homeopathy
Our ‘Memorandum Integrative Medicine‘ seems to be causing ripples. A German website that claims to aim at informing consumers objectively posted a rebuttal. Here is my translation (together with comments by myself inserted via reference numbers in brackets and added below):
With drastic words and narrow-mindedness bordering on ideology (1), the Münster Circle, an association of opponents to complementary therapies such as homeopathy (2), takes issue with the treatment concept of integrative medicine in a memorandum (3). By integrative medicine physicians understand the combination of doctor-led medicine and doctor-led complementary medicine to a meaningful total concept with the goal of reducing side effects and to treating patients individually and optimally (4). Integrative medicine focuses primarily on chronic diseases, where conventional acute medicine often reaches its limits (5)In the memorandum of the Münsteraner Kreis, general practitioner Dr. Claudia Novak criticizes integrative medicine as “guru-like self-dramatization” (6) by physicians and therapists, which undermines evidence-based medicine and leads to a deterioration in patient care. She is joined by Prof. Dr. Edzard Ernst, Professor Emeritus of Alternative Medicine, who has changed from Paul to Saul with regard to homeopathy (7) and is leading a veritable media campaign against proponents of treatment procedures that have not been able to prove their evidence in randomized placebo-controlled studies (8). The professor ignores the fact that this involves a large number of drugs that are used as a matter of course in everyday medicine (9) – for example, beta-blockers or other cardiological drugs (10). “Like the devil fears the holy water” (11), the Münsteraner Kreis seems to fear the concept of integrative medicine (12). The vehemence coupled with fear with which they warn against the treatment concept makes one sit up and take notice (13). “As an experienced gynecologist who has successfully worked with biological medicine as an adjunct in his practice for decades, I can only shake my head at such narrow-mindedness”, points out Fred-Holger Ludwig, MD (14). Science does not set limits for itself, but the plurality of methods is immanent (15). “Why doesn’t Prof. Ernst actually give up his professorial title for alternative medicine? That would have to be the logical consequence of its overloud criticism of established treatment concepts from homeopathy to to integrative medicine”, questions Dr. Ludwig (16).
The concept of integrative medicine is about infiltrating alternative procedures into medicine, claim the critics of the concept, without mentioning that many naturopathic procedures have been used for centuries with good results (17) and that healthcare research gives them top marks (18). “Incidentally, the scientists among the representatives of the Münster Circle should know that it is difficult to capture individualized treatment concepts with the standardized procedures of randomized, placebo-controlled studies (19). Anyone who declares the highest level of evidence to be the criterion for approval makes medicine impossible and deprives patients in oncology or with rare diseases, for example, of chances of successful treatment (20). Even there, drugs are used that cannot be based on high evidence, tested in placebo-controlled studies, because the number of cases is too low (21),” notes Dr. Ludwig .
- Ideology? Evidence is not ideology, in my view.
- We are an association of multidisciplinary experts advocating a level playing field with sound evidence in all areas of healthcare.
- The actual memorandum is not linked in this text; does the author not want his readers to form the own opinion?
- In our memorandum, we offer various definitions of integrative medicine (IM), none of which is remotely similar to this one.
- No, IM is usually being promoted in a much wider sense.
- This term does not appear in our memorandum.
- I am not aware that I changed from Paul to Saul with regard to homeopathy; I know that I was led mostly by the evidence.
- I feel flattered but don’t think that my humble work is a ‘media campaign’.
- True, I do not pretend to understand all areas of medicine and tend to be silent in the ones that I lack up-to-date expertise.
- Is he really saying that beta-blockers are not evidence-based?
- The holy water comparison from a homeopath, who arguably makes a living from dishing out ‘holy water’, made me laugh!
- It is most revealing, I think, that he thinks our motivation is fear.
- Splendid!
- FHL is the author of the article, and it is thus charmingly naive that he cites himself in this way
- I somehow doubt that he understands what he is expressing here.
- I find this rather a bizarre idea but I’ll think about it.
