Homeopathy has a notorious reputation in mainstream medicine, one that likens it to a medical alternative at its best, and a dangerous, life-threatening pseudoscience at its worst. The proportion of malleable ignorance predominantly in the western hemisphere when speaking on homeopathy is little short of astonishing. Within various circles surface numerous, albeit startling descriptions of homeopathic treatment; beginning at rudimentary placebo, and ending at applying sliced pickles on burns. In lieu of healthy skepticism, young individuals with no medical backgrounds or affinities otherwise, proudly protest homeopathy, and meet it with rigid cynicism. In spite of homeopathy’s prevalent usage in developed parts of the world, the question of how and why it is so misunderstood, is left unanswered. In other words, despite constant, worldly labours that impart homeopathy’s efficacy onto healthcare, it is still often considered nothing but a 'sham.'

This paper does not attempt to lay claim to homeopathy’s or its allopathic counterpart’s effectiveness or ineffectiveness. It does however make every effort to provide a measure of clarity, and sets out to carefully illustrate the forces that have largely been responsible for the slow, tarnishing degradation of homeopathy. Forces that for (over) a hundred years now, have conjoined together to forge a monopoly beyond compare. A medical monopoly built on lobbying reform, and perpetuated by corporatism and deceptive propaganda, that seemingly wants nothing more than to bury its bane, homeopathy.

Lobbying to reform and the Flexner Report

A recurring act throughout human history, and one that has borne fruits of unspeakable atrocities, is that of lobbying ideology. If one’s ideology is another’s incredulity, then lobbying methodology should serve no different. Alas, the Flexner report of 1910 was a successful lobby of both, and served to transform the nature and process of medical education in the west [1]; cementing itself as one of the most preeminent acts of reform in the history of medicine. The report saw the educator and politician, Abraham Flexner, evaluate all medical institutions across North America, and embellished the establishment of the (allopathic) biomedical model as the gold standard of medical training today. Furthermore, it was immediately responsible for terminating countless proprietary medical schools in North America, many of which focused primarily on homeopathic curricula. This organized lobby effort was manned by a band of high-powered comrades who had ties with large schools and big-pocket foundations. The band seated the likes of a Baptist minister, an allopathic physician, and Abraham Flexner, alongside a string of financiers; notably billionaire tycoons, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. [2]

The aftermath following the report witnessed sizable pressure on what is today considered complementary alternative medicine (CAM); a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. In his report, Flexner very quickly disparaged the founder of homeopathy, writing: 

Scientific method therefore brushes aside all historic dogma. It gets down to details immediately. No man is asked in whose name he comes - whether that of Samuel Hahnemman, Benjamin Rush or some more recent prophet. [1]

The report explained that of all complete (M.D. granting) homeopathic schools evaluated, only three schools possessed the equipment necessary for effective routine teaching of the fundamental branches of medicine. The rest, alas, fell short, or were “utterly hopeless,” [1] according to Flexner. Amazingly, testing on whether a medical institution possesses adequate equipment that isn’t fundamentally important to its principle operation, is akin to evaluating whether an electrician possesses adequate pieces of drywall in his work vehicle. Flexner pulled no punches when his report provided its jarring ultimatum for homeopathy;

Logically, no other outcome is possible. The ebbing vitality of homeopathic [medical] schools is a striking demonstration of the incompatibility of science and dogma. […] Science, once embraced, will conquer the whole. Homeopathy has two options: one to withdraw into the isolation in which alone any peculiar tenet can maintain itself; the other to put that tenet into the melting-pot. Historically it undoubtedly played an important part in discrediting empirical allopathy. But laboratories of physiology and pharmacology are now doing that work far more effectively than homeopathy; and they are at the same time performing a constructive task for which homeopathy, as such, is unfitted. It will be clear, then, why, when outlining a system of schools for the training of physicians on scientific lines, no specific provision is made for homeopathy. [1]

Leading up to the Flexner Report and its aftermath 

While the Flexner Report was undoubtedly the greatsword that swung stringent regulations, the American Medical Association (AMA) was the anvil that forged it. Around the midpoint of the 19th century, the AMA was notoriously birthed by a group of allopathic doctors, who openly banded together to combat medical quackery, spearheading a mission to centralize allopathy via national regulatory measures. [3] Methodically, the AMA found itself comfortably seated at exclusive positions within the Federal government, and by 1870, the association managed to establish medical boards in every state in America. In 1912, to coordinate all the state medical boards, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) was organised, and together, the FSMB, Abraham’s Flexner Report, and the AMA, managed to secure a complete, nationwide monopoly of allopathic MDs. 

In Canada, many early 19th century doctors were actively involved in politics, which resulted in most proprietary schools being absorbed by state universities. [5] By the time Flexner came to evaluate Canada, there were only 8 Canadian medical schools, who were already allopathically inclined. Using considerable pressure from the Flexner Report, the newly formed allopathic stronghold managed to subsequently shut down the majority of CAM-oriented colleges, hospitals and programs across North America. [1] The continental biomedical reform unequivocally paved a path for future corporatists, many of which cloaked themselves as philanthropists, to satiate its appetite for international dominance. 

