‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’ (WDDTY) have been shown to be strangely economical with the truth many times before (for instance here, here and here). Now they have published an article entitled ‘Ombudsman investigates ‘flawed’ homeopathic study that claimed it doesn’t work’ It attacks in no uncertain terms the ‘NHMRC Statement on Homeopathy and NHMRC Information Paper – Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions’ which I believe to be a sound evaluation of homeopathy and therefore have mentioned repeatedly on this blog. Here is what WDDTY stated:
START OF QUOTE
A major and influential review of homeopathy concluded that the controversial therapy doesn’t work—but it was so riddled with error and bad science that it’s sparked an official ombudsman investigation.
The world’s media announced that homeopathy was a scam after the Australia government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published its findings in 2015 that “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”
But now the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating the review’s procedures after receiving reports of inaccuracies, mishandling of evidence and conflicts of interest.
The review has been triggered by the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA), supported by the Homeopathic Research Institute (HRI), which began questioning the review’s processes after several solid studies that demonstrated homeopathy’s benefits had been overlooked.
The NHMRC review team set arbitrary parameters that only studies that involved more than 150 people—and which met standards that even drug trials rarely achieve—would be considered. Those requirements reduced the number of qualifying studies to just five—from an initial pool of more than 1,800 trials—and none of these showed that homeopathy was effective.
One of the NHMRC’s own reviewers produced a mysterious first report that has never been published, and hasn’t been released despite Freedom of Information requests.
And the AHA has discovered that Prof Peter Brooks, chair of the NHMRC committee that carried out the homeopathy review, never declared that he was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group, Friends of Science in Medicine.
There are solid studies that demonstrate homeopathy is effective against childhood diarrhea, sinusitis and hay fever—but they all involve fewer than 150 people, said HRI chief executive Rachel Roberts. “The public has a right to know that there are high quality studies showing homeopathy works for some medical conditions—information that was lost only due to NHMRC’s mishandling of the evidence.”
The homeopaths aren’t alone in challenging the NHMRC review: Australia’s independent Cochrane Centre said its conclusions are not an accurate reflection of the evidence, and a second expert also said he felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the report’s conclusions.”
END OF QUOTE
As it happens, I am in contact with the lead author of this report, Paul Glasziou, not least because he very kindly wrote the foreword for my book HOMEOPATHY, THE UNDILUTED FACTS. So, we corresponded and discussed the latest WDDTY diatribe. Thus I am now in a position to put a few things straight (I hope Paul does not mind).
ISSUE 1. – The NHMRC review team set arbitrary parameters that only studies involving more than 150 people—and which met standards that even drug trials rarely achieve—would be considered.
The truth is that report focused on systematic reviews of trials, not individual trials. The 57 included systematic reviews found 176 individual trials which covered 61 conditions: an average of about 3 trials per condition. But some conditions only had 1 trial, and one small trial would, of course, not be considered a reasonable basis for reliable conclusions. GRADE – the international standard for assessing evidence – downgrades reviews for “imprecision” – the GRADE Handbook suggests “whenever there are sample sizes that are less than 400, review authors and guideline developers should certainly consider rating down for imprecision.” Hence the criterion of 150 which the Australians decided to use is considerably more lenient than the current GRADE guideline.
ISSUE 2 – Those requirements reduced the number of qualifying studies to just five—from an initial pool of more than 1,800 trials—and none of these showed that homeopathy was effective.
This is simply not correct. The report found 57 systematic reviews that contained 176 individual trials, not 5. These 176 trials, which covered 61 conditions, formed the body of evidence for the NHMRC report’s conclusions.
ISSUE 3 – There are solid studies that demonstrate homeopathy is effective against childhood diarrhoea, sinusitis and hay fever—but they all involve fewer than 150 people, said HRI chief executive Rachel Roberts.
The NHMRC report focused on systematic reviews that covered all trials for individual conditions. Given the conventional p-value of 0.05, one would expect 1 in 20 single trials to be “false positives”. So with 176 trials, we expect about 9 “false positive” trials. But using systematic reviews that combine all trials for individual conditions, reduces this risk of false positives. Most national evidence review bodies require more than 1 trial, e.g, the FDA requires 2 positive trials, whereas many others require a systematic review which has at least 2 trials. Replication of findings is obviously a cornerstone of science.
