Vol. 24 No. 4 September 2004

Recently a Sunday paper pointed an accusing finger at a herbalist who charged $4500 up front for fertility treatment. His apparent success was not questioned, just his ethics. I know from my experience, and hearing that of others, that homœopathy can easily get comparable success in treating infertility, and at a fraction of the herbalist’s charge. Somehow, though, this ability does not become widely known.Why? Are homœopaths especially law-abiding and know that to claim to be able to treat infertility is prohibited by the Medicines Act? Or are many so-called professional homœopaths not really confident in their practice, so that they do not attempt to treat imfertility? Or, though skilled, they do not project a professional image?

I think both of these last two points are true, as I know from talking to people who have attended my master classes there are huge gaps in the knowledge of recent college graduates; secondly, there are too many people doing homœopathy at an “in the spare bedroom on Wednesday evenings and Saturday mornings” level – marring the image of homœopathy as a whole. Often, too, these are the people who if you phone them after seeing their advertisement you hear a message like, “Hi there, this is James, Tyla and Kent the cat, we’re not here now so leave a message. Bye!” This is not good enough.

Last night on TV an Australian immunologist called homœopathy anti-science. What does this mean? Homœopaths are opposed to science? Not true. The tenets of homœopathy are at odds with those of many people who believe themselves to be scientists? True; but only a section of the scientific community with closed minds or unfamiliar with experiments supporting homoeopathy.

Bruce Barwell