Global philanthropy and corporatism

How can any thoughtful person associate philanthropy with negative connotation, when the philanthropist’s aspiration is to amass considerable fortune and then give it all away to charity? It is because the philanthropist of today is not at work to give charity, for charity, gracefully highlighted by nineteenth-century philosopher and activist, Orestes Brownson, lacks a certain glamour. Brownson explains that the philanthropists of his time had a deliberate distaste for charity, “as it sought to fix the evils of the human heart rather than the head.” [4] It is why, Brownson concludes, that “philanthropy went to work to reform–on a large scale; for philanthropy scorns small beginnings, and proposes always to commence operations on the masses.” [4] 

Following the Flexner Report, the peculiar relationship between government and allopaths, now had the sails to propel itself even further, and in the spirit of Rockefeller and Carnegie, countless medical/healthcare foundations began emerging to fund and subsequently spread the government/allopathic alliance as far as it could go. Medical philanthropy became such a common phenomenon, that in a publication made by Health Affairs (a leading publisher of health policy research & insight) in 1993 that examined the role of philanthropy in healthcare reform, the publisher considers it typical for “foundations to help government advance government’s priorities.” [6] The publication argues that “working with government to guide policy making is not the traditional mission of most foundations,” [6] however, urges foundations to realize that “advocating for attention to reform, filling information gaps, and educating policymakers and the public are perfectly acceptable foundation activities…”[6]

Although governments may not adapt to the interests of foundations, foundations are publicly encouraged to further the interests of government, including those of public health policies. This paradigm has given birth to billions of dollars worth of committed grants that work to fund the medical monopoly; which by the time Health Affairs labelled philanthropy’s increasing role in healthcare typical, had already established itself in public sectors around the world. In 2023, one of such foundations, namely the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, gave around $36 million of committed grants in the month of February alone–and has been actively providing grants globally since 1994. [7] These grants vary in subjects, but consistently relate to allopathic practices; including but not limited to vaccination programs and biomedical research. Granted, there are foundations working to aid access to alternative medicines, but the difference in deliverable funding simply doesn’t compare. BioMed Central (BMC), a subsidiary of Springer Nature and a leading publisher in public health research, conducted a research paper in 2016 that identified the 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world; (contribution amounts are calculated for a single year, all between 2011-2013)

For the 10 largest funders, health research funding totalled to $37.1 billion, approximately 40% of all spending on health research globally by public and philanthropic sources. The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) contributed the largest part of this amount, with $ 26.1 billion in health research funding in 2013. The largest philanthropic funder was the Wellcome Trust ($ 909.1 million). The Wellcome Trust and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) were the only two philanthropic funders among the 10 largest funders of health research; the other eight organizations were public funding bodies. [8]

The National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is one of the (27) institutes of the aforementioned United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), and is the United States Federal Government’s lead agency for scientific research of complementary and integrative health treatments. The NCCIH lists homeopathy under its umbrella of complementary medical approaches alongside naturopathy and ayurveda. To provide an idea of the contrast in funding between allopathy and alternative medicines; out of the similar budget of $26.1 billion in 2013, the NIH allocated just $100 million of it to the NCCIH in 2014. [9] 

What cripples the case further for homeopathy, is the ever-expanding jurisdiction of global policing entities. If there was ever a line drawn between the relationship of healthcare reform and non-profit organizations, the World Health Organization has completely erased it. The WHO, a non-profit organization birthed by the United Nations, plays at alternative and complementary medicine inclusion, but consistently pushes allopathic solutions to the various global health issues it attempts to correct. It was only in 2022, that the director-general of the organization approached alternative medicine leaders in India in hopes to begin some form of relationship between the two. [10] The serious issue with an organization of such a global scope, is the unnatural way it funds itself. Entire countries are encouraged and, in some cases, even expected to finance the WHO’s self-appointed health policing responsibilities, which upon closer examination exceedingly consist of global allopathic campaigns–namely vaccination campaigns in developing countries.

In 2023, the large French news network, Euronews, published an article that expresses the concern for the lack of funding for the World Health Organization and suggests that governments must step up their efforts to finance the organization. [11] Equally problematic are the global health peddlers who urge that funding for the organization should come directly out of the wallets of the taxpayer. Kelley Lee, a professor of public health at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, publicly argues that the WHO needs to break its reliance on voluntary contributions and should instead be funded through various taxes [11]–as if the WHO is not already funded largely by countries, viz: taxpayer money.

This continuous relationship between governments, philanthropists, and health organizations, has undoubtedly shaped itself into what is perhaps the greatest living example of international corporatism. What began as a push for regulation to tackle “quackery,” has amassed to a near-complete takeover of both the public and private landscape of healthcare–one that shamelessly pierces the wallets of billions of taxpayers. Throw the pharmaceutical corporations into the mix, and alas, the medical monopoly has not only left homeopaths debilitated, but has also managed to impede allopathic (medical) doctors in its wake. There are no greater recent examples of how pharmaceutical corporatism affects the practice of medicine than the opioid crisis, as well as its notorious response to covid-19. Together with regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical corporations forced physicians to prioritize opioids and covid vaccines to be the only prescriptions of choice despite their heavy drawbacks. On one hand, medical doctors say pharmaceutical companies lied to them about the safety of these products [12], and on the other hand, refusing to prescribe them resulted in medical licenses being revoked, implying complete career suicide. [13] In 2021, the war on covid accurately depicted the power that the medical monopoly contemporarily holds. Through usage of health passports that determined a person’s vaccination status, countless governments around the world coerced individuals to either acquiesce to a covid-19 vaccine (a pharmaceutical product) or face complete societal and economic exile. Without the appropriate allopathic intervention, many were rendered second-class citizens overnight.

