To continue the equine picture....it's all horses for courses isn't it?
I find that one therapy will work for or suit a client for instance, Reiki or EMF Balancing, whilst that client wouldn't even consider homeopathy.
In yet another example, I have given a remedy to a client who was in crisis and it was entirely appropriate to put "hands on" with Reiki.
If you take the claims of Reiki to be valid, then anyone who is Reiki practitioner & a Homeopath, will then always dispense a Reiki filled remedy as the energy cannot be turned off.
Does this invalidate the remedy or enhance it? (Or to use another animal similie....is this putting the cat amongst the pigeons?)
Both therapies are highly energetic & focus attention on the client, generally for a longer period than they would see their allopathic physician.
I can see the merit in using only one or the other to see which is actually working, but conventional medicine uses many modalities at the same time, such as physiotherapy for soft tissue injuries (often using machines which generate energetic frequencies). So which modality is the one that works here? The physiotherapy, the strapping, the doctor's attention or the anti inflammatory?