- Argumentum ad traditionem.
- Those that get ‘top marks’ belong to evidence-based medicine and not to IM.
- Here the author reveals that he does not understand the RCT methodology and even fails to know the trial evidence on homeopathy – RCTs of individualised homeopathy are possible and have been published (e.g. this one).
- If he really believes this, I fear for his patients.
- Pity that he does not provide an example.
To understand FHL better, it is worth knowing that he claims to treat cancer patients with conventional and homeopathic medicine. He states that this approach reduces side effects – without providing evidence, of course.
Altogether, FHL does not dispute a single fact or argument from our memorandum. In fact, I get the impression that he never actually read it. To me, it feels as though he merely read an article ABOUT the document. In any case, his critique is revealing and important, in my view. It demonstrates that there are no good arguments to defend IM.
So, thank you FHL!
Onion water seems to be all the rage these days. Advocates claim that it is a natural cold and flu remedy that can help the body heal faster and kick symptoms like coughing and congestion. And many consumers who feel threatened by flu, COVID, and various respiratory infections believe them.
But what on earth is onion water? It is precisely what it sounds like: onion immersed in water. Preparation starts with cutting up raw red or yellow onions, placing them into a bowl, and adding water. The fresh onion and water mixture should then soak for about 12 hours. After that, the onion water is ready for consumption. 
Besides being a recipe for bad breath, can onion water actually relieve any symptoms, or help the body heal from infections?
A review of the evidence concluded that “effect of onion and its constituents on oxidative stress, inflammatory and immune system were shown indicating their therapeutic value in treatment of various diseases associated with oxidative stress, inflammation, and immune-dysregulation.”
This may sound encouraging but the review was based mostly on pre-clinical evidence, and the question, therefore, remains: are there any good trial data?
Another recent review included clinical trials (where available) and concluded that “possible bronchodilatory and preventive effects of onion and Qt on asthma and other obstructive respiratory diseases. The effects of the plant and its constituents on lung cancer, lung infections, and allergic disorders were also reported both in experimental and clinical studies. However, before preparing drugs based on A. cepa and its constituents for clinical practice, further standard clinical trials are needed to be performed.”
In other words, compelling trial evidence that preparations from onion are effective against viral infections does not exist.
And what about homeopathy?
Homeopaths frequently use potentised onion as a remedy for conditions that cause eyes to water (because ‘like cures like’). Is there any sound evidence that homeopathic onion remedies are better than a placebo? You probably guessed: the answer is NO!
So, no good evidence for onion, potentised onion, onion water, or any other preparations of onion. My advice, therefore, is to continue using your onions in the kitchen rather than in the medicine cabinet.
It has been reported that a naturopath from the US who sold fake COVID-19 immunization treatments and fraudulent vaccination cards during the height of the coronavirus pandemic has been sentenced to nearly three years in prison. Juli A. Mazi pleaded guilty last April in federal court in San Francisco to one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. Now District Judge Charles R. Breyer handed down a sentence of 33 months, according to Joshua Stueve, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice. Mazi, of Napa, was ordered to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on or before January 6, 2023.
The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to fraudulent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccination cards for COVID-19, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In August, Breyer denied Mazi’s motion to withdraw her plea agreement after she challenged the very laws that led to her prosecution. Mazi, who fired her attorneys and ended up representing herself, last week filed a letter with the court claiming sovereign immunity. Mazi said that as a Native American she is “immune to legal action.”
She provided fake CDC vaccination cards for COVID-19 to at least 200 people with instructions on how to complete the cards to make them look like they had received a Moderna vaccine, federal prosecutors said. She also sold homeopathic pellets she fraudulently claimed would provide “lifelong immunity to COVID-19.” She told customers that the pellets contained small amounts of the virus and would create an antibody response. Mazi also offered the pellets in place of childhood vaccinations required for attendance at school and sold at least 100 fake immunization cards that said the children had been vaccinated, knowing the documents would be submitted to schools, officials said. Federal officials opened an investigation against Mazi after receiving a complaint in April 2021 to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General hotline.
