By the way, the fact that homeopathy reimbursement should lead to lower costs did not occur. The money would be available for more sensible therapies.
The medical associations should neither offer further education nor further education for homeopathy nor “reward” them with further education points. The examination boards should ban all examination questions on the subject of “homeopathy” from the medical state examinations. Instead, more space should be given to interpersonal skills in initial and further training.
The medical faculties of the universities should not offer homeopathy courses. The only exception: historical considerations on homeopathy in the subject “History of Medicine”. However, they should also try to communicate their knowledge better to people. Often they come across as too “cold and repellent”.
The policy should again lift the internal consensus of the “special therapy direction”. The authorities demand proof of efficacy from all medicines. Only not from drugs of the “special therapeutic direction”, which include homeopathics. With these “medicines”, it is sufficient for homeopaths to attest to each other’s effectiveness – just like that. This would be comparable to a small group of “carpet pilots” who certify to each other that one can fly on flying carpets. We strongly oppose this two-class principle of medicine!