The propaganda machine

Propagating ideas is a natural pursuit of the human condition. Education, politics, and commerce all spread, promote, or disseminate their ideas when servicing their constituents and patrons. Though following in the same footsteps, propaganda has typically carried a more loaded approach when used to spread ideas, and therefore gathers itself a rather hateful distaste from the general public. Over centuries, propaganda has managed to paint itself a nasty villain, one that has been used to turn man against man, and though many may consider propaganda to be rather spent, it would be wise to know that it sits at the very heart of modern civilization. Edward Bernays, considered the father of public relations and modern propaganda, spent a lifetime conceptualizing propaganda into an art form and a science; pioneering techniques that included mass psychology and social sciences to persuade all kinds of minds. Achieving the most ambitious of results, Bernays professed that when used in full capacity, his propaganda can ensure mass control, and is to be defined as an unseen mechanism of ruling;

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind. [14]

If Bernays’ propaganda calls for conscious and intelligent manipulation of society, then modern propaganda is, viz: the manipulation of information. While journalists explore and reveal objective truth, propagandists manipulate and bend it. Alas, this propaganda which subscribes to govern, and mould minds, is the kind that ensures the public is at the receiving end of constant deceit as it pertains to homeopathy.

On account of the Flexner Report; regulated, evidence-based science became the standard for healthcare practices, urging wide-spread academia to consistently sanction allopathic ends to means when it came to the field of health research. This aggravated the idea that correct, or properly conducted medical science, always had to result in allopathic definitions of cure, and gave unimaginable scientific freedom to the Pasteurs and Kochs of the world, who (in-line with Abraham Flexner) saw bacteria as the cause of symptoms and disease. The (in)famous germ theory led allopathy to become the conventional medicine of the masses. This however was not the approach that homeopaths took when treating their patients. Homeopaths, who continue to focus their treatments using the miasma theory (a theory stating that the body, if healthy, can overcome negative bodily impacts by interacting and learning from organisms), maintain that the body, using diluted substances, can cure itself of disease; often regarded as blockages in bodily circuits. Ideologically, and thus methodologically, deviating from the newly regulated medical norm, homeopaths, osteopaths, and others who diverged from the biomedical standard, suffered enormous disdain, and found themselves berated with the constant task of proving the efficacy of their treatments through allopathic lenses. Definitively, for homeopathy, the results would be paradoxical at best. 

Within the parameters of a free market, it is not unnatural to find egregious individuals manipulating information for their benefit. Some may always take advantage of the gullible, the unsuspecting, or the ignorant, but in the absence of strict regulations, the consumer would curb these fraudulent individuals using the power of their dollar. Alas, what targets homeopathy are publicans who ride upon a propaganda machine that is engineered by aggressive regulation and fueled by ravenous corporatism which does not abide by a free economy. Whatever remained of homeopathy that regulations couldn’t subdue, academia and the media made sure to finish. Homeopathy’s degradation into the 21st century was assisted by the growth of social programs. In other words, people adopted a progressive reliance on government for their health and safety needs. The reform sparked by the Flexner Report, ensured that homeopathy was seen as inadequate in academia, and brimmed most schools and academic research with entirely allopathic responsibilities. Although few homeopathic schools continued to function succeeding the Flexner Report, these schools were now suffering an unnatural, contagion-like disdain from a growing faction of powerful academic channels. The heart of the people began to find trust solely in the evidence-based science that (albeit coercively) assured them excellent, un-parallel healthcare, and promised to save them from all harm; including that which homeopathy might have brought upon them had it been left to freely operate.