_______________________
On her website, Mazi states this about herself:
Juli Mazi received her doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine from the National University of Natural Medicine in Portland, Oregon where she trained in the traditional medical sciences as well as ancient and modern modalities that rely on the restorative power of Nature to heal. Juli Mazi radiates the vibrant health she is committed to helping her patients achieve. Juli’s positive outlook inspires confidence; her deep well of calm puts people at immediate ease. The second thing they notice is that truly she listens. Dr. Mazi’s very presence is healing.
On this site, she also advocates all sorts of treatments and ideas which I would call more than a little strange, for instance, coffee enemas:
Using a coffee enema is a time-tested remedy for detoxification, but it is not without risks. If you are not careful, the process can cause internal burns. In addition, improperly brewed coffee can lead to electrolyte imbalances and dehydration, and coffee enemas are not recommended for pregnant women or young children.
To make coffee enemas safe and effective, always choose quality organic coffee. A coffee enema should be free of toxins and pesticides. Use a reusable enema kit with stainless steel or silicone hosing for safety. Moreover, do not use a soft plastic or latex enema bags. It is also essential to limit the length of time that the coffee spends in the container.
A coffee enema should be held for 12 to 15 minutes and then released in the toilet. You may repeat the process as necessary. Usually, the procedure should be done once or twice a day. However, if you are experiencing acute toxicity, you can use a coffee enema as often as needed. Make sure you have had a bowel movement before making the coffee enema. Otherwise, the process may be hindered.
Perhaps the most interesting thing on her website is her advertisement of the fact that her peers not just tolerate such eccentricities but gave Mazi an award for ‘BEST ALTERNATIVE HEALTH & BEST GENERAL PRACTITIONER’.
To me, this suggests that US ‘doctors of naturopathy’ and their professional organizations live on a different planet, a planet where evidence counts for nothing and dangerously misleading patients seems to be the norm.
Recently, I received an email with this ‘special offer’ for purchasing a book and was impressed – but not in a positive sense:
Dr Farokh’s commendable work at upto 22% off – Healing Cancer. For Limited time period only.
Healing Cancer: A Homoeopathic Approach
As a homeopath one should not deter oneself in dealing with any type of cases, be it cancer. But for executing that an ultimate guidance is needed. Cancer is so much prevalent and challenging medical problem of today that a trustworthy source of accurate information becomes pertinent and this work of Dr. Farokh Master immediately propels at the top of quality books for cancer. Based on Master’s 40 years of experience this book was written for students to understand the basis of oncology and for practitioners for brushing-up of their knowledge in this growing discipline. Author says that to get a grasp on cancer cases we should believe in the potential of the homeopathic treatment, that healing from cancer refers to internal process of becoming whole and feeling harmonious with yourself and your environment.To even start with handling the cases of cancer one should be aware of understanding of cancer, its cause, pathophysiology, different types, conventional treatment and their side effects, integrative medicines, social problems in the treatment, such topics are well casted by Volume 1 of the book.
Peak points of Volume 1- • A full chapter is dealing with Iscador, a relatively old method, very effective but unfortunately underemployed.• Published papers about Homeopathy in the treatment of cancer are presented before the last chapter which is on some of most used allopathic drugs in cancer with a focus on their side-effects. After the coverage of basic information on oncology in Volume 1 comes the Volume 2 which explores topics like understanding cancer from homoeopathic point of view, constitutional remedies, therapeutics of individual cancers, nutrition, general management.
Peak points of Volume 2-• A whole chapter on Cadmium salts and cancer.• 51 “lesser known remedies” are briefly quoted and their usefulness in different situations and types of cancer exposed.• A long chapter deals with the “Indian drugs”, it is important that these remedies are used mostly in tincture or low potencies, as herbal or Ayurvedic remedies or food supplements relieving the patients. • The choice and differentiation between the remedies is then helped by the “Repertory of Cancer”, very well compiled and a highly useful section. “Clinical tips from my practice” given as a sub-chapter. • It ends with recommendations on how to deal with radiation illness and the side-effects of conventional treatment, as well as the treatment of pain and help with palliative care.
