Homeopath’s and fundamentalism

The homeopaths have worked well over the last few years difficult. Many aggressive stories are written that homeopathy can not work, and that only the blind, randomized study etc can give a definitive answer. That homeopathy is implausible and therefore also no longer need to be investigated, that water can not work unless placebo, which is the scams etc. Why all this sudden aggression? If something is safe, it is the homepathie, especially if it is in the hands of a doctor. In an article in June 2008 analyzes a homeopath fundamentalism around the assessment of the efficacy of the homeopatie. His conclusion:

Though in use for over 200 years, and still benefiting millions of people worldwide today, homeopathy is currently under continuous attacks for being "unscientific."

The reasons for this can be understood in terms of what might be called a "New Fundamentalism," emanating particularly but not exclusively from within biomedicine, and supported in some sections of the media. Possible reasons for this are discussed.

New Fundamentalism’s hallmarks include the denial of evidence for the efficacy of any therapeutic modality that can not be consistently "proven" using double-blind, randomized controlled trials. It excludes explanations of homeopathy’s efficacy; ignores, excoriates, or consider current research data supporting those explanations incomprehensible, particularly from outside biomedicine: it is also not aver to using experimental bias, hearsay, and Innuendo in order to discredit homeopathy.

Thus, New Fundamentalism is itself unscientific. This may have consequences in the future for how practitioners, researchers, and patients or homeopathy / complementary and alternative medicine engage and negotiate with primary health care systems. ^[1]