Barbrae said:
That is false - even in my own experiences.
It's not a line of thought btw - just a question of curiosity.
You're missing the point I'm getting to, and just as an aside personal experience is not a valid evidentiary source.
I can say you won't have a doctor prescribe multiple antibiotics at once. Different ones over time, perhaps, but you won't see, for example, one doctor give zithromyacin for pneumonia while the next decides to give amoxicillin, penicillin, and keflex all at once. You also won't have one doctor claiming that you need to take one 100mg pill a day for your pneumonia on an empty stomach, while another claims that you need to take two pills every three hours and only after eating. My point is there are standards and practices for prescribing medications, and doctors who fail to follow these standards suffer repercusions that can include losing their license of even criminal charges. Doctors are reviewed and held accountable.
IN homeopathy there is no agreement on dosage, frequency of dosage, size of dosage, multiple remedy interactions, remedy selection, or much else. You never know if the homeopath you're going to see practices "your" brand of homeopathy or not, because there's no regulation and no standard. You are quick to claim that certain people are "not practicing real homeopathy", the question people here are trying to get you to answer is how can you tell?
I know when a doctor is not practicing real medicine. Patients are misinformed or given treatments that are not needed, the doctor uses drugs or techniques that are not approved for use and haven't been tested, the docotr bills my insurance company for treatments never performed, and so on. Any treatment the doctor gives me, I can verify at any other doctor. Those who are practicing medicine will be in general agreement as to the treatment needed (they might argue about whether one antibiotic would be more appropriate than another, or whether surgery or chemotherapy was required, etc...however, they all understand these treatments and know their validity...they are in agreement).
With a homeopath, you can go to another one and get the "not real homeopathy" story if you're critical, or the "it doesn't matter, it works, really" story if you're gullible. Reading certain pro-homeopathy boards, these "unreal" homeopaths seem to be defended whenever anyone asks questions, and only pointed out as unreal when a skeptic asks about the multiple techniques and methods used. Then they're not "real" homeopaths. But no one reports these unreal homeopaths to a review board, no one files charges against them for mispracticing homeopathy and placing patients at risk, in fact, real or not, they have as much of a valid claim to homeopathy as anyone. If a doctor began talking about how antibiotics were no good, and refused to prescribe them to his patients, he could most definately be opening himself up for review and legal action. And it would be a relatively clear cut case in determining whether he was following acceptable medical practice or not.