Naturally, as reliance on government increased, more regulations began to engulf all sectors of academia; and by the mid 20th century, socialized public education was sweeping nations around the world. Information on homeopathy, or lack thereof, was now manipulated directly towards the youth. Without undertaking any education in homeopathy-related fields, impressionable young students continue to base homeopathy exclusively on what they hear from their public mentors, associating it with mysticism, quackery, and fraud. In an email interview with Canadian Homeopathy Wellness Group, a social worker from Toronto, Canada, said that during her education at Seneca College for behavioural science, she’s had teachers who profess during lectures that homeopathy is a pseudo-science and that it shouldn’t be regarded as a form of healthcare. She adds that she knew very little about homeopathy prior to the statements made by her teachers, and that she met them with confusion given that her program had absolutely no relation to homeopathy whatsoever. In propaganda theory, the word pseudo-science falls under the common propaganda technique, ad nauseam, which is based on the consistent usage of certain words that when repeated enough times, begin to be taken as truth. Given the circumstances thus far, it isn’t unlikely to see public educational institutions in North America–particularly in places with accompanied socialized allopathic healthcare–warning against homeopathy like the plague. What does beg unlikeliness, and rightfully so, is when a smaller public college attempts to affiliate with homeopathy, it is met with such extreme scrutiny and coercive propaganda, that it is forced to dismantle the idea altogether. In 2018, Georgian College, a Canadian college in Barrie, Ontario, attempted to launch an advanced 3-year homeopathic diploma program as part of its program portfolio. The well-researched program would comfortably sit amongst the college’s other existing complementary alternative medicine (CAM) programs. Alas, despite homeopathy being regulated provincially, it did not stop the medical monopoly from aggressively advocating against the program. In the face of the program’s approval by provincial boards, the college was ridiculed by various subsidized media outlets, together with government employees. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) published an article about the program. In the article, the director of McGill University’s Office of Science and Society, Joe Schwarz, called homeopathy a “bit of puffery,” [15] and stated that he was consulting a large congregation of scientists about protesting the program. Another article, published by a local paper in Barrie called Barrie Today, reported that regardless of the program being well-researched and gaining a considerable amount of popularity rendered by the number of early applicants registering for the program, the college was receiving a serious public outcry from the local community. Shockingly, the only community member that appears in the article as part of the outcry, is an emergency medical physician. The physician, Dr. Chris Giorshev, went on record to express that homeopathy is not based on reality and that publicly funded institutions shouldn’t use taxpayer money for “quackery.” [16] Succumbing to the pressure, Georgian College made the final decision to prematurely cancel the program.

The most puzzling facet of the anti-homeopathy propaganda is the inconsistency upon which it defines homeopathic treatment(s). It is increasingly common to come across a litany of obscure, and downright laughable examples given by the propagandists when called to describe homeopathic methodology, treatments, and remedies. The same Dr. Chris Giorshev who protested the homeopathy program at Georgian College, made an error in describing what he believes to be a homeopathic treatment. In the aforementioned CBC article, Giorshev broadcasts:

We see people, they have the flu and they’re sick and I ask, ‘Did you get a flu shot?’ and they say, ‘My homeopath gave me a flu shot,’ and I think, ‘Well, you actually didn’t get anything.’ [15]

The CBC attempts to corroborate Giorshev’s claims by providing a disclaimer from Health Canada, one which explains that people using homeopathic nosodes alternatively to vaccinations are at a risk of developing serious and potentially fatal illnesses. [15] What the CBC failed to mitigate however, is the fallacy behind Giorshev’s attempts to relate homeopathy to vaccinations. Homeopathy does not claim to meddle in shots of any kind, and nosodes (remedies made from diseased tissue rather than a substance) are in fact remedies derived homeopathically. The nosode treatment explicitly fits the three laws of homeopathic methodology; none of which include injections. Homeopathy does not inject.

Continuing the charade, the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, published an article titled “The rise and fall of homeopathic medicine in the US, and its continued popularity today,” in November of 2021. In the article, the University demonstrated the ripe inability to accurately describe a homeopathic treatment whilst pretending to display adept knowledge about the medical modality as a whole. This is the university’s explanation of “like cures like,” a concept that acts as the basis of homeopathic treatment;

When peeling an onion, the eyes may begin to burn a little or itch for many people. Especially fragrant onions may result in a runny nose and watery eyes. Similarly, those who suffer from seasonal allergies have comparable symptoms to the effects one may have when peeling onions, such as watery eyes and a runny nose. A classic homeopathic remedy to treat allergies is to eat red onions. The effect of eating onions is thought to stimulate the body to rejuvenate itself and relieve the symptoms of allergies because “like cures like.” [17]

Suffice to say, eating onions is most certainly not a homeopathic remedy, nor is it a homeopathic treatment. If anything, it is more akin to naturopathic methods of cure that focus on nutrition. What exacerbates the propaganda even further, is that evidence-based science and academia circles themselves cannot seem to agree on whether homeopathic remedies contain anything in them at all. Where one circle says the remedies are nothing but placebos; sugar pills parading as medicine, the other says that these remedies do contain substances that, if administered, could poison a patient. It’s as if everyone received a different memo regarding the contents of homeopathic remedies. 

The Ohio State University published an article in December of 2022, titled “What is homeopathic medicine?” The article was written by Trisha Jordan, the Chief Pharmacy Officer and Assistant Dean of Pharmacy at the University. Needless to say, the author spares no time in expressing that “homeopathy isn’t evidence-based,” [18] and follows to provide an answer to the question; is there risk in using homeopathic products with medications? In her answer, she concedes that “some homeopathic products (remedies) do contain ingredients that can cause concern when taken with medication.” [18] This answer carries with it a very bold statement, one that declares to readers that homeopathic products can contain such active ingredients that they have the ability to affect a conventional medication regimen. The article concludes with advising caution to lactose intolerant people when using homeopathic products; for “some of the preparations may contain lactose.” [18] Imagine a homeopathic product (albeit diluted) containing enough of a substance to affect a person's intolerances.

