Dr. Stephan Baumgartner, Deputy Director of the “Institute of Complementary and Integrative Medicine” in Bern, Switzerland, and Dr. Alexander Tournier, Research Associate at the same institution are well known defenders of homeopathy. They just published a paper entitled SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON HOMEOPATHY. Needless to say that such an article is relevant for my blog and attracted my interest.
In their abstract, they claim that “the most recent meta-analyses of RCTs across all indications concluded that there is evidence for specific effects of homeopathic remedies superior to placebo when prescribed by a qualified homeopath. Furthermore, there are several meta-analyses on specific indications (e.g. allergic complaints, childhood diarrhoea) which provide evidence for specific effects of homeopathic preparations superior to placebo.”
As I have published several such papers, I had a look at which of them – if any – they quoted. It turns out they only cited the one entitled “Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis“. Here is its abstract:
Homeopathic remedies are advocated for the treatment of postoperative ileus, yet data from clinical trials are inconclusive. We therefore performed meta-analyses of existing clinical trials to determine whether homeopathic treatment has any greater effect than placebo administration on the restoration of intestinal peristalsis in patients after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. We conducted systematic literature searches to identify relevant clinical trials. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for any homeopathic treatment versus placebo; homeopathic remedies of < 12C potency versus placebo; homeopathic remedies of > or = 12C potency versus placebo. A “sensitivity analysis” was performed to test the effect of excluding studies of low methodologic quality. Our endpoint was time to first flatus. Meta-analyses indicated a statistically significant (p < 0.05) weighted mean difference (WMD) in favor of homeopathy (compared with placebo) on the time to first flatus. Meta-analyses of the three studies that compared homeopathic remedies > or = 12C versus placebo showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). Meta-analyses of studies comparing homeopathic remedies < 12C with placebo indicated a statistically significant (p < 0.05) WMD in favor of homeopathy on the time to first flatus. Excluding methodologically weak trials did not substantially change any of the results. There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue.
And here is the paragraph from the article by Baumgartner and Tournier citing our paper:
Barnes et al. (1997) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical
trials investigating the effects of a homeopathic treatment of postoperative ileus. Meta
analysis yielded a statistically significant (p < 0.05) weighted mean difference (WMD) in favour
of homeopathy (compared with placebo) on the time to first flatus. The exclusion of
methodologically weak trials did not substantially alter the results. The authors concluded
that “our analyses suggest that homeopathic treatment administered immediately after
abdominal surgery may reduce the time to first flatus when compared with placebo
administration”.
(The bits that I have put in bold print are the ones that appear in this paragraph.)
Are you puzzled?
Me too!
What they also forgot to mention is the fact that, in our paper, we explained that the partly positive outcome was produced by several small and flawed trials. They were the reason why eventulally a large and rigorous study was conducted. Its results showed homeopathy to be no better than placebo. Yet, in the meta-analysis this study was not large enough to out-weigh the rigorous trial (this is a well-known weakness of meta-analyses and requires carefull attention when interpreting the findings).
It seems important to note that after the rigorous trial, no further studies of homeopathy for post-operative ileus have emerged. The reason, it seems, is that this trial was conclusive and thus put the notion to rest that homeopathy might work for this highly prevalent condition.
Finally, as I merely looked at one single aspect, I wonder whether there are further misrepresentations in the Baumgartner/Tournier paper.
Here is my question to my readers: does the behavior of Baumgartner and Tournier amount to
- honest error,
- sloppiness,
- wishful thinking,
- dishonesty,
- fraud,
- scientific misconduct?
PLEASE, DO LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK
33 Responses to The “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON HOMEOPATHY”: does this amount to scientific misconduct?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Cognitive bias and wishful thinking I’d suggest.
Since I have read several of Stephan Baumgartner´s papers on duckweed, I think he probably truely believes in homeopathy. Therefore in this case, scientific misconduct caused by serious delusion might be close to the truth.
Absolutely
Homepathic so called remedies are one of the biggest frauds in modern history.
Especially Swiss seem very keen on several alternative cures, eg Eurythmics (kind of exercise, defined small movements to embody and express feelings etc) which is claimed to cure everything from allergies to ADHD and even cancers!
Utter sham!
Seems to be SOP in certain woo-mongering quarters: mis-quote or mis-interpret something from a proper paper and hope that no-one actually checks the accuracy or validity of your reference and consequent claims.
