Monthly Archives: April 2026
When a top journal like PNAS (Procedings of the Nationsl Academy of Science) publishes an article entitled “What’s the science behind acupuncture?“, I must take notice. Here is my take on the (sadly disappointing) effort:
My very short summary of the paper (I do encourange my readers to read it in full)
The article starts from the premise that acupuncture is proven to work, an assumption that – as we will see in a minute – is not based on sound evidence. It describes the evolution of acupuncture from a traditional practice rooted in ancient concepts like “qi” and “meridians” to a modern medical treatment increasingly validated by science. It argues that practitioners like Min Chen are today able to provide evidence-based explanations for their work. While early clinical trials were plagued by the “sham” acupuncture paradox, the text argues that more recent, rigorous studies and technological projects are bridging the gap between Eastern philosophy and evidence-based medicine, suggesting that acupuncture’s effects are physiological realities rather than mere placebo.
My concerns of the paper
The article attempts to bridge the gap between Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and conventional medicine suggesting that several anatomical discoveries “correspond” to ancient meridians. This, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Finding a morphological structure (e.g. fascia) and claiming it represents the meridian system ignores that meridians were conceptualized as functional energetic conduits, not anatomical vessels. Citing an 80% overlap between acupoints and connective tissue planes lacks specificity. Given the ubiquity of connective tissue in the human frame, any randomized point on the body would likely “overlap” with a tissue plane, rendering the “meridian” map a possible exercise in pattern-seeking rather than anatomical discovery.
The paper acknowledges the “most puzzling” finding that sham acupuncture often produces results comparable to “true” acupuncture. This, it would seem to me, invalidates the foundational TCM theory of specific “acupoints” and “meridians” is invalidated. Yet, the article suggests that sham acupuncture is “not a true placebo” because it also triggers biological pathways. If needling anywhere produces an effect, acupuncture is merely a generalized, non-specific neuro-modulatory stimulus.
The article quotes Chen on “harmonizing organ functions” and “regulating qi” as well as researchers referring to “fibroblast activation” and “vagus nerve stimulation”. The author seems to consider both to be true; yet they seem mutually exclusive. Translating metaphysical concepts into physical phenomena does not “validate” the original theory but merely replaces it.
The article employs the opioid crisis to justify the rise of acupuncture. Yes, the need for non-pharmacological pain management is urgent, but clinical necessity does not equate to scientific validity. The text quotes the “lasting benefits” observed in some meta-analyses without discussing the often fatal flaws in these papers. Furthermore, it fails to cite the substantial body of evidence suggesting that acupuncture is not effective. Moreover, it hardly mentions the small effect sizes and hence limited clinical usefulness found in the positive studies.
The final section of the paper essentially rebrands acupuncture as “bioelectronic medicine”. If its mechanism of action is purely the electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve or the release of endogenous opioids, then the TCM concepts are all but superfluous. If a cheap and wearable TENS unit is more or less equivalent, the “meridian” and “qi” myths are obsolete.
In summary, the paper reads, I fear, only marginally better than a Chinese government promotional text – most disappointing for an article published in a journal of high standing. It attempts to preserve the cultural prestige of TCM while stripping it of its internal logic in order to make it compatible with science. For acupuncture to gain a true “scientific footing”, research must, in my view, move beyond finding “tantalizing” correlations. It should address fundamental problems, e.g.:
- As long as we have no convincing proof that acupuncture works beyond placebo, discussions about its mechanisms are futile.
- If qi, acupoints and meridians are illusions and irrelevant for the clinical outcome, then the science is not validating acupuncture but merely re-discovering a well-known non-specific form of peripheral nerve stimulation.
I am quite fond of garlic, but not as a cancer therapy. Dr. Mohsen Ali, a former doctor whose UK medical license was revoked by the General Medical Council (GMC) in January 2015, has been permanently struck off the medical register following a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) investigation into his running of an illegal clinic. The tribunal, which began proceedings on December 1, 2025, reconvened on January 14 and concluded from April 22 to 24, 2026, found Ali guilty of serious professional misconduct for preying on vulnerable cancer patients with unproven and dangerous treatments.
