ਹੋਮੀਓਪੈਥੀ: ਰੀਵਿਜ਼ਨਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਫ਼ਰਕ

ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ, ਇੱਕ ਅਜ਼ਾਦ ਗਿਆਨਕੋਸ਼ ਤੋਂ
Browse history interactively
← ਪੁਰਾਣੀ ਤਬਦੀਲੀਅਗਲੀ ਸੋਧ →
ਸਮੱਗਰੀ ਮਿਟਾਈ ਸਮੱਗਰੀ ਜੋੜੀ
VisualWikitext
ਛੋ clean up using AWB
Tow (ਗੱਲ-ਬਾਤ | ਯੋਗਦਾਨ)
1,293 ਸੋਧਾਂ
expansion
ਲਾਈਨ 1: ਲਾਈਨ 1:
{{under construction}}
[[File:Hahnemann.jpg|thumb|right|ਸੈਮਿਊਲ ਹਾਨੇਮਾਨ]]
[[File:Hahnemann.jpg|thumb|right|ਸੈਮਿਊਲ ਹਾਨੇਮਾਨ]]
'''[[ਹੋਮਿਓਪੈਥੀ|ਹੋਮੀਓਪੈਥੀ]]''' , ਇੱਕ ਚਿਕਿਤਸਾ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀ ਹੈ। ਹੋਮਿਓਪੈਥੀ ਚਿਕਿਤ‍ਸਾ ਵਿਗਿਆਨ ਦਾ ਜਨ‍ਮਦਾਤਾ [[ਸੈਮੂਅਲ ਹੈਨੇਮੈਨ|ਸੈਮਿਊਲ ਹਾਨੇਮਾਨ]] ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਚਿਕਿਤਸਾ ਸਮਰੂਪਤਾ ਦੇ ਸਿੱਧਾਂਤ ਉੱਤੇ ਆਧਾਰਿਤ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਜੋ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਤੰਦੁਰੁਸਤ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੋਗ ਦੇ ਲੱਛਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਹੀ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਬੀਮਾਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਸੇ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਲੱਛਣਾ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।
'''[[ਹੋਮਿਓਪੈਥੀ|ਹੋਮੀਓਪੈਥੀ]]''' , ਇੱਕ ਚਿਕਿਤਸਾ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀ ਹੈ। ਹੋਮਿਓਪੈਥੀ ਚਿਕਿਤ‍ਸਾ ਵਿਗਿਆਨ ਦਾ ਜਨ‍ਮਦਾਤਾ [[ਸੈਮੂਅਲ ਹੈਨੇਮੈਨ|ਸੈਮਿਊਲ ਹਾਨੇਮਾਨ]] ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਚਿਕਿਤਸਾ ਸਮਰੂਪਤਾ ਦੇ ਸਿੱਧਾਂਤ ਉੱਤੇ ਆਧਾਰਿਤ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਜੋ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਤੰਦੁਰੁਸਤ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੋਗ ਦੇ ਲੱਛਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਹੀ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਬੀਮਾਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਸੇ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਲੱਛਣਾ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।