To counteract Ohio State University’s notion that homeopathic remedies can go as far as poisoning people, the University of Alberta endorsed an article in 2021 that states the contrary. The article, which deals with the concern that some pharmacists are recommending homeopathic products to treat kids’ colds and flu, takes a complete turn when explaining the contents of homeopathic remedies. Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta, expresses in the article that homeopathic remedies are “mostly just water.” [19] The publication continues to argue this notion and quotes a Nova Scotia pharmacist, Graham Mackenzie, who supposedly stopped selling homeopathic products in his independent drugstore. Mackenzie repeats that there is nothing in a homeopathic remedy by saying: 

They [people] come to us as a trusted, most accessible health-care professional, and here we are giving them something that has nothing at all in it… My response to anyone asking for homeopathy now is we took it out because it doesn’t have any ingredients that you’re actually paying me money for. [19]

Evidently, healthcare professionals, together with the public sector, cannot seem to accurately and uniformly describe homeopathic methodology. For a group of people who have a tremendous obsession with science; it’s clear that they themselves haven’t studied (or at least properly researched) homeopathy. Needless to say, most, if not all of the people in question, are either directly or in-directly involved with allopathic healthcare; be it pharmacists, physicians, or public academia chairmen.

Contrary to some thought, homeopathic-based medical research occurs worldwide, and has been contriving magnificent scientific discoveries. The studies are done by scientists and specialists alike, using accepted methods of theoretical science to devise their discoveries. Alas, the most unwarranted anti-homeopathy propaganda, and arguably the most damaging, is the suppression of homeopathic research using disinformation and gaslighting. One of the most notable studies done to further homeopathy’s claims to its efficacy, is a study published in 1988, and conducted by the renowned French immunologist, Jacque Benveniste. The study, titled The memory of water (or la memoire de l’eau), found that extremely high ‘ultramolecular’ dilutions of an antibody, had effects in the human basophil test; a laboratory model of immune response–viz: the water diluent remembered the antibody long after it was gone. [20] Mainstream scientific circles denounced his findings, once again, by way of ad nauseam. To Benveniste’s personal dismay, the propaganda shifted to a technique called ad hominem; which is based on attacking one’s opponent as opposed to attacking their arguments, and resulted in the researcher facing increasing libel and loss of reputation - a reputation which was otherwise considered remarkable by all. This treatment was reported in an article by Le Monde, published shortly after the study was denounced, that threw light on several scientists, and colleagues of Benveniste who claimed he was an extremely self-deluded fraud. [21] The most headlined investigation into La Memoire De L'eau rendered the study “statistically ill-controlled,” [22] and claimed that there was no effort to exclude systematic error, citing that observer bias was looming throughout the study. At a press release, the research facility that housed the study, marked Benveniste’s death with the following quote by Claude Bernard;

When the fact that we come up against does not agree with the predominant theory that we have accepted, we must take the fact and abandon the theory. [22]

Though no studies have been published to conclusively disprove Benveniste’s findings, an article regarding the researcher was brought forth by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) 20 years later, eerily summing-up Benveniste’s legacy;

Water may have no memory, but science does. L’affaire Benveniste, and its eponymous progenitor, will not be forgotten. [22]

Jumping forward to a smaller, yet significant, pilot study published in 2012 and held by the University of Toronto, observed the effects of homeopathic treatment on patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). During the course of the study, the familiar propagandist institutions hounded the university department and the individuals involved, taking it upon themselves to remind the public how meaningless scientific studies are when conducted using homeopathy. Alarmingly, the results of the study illustrated that of the 15 participants involved, (73%) had at least (25%) of their symptoms reduced within an average of 2.6 months. [23] The study concluded that proceeding with the design and conduct of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of homeopathic treatment of ADHD, is in fact warranted. [23] Shortly after these results were published, articles quickly emerged to dismiss the study, claiming that it legitimizes pseudoscience. Amazingly and perhaps unknowingly, some of the propagandists gave a nod to the results of the study, and even bestowed some credit upon homeopathy’s potential benefits. In 2015, an article published by the Toronto Star titled “Scientists critical of University of Toronto homeopathy study,” [24] featured a returning director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, Joe Schwarz. While the article was constructed as an opposition, Schwarz audaciously said; “it does not seem to be ethical to subject these kids to treatment that has such little potential benefit.” [24] A distinguishably different (albeit warmer) statement than the one he makes three years later, calling homeopathy a “bit of puffery.” [15]

In another instance of suppressive propaganda, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an information paper in March 2015 on homeopathy, commonly known as the ‘Australian Report’. The document concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. [25] The report was highlighted around the world, suggesting that NHMRC had found that homeopathy does not work to treat any condition. However, in 2019, NHMRC CEO Professor Anne Kelso clarified that “contrary to some claims, the review did not conclude that homeopathy was “ineffective,” [25] and after an extensive investigation by the Australian Homeopathic Association into the conduct of NHMRC, evidence was revealed that the publication was in fact their second attempt at the report. The first report, written in 2012, was never disclosed to the public. That is, until 2019, whereby a campaign of lawyers forced the NHMRC to release the 2012 report; which concludes that there is “encouraging evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy,” [25] in five medical conditions. 

The propaganda which fixates on destroying homeopathy demonstrably continues to fall short in scientifically dismantling its methodology and effectiveness. It would rather name-call and conceal information than display any semblance of ethical standards one would expect when dealing with such matters. Perhaps it is more economical to parrot the commonly accepted ad nauseams (pseudoscience, quackery, mysticism) than to dedicate means to any real efforts otherwise.

