Currently there is a huge discussion about homeopathy in Germany. A politician claimed that treatment with homeopathy should not be covered from any health insurance anymore.

On occasion of that discussion, the public TV broadcasted “homeopathy paid by the health insurance?” at the prime time only recently. The moderator had two guests, both researchers, a homeopath-physician from the University hospital in Munich and a pharmacologist working as a drug-expert in Germany.

Both experts had the possibility to tell their view about homeopathy after the discussion-leader opened the discussion with the question: “Have you had a similar experience of getting prescribed a whole bunch of chemical drugs when visiting the physician? Wouldn't it be better to have received homeopathic doses? What is homeopathy? A healing medicine or hocus-pocus? Should the health insurance pay for it?”

The homeopath said that they had very good experience in the university hospitals for 15 years especially in cases where the patient should not receive immediately dangerous drugs like in pregnant woman, premature babies or little children.

The person from the pharmaceutical industry claimed that these results may be due to the much better anamnesis and the placebo effect. He also admitted that many patients receive much too often too quick an antibiotic medicine instead of given the body the chance to use their own capabilities.

Then pharmaceutical representative declared that homeopathy is not a real science because it is not based on evidence and that there is no scientific proof and no real clinical studies. He brought up a study where homeopathy was only comparable with placebo. Therefore, he stressed the good results of homeopathy may be due to their better anamnesis or devotion to the patient.

However,the homeopath researcher counter attacked and said that Hahnemann was a very skillful scientist and that homeopathy is based on pure scientific work and not on speculations, although there is no material proof, there are many proofs of evidence where the babies got much better. In that case, you can not say, that these results are due to better anamnesis and increased devotion. She also brought up examples of clinical studies (J. Jacobs in childhood diarrhea and R. Frei in ADHS).

Of course, the pharmaceutical referent came up that there is only water and nothing more and especially in a potency of more than D23 there is nothing left in the globules. However, the homeopath retaliated that they had recently a very good proof of evidence with a potency of C200 and that the homeopathic remedies are not only diluted but also shaken intensively 10 times for every potency and that succussion in addition to the dilution made the big effect.

In that context she also stressed that only well educated physician should treat patients with homeopathy or well-trained naturopaths should apply it.

The next question was about the lack of money of the German health insurances. The pharmacologists said as long there is no verifiable proof of efficacy the homeopathic remedies should not be used as the patients have their rights to receive an appropriate treatment. On that the homeopath only said that their remedies are officially recognized in Germany…. Furthermore, the pharmacologist stated that there is still a lot of saving potential in all kind of areas. The homeopath replied said that with homeopathy they effectively heal and reduce the costs of treatment.

The final question was if both ever had homeopathic treatment or the classical treatment. The drug industry representative said that he prefers walking in the open nature when not feeling well and the homeopath only said that she was never so sick that she really needed allopathic drugs.