For fighting and curing cancer and improving the quality and quantity of life of people, knowledge of Homeopathy, both philosophically and scientifically is needed which this work of art portrays delightfully.
About Book Author:
Dr. Farokh J. Master’s birth into homeopathy was in the year 1976, when he joined Bombay homeopathic medical college, after giving up his studies at the orthodox school of medicine. Dr Master was instrumental in starting homeopathic out-patient dept in many allopathic hospitals viz. Bombay Hospital, KEM Hospital & Ruby Hall, Pune. Besides his work as a senior Homeopath of the HHC, Dr. Farokh Master is teaching homeopathy (advanced level) at the Mumbai Homeopathic Medical College, part of Mumbai university. He is also teaching at other homeopathic colleges in India and abroad. He has given seminars in various countries like Austria, Australia, India, Japan etc. Dr Master has written more than 50 books like -The Homeopathic Dream Dictionary, Cross References of the Mind, Perceiving Rubrics of the Mind, The State of Mind affecting the Foetus, Tumors and Homeopathy, The Bedside Organon of Medicine, The proving of Mocassin Snake, Bungarus, etc. Dr. Master is the originator of many recent new approaches and insights in homoeopathy.
Some people claim that homeopaths are not dangerous and argue that their placebos cannot harm patients. I have long disagreed with this position. As homeopathy is not an effective therapy (it has no effects beyond placebo), its use simply means allowing diseases to remain untreated.
- If we are dealing with a common cold, this might be little more than a costly nuisance.
- If we are dealing with a chronic condition such as arthritis, it means causing unnecessary suffering.
- If we are dealing with life-threatening diseases like cancer, it means shortening the life of patients.
This is the politest way I can put it. There are of course other, less polite terms for ‘shortening a life’! Most of us shy away from using them in the context of homeopathy. In the case of the author of this book, we might make an exception. In my view, he is someone who is deluded to the point where he is ready to kill his patients with homeopathy.
PS
Iscador is not even a homeopathic remedy.
It has been reported that the Regional Court of Dortmund has prohibited the manufacturer of the homeopathic cold remedy Meditonsin from advertising with false health claims. The court did not see sufficient evidence for the advertising claims.
The Consumer Advice Centre (VZ) of North Rhine-Westphalia issued a warning to the Meditonsin manufacturer (MEDICE Arzneimittel Pütter GmbH & Co.) for misleading advertising statements and sued them. The complaint was:
- that the advertising gave the false impression that an improvement in health could be expected with certainty after taking the product,
- that no side effects were to be expected,
- that the product was superior to “chemical-synthetic medicines”.
The Dortmund Regional Court was not convinced by a study referred to by the manufacturer. On its website, the manufacturer of Meditonsin presents the results of a “current, large-scale user study with more than 1,000 patients” under the heading “Proven efficacy & tolerability”. According to a pie chart, 90% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the effect of Meditonsin.
However, according to the VZ, the study was only a “pharmacy-based observational study” with little scientific validity. Despite the lack of evidence, the manufacturer claimed that “the good efficacy and tolerability of Meditonsin® Drops could once again be impressively confirmed”. The Dortmund Regional Court, however, followed the VZ’s statement of grounds for action. “It is not allowed to advertise with statements that give the false impression that a successful treatment can be expected with certainty, as the advertisement for Meditonsin drops suggests,” emphasized Gesa Schölgens, head of “Faktencheck Gesundheitswerbung”, a joint project of the consumer centres of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate. According to the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act, this is prohibited.
The Dortmund Regional Court also found that consumers were misled by the advertising because it gave a false impression that no harmful side effects were to be expected when taking Meditonsin. The package leaflet of the drug listed several side effects. According to this, there could even be an initial worsening of the symptoms after taking the medicine.
