1 2 3 15

Natural Pharmacy Business reported that the UK homeopathic pharmacy, Helios, has just launched 5 new combination remedies. Nothing exciting about that, you might say. But wait, these products have licences from the UK regulator and are thus allowed to make therapeutic claims. A spokesperson for Helios was quoted as stating about the new products that ‘…we can actually say what they do, making it easier for customers to recommend or choose what is needed.’

A closer look at the Helios website reveals more details. The 5 remedies are described as follows:

1) Helios Injury 30c – Arnica, Rhus tox and Ruta grav are combined to form a homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of pains and minor trauma associated with minor injuries, bruises, strains and sprains as well as minor emotional trauma associated with the above. The remedy comes in lactose free, organic sucrose pills in our easy to use single dose dispenser in 30c potency.

2) Helios Sleep 30c – Avena sativa, Coffea, Passiflora and Valarian are combined to form a homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of temporary sleep disturbances wherever you are. The remedy comes in lactose free, organic sucrose pills in our easy to use single dose dispenser in 30c potency. This product is not recommended for children under 18, please call us for advice for use in children.

3) Helios ABC 30c  – Aconite, Belladonna and Chamomilla are combined to form a homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of minor feverish illness and/or minor earache in children up to 12 years and for symptoms associated with teething in infants or toddlers. The remedy comes in lactose free, organic sucrose pills in our easy to use single dose dispenser in 30c potency. Remedies for babies may be dissolved in half a teaspoon of previously boiled, cooled water.

4) Helios Stress Relief 30c –  Aconite, Arg nit and Arsenicum are combined to form a homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of symptoms associated with mild stress. The remedy comes in lactose free, organic sucrose pills in our easy to use 4gm single dose dispenser in 30c potency. This product is not recommended for children under 18, please call us for advice for use in children.

5) Helios Hay Fever 30c –  Allium cepa, Euphrasia and Sabadilla are combined to form a homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of Hay Fever. The remedy comes in lactose free, organic sucrose pills in our easy to use single dose dispenser in 30c potency.

So, now they are entitled to tell us what these remedies actually do!!!


Interesting, because what they do tell us is actually not true. If you look critically at the evidence, you are inevitably going to arrive at entirely different verdicts about the effectiveness of these remedies: THEY ACTUALLY DO NOTHING!

(No, buying them does something to you bank balance, but that’s all)

Consumers are being seriously ripped off and misled here to believe that these homeopathics might actually be needed in cases of illness: THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO CONDITION FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE!

Why did the regulator grant them a licence and allow them to make such claims?

Perhaps someone from the MHRA has the kindness to enlighten us.

A 2016 article set out to define the minimum core competencies expected from a certified paediatric doctor of chiropractic using a Delphi consensus process. The initial set of seed statements and sub-statements was modelled on competency documents used by organizations that oversee chiropractic and medical education. The statements were then distributed to the Delphi panel, reaching consensus when 80% of the panelists approved each segment. The panel consisted of 23 specialists in chiropractic paediatrics from across the spectrum of the chiropractic profession. Sixty-one percent of panellists had postgraduate paediatric certifications or degrees, 39% had additional graduate degrees, and 74% were faculty at a chiropractic institution and/or in a postgraduate paediatrics program. The panel was initially given 10 statements with related sub-statements formulated by the study’s steering committee. On all 3 rounds of the Delphi process the panelists reached consensus; however, multiple rounds occurred to incorporate the valuable qualitative feedback received.

The results of this process reveal that the Certified Paediatric Doctor of Chiropractic requires 8 sets of skills. (S)he will …

1) Possess a working knowledge and understanding of the anatomy, physiology, neurology, psychology, and developmental stages of a child. a) Recognize known effects of the prenatal environment, length of the pregnancy, and birth process on the child’s health. b) Identify and evaluate the stages of growth and evolution of systems from birth to adulthood. c) Appraise the clinical implications of developmental stages in health and disease, including gross and fine motor, language/communication, and cognitive, social, and emotional skills. d) Recognize normal from abnormal in these areas. e) Possess an understanding of the nutritional needs of various stages of childhood.

2) Recognize common and unusual health conditions of childhood. a) Identify and differentiate clinical features of common physical and mental paediatric conditions. b) Identify and differentiate evidence-based health care options for these conditions. c) Identify and differentiate clinical features and evidence-based health care options for the paediatric special needs population.

