IN DEFENCE OF HOMEOPATHY

This article was written by Jeanette Winterson and published in the Guardian. I read the article to which she refers when it was brought to my attention at the case study group I attend. Here I've taken the liberty of cutting and pasting some of Jeanette Winterson's response. You can read the rest by following the link at the end . . .



In defence of homeopathyJeanette WintersonTuesday November 13, 2007The Guardian

Picture this. I am staying in a remote cottage in Cornwall without a car. I have a temperature of 102, spots on my throat, delirium, and a book to finish writing. My desperate publisher suggests I call Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath who has practices in London and Penzance. She sends round a remedy called Lachesis, made from snake venom. Four hours later I have no symptoms whatsoever.

Dramatic stuff, and enough to convince me that while it might use snake venom, homeopathy is no snake oil designed for gullible hypochrondriacs. Right now, though, a fierce debate is raging between those, like me, who trust homeopathy because it works for them, and those who call it shamanistic claptrap, without clinical proof or any scientific base.

There have been a number of articles in the press recently criticising homeopathic remedies as worthless at best, and potentially lethal at worst, if they are being taken instead of tried-and-tested conventional medicines for conditions such as malaria or HIV.
I have found myself cited, and drawn into this, because I am on record as supporting homeopathic practice in general, and in particular the Maun homeopathy project, a clinic in Botswana set up by Fairclough.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2209998,00.html

Follow the link to the full article.