Homeopathy is not a plausible system of treatment, as its dogmas about how drugs, illness, the human body, liquids and solutions operate are contradicted by a wide range of discoveries across biology, psychology, physics and chemistry made in the two centuries since its invention.<ref name="shang">{{cite journal |last1=Shang |first1=Aijing |last2=Huwiler-Müntener |first2=Karin |last3=Nartey |first3=Linda |last4=Jüni |first4=Peter |last5=Dörig |first5=Stephan |last6=Sterne |first6=Jonathan AC |last7=Pewsner |first7=Daniel |last8=Egger |first8=Matthias |title=Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy |journal=The Lancet |volume=366 |pages=726–732 |year=2005 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 |pmid=16125589 |issue=9487}}</ref><ref name="ernst-skeptical-inquirer">{{cite journal | url= http://www.csicop.org/si/show/homeopathy_a_critique_of_current_clinical_research | title= Homeopathy: a critique of current clinical research | last=Ernst |first=E. | journal= [[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date= December 2012 |volume=36 |issue= 6}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/homeopathy |title= Homeopathy |publisher= American Cancer Society |accessdate= October 12, 2014}}</ref><ref name=inquiry_cfm>UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/homeopathy-/ "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"]</ref><ref name=GrimesFACT>{{cite journal | last1 = Grimes | first1 = D. R. | title = Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible | journal = Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies | volume = 17 | issue = 3 | pages = 149–155 | year = 2012 | pmid = | pmc = | doi = 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01162.x }}</ref><ref name=EASAC2017>{{cite web|url=http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/EASAC_Homepathy_statement_web_final.pdf|title=Homeopathic products and practices: assessing the evidence and ensuring consistency in regulating medical claims in the EU|date=September 2017|work=European Academies' Science Advisory Council|page=1|accessdate=1 October 2017|quote=... we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.}}</ref> Although some [[clinical trial]]s produce positive results,<ref name="pmid10853874">{{cite journal |last1=Cucherat |first1=M |last2=Haugh |first2=MC |last3=Gooch |first3=M |last4=Boissel |first4=JP |title=Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group |journal=European journal of clinical pharmacology |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=27–33 |year=2000 |doi=10.1007/s002280050716|pmid=10853874}}</ref><ref name="Caulfield2005">{{cite journal |last1=Caulfield |first1=Timothy |last2=Debow |first2=Suzanne |title=A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=5 |page=12 |year=2005 |pmid=15955254 |pmc=1177924 |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-5-12}}</ref> multiple [[systematic review]]s have indicated that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and [[reporting bias]]. Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments,<ref name="unethical">{{cite journal | last1 = Shaw | first1 = DM | title = Homeopathy is where the harm is: Five unethical effects of funding unscientific 'remedies' | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 36 | issue = 3 | pages = 130–131 | year = 2010 | pmid = 20211989 | pmc = | doi = 10.1136/jme.2009.034959 }}</ref> with the [[World Health Organisation|World Health Organization]] warning against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as [[HIV]] and [[malaria]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Mashta |first=O |title= WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases |journal=BMJ |date=August 24, 2009 |volume=339 |issue=aug24 2 |pages= b3447–b3447 |doi= 10.1136/bmj.b3447 }}</ref> The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of [[efficacy]],<ref name="pmid12492603">{{cite journal |last1=Ernst |first1=E. |authorlink=Edzard Ernst|title=A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy |journal=British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=577–82 |year=2002 |pmid=12492603 |pmc=1874503 |doi=10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x}}</ref><ref name="shang"/><ref name="pmid1825800">{{cite journal |last1=Kleijnen |first1=J |last2=Knipschild |first2=P |last3=Ter Riet |first3=G |title=Clinical trials of homoeopathy |journal=BMJ |volume=302 |issue=6772 |pages=316–23 |year=1991 |pmid=1825800 |pmc=1668980 |doi=10.1136/bmj.302.6772.316}}</ref> has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,<ref name="Walport-Nonsense">{{cite web |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html |title= Homeopathy is nonsense, says new chief scientist | work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] | date=April 18, 2013 | accessdate= September 9, 2013}}</ref> [[quackery]],<ref name=Baran2014>{{cite book |vauthors=Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP |work=Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century |publisher=Springer |year=2014 |pages=19–57 |title=Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ? |doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2 |isbn=978-1-4614-8540-7 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2/fulltext.html |quote=within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery}}</ref><ref name=Ladyman>{{cite book |author=Ladyman J |veditors=Pigliucci M, Boudry M |year=2013 |pages=48–49 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |chapter=Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience |title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem |quote=Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely). |isbn=978-0-226-05196-3}}</ref><ref name=Ladyman>{{cite book |author=Ladyman J |veditors=Pigliucci M, Boudry M |year=2013 |pages=48–49 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |chapter=Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience |title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem |quote=Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely). |isbn=978-0-226-05196-3}}</ref><ref name=oxcompus>{{cite book |title= The Oxford companion to United States history |isbn= 9780195082098 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=SgtyKzBes6QC&lpg=PA630&pg=PA630#v=snippet&f=false |author=Paul S. Boyer |accessdate= January 15, 2013 |quote= After 1847, when regular doctors organized the American Medical Association (AMA), that body led the war on "quackery", especially targeting dissenting medical groups such as homeopaths, who prescribed infinitesimally small doses of medicine. Ironically, even as the AMA attacked all homeopathy as quackery, educated homeopathic physicians were expelling untrained quacks from their ranks.}}</ref> and a sham.<ref name=aaci>{{cite web|url=http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/14 |accessdate=January 15, 2013 |quote=Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham |title=Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public}}</ref>