3) Be able to perform an age-appropriate evaluation of the paediatric patient. a) Take a comprehensive history, using appropriate communication skills to address both child and parent/ guardian. b) Perform age-appropriate and case-specific physical, orthopaedic, neurological, and developmental examination protocols. c) When indicated, utilize age-appropriate laboratory, imaging, and other diagnostic studies and consultations, according to best practice guidelines. d) Appropriately apply and adapt these skills to the paediatric special needs population. e) Be able to obtain and comprehend all relevant external health records.

4) Formulate differential diagnoses based on the history, examination, and diagnostic studies.

5) Establish a plan of management for each child, including treatment, referral to, and/or co-management with other health care professionals. a) Use the scientific literature to inform the management plan. b) Adequately document the patient encounter and management plan. c) Communicate management plan clearly (written, oral, and nonverbal cues) with both the child and the child’s parent/guardian. d) Communicate appropriately and clearly with other professionals in the referral and co-management of patients.

6) Deliver skilful, competent, and safe chiropractic care, modified for the paediatric population, including but not limited to: a) Manual therapy and instrument-assisted techniques including manipulation/adjustment, mobilization, and soft tissue therapies to address articulations and/or soft tissues. b) Physical therapy modalities. c) Postural and rehabilitative exercises. d) Nutrition advice and supplementation. e) Lifestyle and public health advice. f) Adapt the delivery of chiropractic care for the paediatric special needs population.

7) Integrate and collaborate with other health care providers in the care of the paediatric patient. a) Recognize the role of various health care providers in paediatric care. b) Utilize professional inter-referral protocols. c) Interact clearly and professionally as needed with health care professionals and others involved in the care of each patient. d) Clearly explain the role of chiropractic care to professionals, parents, and children.

8) Function as a primary contact, portal of entry practitioner who will. a) Be proficient in paediatric first aid and basic emergency procedures. b) Identify and report suspected child abuse.

9) Demonstrate and utilize high professional and ethical standards in all aspects of the care of paediatric patients and professional practice. a) Monitor and properly reports of effects/adverse events. b) Recognize cultural individuality and respect the child’s and family’s wishes regarding health care decisions. c) Engage in lifelong learning to maintain and improve professional knowledge and skills. d) Contribute when possible to the knowledge base of the profession by participating in research. e) Represent and support the specialty of paediatrics within the profession and to the broader healthcare and lay communities.

I find this remarkable in many ways. Let us just consider a few items from the above list of competencies:

Identify and differentiate evidence-based health care options… such options would clearly not include chiropractic manipulations.

Identify and differentiate clinical features and evidence-based health care options for the paediatric special needs population… as above. Why is there no mention of immunisations anywhere?

Perform age-appropriate and case-specific physical, orthopaedic, neurological, and developmental examination protocols. If that is a competency requirement, patients should really see the appropriate medical specialists rather than a chiropractor.

Establish a plan of management for each child, including treatment, referral to, and/or co-management with other health care professionals. The treatment plan is either evidence-based or it includes chiropractic manipulations.

Deliver skilful, competent, and safe chiropractic care… Aren’t there contradictions in terms here?

Manual therapy and instrument-assisted techniques including manipulation/adjustment, mobilization, and soft tissue therapies to address articulations and/or soft tissues. Where is the evidence that these treatments are effective for paediatric conditions, and which conditions would these be?

Clearly explain the role of chiropractic care to professionals, parents, and children. As chiropractic is not evidence-based in paediatrics, the role is extremely limited or nil.

Function as a primary contact, portal of entry practitioner… This seems to me as a recipe for disaster.

Demonstrate and utilize high professional and ethical standards in all aspects of the care of paediatric patients… This would include obtaining informed consent which, in turn, needs to include telling the parents that chiropractic is neither safe nor effective and that better therapeutic options are available. Moreover, would it not be ethical to make clear that a paediatric ‘doctor’ of chiropractic is a very far cry from a real paediatrician?

So, what should the competencies of a chiropractor really be when it comes to treating paediatric conditions? In my view, they are much simpler than outlined by the authors of this new article: I SEE NO REASON WHATSOEVER WHY CHIROPRACTORS SHOULD TREAT CHILDREN!

The Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan recently called homeopathy ‘bogus’. “They (homeopaths) take arsenic compounds and dilute it to such an extent that just a molecule is left. It will not make any effect on you. Your tap water has more arsenic. No one in chemistry believes in homeopathy. It works because of placebo effect,” he was quoted saying.

But what does he know about homeopathy? This was the angry question of homeopaths around the world when the Nobel laureate’s views became international headlines.

Nothing! Exclaimed the furious homeopaths with one voice.

If we want to get an informed opinion, we a true expert.

The Queen’s homeopath Dr Fisher? No, he has been known to tell untruths.

Doctor Michael Dixon, the adviser to Prince Charles who recently defended homeopathy? No, he is not even a homeopath.

