medical ethics

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. 

Researching and reporting shocking stories like this one can only make me more enemies, I know. Yet I do think they need to be told; if we cannot learn from history, what hope is there?

I first became aware of Sigmund Rascher‘s work when I was studying the effects of temperature on blood rheology at the University of Munich. I then leant of Rascher’s unspeakably cruel experiments on exposing humans to extreme hypothermia in the Dachau concentration camp. Many of his ‘volunteers’ had lost their lives, and the SS-doctor Rascher later became the symbol of a ‘Nazi doctor from hell’. In 1990, R L Berger aptly described Rascher and his sadistic pseudo-science in his NEJM article:

“Sigmund Rascher was born in 1909. He started his medical studies in 1930 and joined both the Nazi party and the storm troopers (the SA) three years later. After a volunteer internship, Rascher served for three years as an unpaid surgical assistant. He was barred temporarily from the University of Munich for suspected Communist sympathies. In 1939, the young doctor denounced his physician father, joined the SS, and was inducted into the Luftwaffe. A liaison with and eventual marriage to Nini Diehl, a widow 15 years his senior who was a one-time cabaret singer but also the former secretary and possibly mistress of the Reichsführer, gained Rascher direct access to Himmler. A strange partnership evolved between the junior medical officer and one of the highest officials of the Third Reich. One week after their first meeting, Rascher presented a “Report on the Development and Solution to Some of the Reichsführer’s Assigned Tasks During a Discussion Held on April 24, 1939.” The title of this paper foretold the character of the ensuing relationship between the two men. Because of Rascher’s servile and ingratiating approach to Himmler, his “connections were so strong that practically every superior trembled in fear of the intriguing Rascher who consequently held a position of enormous power.

Rascher’s short investigative career included a leading role in the infamous high-altitude experiments on humans at Dachau, which resulted in 70 to 80 deaths. He was also involved in testing a plant extract as a cure for cancer. The genesis of this project illustrates Rascher’s style and influence. Professor Blome, the deputy health minister and plenipotentiary for cancer research, favored testing the extract in mice. Rascher insisted on experiments in humans. Himmler sided with Rascher. A Human Cancer Testing Station was set up at Dachau. The deputy health minister collaborated on the project, held approximately 20 meetings with Rascher, and visited the junior officer at Dachau several times.

Another of Rascher’s major research efforts focused on the introduction of a pectin-based preparation, Polygal, to promote blood clotting. He predicted that the prophylactic use of Polygal tablets would reduce bleeding from wounds sustained in combat or during surgical procedures. The agent was also recommended for the control of spontaneous gastrointestinal and pulmonary hemorrhages. Combat wounds were simulated by the amputation of the viable extremities of camp prisoners without anesthesia or by shooting the prisoners through the neck and chest.

Rascher also claimed that oral premedication with Polygal minimized bleeding during major surgical procedures, rendering hemostatic clips or ligatures unnecessary and shortening operating times. He published an enthusiastic article about his clinical experience with Polygal, without specifying the nature of some of the trials in humans. The paper concluded, “The tests of this medicine ‘Polygal 10’ showed no failures under the most varied circumstances.” Rascher also formed a company to manufacture Polygal and used prisoners to work in the factory. A prisoner who was later liberated testified that Rascher’s enthusiasm for Polygal’s antiinfectious properties was probably sparked by news of the introduction of penicillin by the Allies and by his eagerness to reap fame and receive the award established for inventing a German equivalent. He initiated experiments in humans apparently without any preliminary laboratory testing. In one experiment, pus was injected into the legs of prisoners. The experimental group was given Polygal. The controls received no treatment. Information filtered to Dr. Kurt Plotner, Rascher’s physician rival, that the controls were given large, deep subcutaneous inoculations, whereas the victims in the experiments received smaller volumes of pus injected intracutaneously. Plotner reportedly investigated the matter and discovered that the Polygal used was saline colored with a fluorescent dye.

The frequent references to Rascher in top-level documents indicate that this junior medical officer attracted extraordinary attention from Germany’s highest officials. His work was reported even to Hitler, who was pleased with the accounts. Rascher was not well regarded in professional circles, however, and his superiors repeatedly expressed reservations about his performance. In one encounter, Professor Karl Gebhardt, a general in the SS and Himmler’s personal physician, told Rascher in connection with his experiments on hypothermia through exposure to cold air that “the report was unscientific; if a student of the second term dared submit a treatise of the kind [Gebhardt] would throw him out.” Despite Himmler’s strong support, Rascher was rejected for faculty positions at several universities. A book by German scientists on the accomplishments of German aviation medicine during the war devoted an entire chapter to hypothermia but failed to mention Rascher’s name or his work.”