This usually works for report by press release, i.e. a press release of the abstract is made, someone reports the press release without reading the abstract, let alone the paper, someone else re-reports the report, rinse and repeat. This especially works as so few journalists have any science training.
Systematic reviews should only be published if they follow correct methodology, listing their criteria for study inclusion and describing each included study in detail.
OF COURSE!
but our example shows that this often is not enough, and one needs to interpret the data carefully.
for instance, in the area of SCAM, we regularly observe that proponents of one modality publish one after another seemingly rigorous studies of their pet-SCAM. So, even the affiliation/background can be a factor.
Edzard on Wednesday 16 April 2025 at 11:36
What is so special? This your comparative yardstick????????
“Most of the time, patients don’t even know Large randomized studies did not deliver the goods as expected because we have been treating the human body as bio-medical electromechanical machine like a car engine. Human body is much more complicated and follows totally different rules of the game. We need to think afresh. So it’s no surprise that up to one-third of clinical studies lead to conclusions that are later overturned.”
Is this also about SCAM?? “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis (Published in PLoS Medicine, 2005)
Or this report?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
“According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.”
If the basic trial cannot be replicated, what would you say about meta analysis: putting apples and oranges together?
Is that defined as tunnel vision? Or this blog is about “alternative medicine”?
@Krishna
Yes, I fully understand why Edzard still allows you to comment here. Your combination of astronomical stupidity and staggering arrogance does have a certain amusement value.
Face it: not only do you have no education whatsoever, you are very clearly unable to actually learn anything. You cling to your ignorance like a drunk to his bottle, and like a drunk, you are loudly proclaiming what you think is the Truth, thinking you know better than even the best educated doctors and scientists. You are, in other words, an exemplary homeopath. And an embarrassment to human intelligence.
that said, he’s hilariously funny at times
Richard Rasker on Thursday 17 April 2025 at 16:38
“…we have been treating the human body as bio-medical electromechanical machine like a car engine. Human body is much more complicated and follows totally different rules of the game.”
This statement was made by Dr. David Eddy. Heard of him? I am positive the answer is one big NO! And here you continue to write about evidence.
Just explains your ignorance.
Edzard on Thursday 17 April 2025 at 17:09
“….that said, he’s hilariously funny at times”
” Kaiser Permanente, the largest HMO in the US, is trying to follow Eddy’s advice in a million patients.
“Even today, with a high-tech medical-care system that costs the nation $2 trillion a year (in the US alone), “there is little or no evidence that many widely used treatments and procedures actually work better than various cheaper alternatives”, feels David. This judgment pertains to a shocking number of conditions or diseases, from cardiovascular woes to back pain to prostate cancer.
During his long and controversial career proving that the practice of medicine is more guesswork than science, Eddy has repeatedly punctured cherished physician myths. He showed, for instance, that the annual chest X-ray screening was worthless, over the objections of doctors who made money off the regular visit. He proved that doctors had little clue about the success rate of procedures such as surgery for enlarged prostates. He traced one common practice — preventing women from giving birth vaginally if they had previously had a cesarean — to the recommendation of one lone doctor. Eddy liked to cite a figure that only 15% of what doctors did was backed by hard evidence.
David Eddy feels that the limitation is the human mind. Without extensive information on the outcomes of treatments, it’s fiendishly difficult to know the best approach for care. The human brain, Eddy explains, needs help to make sense of patients who have combinations of diseases, and of the complex probabilities involved in each.
The predictions of success invariably ranged from 0% to 100%, with no clear pattern. “All the doctors were trying to estimate the same thing — and they all gave different numbers,” he says. “I’ve spent 25 years proving that what we lovingly call clinical judgment is woefully outmatched by the complexities of medicine. Go to one doctor, and get one answer. Go to another, and get a different one. Or think about expert testimony. You don’t have to hire an expert to lie. You can just find one who truly believes the number you want, adds Eddy.
Medicine is doing somewhat better in recognizing the problem, but in solving it, unfortunately, no. Doctors now routinely test for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to try to diagnose prostate cancer. But there’s no evidence that using the test improves survival. Recent evidence suggest that PSA might lead to wrong diagnosis where cancer does not exist in the first place. Some experts believe that as many cancers would be detected through random biopsies. Then, once cancer is spotted, there’s no way to know who needs treatment and who doesn’t. Plus, there is a plethora of treatment choices — four kinds of surgery, various types of implantable radioactive seeds, and competing external radiation regimens.