Dana Ullman, the voice of US homeopathy? Heavens, he is a homeopath but not one who is known to be objective.

Alan Schmukler perhaps? He too seems to have difficulties with critical thinking.

Perhaps we need to ask an experienced and successful homeopath like doctor Akshay Batra; someone with both feet on the ground who knows about the coal face of health care today. He recently spoke out for the virtues of homeopathy explaining that it is based on the ingenious idea that ‘like cures like: “For example if you are suffering from constant watering eyes, you will be given allium cepa which comes from onions, something that causes eyes to water. Homeopathy works like a vaccine”. Dr Batra claims that the failure of allopathy (mainstream medicine) is causing the present boom in homeopathy. “With the amount of deaths taking place due to allopathic medicine and its side effects, we can see people resorting to homeopathy,” he said. “Certain children using asthma inhalers suffer from growth issues or develop unusual facial hair. Homeopathy avoids that and uses a natural remedy that treats the root cause,” he added.

The top issues treated with homeopathy, according to Dr Batra, are hair and skin problems. “A lot of ailments today effecting hair and skin are because of internal diseases. Hair loss in women has become very prevalent and can be due to cystic ovaries, low iron levels or hormonal imbalance due to thyroid,” explained Dr Batra. “We find the root cause and treat that, since hair loss could just be a symptom and we need to treat the ailment permanently. Allopathic medicines just give you a quick fix, and not treat the root cause, while we give a more long term, complete solution,” he added. Homeopathy is mind and body medicine: “A lot of people today are under pressure and stress. Homeopathic treatment also helps in relieving tension hence treating the patient as a whole,” said Dr Batra.

I bet you now wonder who is this fabulous expert and homeopath, doctor Batra.

He has been mentioned on this blog before, namely when he opened the first London branch of his chain of homeopathic clinics claiming that homeopathy could effectively treat the following conditions:

Yes, Dr Akshay Batra is the managing director and chairman of Dr Batra’s Homeopathic Clinic, an enterprise that is currently establishing clinics across the globe.

And now we understand, I think, why the Nobel laureate and the homeopathy expert have slightly different views on the subject.

Who would you believe, I wonder?

MORE than £150,000 was spent by NHS Grampian on homeopathic treatments last year. Referrals to homeopathic practitioners cost £37,000 and referrals to the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital cost £7,315 in 2014-15. In view of the fact that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos, any amount of tax payers’ money spent on homeopathy is hard to justify. Yet an NHS Grampian spokeswoman defended its use of by the health board with the following words:

“We have a responsibility to consider all treatments available to NHS patients to ensure they offer safe, effective and person-centred care. We also have a responsibility to use NHS resources carefully and balance our priorities across the population as well as individuals. We also recognise that patient reported outcome and experience measures are valued even when objective evidence of effectiveness is limited. Homeopathy can be considered in this arena and we remain connected with the wider debate on its role within the NHS while regularly reviewing our local support for such services within NHS Grampian.”

Mr Spence, a professional homeopath, was also invited to defend the expenditure on homeopathy: “When a friend started talking to me about homeopathy I thought he had lost his marbles. But it seemed homeopathy could fill a gap left by orthodox medicine. Homeopathy is about treating the whole person, not just the symptoms of disease, and it could save the NHS an absolute fortune. If someone is in a dangerous situation or they need surgery then they need to go to hospital. It’s often those with chronic, long-term problems where conventional treatment has not worked that can be helped by homeopathy.”

What do these arguments amount to, I ask myself.

The answer is NOTHING.

The key sentence in the spokeswomen’s comment is : “patient reported outcome and experience measures are valued even when objective evidence of effectiveness is limited.” This seems to admit that the evidence fails to support homeopathy. Therefore, so the argument, we have to abandon evidence and consider experience, opinion etc. This seemingly innocent little trick is nothing else than the introduction of double standards into health care decision making which could be used to justify the use of just about any bogus therapy in the NHS at the tax payers’ expense. It is obvious that such a move would be a decisive step in the wrong direction and to the detriment of progress in health care.

The comments by the homeopath are perhaps even more pitiful. They replace arguments with fallacies and evidence with speculation or falsehoods.

There is, of course, a bright side to this:


The nice thing about New Year is that one sometimes tries to get some order into the chaos of one’s files and thus finds things that were long forgotten. Such a thing, for instance, is the 1996 book ‘DURCH AEHNLICHES HEILEN‘ edited by the Austrian homeopath, Perter Koenig. It contains lots of uncritical, pro-homeopathy articles by homeopaths, but also an article I wrote upon invitation.