ISSUE 4 The homeopaths aren’t alone in challenging the NHMRC review: Australia’s independent Cochrane Centre said its conclusions are not an accurate reflection of the evidence, and a second expert also said he felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the report’s conclusions.”
The truth is that the Cochrane Centre, which provided an independent check during the processes of the NHMRC review, concluded that “Overall, the conclusions arising from the review appear justified based on the evidence presented.”
I REST MY CASE.
This new systematic review by proponents of homeopathy (and supported by a grant from the Manchester Homeopathic Clinic) tested the null hypothesis that “the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo“. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. In reporting this paper, I will stay very close to the published text hoping that this avoids both misunderstandings and accusations of bias on my side:
Literature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised ‘reliable evidence’ if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. ‘Effect size’ was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.
The authors excluded the following types of trials: studies of crossover design; of radionically prepared homeopathic medicines; of homeopathic prophylaxis; of homeopathy combined with other (complementary or conventional) intervention; for other specified reasons. The final explicit exclusion criterion was that there was obviously no blinding of participants and practitioners to the assigned intervention.
Forty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs; 49 were classed as ‘high risk of bias’ and 23 as ‘uncertain risk of bias’; the remaining three trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis produced reliable evidence.
A meta-regression was performed to test specifically for within-group differences for each sub-group. The results showed that there were no significant differences between studies that were and were not:
- included in previous meta-analyses (p = 0.447);
- pilot studies (p = 0.316);
- greater than the median sample (p = 0.298);
- potency ≥ 12C (p = 0.221);
- imputed for meta-analysis (p = 0.384);
- free from vested interest (p = 0.391);
- acute/chronic (p = 0.796);
- different types of homeopathy (p = 0.217).
After removal of ‘C’-rated trials, the pooled SMD still favoured homeopathy for all sub-groups, but was statistically non-significant for 10 of the 18 (included in previous meta-analysis; pilot study; sample size > median; potency ≥12C; data imputed; free of vested interest; not free of vested interest; combination medicine; single medicine; chronic condition). There remained no significant differences between sub-groups—with the exception of the analysis for sample size > median (p = 0.028).
Meta-analyses were possible for eight clinical conditions, each analysis comprising two to 5 trials. A statistically significant pooled SMD, favouring homeopathy, was observed for influenza (N = 2), irritable bowel syndrome (N = 2), and seasonal allergic rhinitis (N = 5). Each of the other five clinical conditions (allergic asthma, arsenic toxicity, infertility due to amenorrhoea, muscle soreness, post-operative pain) showed non-significant findings. Removal of ‘C’-rated trials negated the statistically significant effect for seasonal allergic rhinitis and left the non-significant effect for post-operative pain unchanged; no higher-rated trials were available for additional analysis of arsenic toxicity, infertility due to amenorrhoea or irritable bowel syndrome. There were no ‘C’-rated trials to remove for allergic asthma, influenza, or muscle soreness. Thus, influenza was the only clinical condition for which higher-rated trials indicated a statistically significant effect; neither of its contributing trials, however, comprised reliable evidence.
The authors concluded that the quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.
I am sure that this paper will lead to lively discussions in the comments section of this blog. I will therefore restrict my comments to a bare minimum.
In my view, this new meta-analysis essentially yield a negative result and confirms most previous, similar reviews.
- It confirms Linde’s conclusion that “insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition”.
- It confirms Linde’s conclusion that “there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results”.
- It confirms Kleinjen’s conclusion that “most trials are of low methodological quality”.
- It also confirms the results of the meta-analysis by Shang et al (much-maligned by homeopaths) than “finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.”
- Finally, it confirms the conclusion of the analysis of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council: “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.”
Another not entirely unimportant point that often gets missed in these discussions is this: even if we believe (which I do not) the most optimistic interpretation of these (and similar data) by homeopaths, we ought to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopathy cures anything. At the very best it provides marginal symptomatic relief. Yet, the claim of homeopaths that we hear constantly is that homeopathy is a causal and curative therapy.
The first author of the new meta-analysis is an employee of the Homeopathy Research Institute. We might therefore forgive him that he he repeatedly insists on dwelling on largely irrelevant (i. e. based on unreliable primary studies) findings. It seems obvious that firm conclusions can only be based on reliable data. I therefore disregard those analyses and conclusions that include such studies.