According to the VZ, the alleged advantage of the “natural medicinal product” over “many chemical-synthetic medicinal products that only suppress the symptoms”, as presented by the manufacturer, is also inadmissible. This is because it is not permissible to advertise to consumers with claims that the effect is equivalent or superior to that of another medicinal product. This, too, was confirmed by the court.
_________________________
In case you like to know more about the remedy, this is from its English language site:
Meditonsin consists of Aconitum, Atropinum Sulfuricum, Mercurius Cyanatus. Active ingredient is the part of the drug or medicine which is biologically active. This portion of the drug is responsible for the main action of the drug which is intended to cure or reduce the symptom or disease.
Quackery is rife in India. On this blog, I have occasionally reported on this situation, e.g.:
- The new ‘WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine’ in India
- Mucormycosis (black fungus): is the Indian AYUSH ministry trying to decimate the population?
- Homeopathy, COVID, India and Prince Charles: not a good mixture!
- Has homeopathy caused the dramatic decline of COVID-19 cases in India?
- Homeopathy research from India is far from trustworthy, and today I can show you why
- Brazil and India collaborate in the promotion of quackery
- Taking the piss again? The story of urine therapy in India
- The intriguing case of homeopathy in India
- Prince Charles’ advocacy of quackery is by no means harmless
- Patient Dies After Homeopath Gives Wrong Injection
- Herbal remedies are good for you … except for the ones that injure your liver
- The ‘AYUSH COVID-19 Helpline’: have they gone bonkers?
Now the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana has pointed out that legislation needs to be brought in to save people “from falling prey to fraudulent practices in the name of treatment”. Speaking at the inaugural National Academy of Medical Sciences on ‘Law and Medicine’, the CJI said: “Quackery is the biggest disease affecting India” and that hospitals are “being run like companies, where profit-making is more important than service to society”. The CJI added, “another side of lack of accessible healthcare is giving space to quacks. Quackery begins where awareness ends. Where there is room for myths, there is room for quackery”. He continued, “Owing to the financial and time constraints, a huge majority of the Indian population approaches these untrained and uncertified doctors. Lack of awareness and knowledge, misplaced belief, and sheer inaccessibility have massive ramifications on the health of the country, particularly the rural and underprivileged Indian … The need of the hour is to bring in legislation to save people from falling prey to fraudulent practices in the name of treatment … Private hospitals are being opened at an exponential rate. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a glaring need for balance. We are seeing hospitals being run like companies, where profit-making is more important than service to society.”
I am sure the CJI is correct; India does have a quackery problem. If nothing else, the fact that one website lists a total of 746 Alternative Medicine Colleges in India, leaves little doubt about it.
The authors of this article searched 37 online sources, as well as print libraries, for homeopathy (HOM) and related terms in eight languages (1980 to March 2021). They included studies that compared a homeopathic medicine or intervention with a control regarding the therapeutic or preventive outcome of a disease (classified according to International Classification of Diseases-10). Subsequently, the data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed descriptively.
A total of 636 investigations met the inclusion criteria, of which 541 had a therapeutic and 95 a preventive purpose. Seventy-three percent were randomized controlled trials (n = 463), whereas the rest were non-randomized studies (n = 173). The most frequently employed comparator was placebo (n = 400).
The type of homeopathic intervention was classified as:
- multi-constituent or complex (n = 272),
- classical or individualized (n = 176),
- routine or clinical (n = 161),
- isopathic (n = 19),
- various (n = 8).
The potencies ranged from 1X (dilution of -10,000) to 10 M (100–10.000). The included studies explored the effect of HOM in 223 different medical indications. The authors also present the evidence in an online database.
The authors concluded that this bibliography maps the status quo of clinical research in HOM. The data will serve for future targeted reviews, which may focus on the most studied conditions and/or homeopathic medicines, clinical impact, and the risk of bias of the included studies.