When I composed it, I had just started my research in Exeter after leaving my post in Vienna. The subject I had been asked to address was ‘THE PLACE OF HOMEOPATHY WITHIN MEDICAL SCHOOLS’. My short article arrives at the following conclusions (as it is in German, I did a quick translation):

What place does homeopathy have in medical schools? An extremely low one! Even homeopathic optimists cannot reasonably doubt this answer. And how can its position be improved? Only through systematic research! This research should best be conducted in cooperation between experienced homeopaths and university-based methodologists. It must fill the existing gaps in our current knowledge, particularly in respect to the proof of homeopathy’s clinical effectiveness, and the research methods must comply with the currently accepted quality standards. History demonstrates fairly clearly that conventional medicine has changed according to new knowledge. In homeopathy, such a demonstration is so far missing.

Would I change this conclusion now that 20 years worth of research is available?


The cooperative evaluation of homeopathy that I had in mind has happened.

And what are its conclusion?

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) has made the most thorough and independent assessment of homeopathy in its history. On 11/3/2015, the NH&MRC has released its final report on homeopathy. In essence, it concluded that there is no scientific basis for homeopathy and no quality evidence of its efficacy: 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.

In view of this, I would today revise my conclusions as follows:

What place does homeopathy have in medical schools? Its place is in the history books of medicine! Even homeopathic optimists cannot reasonably doubt this answer. Systematic research in cooperation between experienced homeopaths and university-based methodologists complying with the currently accepted quality standards has filled the gaps in our knowledge, particularly in respect to the proof of homeopathy’s clinical effectiveness. Now it is up to homeopaths to demonstrate that they are sufficiently responsible to adapt to this new knowledge in the best interest of their patients. If they don’t, they cannot be considered to be members of the community of ethical health care professionals. 

A recent article in the LIVERPOOL ECHO caught my eye. It is about the possibility that the NHS in Liverpool might stop funding their homeopathy service . Maybe I should read the LIVERPOOL ECHO more often, because the short article is most revealing.

It first cites the chairman of the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group, Dr Nadim Fazlani saying that “There is little evidence that homeopathy has a clinical benefit so, as a governing body, our preferred option would be to stop commissioning this service. However, it is important that the people have an opportunity to provide their views before a decision is made.”

Fair enough!

I would like to mention, however, that health care is not a beauty contest or a supermarket shelve. We don’t have popular votes for bone marrow transplants or bypass surgery either. Why? Not because we don’t believe in democracy but because the general public cannot possibly understand medicine well enough. This is why we send some of our kids to medical school and other institutions to help us comprehend and eventually take responsible decisions for us. It is, I think, an ethical imperative to base important health care decisions of this nature on the best evidence and expertise, and it seems foolish to expect the public to have either.

Then the article in the LIVERPOOL ECHO quotes a statement of the Liverpool homeopathy service which is run by GPs Dr Hugh Nielsen and Dr Sue de Lacy: “The patients we see generally have long-standing, complex conditions that are often difficult to treat with conventional medicine. Yet regular audits of our clinic show a very high level of patient satisfaction, with patients consistently reporting an improvement in their health. As experienced doctors trained in homeopathy we see it working every day and that is why we believe Liverpool CCG – and more importantly the patients the CCG serves – is getting excellent value for the relatively small amount of funding the service receives.”

I find this interesting, not least because the arguments used by these two GPs are, in my view, miles better than those we have seen on this blog recently by Christian Boiron, Dana Ullman, Dr Michael Dixon or the Queen’s homeopath Dr Fisher all put together. At least they do not contain blatant lies!

This does not mean, however, that the arguments of the two homeopaths from Liverpool are convincing. They are not – for the following 4 reasons:

  1. True, long-standing, complex conditions are often difficult to treat with conventional medicine. But if they are difficult to treat with real medicine, they surely are even more difficult to treat with fake medicine.
  2. I have no problem believing that their audits show high level of patient satisfaction, with patients consistently reporting an improvement in their health. But we need to be quite clear that these effects are not brought about by the homeopathic remedies which contain zero active ingredients. They are due to the compassion shown by these homeopath. If they prescribed real medicine in addition to providing compassion, their results would in all likelihood be even better.
  3. It is also true that an experienced doctor trained in homeopathy will see it working every day. But the ‘it’ refers not to the remedy, it relates to the compassion – and to convey compassion, we do not need bogus treatments.
  4. It is a little misleading to claim that homeopathy is ‘excellent value’. The remedies contain nothing but lactose, and £ 5-10 for a gram or two of lactose is jolly expensive! So, the remedies are over-priced placebos, and the consultations might be good value.