How is a poor patient supposed to decide among those? Most of the time, patients don’t even know Large randomized studies did not deliver the goods as expected because we have been treating the human body as bio-medical electromechanical machine like a car engine. Human body is much more complicated and follows totally different rules of the game. We need to think afresh. So it’s no surprise that up to one-third of clinical studies lead to conclusions that are later overturned, according to a recent paper in JAMA. Even when common treatments are proved to be dubious, physicians don’t rush to change their practice. They may still firmly believe in the treatment — or in the money it brings in. ”
What did you find “hilariously funny”? Quite a straight forward statement on the state of “scientific medicine ” that as per you is practiced with evidence but still leaves a trail of dead patients.
What has changed? Other than your misleading messages? List out the Evidence used by the doctors during Covid while treating their patients and explain why millions had to end up dead after 100 years of scientific development in medicine?
Any different to their actions 100 years ago during the Spanish Flu? Homeopathy worked then. It worked now. It does not work ONLY on your blog.
Manipulating evidence???
you are right and I was wrong: you are not funny, just unbelievably stupid.
@Krishna
Living organisms function through chemical and physical processes that are governed by the exact same rules of chemistry and physics that also apply to the rest of the universe. There are no special rules(*) or phenomena for living things. It’s just that their chemical and physical processes are often extremely intricate and complex, making it difficult to apply the rules in a meaningful way. But even very simple non-living systems can nevertheless exhibit remarkably complex behavior(**).
The only David Eddy I know of is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Eddy
But that can’t be the one you refer to, as this person promotes scientific principles that are the very foundation of modern evidence-based medicine – principles that you reject and/or fail to understand. One such key principle is this one:
“medical benefits [of an intervention] must outweigh the risks.”
When it comes to real medicine, you only look at risks; and when it comes to quackery, you only look at (imaginary) benefits.
*: Which does away with nonsense such as qi-based quackery and homeopathy.
**: One of my favorite examples is Langton’s ant, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant
@Krishna
One more correction:
David Eddy never said this. This statement was made by B.M. Hegde – a real doctor who started believing in and promoting homeopathy and other dumb quackery.
@Krishna
This behaviour sounds remarkably similar to that of homeopaths.
Mojo on Friday 18 April 2025 at 18:42
“This behaviour sounds remarkably similar to that of homeopaths.”
Surprised at the reality? That this behavior actually is of the allopaths!!!!! The outcome of your spending too much time here reading false narratives.
Richard Rasker on Friday 18 April 2025 at 09:32
The only David Eddy I know of is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Eddy
You have him right. Read the first article referred there “Medical Guesswork”
“Even today, with a high-tech medical-care system that costs the nation $2 trillion a year (in the US alone), “there is little or no evidence that many widely used treatments and procedures actually work better than various cheaper alternatives”, feels David. This judgment pertains to a shocking number of conditions or diseases, from cardiovascular woes to back pain to prostate cancer.
During his long and controversial career proving that the practice of medicine is more guesswork than science, Eddy has repeatedly punctured cherished physician myths. He showed, for instance, that the annual chest X-ray screening was worthless, over the objections of doctors who made money off the regular visit. He proved that doctors had little clue about the success rate of procedures such as surgery for enlarged prostates. He traced one common practice — preventing women from giving birth vaginally if they had previously had a cesarean — to the recommendation of one lone doctor. Eddy liked to cite a figure that only 15% of what doctors did was backed by hard evidence.
David Eddy feels that the limitation is the human mind. Without extensive information on the outcomes of treatments, it’s fiendishly difficult to know the best approach for care. The human brain, Eddy explains, needs help to make sense of patients who have combinations of diseases, and of the complex probabilities involved in each.
The predictions of success invariably ranged from 0% to 100%, with no clear pattern. “All the doctors were trying to estimate the same thing — and they all gave different numbers,” he says. “I’ve spent 25 years proving that what we lovingly call clinical judgment is woefully outmatched by the complexities of medicine. Go to one doctor, and get one answer. Go to another, and get a different one. Or think about expert testimony. You don’t have to hire an expert to lie. You can just find one who truly believes the number you want, adds Eddy.”