There are still skeptics who claim that no evidence exists for homeopathy. This paper proves them wrong. The number of studies may seem sizable to homeopaths, but compared to most other so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs), it is low. And compared to any conventional field of healthcare, it is truly tiny.
There are also those who claim that no rigorous trials of homeopathy with a positive results have ever emerged. This assumption is also erroneous. There are several such studies, but this paper was not aimed at identifying them. Obviously, the more important question is this: what does the totality of the methodologically sound evidence show? It fails to convincingly demonstrate that homeopathy has effects beyond placebo.
The present review was unquestionably a lot of tedious work, but it does not address these latter questions. It was published by known believers in homeopathy and sponsored by the Tiedemann Foundation for Classical Homeopathy, the Homeopathy Foundation of the Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ), both in Germany, and the Foundation of Homeopathy Pierre Schmidt and the Förderverein komplementärmedizinische Forschung, both in Switzerland.
The dataset established by this article will now almost certainly be used for numerous further analyses. I hope that this work will not be left to enthusiasts of homeopathy who have often demonstrated to be blinded by their own biases and are thus no longer taken seriously outside the realm of homeopathy. It would be much more productive, I feel, if independent scientists could tackle this task.
In this paper, a team of US researchers mined opinions on homeopathy for COVID-19 expressed on Twitter. Their investigation was conducted with a dataset of nearly 60K tweets collected during a seven-month period ending in July 2020. The researchers first built text classifiers (linear and neural models) to mine opinions on homeopathy (positive, negative, neutral) from tweets using a dataset of 2400 hand-labeled tweets obtaining an average macro F-score of 81.5% for the positive and negative classes. The researchers applied this model to identify opinions from the full dataset.
The results show that the number of unique positive tweets is twice that of the number of unique negative tweets; but when including retweets, there are 23% more negative tweets overall indicating that negative tweets are getting more retweets and better traction on Twitter. Using a word shift graph analysis on the Twitter bios of authors of positive and negative tweets, the researchers observed that opinions on homeopathy appear to be correlated with political/religious ideologies of the authors (e.g., liberal vs nationalist, atheist vs Hindu).
The authors drew the following conclusions: to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze public opinions on homeopathy on any social media platform. Our results surface a tricky landscape for public health agencies as they promote evidence-based therapies and preventative measures for COVID-19.
I am not clear on how to interpret this study. What does it show and why is it important? The authors state this:
… our study cannot lead to meaningful conclusions about homeopathy’s overall online landscape. We also enforced the English language constraint while analyzing the tweets which excludes the views and opinions of all the non-English speaking users, who constitute an overwhelming majority of the world’s population. However, our effort is a first step in the direction of examining the support for alternative medicines especially for homeopathy which has not been studied in the past. At least on Twitter, our findings indicate that negative opinions are gaining more traction in the context of COVID-19.
Opinions expressed on Twitter are influenced by an array of entirely different factors many of which are unpredictable or even unknown. Therefore, I am unsure what to make of these findings. Perhaps some of my readers have an idea?
Guest post by Norbert Aust and Viktor Weisshäupl
Readers of this blog may remember the recent study of Frass et al. about the adjunct homeopathic treatment of patients suffering from non-small cell lung cancer (here). It was published in 2020 by the ‘Oncologist’, a respectable journal, and came to stunning results about to the effectiveness of homeopathy.
In our analysis, however, we found strong indications for duplicity: important study parameters like exclusion criteria or observation time were modified post hoc, and data showed characteristics that occur when unwanted data sets get removed.
We, that is the German Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie and the Austrian ‘Initiative für wissenschaftliche Medizin’, had informed the Medical University Vienna about our findings – and the research director then asked the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (OeAWI) to review the paper. The analysis took some time and included not only the paper and publicly available information but also the original data. In the end, OeAWI corroborated our findings: The results are not based on sound research but on modified or falsified data.