Despite these counter-arguments, I must congratulate these two GPs from Liverpool: they seem to be so much more honest and intelligent than the defenders of homeopathy mentioned above.

Homeopathy seems to attract some kind of miracle worker. Elsewhere I have, for instance, reported the curious case of Prof Claudia Witt who published more than anyone on homeopathy in recent years without hardly ever arriving at a negative conclusion. Recently, I came across a researcher with an even better track record: Prof Michael Frass.

Wikipedia describes his achievements as follows: “Michael Frass studied medicine from 1972 to 1978 at the Medical University of Vienna followed by visits abroad at the Pasteur Institute, Paris and at the Porter Memorial Hospital (USA). Since March 2004 he directs the Outpatients Unit of Homeopathy for Malign Diseases at the Department Clinic for Internal of Medicine I at the Medical University of Vienna. Since 2005 Frass also works as a coordinator of the lecture series Homeopathy at the Medical University of Vienna. Beginning with the winter semester 2001/02 he is the coordinator of a lecture series Basics and practise of complementary medical methods at the Medical University of Vienna. From 2002 to 2005 he led the Ludwig Boltzmanm Institute of Homeopathy. Since 2005 Frass is president of the Institute for Homeopathic Research. Actually he works at the Division of Oncology at the Department of Medicine I in Vienna. He is First Chairman of the Scientific Society for Homeopathy (WissHom), founded in 2010, president of the Umbrella organization of Austrian Doctors for Holistic Medicine.”

He directs the WHAT? The Outpatients Unit of Homeopathy for Malign Diseases at the Department Clinic for Internal of Medicine I at the Medical University of Vienna? This is my former medical school, and I had no idea that such a unit even existed – but, of course, I left in 1993 for Exeter (a few months ago, I followed an invitation to give a lecture on homeopathy at the Medical University of Vienna ; sadly neither Prof Frass nor anyone of his team attended).

And what about the Scientific Society for Homeopathy? I am sure that the name of this organisation will make some people wonder. From the society’s website, we learn that “the intention of WissHom is to contribute to the progress of medicine and to the collective good. To this end, WissHom intents to further develop homeopathy both practically and theoretically. It will be WissHom’s task to breathe life into this committed objective.”

Breathing life into homeopathy seems exactly what Prof Frass does. He seems to have found his way to homeopathy relatively late in his career (the 1st Medline-listed article was published only in 2003) but he has nevertheless published many studies on this subject (I use the term ‘study’ here to describe both clinical, pre-clinical and basic research papers); in total, I found 12 such articles on Medline. They cover extremely diverse areas and a wide range of methodologies. Yet they all have one remarkable feature in common: they arrive at positive conclusions.

You find this hard to believe? Join the club!

But it is undeniably true, here are the conclusions (or the bit that comes close to a conclusion) from the Medline-listed abstracts (only the headings in capital letters are mine, and they simply depict the nature of the paper)


Results suggest that the global health status and subjective wellbeing of cancer patients improve significantly when adjunct classical homeopathic treatment is administered in addition to conventional therapy.


Based on the 2 cases, including 1 extreme situation, we suggest that adjunctive homeopathic treatment has a role in the treatment of acute Amanita phalloides-induced toxicity following mushroom poisoning. Additional studies may clarify a more precise dosing regimen, standardization, and better acceptance of homeopathic medicine in the intensive care setting.


Extended survival time in this sample of cancer patients with fatal prognosis but additive homeopathic treatment is interesting. However, findings are based on a small sample, and with only limited data available about patient and treatment characteristics. The relationship between homeopathic treatment and survival time requires prospective investigation in larger samples possibly using matched-pair control analysis or randomized trials.


The symptoms of patients undergoing homeopathic treatment were shown to improve substantially and conventional medication dosage could be substantially reduced. While the real-life effect assessed indicates that there is a potential for enhancing therapeutic measures and reducing healthcare cost, it does not allow to draw conclusions as to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment per se.


The data suggest that both drugs prepared in ethanolic solution are potent inhibitors of H. pylori induced gene expression.


Most of these clinical studies have been deemed to be high quality trials, according to the three most commonly referenced meta-analyses of homeopathic research. Basic in vitro experimental studies also provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy differ from placebo.


This study is based on 25 well documented reports of cases which responded well to treatment with Petroleum.


Animals treated with the standard test solution thyroxine 10(-30) metamorphosed more slowly than the control animals, ie the effect of the homeopathically prepared thyroxine was opposed to the usual physiological effect of molecular thyroxine.


Our report suggests that homeopathy may be applicable even for critically ill patients.


