Samuel Hahnemann was Goa'uld? Whodathunk?
I don't know about Reiki, but to assume that if it helps some and does no harm it is OK, is a fallacy. I'm quite sure Dotsie said something about that somewhere above.
It is sort of OK as long as it doesn't keep people from trying proved methods, and I don't know Reiki's stance on that. But the really hardcore homoeopaths think that their method is the only rational form of healing (which is why I put that into the poll) and refuse any other methods, and tell their patients so and infest them with their opinion. This is bad, even if some people seem to have been cured by homoeopathy (but really, of how many people have you heard who tried homoeopathy and it didn't help? Not an awful lot, I bet. This is normal. Of course you hear about the spectacular results homoeopathy had in some person you know or a friend's friend. And even if you hear from people that homoeopathy had no effect on them, there'll spring up others who claim that it helped them, or a friend, or a family member).
In my opinion homoeopathy along with many other alternative methods of healing is playing with the hopes and fears of people who need help, which is unethical if you ask me.
Now, traditional pharma are no saints, either. But at least in Germany, a new drug has to be tested thoroughly over several years and then side effects and beneficial effects have to be contrasted, which can result in the drug not being approved.
In my last week in the pharmacy I read about a drug that can no longer be sold. Not because it wasn't working, but because it wasn't working BETTER than another drug which had slightly fewer side effects.
Homoeopathy on the other hand has no such problems, which is why there are some really ridiculous things out there, like X-ray. It is lactose that has been exposed to x-rays, and is then diluted.