In the discussion, the authors of the new meta-analysis confirm my interpretation this by stating that they “reject the null hypothesis (non-individualised homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo) on the basis of pooling all studies, but fail to reject the null hypothesis on the basis of the reliable evidence only.” And, in the long version of their conclusions, we find this remarkable statement: “Our meta-analysis of the current reliable evidence base therefore fails to reject the null hypothesis that the outcome of treatment using a non-individualised homeopathic medicine is not distinguishable from that using placebo.” A most torturous way of stating the obvious: the more reliable data show no difference between homeopathy and placebo.
As many of you know, my own verdict on homeopathy has changed over time. As a young clinician straight out of medical school, I was taken by homeopathy. Years later, as a researcher, I had to realize that the scientific evidence spoke quite clearly against it (those who are interested should read the full account here). Since then, I have expressed this in several ways. Perhaps the most scientific (based on a sound assessment of the totality of the data) way was here: “…the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice.” This was 15 years ago, and meanwhile the evidence has become – if anything – more definitively negative.
When I tell this to homeopaths and their followers, they often seem to get annoyed with me and claim that I have an axe to grind, am not objective, am paid by ‘BIG PHARMA’ etc. It is hard or even impossible to persuade them that they are mistaken, and I certainly don’t expect anyone to blindly take my word for anything, not even for my verdict on homeopathy. Therefore, I have tried to collect all the ‘official’ verdicts that I could find. By ‘official’ verdict I mean recent a statement from national or international organisations (rather than from single individuals) with research expertise that:
- are independent,
- employed a thorough assessment of the evidence,
- have a reputation of being beyond reproach,
- and represent scientific consensus.
For obvious reasons, I excluded statements from organisations of (or close to) homeopaths and those with an ideological or commercial interest in homeopathy. It is important to stress that the direction of the verdict (positive or negative) was NOT a selection criterion.
HERE ARE THE VERDICTS I MANAGED TO FIND:
“The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available”
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
“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.”
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia
“These products are not supported by scientific evidence.”
Health Canada, Canada
“Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence based medicine.”
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
“The incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine.”
Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden
“We recommend parents and caregivers not give homeopathic teething tablets and gels to children and seek advice from their health care professional for safe alternatives.”
Food and Drug Administration, USA
“There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition”
National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, USA
“There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition”
National Health Service, UK
“Homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are “scientifically implausible””
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK
I suspect that there are many more statements from similar organisations that I failed to locate. So, if any of my readers know such verdicts, please post them (if possible with a link to the source) in the comments section below. With your help, I might then be able to publish a complete list.
Homeopathic remedies work for animals and therefore they cannot be placebos!!!
This argument is the standard reply of believers in homeopathy (not least of Prince Charles). It shows, I think, two things:
- Believers in homeopathy fail to understand the placebo effect.
- They are ill-informed or lying about the evidence regarding homeopathy in animals.
As we have explained on this blog over and over again: the evidence for homeopathy in animals is very much like that in humans: it fails to show that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are more than placebos (see, for instance here, here and here). Now a further study confirms this fact.
The objective of this triple-blind, randomized controlled trial was to assess the efficacy of homeopathic treatment in bovine clinical mastitis. The study was conducted on a conventionally managed dairy farm between June 2013 and May 2014. Dairy cows with acute mastitis were randomly allocated to homeopathy (n = 70) or placebo (n = 92), for a total of 162 animals. The homeopathic treatment was selected based on clinical symptoms but most commonly consisted of a combination of nosodes with Streptococcinum, Staphylococcinum, Pyrogenium, and Escherichia coli at a potency of 200c. Treatment was administered to cows in the homeopathy group at least once per day for an average of 5 d. The cows in the placebo group were treated similarly, using a placebo preparation instead (lactose globules without active ingredients). If necessary, the researchers also used allopathic drugs (e.g., antibiotics, udder creams, and anti-inflammatory drugs) in both groups. They recorded data relating to the clinical signs of mastitis, treatment, time to recovery, milk yield, somatic cell count at first milk recording after mastitis, and culling. Cows were observed for up to 200 d after clinical recovery. Base-level data did not differ between the homeopathy and placebo groups. Mastitis lasted for an average of 6 d in both groups. No significant differences were noted in time to recovery, somatic cell count, risk of clinical cure within 14 d after disease occurrence, mastitis recurrence risk, or culling risk.
The authors concluded that the results indicated no additional effect of homeopathic treatment compared with placebo.