For those who can stomach the sickening tale, a very detailed biography of Rascher is available here.

I had hoped to never hear of this monster of a man again – yet, more recently, I came across Rascher in the context of alternative medicine. Rascher had been brought up in Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophical tradition, and his very first ‘research’ project was on a alternantive blood test developed in anthroposophy.

A close friend of Rascher, the anthroposoph and chemist Ehrenfried Pfeiffer had developed a bizarre diagnostic method using copper chloride crystallization of blood and other materials. This copper chloride biocrystallization (CCBC) became the subject of Rascher’s dissertation in Munich. Rascher first tried the CCBC for diagnosing pregnancies and later for detecting early cancer (incidentally, he conducted this work in the very same building where I worked for many years, about half a century later). The CCBC involves a visual evaluation of copper crystals which form with blood or other fluids; the method is, of course, wide open to interpretation. Bizarrely, the CCBC is still used by some anthroposophical or homeopathic doctors today – see, for instance, this recent article or this website, this website or this website which explains:

“Hierbei werden einige Tropfen Blut mit Kupferchlorid in einer Klimakammer zur Kristallisation gebracht.
Jahrzehntelange Erfahrung ermöglicht eine ganz frühe Hinweisdiagnostik sowohl für alle Funktionsschwächen der Organe, auch z.B. der Drüsen, als auch für eine Krebserkrankung. Diese kann oft so früh erkannt werden, daß sie sich mit keiner anderen Methode sichern läßt.” My translation: “A few drops of blood are brought to crystallisation with copper chloride in a climate chamber. Decades of experience allow a very early diagnosis of all functional weaknesses of the organs and glands as well as of cancer. Cancer can often be detected earlier than with any other method.”

The reference to ‘decades of experience’ is more than ironic because the evidence suggesting that the CCBC might be valid originates from Rascher’s work in the 1930s; to the best of my knowledge no other ‘validation’ of the CCBC has ever become available. With his initial thesis, Rascher had produced amazingly positive results and subsequently lobbied to get an official research grant for testing the CCBC’s usefulness in cancer diagnosis. Intriguingly, he had to disguise the CCBC’s connection to anthroposophy; even though taken by most other alternative medicines, the Nazis had banned the Steiner cult.

Most but not all of Rascher’s research was conducted in the Dachau concentration camp where in 1941 a research unit was established in ‘block 5’ which, according to Rascher’s biographer, Sigfried Baer, contained his department and a homeopathic research unit led by Hanno von Weyherns and Rudolf Brachtel (1909-1988). I found the following relevant comment about von Weyherns: “Zu Jahresbeginn 1941 wurde in der Krankenabteilung eine Versuchsstation eingerichtet, in der 114 registrierte Tuberkulosekranke homöopathisch behandelt wurden. Leitender Arzt war von Weyherns. Er erprobte im Februar biochemische Mittel an Häftlingen.” My translation: At the beginning of 1941, an experimental unit was established in the sick-quarters in which 114 patients with TB were treated homeopathically. The chief physician was von Weyherns. In February, he tested Schuessler Salts [a derivative of homeopathy still popular in Germany today] on prisoners.

Today, all experts believe Rascher’s results, even those on CCBC, to be fraudulent. Rascher seems to have been not merely an over-ambitious yet mediocre physician turned sadistic slaughterer of innocent prisoners, he also was a serial falsifier of research data. It is likely that his fraudulent thesis on the anthroposophic blood test set him off on a life-long career of consummate research misconduct.

Before the end of the Third Reich, Rascher lost the support of Himmler and was imprisoned for a string of offences which were largely unrelated to his ‘research’. He was eventually brought back to the place of his worst atrocities, the concentration camp in Dachau. Days before the liberation of the camp by the US forces, Rascher was executed under somewhat mysterious circumstances. In my view, the CCBC should have vanished with him.

While some chiropractors now do admit that upper neck manipulations can cause severe problems, many of them simply continue to ignore this fact. It is therefore important, I think, to keep alerting both consumers and chiropractors to the risks of spinal manipulations. In this context, a new article seems relevant.

Danish doctors reported a critical case of bilateral vertebral artery dissection (VAD) causing embolic occlusion of the basilar artery (BA) in a patient whose symptoms started after chiropractic Spinal manipulative therapy (cSMT). The patient, a 37-year-old woman, presented with acute onset of neurological symptoms immediately following cSMT in a chiropractic facility. Acute magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed ischemic lesions in the right cerebellar hemisphere and occlusion of the cranial part of the BA. Angiography demonstrated bilateral VADs. Symptoms remitted after endovascular therapy, which included dilatation of the left vertebral artery (VA) and extraction of thrombus from the BA. After 6 months, the patient still had minor sensory and cognitive deficits.

