Zuletzt aktualisiert am
Statement right – common interpretation wrong
The laurels for a cure (better: recovery) are always given to the “professional” who is nearby. Thus the “ritual waiting until it becomes good on it’s own” gets the quality of the causation.
The sentence most frequently used in discussions about homeopathy is “He who heals is right”. If this sentence is dropped, then any further discussion about theoretical and practical shortcomings of homeopathy seems to be over. It seems difficult to counter this argument. The reason for this, however, is mainly that it is not a real, valid argument at all. For the statement “He who heals is right” presupposes that 1. someone has actually been cured of something and that 2. the cause of the cure can be traced back to a certain, precisely described therapy that took place. However, it is often asked: If a patient is cured, what does it matter that there are deficiencies in theory or whether the two quoted conditions are fulfilled?
Those who heal are right – first of all, this is quite correct. If my doctor prescribes an antibiotic for severe bronchitis, pneumonia or middle ear inflammation, which removes the bacteria and thus the cause of the inflammation and then my recovery follows, then, of course, he is “right” in the sense that his treatment was the right one. Of course, a surgeon is also “right” to plaster in my broken leg and my ophthalmologist is “right” to prescribe the right drops for conjunctivitis. And my car mechanic was also right when he “cured” my old Peugeot of oil dripping by replacing an old, defective valve.
Only those who can prove the cause-effect relationship of their treatment with the cure are right
So the homeopath is right if I get well after taking globules?! The following consideration: If – as it is known – approx. 80% of all complaints (apart from chronic diagnoses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.) disappear on their own and a homeopath was present during the disappearance – is he right?
By no means. Not at all. Because he does not heal. Homeopathy usually consists of sugar balls sprayed with empty water or empty alcohol solution, or just empty, diluted pure alcohol. As a rule, a homeopathic remedy does not contain any of what was originally present before dilution (excuse me, potentiation!. But why that doesn’t make any difference, you can read here), who was once allowed to call himself “homeopathic stock” – the original substance – (and already in this state, from a scientific-medical point of view, it was unfortunately humbug).
Homoeopathy cannot prove such a causal relationship
Therefore the homoeopath does not heal from various view:
The remedy he gives is empty of content and therefore has no effect (the vast majority of scientifically relevant studies show that homeopathic remedies only help to trigger the placebo effect).
Therefore, it does not matter which homeopathic remedy is given. In this respect, too, the homeopath has nothing to do with healing except to help trigger the placebo effect.
The homeopath is therefore not involved in the healing process in the sense that he himself (as an “expert”) or his pseudo-medicines would cause a healing effect. He, therefore, cannot have been right. Because the development that the convalescent experienced could have been triggered in the same form by someone else in a completely different way (placebo effect).
In most cases, however, the healing would have occurred by itself. Globules that are supposed to help with fever, colds, bruises or coughs do not need to trigger a placebo effect in order to “ensure” a cure in the patient. It comes all by itself – without any hocus-pocus. You don’t need globules that “bring the body back into energetic balance” (whatever that means). One only needs time.
So: He who heals is right. That’s true. But the one who heals must also have set the clear cause for the healing in a verifiable way if he wants to claim the factual right. But with homeopaths there is no “who”, there is no “what heals”, so there is no “being right” either.
The beautiful simple sentence turns out to be an air bubble. It is nothing other than the attempt to hijack the successes of science-based medicine or the self-healing powers of the body for itself, its goals, its view of the world, its religion and/or even its business model.
By the way, some time ago I was with my old car at the ” healing mechanic”, because there was an error display, which occasionally went on and then off again. There was no regularity. The mechanic went once around the car, asked for the year of construction and then told me, without further investigation, that this was a known problem. There would be a valve, which rarely gets stuck and “shakes free” on its own. Then the error message would disappear at its own accord. So I drove away from the car repair again. The caution lamp never came on again. My car was recovered. Without the mechanic having done anything. Well, who heals is right, isn’t he?
If the sentence drops, you shouldn’t stop discussing. It should be started to talk about it: Is healing plausible and demonstrable? Was there a pathological condition at all? If so, was it recognized (diagnosed) correctly at all? Can’t a coincidence or the natural temporal course of the disease have been responsible for the improvement, the regression to the middle? What evidence is there for the method mentioned with regard to its theoretical and practical findings? Are there any studies? And are there indications, beyond one’s own (individual) experience, that a cure has really taken place? But these questions are confusing, they sometimes cause an uncomfortable feeling. It is understandable that one wants to get into safety quickly with this sentence, which aims at the conclusion that in the end, only the result is important. How much one can be deceived by a felt, subjective “result”, however, we describe here among other things in detail.