In 2018, Ali treated two patients from a semi-detached Leicester property described as a “squalid council house.” Patient A had stage three prostate cancer, while Patient B suffered from terminal ovarian cancer. Referred to Ali by word-of-mouth, both were told he could cure their cancers with a claimed 90% success rate. He charged Patient A up to £15,000 and Patient B between £10,000 and £12,000 for sessions involving intravenous vitamin C, garlic oil, ozone therapy, oxygenated water, and sodium bicarbonate injections.
Ali disparaged conventional medicine, asserting that the NHS was “killing them” through ineffective chemotherapy and radiotherapy, while “big pharma companies were making money.” During a phone call, he laughed off Patient A’s diagnosis, calling prostate cancer “easy to cure.” For Patient B, he overrode the NHS’s prognosis that nothing more could be done, promising her husband a full recovery. Patient B died shortly after stopping treatment, before police and Public Health England (PHE) probes began.
The case surfaced when Patient A emailed Leicestershire Police, prompting a GMC referral. A police raid uncovered a flyer at Ali’s address, advertising him as a “qualified doctor” who left the NHS because standard treatments “did not work.” It invoked “Allah the best healer” and boasted over 90% cure rates for cancers and other severe illnesses.
MPTS evidence revealed grave hygiene failures. PHE inspections described the property as a “dirty and unhygienic” shared residential-clinical space with visibly contaminated surfaces, reused equipment without decontamination, and no basic infection prevention measures. Ali reused intravenous bags, exposing patients to serious infection risks. The tribunal deemed his actions dishonest, as he knew these were not evidence-based cancer cures.
An expert witness confirmed no clinical studies support these so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) for curing any cancer. Ali also failed to obtain informed consent, particularly from Patient B. Absent from the hearing, he emailed the GMC denying claims of cure, but the flyer and patient testimonies contradicted him.
Ali, who graduated from Cairo University in 1994 and practiced in the UK from 2001 was erased him from the register, underscoring the dangers of unqualified SCAM practitioners – even (or perhaps especially) when they have a doctor title.
Trump’s anti-science stance is well-known. What we did not know is how far he might venture in this direction. On Friday, April 24, 2026, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of firing all sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB). This body acts as the governing board for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as an independent advisory arm to the President and Congress on matters of national science policy.
While Trump does have the legal authority to appoint these members, they are historically granted staggered, six-year terms to ensure the board remains a non-partisan anchor for US research. The mass termination via email happened without a stated cause or immediate replacement plan. Trump’s action has raised significant concerns regarding the future of independent scientific funding and oversight in the United States.
The terminated members include:
- Dan Reed (Chair): A computer scientist and former Microsoft executive with deep expertise in high-performance computing and “big data” infrastructure.
- Victor R. McCrary (Vice Chair): A physical chemist and research VP at the University of the District of Columbia; highly regarded for his work in technology transfer and innovation.
- Willie E. May: The former Director of NIST and a leading expert in metrology (the science of measurement) and chemical standards.
- Arati Prabhakar: An applied physicist and former Director of DARPA; she is a specialist in transitioning high-risk research into commercial technologies.
- Dario Gil: Senior VP at IBM and Director of IBM Research; a global authority on quantum computing and the ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
- Keivan Stassun: An astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University known for his research on exoplanets and his efforts to increase diversity in the physical sciences.
- Julia Phillips: A materials scientist and retired VP of Sandia National Laboratories; an expert in thin-film research and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
- Roger Beachy: A biologist and pioneer in plant biotechnology; he was instrumental in developing the first genetically modified food crops (virus-resistant tomatoes).
- Marvi Matos Rodriguez: An aerospace engineer and executive specializing in fusion energy and advanced material systems for the energy sector.
- Sudarshan S. Babu: An engineering professor at the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory; a top expert in advanced 3D printing and manufacturing.
- Aaron Dominguez: An experimental particle physicist and Provost at Catholic University of America who contributed to the Higgs boson discovery at CERN.
- Melvyn Huff: A mathematician and educator focused on the development of rigorous mathematics curricula and analytical modelling.
As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to remove any official who is not explicitly protected by “for cause” language, ensuring the agency follows the administration’s policy goals. Nonetheless, this is a “norm-breaking” action that ignores the statutory design of staggered terms. It effectively turns an independent advisory body into a political one, which most likely will lead to legal challenges regarding the “independence” of the NSF.