The authors concluded that, in severe cases, VAD may be complicated by BA thrombosis, and this case highlights the importance of a fast diagnostic approach and advanced intravascular procedure to obtain good long-term neurological outcome. Furthermore, this case underlines the need to suspect VAD in patients presenting with neurological symptoms following cSMT.

I can already hear the excuses of the chiropractic fraternity:

  • this is just a case report,
  • the risk is very rare,
  • some investigations even deny any risk at all,
  • the risk of many conventional treatments is far greater.
However, these excuses are lame for a number of reasons:
  • as there are no functioning monitoring systems, nobody can tell with certainty how big the risk truly is,
  • the precautionary principle in health care compels us to take even the slightest of suspicions of harm seriously,
  • the risk/benefit principle compels us to ask whether the demonstrable benefits of neck manipulations outweigh its suspected risks.


Recently I have focussed several posts on well-known homeopaths and proponents of homeopathy; they include 6 prominent defenders of this therapy:

Dr Peter Fisher, the Queen’s homeopath,

Dr Michael Dixon, GP, chair of the NHS Alliance, the College of Medicine  and holder of many other posts,

Prof Michael Frass, intensive care physician at the University of Vienna,

Christian Boiron, general manager of Boiron, the world’s largest homeopathic manufacturer,

Christophe Merville, lead pharmacist at Boiron,

Dana Ullman, US homeopath and entrepreneur.

This inevitably begs the question what these people might have in common. After some consideration, I think, there are the following common denominators (you might see others; if so, please let me know):

  1. Most have conflicts of interest, yet try to hide this fact as best as they can, a circumstance which could be seen as less than honest.
  2. Most are quick of accusing critics of homeopathy of dishonesty and harbour conspiracy theories of various kinds.
  3. Most seem unable to think critically.
  4. They never criticise each other, not even for demonstrably wrong remarks or actions.
  5. Most use fallacious arguments regularly.
  6. Most rely on cherry-picking their evidence.
  7. Most display anti-scientific tendencies, yet rely on ‘cutting edge science’ as soon as they can interpret it in favour of homeopathy.
  8. They seem to be unable to learn in the light of new evidence.
  9. They seem never able to change their mind about things related to homeopathy.
  10. This gives them a distinct flair of fanaticism and arrogance.
  11. Most seem to have an odd attitude towards medical ethics.
  12. Most try to mislead the public by claiming things which are evidently not true.

The last point is, in my view, the most striking, important and disturbing issue. I ask myself what reasons these individuals have to tell untruths and whether ‘telling untruths’ is the same as ‘telling lies’. The first part of this question seems to be answered by the fact that most have powerful conflicts of interest; that is to say their livelihood depends on misleading the public about homeopathy. But are they lying or telling untruths?

This is a potentially important difference, I think.

An untruth is a statement which is false. By contrast, a lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. So, are the untruths issued by the above-named homeopaths lies or untruths?

I would not dare to decide on the answer of this question…but hope my readers have some suggestions.

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.

Anyone who has looked into the discussions around homeopathy for more than 10 minutes will have come across Dana Ullman (DU). Some 15 years ago, I had the pleasure to meet him in person during a conference in Boston. After the brief chat, I asked a UK homeopath who this bizarre person was. “Oh Dana!” he replied “Dana is alright.”

But is he? Let’s have a look at the evidence.

There are very few papers by DU listed in Medline, and most of these articles are simply opinion pieces. The opinions DU expresses there (or anywhere else) are usually not supported by good evidence; some of them are even outright dangerous. Here are a few quotes:

“…homeopathic care is cost effective…”

“…homeopathic medicines are effective…”

“…homeopathic medicine may play a useful role as an adjunctive and/or alternative therapy [for HIV infections]”

“[There are]…significant effects of homeopathic treatment in allergic patients.”

Occasionally, DU writes little essays full of utter nonsense, logical fallacies and falsehoods for HUFFPOST where he is nevertheless characterised in glowing terms: Dana Ullman, M.P.H. (Masters in Public Health, U.C. Berkeley), CCH (Certification in Classical Homeopathy) is “” and is widely recognized as the foremost spokesperson for homeopathic medicine in the U.S.

Wikipedia, however, is more critical and cites the opinion of a judge who was presiding over a class action against a US homeopathic producer in which DU had been called as an expert witness: The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted…Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.

