Internet reacts to Anushka Sharma’s homeopathy post: ‘unscientific fraud’ vs ‘it works’

Of all the enduring debates in the healthcare landscape, few are as polarising as the question of whether homeopathy is better than allopathy.

Homeopathy supporters share personal stories of relief from allergies, migraines, skin conditions and other ailments, while critics dismiss the practice as lacking scientific credibility.

Like how recently, Bollywood actor Anushka Sharma took to her Instagram Stories to say that homeopathy has played "an important role" in her life, drawing attention (mostly flak!) online.

This online war between netizens has once again exposed the deep divide between those who swear by homeopathy and those who view it as little more than pseudoscience.

Here's what happened

Sharing a clip of Dr Sankaran's conversation with Namita Thapar, Sharma wrote: "Homeopathy played an important role in my life and Dr Rajan Sankaran has been a key part of that journey. I deeply value his insights on health and mindful living."

More from Lifestyle

The post quickly divided social media users, with some criticising the actor's endorsement of homeopathy while others defended her views.

Here's how the internet reacted

One user on X criticised Sharma's stance, writing that public figures should not promote what they described as "unscientific" treatments. The comment reflected a broader scepticism towards homeopathy that frequently surfaces in online discussions.

However, many others came out in support of the actor. Defending homeopathy, a user argued that dismissing it as a fraud was unfair, claiming that some patients have benefited from homeopathic treatments in cases where conventional medicine had not provided satisfactory results.

Here are a few reactions:

Why the debate refuses to die

The homeopathy debate persists because it sits at the intersection of science, personal experience and healthcare choice.

Scientific evidence remains the benchmark by which modern medicine is assessed. At the same time, millions of people continue to report positive experiences with homeopathic treatments.

As a result, conversations about homeopathy rarely produce consensus. Instead, they tend to reveal two fundamentally different ways of evaluating healthcare: one rooted primarily in scientific evidence and the other influenced by individual experience.

Why critics call It 'unscientific'

The strongest criticism of homeopathy comes from the scientific community.

Many researchers argue that the extreme dilutions used in homeopathic remedies often leave little or none of the original substance behind. Critics contend that there is no established biological mechanism that can explain how such remedies would work beyond a placebo effect.

Numerous systematic reviews and scientific bodies around the world have concluded that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to demonstrate that homeopathy is effective for treating specific medical conditions.

For this reason, sceptics often describe homeopathy as lacking a robust scientific foundation.

Why supporters continue to defend It

Supporters of homeopathy counter that the experiences of patients should not be dismissed.

Many individuals report improvements in their symptoms after undergoing homeopathic treatment and point to decades of clinical practice and patient satisfaction as evidence of its value.

Advocates also argue that homeopathy often takes a more holistic approach, with consultations focusing extensively on a patient's overall physical and emotional wellbeing rather than solely on a specific disease.

For many users, these positive experiences are enough to maintain their trust in the system.