The more successful effort by the propagandists in question, has continuously resided in their influence over various large digital channels. Paralleling Bernays’ modus operandi, controlling what most people are predominantly exposed to allows the propagandists to impose a shadow-like veil on any material that may go against their grain. This renders many websites, research studies, essays, videos, etc. very difficult to find unless meticulously searched for or directly accessed. In other words, homeopathy is facing digital censorship by large tech corporations that have openly and continuously answered to government directions. To observe the tech/government relationship in action; one can simply inquire information about different, and equally controversial topics on the internet. An appropriate example lies in the relationship between Google; the world’s leading search engine, the United States government, and the Mises Institute. The Mises Institute, located in Alabama, claims to teach the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The institute palpably harbours very different ideas as to government reach and its power over economic policies, believing that Austrian (free market) economics will solve many dire issues and ensure better lifestyles for all. The decision-making power on economic policy is a monopoly of its own, considering it is exclusively dictated by the government, and like any monopoly, it promises numerous privileges for its members. Subsequently, if such a monopoly sells Keynesian policies that call for higher government expenditure, then intrinsically, this monopoly would be ideologically opposed to Austrian economics, which calls for little to no government expenditure at all. Differences so conflicting can pose as direct or in-direct threats to any monopoly—after all, monopolists will fight to the bitter end to keep their privileges. It is not surprising then to find that in 2020, the Mises Wire, a digital newspaper for the Mises Institute, published an article that explained to the Institute’s stakeholders that Google is making it harder to find Mises Institute content via its search engine. The institute said that links to websites that republished their articles still appear on the front page, but their mises.org domain is being buried. [26]

This phenomenon is certainly not exclusive to the Mises Institute. Distribution of information on the web vis-a-vis homeopathy is facing the same sort of censorship. While digital conglomerates openly dealing with government officials is not exactly breaking news, blatant conflict of interest between the two should be. Wikipedia, an incredibly large online encyclopedia that allows open editing (with moderation) on much of its data, has its information on homeopathy completely locked; meaning it is not open for editing, and can only be done so by Wikipedia themselves. To no avail, several petitions have been created that call for the digital encyclopedia to update their information on homeopathy, which homeopaths say consists of wrong definitions, biased references, and half-cooked knowledge. To quickly illuminate the influence that Wikipedia has on the masses; the digital encyclopedia is listed as the 7th most visited website in the world, and the top digital encyclopedia in the world. [28] As of this moment, searching either allopathy, naturopathy, or homeopathy on the Google search engine (the most visited website in the world), will yield their respective Wikipedia pages within the first three links. In other words, Wikipedia is one of the first websites that appear on the user’s screen. More alarming is the recent update to Google’s search results page, whereby searching any topic will yield a dedicated section for Wikipedia’s information on it, and whether or not these are organic occurrences based on SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is frankly irrelevant. This reality poses a threat for homeopathic information, for in a modern culture that prides itself on being expeditious, many will not venture past the first few links provided by these search engines. In fact, according to an analysis of 4 million Google search results, just 0.63% of people click on the second page of Google search results. [29] Further investigation into Wikipedia’s internal affairs, surrenders irrefutable evidence for a conflict of interest against homeopathy. Jimmy Wales, the co-founder and governing member of Wikipedia, openly unleashed his hatred towards homeopathy in 2013, after a pharmacist recommended for him a homeopathic remedy for cold symptoms. His reaction was featured on several news outlets, who along with Wales, parroted the usual anti-homeopathy propaganda. Strangely enough, in the articles, specifically one published by the Observer, Wales argues that “the flu is a dangerous virus, and yet some people may eschew a life-saving vaccine in order to take homeopathic remedies that are falsely marketed as effective.” [30] It appears Wales was adamantly confused as to why he approached a pharmacist for advice in the first place, perhaps forgetting that he already knew that a life-saving flu vaccine is really all he needed. Wales’ views may not be the reason behind Wikipedia’s misleading information on homeopathy, but they add to the evidence that the censorship of non-conventional approaches by large tech corps is certainly not an unusual occurrence.

Effectively, propaganda is the medical monopoly’s round shield, whereby the collusion of government and corporations provide it ample defense for any perceived threats that may surround it. It is however often said, that the best defense is an attack, and alas, the greatsword that swung strict regulations in the past, is returning to swing again, and this time, the internet is its foe. Movements to regulate the internet in the last few decades have gained extreme grounds. In the east, governments have managed to control and censor any material they deem dissentious on the web. In the more democratic west, various governments are dedicating vast efforts to accomplish the same, by introducing bills that enforce a measure of centralized control on what their citizens are digitally exposed to. Looking closer, an emergence of agencies is surfacing to facilitate medical regulations online, one of which is the American Accreditation Commission International (AACI). Uncannily resembling the Flexner Report, the accreditation agency, headquartered in the United States, surveys healthcare organizations internationally, and distributes internet accreditations called, Medical Web Content Certifications. These certifications are trust badges that let visitors of a website know that any health-related information it promotes, meets the AACI’s medical standards. While the commission does not possess force to regulate websites, it claims to work closely with governments to promote quality healthcare practices around the globe. Kresimir Antonion Paliska, the Vice President of AACI, publicly affirms that he and the AACI do not trust health content online, and displays heavy concern for research that states that 89% of doctors see patients who have gotten health information from the internet [31]. Thus far, not a single accreditation has been given to any homeopathic organizations by the AACI, and aside from a few wellness facilities, it has exclusively provided accreditations to allopathic establishments. Though to some this may not appear concerning, it is without question that these types of relationships between agencies and governments have, and certainly can, lead to regulatory reform.