The question is HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE IS NEEDED BEFORE HOMEOPATHS ABANDON THEIR BOGUS CLAIM?
To honour Hahnemann’s birthday, a National Convention was held yesterday on ‘World Homeopathy Day’ in New Delhi. The theme of the convention is “Enhancing Quality Research in Homeopathy through scientific evidence and rich clinical experiences”. They could have done with this new study of Influenzinum 9C, it seems to me. This is a homeopathic remedy made from the current influenza vaccine. Influenzinum 9C, also known as homeopathic flu nosode. It is claimed to:
- strengthen the body and increase its resistance to the season’s flu viruses,
- protect against cold & flu symptoms such as body aches, nausea, chills, fever, headaches, sore throat, coughs, and congestion,
- enforce the flu vaccine’s action if you have opted for the flu shot,
- deal with aftereffects of the flu, and
- alleviate adverse effects of the flu shot.
As these are the claims made by homeopaths (here is but one example of many: “I’ve been using this for over 30 years for my family, and we have never had the flu!”), French researchers have tested whether Influenzinum works. They just published the results of the first study examining the effectiveness of Influenzinum against influenza-like illnesses.
They conducted a retrospective cohort study during winter 2014-2015. After influenza epidemic, a self-assessment questionnaire was offered to patients presenting for a consultation. The primary endpoint was the declaration of an influenza-like illness. The exposed patients (treated by Influenzinum) were matched to two non-exposed patients (untreated) with a propensity score. A conditional logistic model expressed influenza-like illness risk reduction provided by the Influenzinum.
The cohort included 3514 patients recruited from 46 general practitioners. After matching, the treated group (n=2041) and the untreated group (n=482) did not differ on variables collected. Thus Influenzinum preventive therapy did not significantly alter the likelihood of influenza-like illness.
The authors concluded that Influenzinum preventive therapy did not appear effective in preventing influenza-like illness.
This can be no surprise to anyone you knows what ‘C9’ means: it signifies a dilution of 1: 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 (plus 9 times vigorous shaking, of course).
I am sure that some homeopaths will now question whether Influenzinum is truly homeopathic. Is it based on the ‘like cures like’ principle? Before some clever Dick comments ‘THIS SHOWS THAT PROF ERNST HAS NOT GOT A CLUE ABOUT HOMEOPATHY’, please let me point out that it was not I but the homeopaths who insisted in labelling Influenzinum ‘homeopathic’ (see, for instance, here: “Influenzinum Dose is a homoeopathic medicine created by Laboratoire Boiron. Single dose to be consumed in one step. This homoeopathic medicine is generally used as a substitute for the flu vaccine”). AND WHO AM I TO QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF BOIRON???
HAPPY BIRTHDAY SAM!
Today is Hahnemann’s birthday! And today is the beginning of HOMEOPATHY AWARENESS WEEK! To celebrate these events, I thought it would be nice to publish a very short post with a list 10 recent posts which, in my opinion, are most relevant or remarkable.
But this is merely the start of a series of posts on homeopathy to run this week – after all, HOMEOPATHY AWARENESS WEEK is important! The public needs to know the truth about homeopathy.
“Millions of people have adverse drug reactions to prescribed medicine; it is ranked as the third leading causes of death. In the US, health-care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003. Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. But we don’t. Bottom line, people are suffering. The public is calling out for a reform in mainstream medicine.” These seem to be the conclusions of a new film about homeopathy entitled JUST ONE DROP. It was shown recently for the first time in London, and we already have a fascinating comment about it.
“This professional, eight-year effort attempted to be quite even-handed, while featuring many compelling and documented success stories”, states “The World’s No. 1 Authority on Intention, Spirituality and the New Science”, Lynne Mc Taggart. An ‘even-handed’ effort is worth pursuing, I thought, and so I read on.
When I reached the point where Lynne writes “The greatest revelation had to do with the dirty pool employed by the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), when it decided to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy by reviewing all research that had been done to date”, I got a little suspicious. We discussed the NHMRC report here and here and I had an entirely different impression of it.