Assessments by the Australian [[National Health and Medical Research Council]], the United Kingdom's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, and the Swiss [[Federal Department of Home Affairs#Federal Office of Public Health|Federal Health Office]] have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding.<ref name="Conversation-NHMRC">{{cite news | url=http://theconversation.com/no-evidence-homeopathy-is-effective-nhmrc-review-25368 | title=No evidence homeopathy is effective: NHMRC review | work=The Conversation | date=April 8, 2014 | last=Musgrave|first=I | accessdate=January 10, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Swiss make New Year's regulations |url = http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-make-new-year-s-regulations/31867422 |publisher = Swiss Info |accessdate = December 16, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Homeopathic remedies are 'nonsense and risk significant harm' say 29 European scientific bodies|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homeopathy-nonsense-risk-harm-29-european-academies-science-advisory-council-remedies-a7963786.html|accessdate=October 10, 2017|publisher=The Independent|date=September 23, 2017}}</ref> The [[NHS England|National Health Service in England]] has announced a policy of not funding homeopathic medicine because it is "a misuse of resources".<ref>{{cite news|title=NHS to ban homeopathy and herbal medicine, as 'misuse of resources'|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/nhs-ban-homeopathy-herbal-medicine-misuse-resources/|accessdate=July 21, 2017|publisher=Daily Telegraph|date=July 21, 2017}}</ref> They have called on the UK Department of Health to add homeopathic remedies to the blacklist of forbidden prescription items.<ref name="bbc-blacklist">{{Cite news |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34744858 |title=Homeopathy 'could be blacklisted' |last=Gallagher |first=James |date=2015-11-13 |work=BBC News |access-date=2017-12-05 |language=en-GB}}</ref>


{{ਅਧਾਰ}}
{{ਅਧਾਰ}}

09:28, 31 ਦਸੰਬਰ 2017 ਦਾ ਦੁਹਰਾਅ

ਸੈਮਿਊਲ ਹਾਨੇਮਾਨ

ਹੋਮੀਓਪੈਥੀ , ਇੱਕ ਚਿਕਿਤਸਾ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀ ਹੈ। ਹੋਮਿਓਪੈਥੀ ਚਿਕਿਤ‍ਸਾ ਵਿਗਿਆਨ ਦਾ ਜਨ‍ਮਦਾਤਾ ਸੈਮਿਊਲ ਹਾਨੇਮਾਨ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਚਿਕਿਤਸਾ ਸਮਰੂਪਤਾ ਦੇ ਸਿੱਧਾਂਤ ਉੱਤੇ ਆਧਾਰਿਤ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਜੋ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਤੰਦੁਰੁਸਤ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੋਗ ਦੇ ਲੱਛਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਹੀ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਬੀਮਾਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਸੇ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਲੱਛਣਾ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।

Homeopathy is not a plausible system of treatment, as its dogmas about how drugs, illness, the human body, liquids and solutions operate are contradicted by a wide range of discoveries across biology, psychology, physics and chemistry made in the two centuries since its invention.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[7][8] multiple systematic reviews have indicated that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments,[9] with the World Health Organization warning against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.[10] The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy,[11][1][12] has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[13] quackery,[14][15][15][16] and a sham.[17]