You believe Dr Eddy’s research was about homeopathy and homeopaths????? Read again carefully and tell me the changes in the laws of Chemistry and Physics between the time Dr Eddy started his evaluation and when these practices were implemented.
“One such key principle is this one: “medical benefits [of an intervention] must outweigh the risks.”
You repeat this idiotic sentence numerous times without probably understanding the meaning. Why not explain the benefits of Antibiotics usage over the past many years and explain how is the benefit better that the spread of “modern plagues” as defined by Dr. Blaser that is leading to a wasted generation. Or the use of “opiates” that have managed to reduce the average lifespan of Americans to start with.
And this is NOTHING compared to what new research is uncovering. And not be homeopaths. Their observations have continued to be found true with a lag of 50 years.
“The results from the current larger sample of articles 1 are consistent with the earlier estimates: 27% of the original articles relevant to medical practices published in NEJM over this decade pertained to testing established practices. Among them, reversal and reaffirmation studies were approximately equally common (40.2% vs 38%). About two-thirds of the medical reversals were recommended on the basis of randomized trials. Even though no effort was made to evaluate systematically all evidence on the same topic (eg, meta-analyses including all studies published before and after the specific NEJM articles), the proportion of medical reversals seems alarmingly high. At a minimum, it poses major questions about the validity and clinical utility of a sizeable portion of everyday medical care.
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(13)00403-5/pdf
The crisis? Better labeled GROSS SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
“The sample assembled by Prasad et al is highly impressive, but it accounts for less than 1% of all randomized trials published in the same decade (an estimated >10,000 per year) and an even more infinitesimal portion of other types of study designs. If one could extrapolate from this sample by proportion, perhaps there have been several tens of thousands of medical reversal studies across all 23 million articles entered to date in PubMed. ”
This simply explains why medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide. (If this is true in USA, it would be a lot bigger in other parts of the world.)
One epidemic was enough to show the shallow science and complete failure of the “scientific medical system with evidence”.
EVIDENCE????? Laws of Physics and Chemistry? Seem to change so often?????
you don’t need to insist to demonstrate your ignorance; we have all long got that you have no idea about science or healthcare.
unless you get some sort of insane pleasure out of it, you can stop now!
Richard Rasker on Friday 18 April 2025 at 09:50
“One more correction: This statement was made by B.M. Hegde – a real doctor who started believing in and promoting homeopathy and other dumb quackery.”
True. I regret error.
The paper was written by Dr Hegde about the work done by Dr David Eddy. Dr. Hegde is a cardiologist and EX Vice Chancellor of KG Medical College at Manipal. He has spent time as first line doctor, teacher and considering he has not had his certification revoked for pointing routine failures of the allopathic medical system, and the benefits of the other medical systems, he is more credible than the blog writer here who is totally compromised.
@Krishna
This response again tells us that you are the idiot.
I will no longer waste any time on that single brain cell of yours. Have a nice life.
Edzard on Saturday 19 April 2025 at 09:57
“you don’t need to insist to demonstrate your ignorance;..”
With ChatGPT and Grok available to all, it takes writing out some simple questions to get the reality of the “scientific medicine and evidence” against the repeated falsehood, and misleading information you continue to present here.
Why not try and find data on the successful treatment of lower back pain and compare it with “Chiropractor and back pain”
Conventional Treatments for Lower Back Pain
🔹 General Estimates:
Acute lower back pain (less than 6 weeks):
🔸 ~80–90% improve within a few weeks with rest, physical therapy, NSAIDs
🔸 Failure rate: 10–20%
Chronic lower back pain (lasting more than 3 months):
🔸 Much harder to treat
🔸 Only about 30–60% of patients experience significant relief with standard non-surgical care
🔸 Failure rate: 40–70%, depending on treatment intensity and cause
🧠 What “Failure” Means:
In studies, “treatment failure” often means:
Pain continues or worsens
Function remains impaired (can’t work, exercise, or do daily tasks)
Need for more aggressive interventions (e.g. injections or surgery)
Development of dependence on pain medications (Opiates converting patients into junkies??????)
“Need for more aggressive interventions (e.g. injections or surgery)???????????????