Here is their conclusion in full:
The committee concludes that there are numerous breaches of scientific integrity in the Study, as reported in the Publication. Several of the results can only be explained by data manipulation or falsification. The Publication is not a fair representation of the Study. The committee cannot for all the findings attribute the wrongdoings and incorrect representation to a single individual. However following our experience it is highly unlikely that the principal investigator and lead author, but also the co-authors were unaware of the discrepancies between the protocols and the Publication, for which they bear responsibility. (original English wording)
Profil, the leading news magazine of Austria reported in its issue of October 24, 2022, pp 58-61 (in German). There the lead author, Prof. M. Frass, a member of Edzard’s alternative medicine hall of fame, was asked for his comments. Here is his concluding statement:
All the allegations are known to us and completely incomprehensible, we can refute all of them. Our work was performed observing all scientific standards. The allegation of breaching scientific integrity is completely unwarranted. To us, it is evident that not all documents were included in the analysis of our study. Therefore we requested insight into the records to learn about the basis for the final statement.
(Die Vorwürfe sind uns alle bekannt und absolut unverständlich, alle können wir entkräften. Unsere Arbeit wurde unter Einhaltung aller wissenschaftlichen Standards durchgeführt. Der Vorhalt von Verstößen gegen die wissenschaftliche Intergrität enbehrt jeder Grundlage. Für uns zeigt sich offenkundig, dass bei der Begutachtung unserer Studie nicht alle Unterlagen miteinbezogen wurden. Aus diesem Grunde haben wir um Akteneinsicht gebeten, um die Grundlagen für das Final Statment kennenzulernen.)
The OeAWI together with the Medical University Vienna asked the ‘Oncologist’ for a retraction of this paper – which has not occurred as yet.
The problems for homeopathy in Germany do not seem to stop. Recently, the German health minister announced that he will look at the issue of reimbursement of homeopathy. Now, an article in the Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung (German Journal for Pharmacists) critically discussed the question of the place of homeopathy in German pharmacies. At present, pharmacies are the only places that are allowed to sell homeopathic preparations. This undoubtedly gives them a veneer of respectability; many consumers seem to feel that, if homeopathic preparations are only available in pharmacies, they must be well-tested and effective.
But recently, more and more German pharmacists have been pointing out that homeopathy is ineffective nonsense. A journalist who had listened to the advanced training “Homeopathy Highlights” of the Westphalia-Lippe Chamber of Pharmacists, he subsequently confronted the Chamber with the controversial contents of this advanced training event. The Chamber then declared that it would “no longer offer any refresher seminars on the subject of homeopathy with immediate effect” and that the speaker would also no longer work for it.
And now, the Berlin Chamber of Pharmacists wants the pharmacy community to distance itself from homeopathy as a scientifically recognized and evidence-based drug therapy. With its motion, the Chamber wants to achieve that the title “Naturopathic Medicine and Homeopathy” of the training regulations is replaced by the title “Phytopharmacy and Naturopathy”. The justification states: “The permission to use the title ‘pharmacist for naturopathic treatment and homeopathy’ by the state chambers of pharmacists suggests that homeopathy is a scientifically recognized and evidence-based drug therapy”.
I think it is time that German pharmacists remind themselves that they are more than shopkeepers; they are healthcare professionals who have an ethical duty. I have discussed this issue often enough. If you are interested, here are a few of my posts on this subject:
- Pharmacists must advise customers that homeopathic remedies lack evidence
- “Pharmacists should not sell or dispense homeopathic products”
- German pharmacists fail their customers when advising them on homeopathy
- Pharmacists put themselves at risk by selling homeopathic remedies
- Pro and Contra: should UK community pharmacists sell homeopathic remedies?
- Pharmacists’ responsibilities vis a vis alternative medicine: the violation of healthcare ethics continues.
- It is “disappointing that some pharmacists are still stocking homeopathy products”
- Pharmacists: to sell quackery means you are quacks – or have I got that wrong?
- Pharmacists must use their professional judgement to prevent the supply of homeopathic remedies
It is high time that German pharmacists do the right thing!
