Why Do People Buy Homeopathic Medicine?

1) Because they want to believe in something without nothing, i.e. "cures" without risk and/or side effects. 2) Because they want to be the smartest person in the room, and stumbling upon an obscure, effective treatment for something would help make that desire a reality. 3) Because they truly don't know any better.

The two most common reasons are that they don't know any better or are too stubborn/stupid to listen to the scientific truth on the matter.

Yes, homeopathy does not follow the laws of science, or physics or biology. Like does not cure like, water does not remember the 'energy' of the original ingredient once every last molecule has been diluted away, potency does not increase with higher dilutions, we do not have have a 'vital force' that detects the original ingredient's 'energy' and expels disease. Many people are not aware of what homeopathy really is; they think it's just 'natural' or 'herbal' medicine. They will not account for the placebo effect, their illness may be self limiting - they will get better regardless, they may not had had a real condition to start with - homeopaths love the worried well. It boils down to ignorance, a lack of critical thinking skills, a poor understanding of basic science, gullibility, cognitive dissonance. They may be presented with clinical trails that appear to show efficacy, but lack the necessary skills to interpret these studies, which typically have been small, badly designed, lacked appropriate control groups, or had other issues that affected how meaningful the results were. Systematic reviews of homeopathy studies how a clear pattern; the better the study the smaller the effect; even better studies turn out negative; multiple systematic reviews show that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that homeopathy works for any single condition. Skeptic James Randi has just re-issued his million dollar challenge to anyone who can prove homeopathy works; this comes at the same time where skeptics have just protested internationally by 'overdosing' on homeopathic remedies to demonstrate they contain no active ingredients, as part of the 10:23 campaign. If you don't know what 10:23 means - google it. The last time I posted a link to it, i was reported by the homeoquacks. http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/expensive/2011/02/06/james-randi-reissues-a-challenge/ ------- EDIT: @Leanne, please do not compare homeopathy to vaccines - they are completely different. Vaccines work by introducing a killed or weakened antigen which causes the body to make a specific immune response and recognize that infection in the future. They do not cure anything. Homeopathy pretends that 'like cures like' - a substance that produces symptoms in a healthy person similar to those in the ill person is (allegedly) introduced, which empowers the body's 'vital force' to expel the disease. This is a vitalistic PHILOSOPHY, has no basis in reality and is NOTHING like vaccination. Your assertion that detection beyond Avogadro's number becoming possible in the future is special pleading and does NOT mean homeopathy works - you are forgetting that in over 200 years homeopathy has NEVER been substantiated to work for any condition. The reason you are gobsmacked is because you don't seem to understand how homeopathy is supposed to work. And yes you are defending it.

1. Since it's sold in pharmacies, people think it's real medicine. 2. People don't know it's not real medicine and think it works when it's really just the placebo effect. Welcome to alt med.

People like feeling like they're smarter than the masses, and homeopathy appeals to them because "it's a secret cure-all THEY don't want you to know about!".

usually because conventional allopathy fails.

Hi Dr Redbeard, Does the 'Dr' mean medical doctor? I'm sure your friend meant well, but 'amateur homoeopaths' are not the best people to prescribe - but I know a lot of them do, and I believe they do it with the best intentions. Since I've joined Yahoo Answers (only maybe a month now), I'm gobsmacked by the tidal wave of vitriol which usually accompanies any mention of the word 'homoeopathy' - it's refreshing to read your question, honestly expressing your experience that it 'doesn't seem to do anything or follow the laws of science', rather than just slamming the treatment modality outright. I am not going to attempt to 'defend' homoeopathy, nor to convert anyone. When you say it doesn't follow the laws of science, I will offer the suggestion that if you compare the basis of homoeopathy to the basis of vaccination and/or allergy desensitisation, you might come closer to seeing that it does, in fact, follow laws of science with which I presume you are conversant - i.e. a substance which is known to precipitate a particular physiological response in a sufficiently HIGH dose, can - in a sufficiently LOW dose - stimulate the body's homoeostatic mechanisms against that substance. Homoeopathic remedies are diluted across a vast range - many potenticies lying on the physically-detectable side of Avogadro's number - many potencies being diluted beyond Avogadro's number and, therefore, not currently detectable with our available technology. As with any tehnological advancement, this does not discount the possibility of substance detection beyond Avogadro's number becoming possibly in the future. Proper homoeopathic prescribing is a very detailed and precise process (apart from the common 'acute' remedies whose symptom picture(s) varies little), requiring comprehensive case details - I doubt that your friend did this in your case. If a remedy didn't 'seem to do anything', then it was not the correct remedy for you and/or your body had no trouble 'dealing with' the substance the remedy introduced - hence, no overt 'response' on your body's part - a similar situation to that of a person who has a vaccination with no overt reaction, versus someone who has the same vaccination, but manifests an overt reaction to whatever degree. Are you familiar with quinine as both a treatment for malaria, and as a preventative for travellers venturing to malaria-risk areas - and are you familiar with the symptoms associated with ingesting 'too much' quinine? If you check out the origins of western homoeopathy, this is the connection from which it sprang. ***** It's such a pity some people feel the need to attempt to personally discredit others on this forum. Leanne does, in fact know what she's talking about re Avogadro's number - and beyond. ***** Maybe there should be a category entitled 'anti-homoeopathy', for those who just want to slam something without providing any substantiation for their rants

Because the conventional allopathy ALWAYS fails to cure. It only suppresses the ailment thus palliates only. You always remain diseased with some types of symptoms. Only Homoeopathy cures rapidly, gently and permanently.

Simply put: because it works for me and is non-toxic. It works fast! The only ppl who claim it doesn't work are BigPharma supporters: you can't sell your toxic drugs if ppl are cured from homeopathy. And you can't give ppl side effects that require more drugs if ppl get cured from a $6 HEALTHY, NON-TOXIC remedy. Sucks for doctors & drug companies alike and makes YOU (the denialists) write lies on Y!A.