How Homoeopathy Works : A burning Question!!

Homoeopathy is the second largest system of medicine in the world. It is very popular system in the India. But certain questions or myth always put homoeopathy in the controversy. There are many institutions or the group of people who are trying to prove that homoeopathy doesn't work at all. In that case one question is always there how actually homoeopathy works?

Click here

There were 147 schools in America. They were teaching various things. 47 schools were teaching allopathic medicines and other 100 schools were teaching various other modes of treatment like herbal medicines, Chinese medicines, acupuncture, homoeopathy etc. America proposed one man commision to inspect all of these medical colleges and make a report which are scientific and which are non scientific. To inspect all this medical school they select one retired  head master of school named Andrew Flaxener. He inspect all 147 schools within 6 month and reported that 47 school which are using reductionist pharmaceutical chemistry are the only scientific one and other one are unscientific. And after that other medical colleges are closed in America. Now the question arises that can we believe this report which is prepared by a head master of school who even doesn't know what medicine is?

After America there are many other European countries who declared homoeopathy as a pseudo scientific and banned homoeopathic medicine. But they don't have proof that homoeopathy doesn't work. After discovery of Avogadro's number the potentised homoeopathic medicine were challenged. Accordingto Avogadro's number, a number of unite of substances in one mole is equal to   6.02214076 × 1023 . Homoeopathy achieve this number in 12C or 24X potency. That means there is no more medicinal substances in further potency.

If above theory is right then another questions arise that then why over 200 million peoples are using homoeopathy as a treatment? What about the results which can be seen by homoeopathic medicine? How the pathology gets clear by placebo effects? And if homoeopathy really works then how?

In § 29 Dr. Hahnemann has tried to explain philosophically that how homoeopathic medicine works.  "As every disease (not strictly belonging to the domain of surgery) depends only on a peculiar morbid derangement of our vital force in sensations and functions, when a homoeopathic cure of the vital force deranged by natural disease is accomplished by the administration of a medicinal agent selected on account of an accurate similarity of symptoms, a somewhat stronger, similar, artificial morbid affection is brought into contact with and, as it were, pushed into the place of the weaker, similar, natural morbid irritation, against which the instinctive vital force, now merely (though in a stronger degree) medicinally diseased, is then compelled to direct an increased amount of energy, but, on account of the shorter duration of the action1 of the medicinal agent that now morbidly affects it, the vital force soon overcomes this, and as it was in the first instance relieved from the natural morbid affection, so it is now at last freed from the substituted artificial (medicinal) one, and hence is enable again to carry on healthily the vital operations of the organism. This highly probable explanation of the process rests on the following axioms." But everybody knows that this is for only to explain homoeopathic student and nobody going to understand this explain except homoeopathic follower. 

Every time when somebody ask us how homoeopathy works we all wasting our time by giving above mentioned explanation. Actually Dr. Hahnemann has not given this explanation to make other understand but this is given to make you understand. It is important to remember § 28 rather than § 29. In § 28 Dr. Hahnemann said that "As this natural law of cure manifests itself in every pure experiment and every true observation in the world, the fact is consequently established; it matters little what may be scientific explanation of how it takes place; and I do not attach much importance to the attempts made to explain it. But the following view seems to commend itself as the most probable one, as it is founded on premises derived from experience." According to me this explanation has more value than § 29. Why should we give to much importance to the attempts made to explain how homoeopathy works?

Click here

It doesn't need proof that sun rises in East. If we can see it, it is the biggest proof. According to Veda "प्रत्यक्ष: किम प्रमाणम्" means what we can see doesn't require a proof. So if we can see result we doesn't require any proof to claim that homoeopathy works. Result will speak itself. So it is my request to all homoeopathy rather wasting time to explain how homoeopathy works give result of Homoeopathy that will speak that homoeopathy works; doesn't matter how?