Lynne also elaborated at length on the infamous ‘Swiss report’: “The Swiss team had comprehensively reviewed all the major evidence for homeopathy, everything from preclinical research to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and meta-analyses. After assessing all the available data, the Swiss team concluded that the high-quality investigations of preclinical basic research proved that homeopathic high-potency remedies induce “regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms”. Of the systematic reviews of human research, said the report, 20 out of 22 detected “at least a trend in favor of homeopathy”, and five showed “clear evidence for homeopathic therapy”. The report found particularly strong evidence for the use of homeopathy for upper respiratory tract infections and allergic reactions. Perhaps most significantly, the report concluded that the effectiveness of homeopathy “can be supported by clinical evidence” and “regarded as safe”.(Forsch Komple-mentmed, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29).”
This report has been evaluated by many experts (see for instance here). One expert even called it ‘research misconduct’ and concluded that “…the authors of this report adopted a very unusual strategy in what should have been an impartial evidence appraisal. It appears that their goal was not to provide an independent assessment but to choose criteria that would lead to their chosen conclusion that homeopathy is effective. To this end, they chose to adopt a highly questionable criterion of “real-world” effectiveness, ignore negative findings concerning homeopathy in favour of implausible reinterpretation of results, and attack RCTs. This use of a unique and suspect methodology in an appraisal designed to assess healthcare objectively gives cause for particular concern; one imagines that the Swiss government wanted homeopathy to be judged against existing standards rather than new ones created specially for the evaluation. In doing so the authors have distorted the evidence and misled the public; these actions, combined with their conflicts of interest, strongly suggest that they are guilty of research misconduct. It is extremely unfortunate that the Swiss government lent legitimacy to this report by attaching its name to it, and also unfair that the English-language text is not available free of charge to the public when it is being widely misrepresented all over the world as proof of the efficacy of homeopathy. It remains possible that homeopathy is effective, but the authors of this report do the practice a grave disservice.”
Could it be that Lynne does not know all this?
Or is she not interested in an ‘even-handed’ approach?
For me, the last drop arrived when Lynne started writing about my friend “Simon Singh, the self-appointed attack dog on all things alternative”, as she calls him. This is where I began to feel nauseous, so much so that I had to reach for my Nux Vomica C30. Alas, it did not help – Lynne’s writing was too overpoweringly sickening, particularly when she tried to motivate her readers to defend charities that endanger public health by promoting bogus treatments for life-threatening conditions: “If you value alternative medicine, here’s what to write the CC before the deadline: Tell them to read the Swiss report on homeopathy, the most contentious of alternative therapies, which shows very good evidence for it. Demand a level playing field. If they are going to challenge charities for alternative medicine based on scientific evidence, then they need to evaluate Cancer Research UK, Arthritis Research UK and every other charity partly or wholly funded by pharmaceutical companies, an estimated 75 percent of whose research is massaged, manipulated or fabricated.”
My only hope now is that the film JUST ONE DROP is less bonkers than Lynne’s comment about it!
The world of homeopathy is getting very excited: HOMEOPATHY AWARENESS WEEK is approaching (it’s starting 10 April). An ideal occasion, I think, for making a celebratory offer to all homeopaths:
I am suggesting to give a free lecture on any homeopathy-related subject of your choosing. This, I hope, might increase homeopaths’ awareness of the science, research and evidence for or against homeopathy.
Which professional organisation could possibly say no to such a generous offer?
None with an interest in evidence, surely!
Homeopathy has been the number one subject on this blog from its very beginnings. It regularly attracts lively discussions, and I am confident that I could generate an even better dialogue, if you let me present the evidence. I think I am almost uniquely qualified to give such a lecture, not least because I have the following types of expertise:
- I have given about 800 lectures on alternative medicine and therefore know what to do,
- I have a sound knowledge of evidence-based medicine,
- I possess the ability to tell good from poor science,
- I have experience as a patient treated by a homeopath,
- I have research experience in homeopathy (clinical trials, systematic reviews, etc.),
- I have published many scientific papers on the subject,
- I possess many years of clinical experience,
- I have been trained in homeopathy and used it as a clinician,
- I can think critically,
- I regularly review the emerging literature,
- finally, I have recently published a book entitled HOMEOPATHY, THE UNDILUTED FACTS.
The specifics of my offer are as follows:
- I will give a 45-min lecture to your organisation.
- I will then answer questions for up to 30 min.
- This can be scheduled at a location and a time of day that suits you.
- I will not charge a lecture fee.
- You will cover my travel cost from my home in Suffolk to your venue.
- Depending on the location of the venue and timing of the lecture, I might need to stay overnight and would hope you can foot the bill for that.
- There will be no other costs involved.
