We have discussed the NHMRC report on homeopathy several times – see, for instance, here, here and here. Perhaps understandably, homeopaths have great difficulties accepting its negative findings, and have complained about it ever since it was published. Now, a very detailed and well-researched analysis has become available of both the report and its criticism. Here I take the liberty to copy and (clumsily) translate its conclusions; if you can read German, I highly recommend studying the full document.


The criticism of the NHMRC review is very voluminous and highlights many different aspects of the background, the methodology, the execution and the unwanted results from a homeopathic perspective. The very engaging discussions in the general public about this document and its flaws are, however, relatively meaningless: the NHMRC arrives at exactly the same conclusions as the employee of the Homeopathic Research Institute (HRI), Mathie, in his reviews of 2014 and 2017.

In both reviews, Mathie evaluated a total of 107 primary studies and found only 2 trials that could be rated as qualitatively good, that is to say constituting reliable evidence. Mathie did upgrade 2 further studies to the category of reliable evidence, however, this was in violation of the procedures proscribed in the study protocol.

The criticism of the NHMRC review was not able to make a single valid rebuttal. No condition could be identified for which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo. This is all the more important, as Mathie avoided the mistakes that constituted the most prominent alleged criticisms of the NHMRC report.

  • Since Mathie and most of his co-authors are affiliated with organisations of homeopathy, an anti-homeopathy bias can be excluded.
  • Mathie conducted classic reviews and even differentiated between individualised and non-individualised homeopathy.
  • Mathie did not exclude studies below a certain sample size.

Yet, in both reviews, he draws the same conclusion.

In view of the truly independent replications of an employee of the HRI, we can be sure that there are, in fact, no solid proofs for the effectiveness of homeopathy. The claim of a  strong efficacy, equivalent to conventional medicines, that is made by homeopathy’s advocates is therefore not true.


And here is the original German text:

Die Kritik an dem Review des NHMRC ist sehr umfangreich und beleuchtet sehr viele verschiedene Facetten über das Umfeld, die Methodik und die Durchführung sowie das aus Sicht der Homöopathen unerwünschte Ergebnis selbst. Die in der Öffentlichkeit sehr engagierte Diskussion um diese Arbeit und ihre möglichen Unzulänglichkeiten sind jedoch relativ bedeutungslos: Das NHMRC kommt zu genau dem gleichen Ergebnis wie Mathie als Mitarbeiter des HRI in seinen in 2014 und 2017 veröffentlichten systematischen Reviews:

Insgesamt hat Mathie in beiden Reviews 107 Einzelstudien untersucht und fand nur zwei Studien, die als qualitativ gut („low risk of bias“), also als zuverlässige Evidenz betrachtet werden können. Mathie hat zwar vier weitere Studien zur zuverlässigen Evidenz aufgewertet, was allerdings im Widerspruch zu den üblichen Vorgehensweisen steht und im Studienprotokoll nicht vorgesehen war.

Die Kritik am Review des NHMRC hat keinen einzigen Punkt fundiert widerlegen können. Man konnte keine Indikation finden, bei der sich die Homöopathie als klar über Placebo hinaus wirksam erwiesen hätte. Diese Punkte sind umso bedeutsamer, weil Mathie die am NHMRC hauptsächlich kritisierten Fehler nicht gemacht hat:

  • Als Mitarbeiter des HRI und mit Autoren, die überwiegend für Homöopathie-affine Organisationen arbeiten, ist eine Voreingenommenheit gegen die Homöopathie auszuschließen.
  • Mathie hat klassische Reviews ausgeführt, sogar getrennt zwischen einzelnen Ausprägungen (individualisierte Homöopathie und nicht-individualisierte Homöopathie).
  • Mathie hat keine Größenbeschränkung der Studien berücksichtigt.

Er kommt aber dennoch zweimal zum gleichen Ergebnis wie das NHMRC.

Angesichts der wirklich als unabhängig anzusehenden Bestätigung der Ergebnisse des NHMRC durch einen Mitarbeiter des Homeopathy Research Institute kann man sicher davon ausgehen, dass es tatsächlich keine belastbaren Wirkungsnachweise für die Homöopathie gibt und dass die von ihren Anhängern behauptete starke, der konventionellen Medizin gleichwertige oder gar überlegene Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie nicht gegeben ist.

I do apologise for my clumsy translation and once again encourage those who can to study the detailed original in full.

My conclusion of this (and indeed of virtually all criticism of homeopathy) is that homeopaths are just as unable to accept criticism as an evangelic believer is going to accept any rational argument against his belief. In other words, regardless of how convincing the evidence, homeopaths will always dismiss it – or, to put it in a nutshell: HOMEOPATHY IS A CULT.

13 Responses to Homeopathy: the 2015 NHMRC report and its criticism re-analysed

  • Yeah, I don’t think that’ll end the debate. From the conclusions of Mathie’s 2014 paper mentioned in the article:

    “The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions.”


    Homeopaths will simply say: “We need more research!”

    • Yep, after more than the 200 years they’ve had to do some proper research. Over that period, real medicine has moved on just a little bit.

    • BUT “someone else” (other than the homeopaths themselves) seems to be responsible for coming up with the research. Cos, of course, Big Tincture has no money for research – despite selling infinitely dilutable “remedies” at huge mark-up.

  • Belief system based healing modalities would return us to a time when this little ditty was popular:

    I had a little bird
    Its’ name was enza
    I opened the window
    and in flew enza

  • Big Tincture has all the research evidence it needs that there are enough enthusiasts for its products to maintain their executives’ desired outcomes – a very high standard of living.
    What more evidence do you need?

    Whether the products have any effect on any specific condition is irrelevant.

    It is the CCG’s and charities who use publicly provided funds to purchase the products who should be demanding the evidence of any useful effect – and many of them are not interested in treating pathology, ailments, disease or illness, but in pandering to the emotional needs of patients (sometimes, ‘clients’).
    Fine, but that is what the purchasers should front up about and make clear.

    It is disingenuous, and therefore unethical, to claim homeopathic remedies have any role in treating any ‘condition’, other than as placebos effecting emotions, and enhancing the effects of TLC from an empathic practitioner (‘homeopath’ in the case of ‘homeopathy’).
    Which might be of benefit – but be honest about it, that’s not too much to ask.

  • Edzard. Thank you for sharing this. I went through much of this report by means of google translate. It is a nice critical summary of complaints. Do you happen to know where this comes from? I can’t seem to find an author or affiliation.




    To quote:
    Faced with the accumulated evidence, the NHMRC made its mea culpa by the voice of its director general, Professor Anne Kelso, who acknowledged in recent weeks that ” contrary to certain assertions, the examination did not conclude ineffectiveness of homeopathy

    • because science cannot prove a negative;
      the report showed that there is not good evidence for homeopathy and that people who use it might endanger their health.

  • Hi, I read here Mathie reviews results in negative conclusions for homeopathy, but in the HRI website they say the contrary (bad English I’m sorry)

    Can someone explain me why is there so different pov in this case ?
    I’m in a conversation with someone believe in NHRMC results positive and it seems it doesn’t, I need to understand ?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.