Dear Press and those who care about health, liberty, and truth,
Every time I see an article in the press about homeopathy I wonder what happened to the desire to find and tell the truth. Instead, I see the same criticisms on repeat.
“Depuis des décennies, les chercheurs le disent et le répètent : ça n’a aucun fondement scientifique.”
There is a wealth of scientific studies that prove that homeopathy works. There are studies on humans, on animals, there are studies that have been repeated over and over with positive results for homeopathy.
Even the original Australian report, a mega-analysis, was in favour of homeopathy.
Homeopathy is used by millions of people, is part of major healthcare systems worldwide and is also established in Canada.
So why are we still discussing this?
Because these journalists don’t really care about the proof.
What if it really does work?
How can something that has been diluted (and succussed) in water tens or hundreds of times possibly have an effect on a human being? It’s just not scientific, they say.
Isabelle Hachey chose the perfect quotation. It is worth reading carefully, for it does not say that homeopathy isn’t scientific, but only that it is outside of our current knowledge.
Le Conseil scientifique des académies des sciences européennes (EASAC) le formule ainsi : « Les revendications scientifiques de l’homéopathie ne sont pas plausibles et sont incompatibles avec les concepts établis de la chimie et de la physique. »
Or, as my husband put it;
“Pour les scientifiques c’est comme d’accepter que dieu existe.”
I think that he hit the nail right on the head.
This is why they accuse us of “believing” homeopathy works. Not because we believe it - we don’t - we observe it. But because for them, it would mean changing their beliefs.
Presently they believe the “concepts established in chemistry and physics.” We have to take into account that science makes concepts from the best collection of current knowledge and that the concepts are supposed to evolve as new information is gathered. For example, from the earth being flat to the earth being round. It is just the best of what we know now. It is not the rule for all of time. Imagine if we hadn’t let go of the concept of the earth being flat. We wouldn’t have made it to the moon. When we think of the established concepts as universal, unchangeable rules, this is when science becomes religion and ceases to be science.
So, in fact, to deny proof is to make science into a god, not the other way around.
Science learns from experimentation! Science is not set in stone. When we have proof of something happening that is outside of what is currently accepted in science, the scientific response is to investigate, not to deny!
So I invite you to be a scientist, to investigate with curiosity and without preconceived notions. Read the studies yourself, not someone else’s interpretation of them, learn without arrogance, listen without judgement. What do you have to loose?
What is the truth?
If you cannot learn, can you be truly free?