The United Kingdom has been either more plagued by homeopathic "remedies" or has a more scientifically aware and skeptical and vocal populace, because whenever I hear about a protest against homeopathy, it's happening somewhere in England.  In the latest news, a protest is being planned against homeopathic remedies being marketed in the nation's largest pharmacy chain.   Protesters will each down a bottle of homeopathic remedies to prove exactly how little effect they have.

I find that a lot of people are a little fuzzy on the definition of "homeopathy," which tends to derail the conversation into more flame-ridden territory.  There is a broad term "naturopathy" which includes a wide variety of treatments, including herbal remedies like chamomile tea for sleepless nights, chiropractors, acupuncture, meditation, and so forth.

By contrast, "homeopathy" is a specific form of "remedy" which is completely bunk.  Homeopathy was invented in the late 1700s by some German guy who thought it only made sense.

Homeopathy has two principles:

1.    "Like cures like."  For example, the cure for a bee sting would be bee venom.  This is taken to its most metaphorical sense, in which for example if you are too pale, you should eat something white.

2.    Dilution.  Homeopathic "remedies" are prepared in one of two ways.  The first method is to soak the ingredient, then dilute the water to a ridiculous extent.  The second method is to bonk the ingredient against a tub of water, then bottle the water (the theory of "sucussion").

What each method has in common is that there is literally not a single molecule of the original ingredient in the end product.

When you ask someone how a homeopathic remedy works even though it doesn't contain any of the actual ingredient involved, hilarity ensues.  It all hinges on the "memory of water."  The ability for water molecules to retain a taste, if you will, of the thing that was once in them.  (I just waved a $20 bill over a glass of water.  I'M A HOMEOPATHIC BILLIONAIRE NOW!)

At the time when homeopathy was invented, contemporary medical science advised purging (emetics, bloodletting, enemas, laxatives, etc.) to cure most ills.  For the rest, they prescribed poisons.  The medical establishment believed that bad smells (miasmas) and an imbalance of humors caused diseases.  Surgery was performed by the town barber, without anesthetic, and was invariably fatal.

In this historical context, it's easy to see how belief in homeopathy could flourish.  Say what you will, in the 18th and 19th centuries a homeopathic remedy would not have actively make you worse, the way that seeing a "real doctor" often would have.  

Unfortunately, this belief has persisted into our modern era of Cipro, microscopy, MRI scans, sterile operating conditions, wound care, and all the other wonders of modern medicine.  The field of medicine was a horror show in the 18th century - and really up until the explosion of scientific discoveries (like germs) and inventions (like anesthetics and antibiotics) of the 1920s and beyond.