pathic medicines can and should be considered only when there is no evidence that the benefits of a conventional medical treatment outweigh its potential side effects. One might think that a middle position is the best way to go, however, finding that middle position is not always easy. For instance, one might ask the seemingly important question: what evidence is there that either homeopathic or conventional medicine is more effective? There are very few studies that provide such a comparison, and even when it has been done, it is an unsound comparison. For instance, while it may be true that a painkiller will decrease the pain in patients more effectively than a homeopathic medicine, it does so with various side effects. And while a person taking a homeopathic medicine may initially have more pain than a person taking a painkiller, the long-term health of the person may be a more appropriate measure of a treatment's successes. Conventional physicians insist that a person's new complaint is not related with the previous one. In opposition, homeopathic practitioners assert that nothing comes from nowhere and that disease is often built from previous illnesses.With all the research, claims, and opinions on homeopathy versus conventional therapy, rarely was it mentioned for both therapies to be utilized in combination to better diagnose and treat patients. More of an integrative approach in which homeopathy and conventional medicines are used together, instead of in apposition. One example is, while the use of homeopathic medicines can sometimes prevent the need for surgery, homeopaths generally acknowledge that surgery is sometimes necessary. When surgery is medically indicated, using homeopathic medicines before, during, and after the procedure can help the patient recover more rapidly.Another strong example of the successful integration of conventional and homeopathic treatment was demonstrated in the study on Nicaraguan children...