Our data suggest that homeopathic treatment may be a useful additional therapeutic measure with a long-term benefit for severely septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit. A constraint to wider application of this method is the limited number of trained homeopaths.


These data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) potassium dichromate may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.


These animals reacted to the homeopathically prepared thyroxine with a slowing down of metamorphosis, even when they had not been prestimulated with a molecular dose of the hormone. This effect was observed in all 3 laboratories and is consistent with the results of previous studies.


So am I!

How can homeopathy produce nothing but positive results in the hands of this researcher? How can it work in so many entirely different conditions? How is it possible that homeopathic remedies are better than placebo regardless of the methodology used? Why does homeopathy, in the hands of Prof Frass, not even once produce a result that disappoints the aspirations of homeopaths and its advocates? Why are these sensational results almost invariably published in very minor journals? Crucially, why has not one of the findings (as far as I can see) ever been independently reproduced?

I do not know the answers to these questions.

If anyone does, I would like to hear them.

We could have expected it, couldn’t we? With so much homeopathy in the press lately, Dr Dixon (we have seen him on this blog before, for instance here, here and here) had to comment. His article in yesterday’s NURSING IN PRACTICE is far too perfect to abbreviate it; I just have to cite it in full (only the reference numbers are mine and refer to my comments below).


Should homeopathy be blacklisted in general practice?

I have not prescribed them myself but I know of many GPs and patients who find homeopathic preparations helpful, especially in clinical areas where there is no satisfactory conventional treatment [1]. They are cheap and entirely safe [2], which cannot always be said of conventional treatment [3]. Is the concern about cost? That is implausible as GP prescriptions cost a mere £100,000 per annum, approximately £10 per UK General Practice but effectively less as some patients will be paying for them and they may reduce other prescriptions or medical costs [4]. Is it about evidence? [5] Possibly, and that is because the necessary pragmatic trials on comparative cost effectiveness have never been done [6]. Homeopathy thus joins the frequently quoted 25% of general practice activity that has an insufficient evidence base… So, why not do the research rather than single out homeopathy for blacklisting [7]? Apparently, because it irritates a powerful fraternity of “scientists” [8] with a narrow biomedical perspective on health and healing, who feel the need to impose their atheism [9] on others. They seem opposed to “patient-centred medicine” which factors in the mindset, culture, history, wishes and hopes of each patient, and a wider concept of science that might take account of them [10]. Led by the World Health Organization, many countries are examining the appropriate role of complementary and traditional medicine (CAM). Indian Prime Minister Modi has created the first minister for medicine in this area (called AYUSH with the “H” standing for homeopathy). Australia, whose government and medical deans (unlike the UK ) are not intimidated by this breed of scientific fundamentalism, has invested money in research, regulated its herbal [11] practitioners and created important trade links with China in this area [12]. Meanwhile the UK invests 0% of its research budget on CAM and appears to have a closed mind [13]. General practice is at its best a subtle and complex blend of science and art combined in a heady mixture, which recognises personal belief and perspective and respects differences [14]. Blacklisting homeopathy would be the thin edge of the wedge. It would be a mean-minded act of outside interference by many who do not treat patients themselves, denying patient choice and signifying a new age of intolerance and interference [15]. It is a threat to the autonomy of general practice that should concern every GP and patient whatever their views on homeopathy [16].

About the Author

Mike Dixon

Chairman of the NHS Alliance and a GP

Mike Dixon, chairman of the NHS Alliance and a GP at College Surgery in Cullompton, Devon and a Royal College of General Practitioners presidential candidate.


  1. Whenever this argument comes up, people fail to cite an example. Are they afraid that we would point out what can be done for such a patient other than prescribing placebos?
  2. Actually, they are extremely expensive considering that they are just lactose or water. And the claim that homeopathy is safe merely displays an embarrassing lack of knowledge; see the many posts on this blog that deal with this issue.
  3. Classical ‘tu quoque’ fallacy; display of the ignorance of the risk/benefit concept for judging the value of medical interventions.
  4. Display of ignorance regarding the actual evidence, see here, for instance.
  5. Yes, it’s the evidence but also it’s the biological implausibility and the fact that disregarding it undermines rationality in general.
  6. Pure ignorance again, see my point 4.
  7. Are ~ 300 clinical trials and about 100 systematic reviews not enough? How much more money needs to be wasted?
  8. It seems that Dixon has a problem with science and those who pursue it to improve future health care for the benefit of patients.
  9. Does Dixon admit that homeopathy is a religion?
  10. Patient-centred medicine which factors in the mindset, culture, history, wishes and hopes of each patient, and a wider concept of science that might take account of them – does Dixon not know that all good medicine fits this description, but homeopathy certainly does not?
  11. Every one with an IQ above 50 knows by now that herbal is not homeopathic; is Dixon the exception?
  12. What about the Australian report which concluded that “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.”
  13. This is simply not true, and Dixon should know it.
  14. No reason to include disproven nonsense like homeopathy.
  15. Intolerance is on Dixon’s side, I think. Improving health care by abandoning disproven therapies in favour of evidence-based treatments is no interference, it’s progress.
  16. This can only be true, if we misunderstand autonomy as arbitrariness without rules, checks, ethics and controls. Good general practice has, like all medicine, be in the best interest of patients. An obsolete, expensive, unsafe, ineffective and implausible treatment is clearly not.