Assessments by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the United Kingdom's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, and the Swiss Federal Health Office have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding.[18][19][20] The National Health Service in England has announced a policy of not funding homeopathic medicine because it is "a misuse of resources".[21] They have called on the UK Department of Health to add homeopathic remedies to the blacklist of forbidden prescription items.[22]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Shang, Aijing; Huwiler-Müntener, Karin; Nartey, Linda; Jüni, Peter; Dörig, Stephan; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Pewsner, Daniel; Egger, Matthias (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". The Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589.
  2. ↑ Ernst, E. (December 2012). "Homeopathy: a critique of current clinical research". Skeptical Inquirer. 36 (6).
  3. ↑ "Homeopathy". American Cancer Society. Retrieved October 12, 2014.
  4. ↑ UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"
  5. ↑ Grimes, D. R. (2012). "Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies. 17 (3): 149–155. doi:10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01162.x.
  6. ↑ "Homeopathic products and practices: assessing the evidence and ensuring consistency in regulating medical claims in the EU" (PDF). European Academies' Science Advisory Council. September 2017. p. 1. Retrieved 1 October 2017. ... we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.
  7. ↑ Cucherat, M; Haugh, MC; Gooch, M; Boissel, JP (2000). "Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group". European journal of clinical pharmacology. 56 (1): 27–33. doi:10.1007/s002280050716. PMID 10853874.
  8. ↑ Caulfield, Timothy; Debow, Suzanne (2005). "A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 5: 12. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-5-12. PMC 1177924. PMID 15955254.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  9. ↑ Shaw, DM (2010). "Homeopathy is where the harm is: Five unethical effects of funding unscientific 'remedies'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 36 (3): 130–131. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.034959. PMID 20211989.
  10. ↑ Mashta, O (August 24, 2009). "WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases". BMJ. 339 (aug24 2): b3447–b3447. doi:10.1136/bmj.b3447.
  11. ↑ Ernst, E. (2002). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 54 (6): 577–82. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x. PMC 1874503. PMID 12492603.
  12. ↑ Kleijnen, J; Knipschild, P; Ter Riet, G (1991). "Clinical trials of homoeopathy". BMJ. 302 (6772): 316–23. doi:10.1136/bmj.302.6772.316. PMC 1668980. PMID 1825800.
  13. ↑ "Homeopathy is nonsense, says new chief scientist". The Daily Telegraph. April 18, 2013. Retrieved September 9, 2013.
  14. ↑ Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. Springer. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2. ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Ladyman J (2013). "Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience". In Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3. Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely).
  16. ↑ Paul S. Boyer. The Oxford companion to United States history. ISBN 9780195082098. Retrieved January 15, 2013. After 1847, when regular doctors organized the American Medical Association (AMA), that body led the war on "quackery", especially targeting dissenting medical groups such as homeopaths, who prescribed infinitesimally small doses of medicine. Ironically, even as the AMA attacked all homeopathy as quackery, educated homeopathic physicians were expelling untrained quacks from their ranks.
  17. ↑ "Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public". Retrieved January 15, 2013. Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham
  18. ↑ Musgrave, I (April 8, 2014). "No evidence homeopathy is effective: NHMRC review". The Conversation. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
  19. ↑ "Swiss make New Year's regulations". Swiss Info. Retrieved December 16, 2015.
  20. ↑ "Homeopathic remedies are 'nonsense and risk significant harm' say 29 European scientific bodies". The Independent. September 23, 2017. Retrieved October 10, 2017.
  21. ↑ "NHS to ban homeopathy and herbal medicine, as 'misuse of resources'". Daily Telegraph. July 21, 2017. Retrieved July 21, 2017.
  22. ↑ Gallagher, James (2015-11-13). "Homeopathy 'could be blacklisted'". BBC News (in ਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀ (ਬਰਤਾਨਵੀ)). Retrieved 2017-12-05.
"https://pa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ਹੋਮੀਓਪੈਥੀ&oldid=407882" ਤੋਂ ਲਿਆ