Ritva Kurittu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if homeopathy would have such "negative"
> connotations if it had not been highjacked by the
> New Age movement? With sadness I have noticed,
> that there are a lot of valuable and very positive
> things in the New Age scene, that are now labelled
> negatively just because some have turned the whole
> movement (if you can callNew Age a movement) to
> making money and taking advantage of people
> seeking for something else.
>
>
That's an interesting point and you may well be right. If you go back to the 2nd half of the 19th century, homeopathy and other things like herbal remedies were in much better regard 1) because allopathic medicine did not have much of clue about what caused disease either and 2) "heroic" medicine-- what was in vogue then-- involving bleeding and repeated purging with calomel (a very distasteful process) was so much more deleterious than herbal or homeopathic remedies, which, even if they did not cure you, were a much more pleasant experience.
After allopathic medicine developed the germ theory of disease and discovered antibiotics- then the contest became one of proven effectiveness- and homeopathic and other alternative medicines lost prestige.
One reason for the comeback of alternative medicines (apart from New Age adherents, or the big business in "food supplements") is that the kind of illnesses that are killing us are chronic diseases (cancer, stroke, heart attack) which are multifactorial and involve life style, mental attitudes, and genetic predisposition as well as organic factors. These can't be cured with a simple antibiotic and allopathic medicine just does not handle these diseases well-- you need a more "holistic" approach. This failure creates an opening for "alternative medicines" to make claims-- with some of the tragic results i cited above.
Bernard
Bernard