I realised I had never looked up the dictionary definition of these terms before, so I dusted off my trusty Concise OED and found the following:
A couple of questions. Does anybody object to this being described as a "treatment of disease". I don't because it doesn't imply anything about efficacy.
What about its description of the use of "minute doses". That I do object to, because homeopathy advocates treatment using an absence or drugs etc.
Next:
This I find inacurate. Surely, it could be defined as "treatment by conventional means", OR "treatment with drugs having opposite effects to the symptoms", but not both as is the case in the OED.
Should we campaign to have this fixed?
Homoeopathy the treatment of disease by minute doses of drugs that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of the disease.
A couple of questions. Does anybody object to this being described as a "treatment of disease". I don't because it doesn't imply anything about efficacy.
What about its description of the use of "minute doses". That I do object to, because homeopathy advocates treatment using an absence or drugs etc.
Next:
Allopathy the treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having opposite effects to the symptoms.
This I find inacurate. Surely, it could be defined as "treatment by conventional means", OR "treatment with drugs having opposite effects to the symptoms", but not both as is the case in the OED.
Should we campaign to have this fixed?