1. Injections (Epidural, Facet Joint, Nerve Blocks)
⭐ Success Rate:
Short-term relief: ~50–70% (weeks to a few months)
Long-term relief: ~20–40% (beyond 6 months)
Failure Rate: ~30–50% (especially in long-term or repeat cases)
🔹 Notes:
Often used to reduce inflammation or block pain signals temporarily
Can be useful for diagnostic purposes (to identify pain sources)
May allow patients to tolerate physical therapy better
🔪 2. Surgery (e.g., Spinal Fusion, Disc Replacement)
⭐ Success Rate (for chronic, non-radicular back pain):
Spinal Fusion:
~50–70% report improvement in pain/function
Failure rate: 30–50%, especially if no clear structural abnormality
Reoperation rate: ~15–25% over 5–10 years
Do the doctors discuss these figures and consequences with their patients????? How many patients will stay back and agree to be taken to the
operating table? “0% “it would chase away most patients and thus impact of their income.”
Remember “Take the issue of informed consent, for example. It means that we all have to fully inform patients about the treatment we plan to give. In the case of chiropractic spinal manipulation, it would need to include that the therapy is of doubtful effectiveness, that other options are more likely to help, and that the treatment carries very frequent minor as well as probably rare major risks. I do understand why chiropractors do often not provide this information – it would chase away most patients and thus impact of their income.”
thanks for proving my point
Edzard on Sunday 20 April 2025 at 14:43
Lies, dammed lies and your statistics.
is that supposed to mean something, or are you just bullshitting for the fun of it?
Edzard on Monday 21 April 2025 at 20:50
“..is that supposed to mean something, or are you just bullshitting for the fun of it?”
“Lies, Damn lies and Statistics” was used to explain the outcome, when people like you used statistics to prove a point. And it is definitely NOT FUNNY. Especially when you term outcome of evaluation by Dr Eddy as funny and stupid only because it runs contrary to your beliefs.
Krishna: I will now stop posting your comments and preventing you from trolling.
I really don’t like doing this and very rarely have taken such action but you have tried my patience long enough.
COME BACK, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING MEANINGFUL TO CONTRIBUTE.
Dear Ernst,
is it a joke? Or is the first flatus the really methodical endpoint of the study or do you kid us?
This remember me to the “Österreichische Ärztekammer”, the Association of the Austrian Physicians, that give away diplomas for different procedures of SCAM, for Applied Kinesiology, the Ayurvedic, Anthrosophic, Homeopathic, Orthomecular Medicinr and the Roll-Milk-Diet according to Franz Xaver Mayr. The latter curriculum also includes abdominal massage as part of self-awareness.
(https://www.arztakademie.at/diplome/).
And the funny thing is that the “Verlag der Ärzte”, which is known for its edifying guides to so-called alternative medicine, is publishing the book “Der Furz – Alarmsignal des Körpers” (The Fart – Alarm Signal of the Body)
https://www.aerzteverlagshaus.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/9783990522394.jpg
Is the fart really the end point of homeopathic therapy or are Baumgartner and his colleagues artificial flatulists?
time to first flatus is an accepted endpoint to quantify the length od post-operative ileus
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6354191/
I don’t get it. “…yet data from clinical trials are inconclusive.” But a meta-analysis of those data show a significant effect?
I try not to ascribe motives to quackery. Does it really matter if one is lining their pockets because they are conscious frauds or they are true believers, or is it enough just to say bollocks and save your money?
A pet peeve of mine: p < 0.0# rather than p < .0#. If a value can never exceed 1, do not add leading zero, or at least, that is the way I was taught, but I see leading zeroes everywhere. Is there a right way or a wrong way, or does it not really matter?
it is possible to have several inconclusive results from small trials, run a meat-analysis across them and thus generate a significant result. in fact, this is partly why one does meta-analyses.
You are right, in Mathematics the leading zero for p is not correct, since it couldn’t exceed 1!
But there is practical aspects of a leading Zero, (think of Excel tables, and other computer programs) so both writings are used especially in pharmaceutics and medicine.
See:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/390112/is-it-an-abuse-of-notation-to-omit-the-leading-zero-in-a-decimal-less-than-1
What a lot of hot air the quoted paper is.
Hardly ‘scientific misconduct’ – the authors are not scientists.
Re the repeated claims above about homeopathy working during the 1918 influenza epidemic: I’ve just done a search using a well-known search engine and gave up after over 5 pages of homeopaths either making unsubstantiated claims or citing each other as evidence for this apparent efficacy.
It does not look like there is any independent, verified evidence to support this claim.
Anyone who knows different, feel free…