The Encyclopedia of Americam Loons is even more poignant and describes DU as: A master of cognitive dissonance and memory bias, Ullman seems clinically unable to grasp the possibility that he may be wrong. Combined with a lack of understanding of science or medicine – and the possession of certain marketing skills – what we end up with is rather insidious.

Anyone who has debated with DU will have to concur with the claim that he fails to understand science or medicine. If you don’t believe me, please read his recent comments on the post about Prof Frass on this blog where he excels in producing one fallacy after the next (if he were on a mission to give homeopathy a bad name, he would be doing a sterling job!).

Despite all this abysmal ignorance, DU has one undisputed and outstanding talent: the knack of getting on people’s nerves and thus driving rational thinkers to distraction. In this way he even managed to be headlined as an ‘idiot‘!

I find it tempting to agree with the many experts who have called him an idiot, a moron or a laughing stock but, for now, I will resist that temptation. On the contrary, I want point out that he is much more cunning and clever than we give him credit for: after all, he runs a thriving business and lives off the nonsense he produces. To my mind, this is not idiotic; devious and unethical surely, but not idiotic nor laughable!

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.

A friend alerted me to this website: Hungarian Academy of Sciences statement proposing the same scientific standards for homeopathic drug registration as for normal drugs

Members of the Section of Medical Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS) voted unanimously on 9 November 2015 for supporting the earlier proposal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The Swedish statement requested that the homeopathic remedies should go through the same efficacy trials as normal drugs should.

The Hungarian statement refers to various recent scientific statements for example to the study of the Australian Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council that analysed 175 publications and concluded that there was no reasonable scientific proof for the efficacy of homeopathy for any health conditions. The HAS also refers to the European Academies Science Advisory Council that is allegedly considering an investigation among the academies of the UN countries about this topic. The statement points out that another Hungarian scientific body (Health Science Committee – Egészségügyi Tudományos Tanács) had made a similar statement already in 1991 and opposed using and registering those drugs for that efficacy had not been proved and that had not gone through adequate research procedures.

József Mandl – biochemist, member of HAS, president of Health Science Committee said: “The Australian and Swedish statements had raised the interest of the Hungarian scientific community and now members of the Medical Sciences Section of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences voted unanimously to join the Swedish initiation… Science has well defined, rigorous methods and systems. Homeopathy can’t be fitted to these. Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence based medicine. There might be various hypotheses, theories, but everything should be proved. This is what science means and this is what we would like to highlight now.”

Well said, indeed!

It is high time that the authorities concede that there can be only one standard in medicine regulation. The ‘free ride’ homeopathy has had for 200 years must now come to an end.

This notion also seems to be increasingly supported by the legal profession. An Australian lawyer just published this abstract:

The 2010 report of the United Kingdom Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons and the 2015 report of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council have overtaken in significance the uncritical Swiss report of 2012 and have gone a long way to changing the environment of tolerance toward proselytising claims of efficacy in respect of homeopathy. The inquiry being undertaken in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration during 2015 may accelerate this trend. An outcome of the reports and inquiries has been a series of decisions from advertising regulators and by courts rejecting medically unjustifiable claims in respect of the efficacy of homeopathy. Class actions have also been initiated in North America against manufacturers of homeopathic products. The changing legal and regulatory environment is generating an increasingly scientifically marginalised existence for homeopathy. That new environment is starting to provide effective inhibition of assertions on behalf of homeopathy and other health modalities whose claims to therapeutic efficacy cannot be justified by reference to the principles of evidence-based health care. This has the potential to reduce the financial support that is provided by insurers and governments toward homeopathy and to result in serious liability exposure for practitioners, manufacturers and those who purvey homeopathic products, potentially including pharmacists. In addition, it may give a fillip to a form of regulation of homeopaths if law reform to regulate unregistered health practitioners gathers momentum, as is taking place in Australia.

As though this is not enough, today it was reported that the UK NHS is considering to blacklist homeopathic remedies:

The Good Thinking Society has been campaigning for homeopathy to be added to the NHS blacklist – known formally as Schedule 1 – of drugs that cannot be prescribed by GPs. Drugs can be blacklisted if there are cheaper alternatives or if the medicine is not effective. After the Good Thinking Society threatened to take their case to the courts, Department of Health legal advisers replied in emails that ministers had “decided to conduct a consultation”. Officials have now confirmed this will take place in 2016.

It seems to me that the position of homeopathy as a form of health care is less and less tenable. Its place is in the history books. To satisfy the need for consumer/patient choice, the remedies should be moved to the confectionary shelves of the supermarkets.

Recent Comments

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

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.