Because the White House has failed to issue an official statement justifying the dismissals, the reason for this spectacular action remains speculative. Considering recent tensions between the administration and the board, as well as broader policy shifts, the dismissals are seen not primarily as a targeted attack on science itself, but more as a systematic effort to remove independent oversight and “unelected experts” who might challenge the Executive Branch’s policy directives.
The conclusion, I fear, is this:
in the US, democracy is now in its dying days.
The defence of anthroposophical medicine – or of any other unproven modality – as articulated, for example, by figures like Weleda CEO Tina Müller, presents a vision of patient-centred care and economic pragmatism. However, when held against the light of current clinical standards and the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), it reveals significant cracks.
The most profound problem lies in the definition of scientific evidence. Proponents often point to decades of “positive experience” and high patient satisfaction as proof of effectiveness. Yet, in the hierarchy of science, anecdotal success sits at the very bottom. Anthroposophical treatments lack biological plausibility. Their perceived benefits are largely indistinguishable from context effects (such as placebo). Anthroposophical medicine might provide more time, empathy, and personal attention – factors that undoubtedly improve a patient’s well-being but do not validate the effectiveness of the specific remedies used. When independent bodies subject these treatments to rigorous, high-quality trials, the purported effects usually vanishe.
Anthroposophical medicine represents merely a tiny percentage of our healthcare expenditures. Therefore, proponents argue, little money would be saved by getting rid of it. This argument is a calculated distraction from the ethical core of the issue. While the fiscal burden may be marginal, the scientific cost is immense. A statutory health insurance system is built on a social contract of solidarity; it functions under the premise that public funds are reserved for treatments of proven value and effectiveness. To fund therapies that lack plausibility as well as reproducible results is to erode the credibility of medicine and rational thought. It is not a question of the amount of money, but the principle of integrity: every Euro, £ and $ spent on unproven treatments is a euro, £, and $ diverted from underfunded and often life-saving healthcare.
The regularly made appeal to the Swiss Model as a beacon of success also requires a more critical reading. The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Switzerland was, at its heart, a result of direct democracy rather than evidence. While the Swiss public voted for inclusion, the majority of the medical community remains deeply sceptical. To cite Switzerland as “proof” that anthroposophical medicine has fulfilled the criteria of EBM is to conflate political popularity with scientific validation. Democracy can decide how a nation spends its money, but it cannot vote a reliable evidence-base into existence.
Finally, we must consider the human risk of legitimizing non-evidenced-based practices. When a state-sanctioned insurance system places such therapies on the same pedestal as EBM, it risks misleading vulnerable individuals. For patients facing chronic or life-threatening illnesses, the “integrative” path can lead to a dangerous delay in seeking conventional, life-saving interventions. By treating subjective belief and peer-reviewed science as equal peers, we risk entering a “post-truth” medical era where the desire for a “natural” or “holistic” experience outweighs the necessity for proof.
In conclusion, while the call for a more “human” and “holistic” medical system might be noble, it must not come at the expense of scientific rigor. It is deeply misleading to imply that this is an ‘either or’; good medicine will always be based on both. A healthcare system that prioritizes popularity over proof risks becoming a system of expensive comfort rather than one of effective healing. True patient appreciation lies not in offering unproven choices, but in ensuring that every treatment covered by the public purse is supported by sound evidence. Not following this strategy is a disservice to patients and to progress.
So, the next time you hear people defending anthroposophical medicine or any other unproven modality, please look behind the smoke screen and find out why they do it. More often than not, you will then identify a massive conflict of interest. My advice is to listen to independent experts and to dismiss the people with an axe to grind.
Tonsillitis is a common condition predominantly affecting children and adolescents, presenting as acute, recurrent, or chronic infection. This review evaluated the effectiveness of homeopathy for clinical improvement and recurrence prevention across all tonsillitis presentations.
A team of scientists searched nine databases and four trial registries for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs) involving patients of all ages with diagnosed tonsillitis. Studies examining individualised homeopathy (IH) and non-individualised homeopathy (non-IH) were included, compared with an inactive or active control group. Primary outcomes were clinical improvement (symptoms and signs) and recurrence. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic consumption, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, costs, and adverse events. Data extraction, Risk of Bias assessment, and certainty of evidence evaluation (GRADE) followed established methodology.
