The German Association of Homeopaths (Deutscher Zentralverein Homoeopathischer Aerzte) just issued a press-release explaining that they have recently determined that homeopathy works.
Well, aren’t we relieved!
Otherwise, we would have had to assume they are all quacks.
Their statement is based on what they consider a thorough analysis of the published evidence. As the whole document is about 60 pages long, I will not bother you with all the details. Instead, I will focus on what they say about systematic reviews/meta-analyses in the press-release:
Eine Betrachtung der Meta-Analysen zur Homöopathie zeigt überwiegend statistisch signifikante Ergebnisse gegenüber Placebo, die auf eine spezifische Wirksamkeit potenzierter Arzneien hinweisen. Je nach den verwendeten Selektionskriterien werden hierbei unterschiedliche Studien in die Auswertung eingeschlossen. Diese Befunde werden von den Autoren der jeweiligen Meta-Analysen zum Teil stark relativiert. Die angeführten Vorbehalte entsprechen hierbei nicht immer den üblichen wissenschaftlichen Standards.
Let me translate this for you: An assessment of the meta-analyses of homeopathy shows mostly significant results compared to placebo which indicates a specific effectiveness of potentised remedies. Depending on the selection criteria, various studies are included in the evaluation. These results are relativized by the authors of the respective meta-analyses. The listed caveats do not always reflect the usual scientific standards.
You think my English has deteriorated or my brain gone soft? No, it’s their German! It makes almost no sense at all.
Therefore, I am afraid, we need to briefly go into the hefty document after all. Their chapter on meta-analyses concludes as follows: Insgesamt ergibt sich hinsichtlich der bis dato publizierten maßgeblichen Meta-Analysen zur Homöopathie, dass in vier von fünf Fällen tendenziell eine spezifische Wirksamkeit potenzierter Arzneimittel über Placebo hinaus erkennbar ist. That makes (linguistically) a little more sense: Overall, it emerges that the currently published decisive meta-analyses show, in 4 of 5 cases, that a specific effectiveness of potentised remedies is noticeable.
In other words, it is now proven, homeopathic remedies work beyond placebo!!!
But how can this be?
Did the NHMRC not just do a similar analysis concluding that “the evidence from research in humans does not show that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered… homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.
Obviously ‘down under’ they don’t know how to evaluate published data!
Or could it be that the Germans are mistaken? Or are they perhaps joking?
Let’s have a look!
The Germans selected (cherry-picked) 5 meta-analyses which they believed to be ‘decisive’, while the Australian panel of independent experts (funded by government) assessed 57 meta-analyses and systematic reviews (all they found via extensive literature searches).
But the German evaluation was done by homeopaths (and financed by a homeopathic lobby group)! And they understand homeopathy best and would not have a bias or conflict of interest, would they?
[FOR A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS, SEE HERE (in German)]8 Responses to BREAKING NEWS! German homeopaths have just found out: HOMEOPATHY WORKS AFTER ALL
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“The Germans selected (cherry-picked) 5 meta-analyses which they believed to be ‘decisive’”. “Overall, it emerges that the currently published decisive meta-analyses show, in 4 of 5 cases, that a specific effectiveness of potentised remedies is noticeable.” Why didn ‘t they stop with the four positive cases?
objectivity, objectivity my friend!!!
Edzard, you and me we should return to homeopathy by now, don´t you think so? ;-))
Are you certain that the translated paragraph was written by the German Associated Homeopaths? In reading it I discern a distinct pattern known as venkatosh – multiple words of science strung together in meaningless fashion (in other words, nonsense). Here’s a recent example of a venkatosh:
https://twitter.com/22venkateshN/status/736869287718092800
Either they outsourced their writing to Venkatesh or homeopaths have a school that teaches specialized written gibberish or they used a random word generator. Whichever method was used, the end result is tortuous deception.
However, there was one accurate statement included: “The listed caveats do not always reflect the usual scientific standards.” This line alone precludes giving any credence to the information presented!
Certainly deception and mixed with a certain amount of hypocrisy. They are faced with maintaining a marketing model that both employs language that is supposed to sound like science while denying science. venkateshN is just an extreme and extremely funny example.