Not long ago, Peter Fisher fired me from the editorial board of ‘his’ journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’. I thought that this was a surprisingly daft move, particularly as we used to have respect for each other and even published together as co-authors (for instance here). But perhaps I should not have been surprised because, already in 2007, he published an important, potentially libellous falsehood about me.

In this article which he published as Dr. Peter Fisher, Homeopath to Her Majesty, the Queen, he wrote: There is a serious threat to the future of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital (RLHH), and we need your help…Lurking behind all this is an orchestrated campaign, including the ’13 doctors letter’, the front page lead in The Times of 23 May 2006, Ernst’s leak of the Smallwood report (also front page lead in The Times, August 2005), and the deeply flawed, but much publicised Lancet meta-analysis of Shang et al…

If you have read my memoir, you will know that even the hostile 13-months investigation by my own university did not find me guilty of the ‘leak’. The Times journalist who interviewed me about the Smallwood report already had the document on his desk when we spoke, and I did not disclose any contents of the report to him. But the truth in homeopathy seems often highly diluted.

More recently, Peter Fisher could be heard on UK radio and TV (for instance here) making further claims which, in my view, are false. Specifically, I am thinking of two of his statements which would mislead the public, if they stood uncorrected:

  1. He said that the studies unanimously show that integrating homeopathy into conventional medicine improves outcomes and saves money.
  2. He also claimed that most of the homeopathic remedies available in the high street still contain small amounts of active ingredients.


It seems obvious that adding homeopathy with its lengthy, compassionate encounters to conventional care can easily generate positive outcomes. But costs? I don’t see unanimously positive evidence here at all.

Dr Fisher must know the literature on homeopathy very well. Therefore I assume that he is aware of the most up-to-date systematic review of economic evaluations of this subject. Its authors from the ‘School of Health and Related Research’, University of Sheffield concluded that “it is… not possible to draw firm conclusions based on existing economic evaluations of homeopathy“.

Fisher knows and likes to quote Claudia Witt’s work on homeopathy. Why does he not cite this recent paper then?


The aim of this study was to compare the health care costs for patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with the costs for those receiving usual care (control group).


Cost data provided by a large German statutory health insurance company were retrospectively analysed from the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective. Patients in both groups were matched using a propensity score matching procedure based on socio-demographic variables as well as costs, number of hospital stays and sick leave days in the previous 12 months. Total cumulative costs over 18 months were compared between the groups with an analysis of covariance (adjusted for baseline costs) across diagnoses and for six specific diagnoses (depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache).


Data from 44,550 patients (67.3% females) were available for analysis. From the societal perspective, total costs after 18 months were higher in the homeopathy group (adj. mean: EUR 7,207.72 [95% CI 7,001.14-7,414.29]) than in the control group (EUR 5,857.56 [5,650.98-6,064.13]; p<0.0001) with the largest differences between groups for productivity loss (homeopathy EUR 3,698.00 [3,586.48-3,809.53] vs. control EUR 3,092.84 [2,981.31-3,204.37]) and outpatient care costs (homeopathy EUR 1,088.25 [1,073.90-1,102.59] vs. control EUR 867.87 [853.52-882.21]). Group differences decreased over time. For all diagnoses, costs were higher in the homeopathy group than in the control group, although this difference was not always statistically significant.


Compared with usual care, additional homeopathic treatment was associated with significantly higher costs. These analyses did not confirm previously observed cost savings resulting from the use of homeopathy in the health care system.

To speak about unanimously positive evidence is simply not true! And Fisher, I suspect, must know it.


This point is even clearer, I think. The most commonly used homeopathic potency is surely a ’30C’ – it was already Hahnemann’s favourite. A small statistic proves my point: of the 24 products listed on the Nelson site, 21 are ’30C’ and just three are ‘6C’. For Ainsworths, all 33 of their listed standard products are ’30C’. Helios have 70 ’30C’ products and 27 ‘200C’ products

The likelihood that a ’30C’ contains a single molecule of what it says on the bottle is precisely zero. In fact, this applies already to all remedies beyond ’12C’. Fisher knows that, of course, I assume; if not he should not be a homeopath.