The determination of homeopathy

It is not a conspiracy to acknowledge the forces that have shaped much of the medical landscape around the world today. Homeopathy, its practitioners, advocates, and users have continuously suffered damages to their freedom, professional growth, integrity, and sanity—on account of a movement that sought to enlarge itself through force. Though it parades as a behemoth, the allopathic medical monopoly has proved itself precarious. It suffers from irregularity and instability, and as it squelches homeopathy, it negatively impacts its own physicians in its acquisitions of power; enforcing oath-breaking practices and providing minacious medicines. It is not a myth that monopolies of this scale exist, they are merely unnatural, and therefore take meticulous efforts to preserve. In the case of the allopathic medical monopoly, these efforts have manifested themselves as embellished philanthropy, relentless propaganda, and protrusive corporatism. Pharmaceutical companies continue to sew themselves into public education across the world, proudly displaying their corporate tags on the most prestigious stone plaques. Staggering amounts of anti-homeopathy propaganda consistently graces the eyes of the public, sporting many different appearances, and constructing many straw men and red herrings. The monopoly spreads ever still, through philanthropists that incessantly fund reforms across the globe and give rise to global health policing entities that seek their operation costs from taxpayers. Homeopathy, overall, is in a constant battle to freely operate both in a physical, and a digital capacity.

Yet despite all, there are those who stand to protect the freedom to choose homeopathy. It would be a farce to deny that the health industry is surrounded by iniquitous forces, but the ability to better understand their origins is accompanied with the hope that readers may perceive homeopathy as a resilient force of its own. It is with even greater hope, that succeeding this moment, nevermore shall the reader be exposed to the idea that there is only a single way of thinking, but shall have rather gained the aptitude to accept that choice is fundamental to liberty. Nevermore shall the reader be unable to recognize a product of propaganda, but rather shall begin to support information that is free of prejudice. Nevermore shall the reader be exposed to a truth, but rather shall question its narrative, in his attempt to find the veracity of its claims. And, nevermore shall the reader doubt the determination of homeopathy, but rather shall seek with conviction the fruits of its labour. 

References

1. Stahnisch, Frank W, and Marja Verhoef. “The Flexner Report of 1910 and Its Impact on Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Psychiatry in North America in the 20th Century.” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : ECAM, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 26 Dec. 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543812/.

2. Duffy, Thomas P. “The Flexner Report--100 Years Later.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Sept. 2011, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178858/.

3. Jones, Henry. “How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care.” Mises Institute, 11 Feb. 2005, https://mises.org/library/how-medical-boards-nationalized-health-care.

4. Beer, Jeremy. “Satan Was the First Philanthropist.” Philanthropy Daily, 13 May 2020, https://philanthropydaily.com/satan-the-first-philanthropist/.

5. Roland, Charles G. “History of Medicine to 1950.” Edited by Tabitha Marshall, The Canadian Encyclopedia, Historica Canada, 7 Feb. 2006, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/history-of-medicine.

6. Beatrice, Dennis F. “The Role of Philanthropy in Health Care Reform.” Health Affairs, AcademyHealth, 1993, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.12.2.185. 

7. Committed Grants Database, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023. 

8. Viergever, Roderik F., and Thom C. C. Hendriks. “The 10 Largest Public and Philanthropic Funders of Health Research in the World: What They Fund and How They Distribute Their Funds - Health Research Policy and Systems.” BioMed Central, BioMed Central, 18 Feb. 2016, https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z.

9. “Complementary and Alternative Medicine Funding by NIH Institute/Center.” National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.nccih.nih.gov/about/budget/complementary-and-alternative-medicine-funding-by-nih-institutecenter.

10. “Who Director-General's Opening Remarks at the Ground-Breaking Ceremony for the WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine – 19 April 2022.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-ground-breaking-ceremony-for-the-who-global-centre-for-traditional-medicine---19-april-2022. 

11. Carbonaro, Giulia. “Why Does Who Rely so Much on Bill Gates' Money?” Euronews, 3 Feb. 2023, https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/03/how-is-the-world-health-organization-funded-and-why-does-it-rely-so-much-on-bill-gates.

12. Hensley, Laura. “Big Pharma Pours Millions into Medical Schools - Here's How It Can Impact Education.” Global News, Global News, 3 June 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/5738386/canadian-medical-school-funding/.

