Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy

Homeopathy is fairly common in some countries while being uncommon in others. In some countries, there are no specific legal regulations concerning the use of homeopathy, while in others, licenses or degrees in conventional medicine from accredited universities are required.

Woman looking at homeopathic remedies

A patient suffering from the effects of homeopathic treatment (Wellcome Trust)

Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Outside of the alternative medicine community, scientists have long considered homeopathy a sham^[5] or a pseudoscience,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and the mainstream medical community regards it as quackery.^[3]

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Tuomela, R (1987). "Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P (eds.). Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 98. Springer. pp. 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4. ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics. 26 (9): 508–512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x. S2CID 143067523.
↑ ^3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2. ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
↑ ^4.0 ^4.1 Ladyman J (2013). "Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience". In Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3. Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely).
↑ Caulfield, Timothy; Rachul, Christen (2011). "Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public". Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. 7: 14. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-14. PMC 3182944. PMID 21920039. Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham

[Tuomela-1] 1.0 ^1.1 Tuomela, R (1987). "Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P (eds.). Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 98. Springer. pp. 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4. ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.

[Smith2012-2] 2.0 ^2.1 Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics. 26 (9): 508–512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x. S2CID 143067523.

[Baran2014-3] 3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2. ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[Ladyman-4] 4.0 ^4.1 Ladyman J (2013). "Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience". In Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3. Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely).

[aaci-5] Caulfield, Timothy; Rachul, Christen (2011). "Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public". Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. 7: 14. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-14. PMC 3182944. PMID 21920039. Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]