- My offer is limited to a time-window during which I plan to be in the UK. The best time for me would be July and August.
I am convinced that we all might profit from such lectures:
- You might learn about science, the evidence, the need for thinking critically, etc.
- And I might learn a bit more about the views and concerns of homeopaths.
Therefore, I hope that my offer will find plenty of takers. If you are interested, please contact me via this blog.
Several months ago, the Gibraltar Homeopathic Council (GHC) had called for an emergency meeting to discuss the future of Gibraltar. At that meeting, members voiced grave concern over Brexit; the main problem, they predicted, would be that Spain might use the general confusion during the early days of the negotiations to claim back their homeland. It was then that they decided to meet with their patron, Prince Charles. A secret meeting was thus held at High Grove in the presence of leading UK homeopaths, and a cunning plan was devised.
Back in Gibraltar, a team of researchers went to work to develop and test ‘Rock C30’. This novel and innovative remedy is produced by potentising Gibraltar rock according to the ‘like cures like’ principle. Pilot studies were hurriedly arranged, and their results indicated that Rock C30 was indeed a powerful remedy that neutralised all ambitions of individuals wanting to take possession of Gibraltar. Its mechanism of action is as yet unclear, but homeopaths believe it works holistically via stimulating the vital force. The study concluded that Rock C30 added to the water supplies of a small group of Spanish chauvinists proved to totally abolish their desire to consider annexing Gibraltar. The remedy caused no adverse effects and is therefore ready for routine application on a large scale.
The report which has been leaked to the Daily Mail also stated that the development of the new remedy was inspired by the research done on ‘Berlin Wall’, an equally effective solution to potentially difficult situations. Well-informed circles close to the GHC indicate that large supplies of Rock C30 have already been smuggled into Spain and are about to be dropped into the water supplies of its capital.
The president of the GHC apparently stated that ” this is an exciting development which will guarantee the future of Gibraltar as an integral part of the UK.” The patron of the GHC, Prince Charles, is said to have mumbled: “I am pleased not just for the sake of Gibraltar, but also for the sake of homeopathy. Even my cows in Cornwall have been more clever than those despicable homeopathy-deniers; my cows always knew it works.”
THE TELEGRAPH reported that “homeopathic medicines will escape an NHS prescribing ban even though the Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies has dismissed the treatments as ‘rubbish’ and a waste of taxpayers money.”
This sounds insane!
Sorry, I do not know the answer either, but below I offer 10 possible options – so bear with me, please.
The NHS spends around £4 million a year on homeopathic remedies, the article claimed. Sandra Gidley, chairwoman of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: “We are surprised that homeopathy, which has no scientific evidence of effectiveness, is not on the list for review. We are in agreement with NHS England that products with low or no clinical evidence of effectiveness should be reviewed with urgency.”
The NHS Clinical Commissioners, the body which was asked to review which medications should no longer be prescribed for NHS England, said it had included drugs with ‘little or no clinical value’, yet could not offer an explanation why homeopathic medicines had escaped the cut. Julie Wood, Chief Executive, NHS Clinical Commissioners said: “Clinical commissioners have always had to make difficult choices about prioritising how they spend their budget on services, but the finance and demand challenges we face at the moment are unprecedented. Clinical Commissioning Groups have been looking at their medicines spend, and many are already implementing policies to reduce spending on those prescribeable items that have little or no clinical value for patients, and are therefore not an effective use of the NHS pound.”
Under the new rules, NHS doctors will be banned from routinely prescribing items that are cheaply available in chemists. The list includes heartburn pills, paracetamol, hayfever tablets, sun cream, muscle rubs, Omega 3 fish oils, medicine for coughs and colds and travel vaccinations. Coeliacs will also be forced to buy their own gluten-free food.
So, why are homeopathic remedies excluded from this new cost-saving exercise?
I am puzzled!
Is it because:
- The NHS has recently found out that homeopathy is effective after all?
- The officials have forgotten to put homeopathics on the list?
- In times of Brexit, the government cannot be bothered about reason, science and all that?
- The NHS does not need the money?
- Homeopathic globuli look so pretty?
- Our Health Secretary is in love with homeopathy?
- Experts are no longer needed for decision-making?
- EBM has suddenly gone out of fashion?
- Placebos are now all the rage?
- Some influential person called Charles is against it?
Sorry, no prizes for the winner of this quiz!