13. Kirkey, S. 2023, April 18. Ontario doctors forced to give up licences over COVID vaccine... Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved April 23, 2023, from https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/doctors-resign-licences-covid-19-vaccine-exemptions-misinformation/wcm/7e2f203c-9e9b-44b2-806a-98b004a8bba6 

14. Gunderman, Richard. “The Manipulation of the American Mind: Edward Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations.” The Conversation, 13 Sept. 2022, https://theconversation.com/the-manipulation-of-the-american-mind-edward-bernays-and-the-birth-of-public-relations-44393.

15. Crowe, Kelly. “Georgian College Cancels Diploma in Homeopathy.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 10 Feb. 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/georgian-college-diploma-homeopathy-pseudoscience-1.4529339.

16. Sgambati, Sue. “The Story behind Georgian College's Homeopathy Program - and the 'Difficult Decision' to Cancel It.” BarrieToday.com, Village Media, 12 Feb. 2018, https://www.barrietoday.com/local-news/the-story-behind-georgian-colleges-homeopathy-program-and-the-difficult-decision-to-cancel-it-837534.

17. Logsdon, Stephen. “The Rise and Fall of Homeopathic Medicine in the US, and Its Continued Popularity Today.” Becker Medical Library, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 5 Nov. 2021, https://becker.wustl.edu/news/the-rise-and-fall-of-homeopathic-medicine-in-the-us-and-its-continued-popularity-today/.

18. Jordan, Trisha. “FAQ: What Is Homeopathic Medicine?” Ohio State Health and Discovery, The Ohio State University, 22 Dec. 2022, https://health.osu.edu/health/general-health/homeopathy.

19. Foxcroft, Tiffany, et al. “Hidden Camera Reveals Some Pharmacists Recommend Homeopathic Products to Treat Kids' Cold and Flu | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 20 Nov. 2021, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marketplace-homeopathic-products-1.6254025#:~:text=Some%20pharmacists%20working%20in%20Canada's,CBC%20Marketplace%20investigation%20has%20found.

20. “The Memory of Water Is a Reality.” Elsevier, RELX, 1 Aug. 2007, https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/the-memory-of-water-is-a-reality. Accessed 13 Apr. 2023.

21. Butler, Declan. “Nobel Laureates Face Libel Suits from 'Water Memory' Researcher.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 2 Oct. 1997, https://www.nature.com/articles/38833.

22. Watts, Geoff. “Jacques Benveniste.” BMJ : British Medical Journal, BMJ Group, 27 Nov. 2004, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534457/. 

23. Brulé, D., Boon, H. P02.09. An open label pilot study of homeopathic treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). BMC Complement Altern Med 12 (Suppl 1), P65 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P65.

24. Krishnan, Manisha. “Scientists Critical of University of Toronto Homeopathy Study.” Thestar.com, Toronto Star, 5 Mar. 2015, https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2015/03/05/scientists-critical-of-u-of-t-homeopathy-study.html#:~:text=90%20top%20scientists%20have%20signed,on%20homeopathy%20treatment%20for%2n.d.HD.&text=A%20University%20of%20Toronto%20study,claim%20it%20legitimizes%20a%20pseudoscience. 

25. “The Australian Report.” HRI, Homeopathy Research Institute, 19 Mar. 2021, https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/the-australian-report-on-homeopathy/.

26. Bishop, Tho. “Google Is Making It Harder to Find Mises Institute Content.” Mises Institute, 20 Oct. 2020, https://mises.org/power-market/google-making-it-harder-find-mises-institute-content?page=1.

27. “Sign Online Petition for Wikipedia to Update Information on Homeopathy.” Homeopathy Resource by Homeobook.com, 11 Jan. 2022, https://www.homeobook.com/sign-online-petition-for-wikipedia-to-update-information-on-homeopathy/.

28. “Similarweb - Most visited websites in March 2023.”

29. Mohsin, Maryam. “10 Google Search Statistics You Need to Know in 2023.” Oberlo, Oberlo, 14 Feb. 2023, https://www.oberlo.com/blog/google-search-statistics#:~:text=right%20purchase%20decision.-,9.,results%20(Backlinko%2C%202022). 

30. Roy, Jessica. “Wikipedian at War: Jimmy Wales Sets His Sights on Homeopathy.” Observer, Observer Media, 31 Jan. 2013, https://observer.com/2013/01/wikipedian-at-war-jimmy-wales-sets-his-sights-on-homeopathy/.

31. Kresimir Antonio Paliska Senior Vice President. American Accreditation Commission International, https://aacihealthcare.com/blog/do-you-trust-information-found-online/. 

32. Johnson, David, and Humayun J. Chaudhry. “History of the Federation of State Medical Boards: Part One - 19th Century Origins of FSMB and Modern Medical Regulation.” Allen Press, Allen Press, 1 Mar. 2012, https://meridian.allenpress.com/jmr/article/98/1/20/212503/The-History-of-the-Federation-of-State-Medical.

33. Poitevin, Bernard. “The Continuing Mystery of the Memory of Water.” Homeopathy, Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 14 Dec. 2017, https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1016/j.homp.2007.11.003.

34. Bernays, Edward L. Propaganda, by Edward L. Bernays. Horace Liverlight, 1933.

35. Olenik, Michael. “Wikipedia's Deep Ties to Big Tech.” Institute for New Economic Thinking, 5 Apr. 2021, https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech.

36. Druggists’ Circular, Volume 51.