There are two aspects to this questions.
1. Is it ‘actively’ dangerous? In other words, can giving a homeopathic remedy make someone sick?
2. Is it dangerous because it seeks to replace ‘real’ medicine?
To answer the first point, the simple answer is ‘no’. Even our merry band of PHS (Professional Homeopathic Skeptics) seem to agree on this, though that’s because they believe the remedy has no effect as there is no medicinal substance in it! (poor misguided souls)
The real answer is, that for a remedy to have an affect on someone, it has to closely match their symptom picture. If it is totally different, it will have absolutely no affect no matter how much you take, or for how long. If the remedy DOES match the person’s symptoms then it still can do no harm as it’s only effect is to stimulate the persons own vital force, their bodies own intelligent healing ability. Sometimes this stimulating effect can cause symptoms to get worse (as many of us who have treated ezcema could testify!)…so superficially it could look harmful…but it is just stimulating the vital force to do it’s job, to use my example above, the ezcema symptoms are part of the process of healing & will soon pass.
Now to answer the second point. I would answer in two ways. Firstly IF homeopathy is a load of codswallop as our merry tireless band insist, then it is still up to the patient to take responsibility for their own health. We are in the 21st century & I welcome the advent of informed patients…we need to get away from the old ‘father knows best’ model were we go along to our G.P & prostrate ourselves at his feet…obeying his every utterance. I think G.Ps do a very important job, don’t get me wrong, but it is a different role than people think. I believe their role is more as a diagnostician, a gateway to the rest of the NHS, that sort of thing. The ideal model I think is the patient goes, gets a diagnosis…then thinks & researches about the most suitable form of treatment for them. This might be allopathic medication, surgery, chiropractic, accupunture, homeopathy, naturopathy etc. If it is a chronic complaint then the G.P would have a continuing role, checking on their progress at regular intervals.
The PHS-brigade have erected this strawman of a crazy deluded homeopath that insists on their patient stopping their medication & having no contact with their G.P. And of course they can point to occasions when this has happened. But then I can point to an occasion when a G.P murdered hundreds of patients, it doesn’t prove anything about other G.Ps
If a patient CHOOSES to use homeopathy solely, then this person has taken personal responsibility for his health (a GOOD thing, though not so good for Big-Pharma’s profits). If they have a serious chronic condition & it continues to worsen during their homeopathic treatment, then in my opinion it is the homeopaths duty to be honest with them, explain the condition isn’t improving, recommend they visit their G.P etc… but ultimately the patients health is their own responsibility.
I’ve rambled on long enough, I hope you can see that my conclusion must be ‘homeopathy is not dangerous’, and understand why from my arguments above.
All comments welcome.