2

English Wikipedia is pretty clear and uncompromising on the topic of homeopathy, as you can see below:

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann. [...] Homeopathy is pseudoscience. It is not effective for any condition, and no homeopathic remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.

Czech Wikipedia sounds much less clear (the structure of the introduction is very similar on both version allowing me to translate sentences that are almost directly linked to the same position in the article:

Homeopathy is a treatment method used mostly in alternative medicine. [...] Effectivity of this method or function of it's principles were never reliably scientifically proven - on the contrary numerous studies failed to prove that homeopathy is more effective than placebo; this leaves homeopathy in the medicine no less than a controversial topic.

In original:

Homeopatie je léčebná metoda používaná zejména v alternativní medicíně. [...] Účinnost metody ani fungování jejích principů nebyly spolehlivě vědecky prokázány, naopak v rozsáhlých studiích se nepodařilo potvrdit, že by měla homeopatie účinek lepší než placebo; homeopatie je tedy v medicínském kontextu přinejmenším kontroverzní záležitostí.

Emphasis is mine in all three quotations in order to highlight the different way Czech Wikipedia describes the topic. While we're really talking about 2 words, these two words on Czech wikipedia leave open space for the interpretation that the homeopathic method are sometimes used in official medicine, and therefore are deemed to be working in some situations. I doubt that but I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic of homeopathy and how it's approached.

Basically my question is whether the word mostly on the Czech Wikipedia isn't just misleading. And therefore, whether there are other than alternative treatments methods that use homeopathy as serious tool to help patients, paid form health insurance and therefore official for our purposes.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Oddthinking May 12 '15 at 23:56

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    'Official medicine' doesn't seem to have a clear meaning. I don't think there is any doubt that some MDs use homeopathy, more so in some countries and time period than others. Does that make it 'official'? – Oddthinking May 13 '15 at 0:00
  • @TomášZato State health insurance currently pays for them in Switzerland ... because of popular demand i.e. a referendum ... does that answer your question? – ChrisW May 13 '15 at 12:10
  • @ChrisW Well it's complicated, but it is my fault that I don't know what I am asking in the first place. The fact that it was made by popular demand makes it weird but well - I think the problem here is that it's hard to say what's official in society made of individuals with all kinds of opinions. So yes, it's definitelly the answer to the question I have written down. – Tomáš Zato May 13 '15 at 12:41
  • Many private health insurance companies in Australia offer hmeopathy because customers want it. This does not mean it is effective, and there is still no notable claim here. – Oddthinking May 13 '15 at 14:26
  • I believe, by "official medicine" the OP has meant the medical practices doctors with a physician licence in a certain country are allowed to perform. If a law or perhaps a certain health authority allows a certain medical practice, it becomes "official." For example, at my place (Slovenia), doctors are allowed to perform acupuncture (which is therefore official) but not homeopathy (which is then not official). Here, a doctor who wants to perform homeopathy, needs to return a physician licence and is not allowed to be called a doctor, but a "healer" or so. – Jan May 14 '15 at 15:07