I recently came across a truly baffling article. As it is in German, I translated it for you:
Supply shortages have kept pharmacies on tenterhooks for months, with more than 400 common medicines missing. The German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ) suggests switching to alternative medicine as a solution: “We have homeopathic medicines that have been tried and tested in practice for more than 200 years and can replace many medicines that are currently not available,” says the president of the DZVhÄ , Dr Michaela Geiger.
The DZVhÄ is convinced that homeopathic medical practices can replace fever-reducing medicines, but in many cases also antibiotics and much more. However, Geiger qualifies: “Due to our medical training, we also know that cancer drugs such as the often cited Tamoxifen cannot be replaced by homeopathy”.
The homeopathic doctors respond directly to the sharpest argument of their critics: “But let’s assume that homeopathy only works via the placebo effect, as is being rumored, even then it would be an option, especially if other options are lacking,” says DZVhÄ vice-president Dr. Ulf Riker. Since homeopathically trained doctors can judge the general course of a disease, they can also distinguish a placebo effect from a medicinal effect.
…
If fever medication for children is lacking, parents should not be deprived of another “therapy option”, Riker said. “If you do not get your conventional fever medication in the coming weeks, visit a specialist pharmacy for naturopathy and homeopathy. If you are due for a medical consultation, experienced homeopathic doctors can prescribe a suitable homeopathic medicine for you,” he says.
Why do I find this so intriguing?
Essentially, what we have learned from the article is the following:
- “Tried and tested in practice for more than 200 years” is ‘homeopathy speak’ for “effective”, even if the evidence tells us otherwise.
- Homeopathic remedies can replace many evidence-based conventional medications such as fever-reducing medicines, antibiotics, and much more, even if the evidence tells us otherwise.
- Homeopaths know that cancer drugs cannot be replaced by homeopathy – except for those homeopaths who seem to have forgotten this simple lesson.
- Homeopathic placebos are a realistic option when there is a supply problem with effective drugs, even if the evidence tells us otherwise.
- Homeopathically trained doctors can distinguish a placebo effect from a medicinal effect, even if there is no evidence that any clinician can reliably do this.
- Homeopathic doctors prescribe suitable homeopathic medicine. Suitable for whom? As it is ineffective, it is unsuitable for the patient. Therefore, Riker is probably talking about the homeopath.
So, what have we really learned from this article? I don’t know about you, but I got the impression that the president and the vice president of the DZVhÄ do not seem to mind putting patients in danger, as long as they can promote homeopathy.
12 Responses to The ‘German Homeopathic Doctors Association’ (DZVhÄ) is issuing dangerous (and stupid) advice
Leave a Reply to RPGNo1 Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Having run the first RCT for tamoxifen for early breast cancer I was relieved that homeopathy cannot replace the drug.
But how do they know that? Did they do a RCT of adjuvant tamoxifen v iscador?
for them, belief is more powerful than evidence, I guess.
“Just because pharmacies can’t fulfil the demand for real medicines this doesn’t mean that sugar crumbs and shaken water are effective for any condition all of a sudden.”
Um, inquiring whether patients have recently had a dream about robbers or experienced coughing fits when playing the piano are NOT legitimate parts of any ‘medical training’.
And as long as these water-shaking clowns don’t openly disavow idiotic practices such as ‘proving’ and ‘diagnostics’ as shown above they should refrain from claiming that they have any legitimate medical knowledge at all.
Conventional medicine uses evidence from clinical practice to justify most of its therapeutic methods. Homeopathy does the same with 220+ years of such well documented evidence.
Placebo effect is short term lasting only while taking the placebo. Homeopathy has a clinical record of long term cures (after dosing is stopped) of serious acute and chronic diseases.
The evidence that skeptics refer to for homeopathy always limits the studies to a very few. The Shang, et al. meta analysis in Lancet used a total of 8 studies out of the hundreds that have been done to arrive at its negative conclusion about homeopathy. A prior meta-analysis with a more positive conclusion in Lancet used 89 studies.
You can see what you want to see in the scientific evidence for homeopathy and for conventional medicines as well. Pharmaceutical companies are masters at hiding the adverse events of their medical trials. Experience homeopathy for yourself and come to a more informed opinion. Its truly safe and effective.
“Conventional medicine uses evidence from clinical practice”
For quite a while evidence has become more important than clinical practice[by which you probably mean expericeb=nce]
“The evidence that skeptics refer to for homeopathy always limits the studies to a very few”
wrong again!
“You can see what you want to see in the scientific evidence for homeopathy”
and wrong again!
Safe? No.
https://edzardernst.com/2023/02/nine-cases-of-severe-homeopathy-induced-liver-injuries/
Effective? It never was and never will be.
@ Stan:
pubmed lists 614 results when you ask for covid-19 RCT since 2019. And when you search for Covid-19 publications you have > 93.000 hits.
And you claim that there are 100s of publications in the scientific HP literature since 220 years ?
Covid-19 Vaccines have > 30.000 patients in their placebo controlde trials. HPs are proud if they find 100 patients in theire clinical trials, however statistics show us, that any RCT <100 is useless, because the high risk of false negatives or false positives.
Conclusion: HP is not evidence based.
Please look at §260 Organon, then you can learn from Guru Hahneman when HP is ineffective. its more than ridiculous.
@stan
The only real information that personal experience provides you with is that a) you used homeopathy, and b) the original ailment ran or is still running its course, without any necessary causal connection between the two.
‘Personal experience’ is worse than worthless, because it is the single biggest cause of (self-)deception in medicine – both regular and alternative. Your comments appear to be a point in case.
No, that’s not what Shang did. It looked at 110 trials, selected according to its predetermined criteria, and then looked at how restricting it to a smaller number of higher-quality trials (again, using predetermined criteria to select them) affected the results.
And this is precisely what Shang didn’t find. When the results were restricted to the higher-quality trials, the apparent effects of homeopathy disappeared, but the effects of conventional medicine from the set of matched trials didn’t.
How do they know that it can replace fever-reducing medicines and antibiotics but not cancer drugs?