I do not take any pleasure in calling anyone a liar – and it is, of course, far from me to use this word in connection with the Queen’s homeopath. Therefore, in the interest of the scientific truth, medical ethics and honesty, I would like to give Dr Fisher the opportunity to comment on the above issues and herewith invite him to correct the three errors/falsehoods/inaccuracies/misunderstandings mentioned above by supplying the evidence for his statements or by withdrawing them. Then we won’t have to call him names which he might feel are hurtful.

Recently an interesting article caught my eye. It was published in the official journal of the ‘Deutscher Zentralverein Homoeopathischer Aerzte’ (the professional body of German doctor homeopath which mostly acts as a lobby group). Unfortunately it is in German – but I will try to take you through what I believe to be the most important issue.

The article seems to have the aim to defame Natalie Grams, the homeopath who had the courage to change her mind about homeopathy and to even write a book about her transformation. This book impressed me so much that I wrote a post about it when it was first published. The book did, however, not impress her ex-colleagues. Consequently the book review by the German lobbyists is full of personal attacks and almost devoid of credible facts.

A central claim of the defamatory piece is that, contrary to what she claims in her book, homeopathy is supported by sound evidence. Here is the crucial quote: Meta-Analysen von Kleijnen (1991), Linde (1997), Cucherat (2000) und Mathie (2014) [liefern] allesamt positive Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie… This translates as follows: meta-analyses of Kleijnen, Linde, Cucherat and Matie all provide positive results regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy. As this is a claim, we hear ad nauseam whenever we discuss the issue with homeopathy (in the UK, most homeopathic bodies and even the Queen’s homeopath, P Fisher, have issued very similar statements), it may be worth addressing it once and for all.


This paper was the result of an EU-funded project in which I was involved as well; I therefore know about it first hand. The meta-analysis itself is quite odd in that it simply averages the p-values of all the included studies and thus provides a new overall p-value across all trials. As far as I know, this is not an accepted meta-analytic method and seems rather a lazy way of doing the job. The man on our EU committee was its senior author, professor Boissel, who did certainly not present it to us as a positive result for homeopathy (even Peter Fisher who also was a panel member should be able to confirm this). What is more, the published conclusions are not nearly as positive as out lobbyists seem to think: ‘There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.’

Anybody who claims this is a proof for homeopathy’s efficacy should be sent back to school to learn how to read and understand English, in my view.

The meta-analysis by Linde et al seems to be the flag-ship in the homeopathic fleet. For those who don’t know it, here is its abstract in full:

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo.

METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, “remedy”, population, and outcomes.

FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05).

INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

Again, the conclusions are not nearly as strongly in favour of homeopaths as the German lobby group assumes. Moreover, this paper has been extensively criticised for a wide range of reasons which I shall not have to repeat here. However, one point is often over-looked: this is not an assessment of RCTs, it is an analysis of studies which were double-blind and/or randomised and placebo-controlled. This means that it includes trials that were not randomised and studies that were not double-blind.

But this is just by the way. What seems much more important is the fact that, in response to the plethora of criticism to their article, the same authors published a re-analysis of exactly the same data-set two years later. Having considered the caveats and limitations more carefully, they now concluded that ‘in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.’

It is most intriguing to see how homeopaths cite their ‘flagship’ on virtually every possible occasion, while forgetting that a quasi correction has been published which puts the prior conclusions in a very different light !


The much-cited article by Kleijnen is now far too old to be truly relevant. It includes not even half of the trials available today. But, for what it’s worth, here are Kleijnen’s conclusions: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.

If the homeopathy lobby today proclaims that this paper constitutes proof of efficacy, they are in my view deliberately misleading the public.


The Mathie meta-analysis has been extensively discussed on this blog (see here and here). It is not an overall meta-analysis but merely evaluates the subset of those trials that employed individualised homeopathy. Crucially, it omits the two most rigorous studies which happen to be negative. Its conclusions are as follows: ‘Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.’

Again, I would suggest that anyone who interprets this as stating that this provides ‘positive results regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy’ is not telling the truth.


  1.  Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses do indeed suggest that the trial data are positive. However, they all caution that such a result might be false-positive.
  2. None of these papers provide anything near a proof for the effectiveness of homeopathy.
  3. Homeopathy has not been shown to be more than a placebo therapy.
  4. To issue statements to the contrary is dishonest.
1 2 3 15
Recent Comments

Note that comments can now be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.