Five RCTs compared homeopathy with placebo (n=4) or standard care (n=1): one used IH, one used both IH and non-IH, and three used non-IH. Two RCTs examined acute tonsillitis, two examined recurrent tonsillitis, and one examined chronic tonsillitis. Three trials enrolled children, one enrolled adults, and one enrolled a mixed population. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 256. Substantial heterogeneity across populations, interventions, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Individual RCTs showed that, in acute tonsillitis, non-IH achieved short-term symptom improvement. In recurrent tonsillitis, both IH and non-IH were associated with reduced infection recurrence, lower antibiotic consumption, and improved quality of life, with the strongest evidence for a standardised non-IH complex (SilAtro-5-90). In chronic tonsillitis, IH showed delayed but consistent improvements in symptoms, recurrence, healthcare utilisation, and quality of life by 2–3 months, with early outcomes favouring placebo. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was low. No serious adverse events were reported.
The authors concluded that the evidence from individual trials suggests that both individualised and non-individualised homeopathy may benefit clinical improvement, reduce infection recurrence, reduce antibiotic use, and enhance quality of life in tonsillitis, with no safety concerns reported. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies and methodological limitations restrict the ability to draw definitive conclusions about homeopathy’s effectiveness in patients with tonsillitis. Further well-designed, adequately-powered trials with standardised outcomes and consistent methodological approaches are needed to strengthen the evidence base and enable more robust conclusions.
My critical evaluation of this paper is impeded by the fact that two of its authors were once members of my own team. On the one hand, this might assure me that their review is of a high standard, on the other hand it hinders me to voice harsh criticism. Fortunately, they include their own valid criticism of their project:
One study was a pilot study and therefore not appropriately powered [36] and one was published by a single researcher not following a formal publication protocol or underwent a formal peer-review process [34]. One study used an add-on design [31] which is a recognised methodology in clinical research, not unique to homeopathy, and their limitations regarding attribution of effect are well understood and acknowledged. We do acknowledge the possibility of publication bias and the limitations of a small evidence base. We also note there are issues arising from numerous outcomes, subscales, and repeated time-point analyses, which substantially increases the likelihood of false-positive findings.
Further variability was introduced by unclear definitions of some secondary outcomes and by differences in definitions across studies. Two of the five studies reported on their funding body. One did not receive funding [37] and Palm et al., 2017 [31] was sponsored by Deutsche Homoopathie-Union, DHU-Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. Germany.
They also are open about the funding of their work:
Existing funds held by Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) – donated by Manchester Homeopathic Clinic Charitable Trust – were donated to University of Bristol to conduct the systematic review. The funders had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
So, what should we make of their effort? Let me just state this:
If I had to advise them on how to improve their review substantially, I would have suggested they re-phrase their conclusion. I am sure that something like this would have been much more adequate:
Most of the included trials were positive yet, because of substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the primary studies, the evidence collectively fails to show that individualised or non-individualised homeopathy are effective treatments for tonsillitis.
- IHMPs (verum; n = 67),
- or identical-looking placebos (control; n = 67)
Both treatments were administered alongside standard concomitant care including sitz baths, pelvic floor exercises, and dietary advice.
- Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, under Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, Parganas, India.
- Department of Pathology & Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Materia Medica, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, Salt Lake, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Community Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Tangra, India.
This list does not inspire me with confidence that this study is reliable.
Next I looked around for further trials of homeopathy for hemorrhoids – and I found another study by the same authors published 2 years earlier in the same dodgy journal:
Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in treating hemorrhoids compared with placebo. Design: This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: The trial was conducted at the surgery outpatient department of the State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. Subjects: Patients were 140 women and men, aged between 18 and 65 years, with a diagnosis of primary hemorrhoids grades I-III for at least 3 months. Excluded were the patients with grade IV hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and fistula, hypertrophic anal papillae, inflammatory bowel disease, coagulation disorders, rectal malignancies, obstructed portal circulation, patients requiring immediate surgical intervention, and vulnerable samples. Interventions: Patients were randomized to Group 1 (n = 70; IHMs plus concomitant care; verum) and Group 2 (n = 70; placebos plus concomitant care; control). Outcome measures: Primary-the anorectal symptom severity and quality-of-life (ARSSQoL) questionnaire, and secondary-the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS); all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: Out of the 140 randomized patients, 122 were protocol compliant. Intention-to-treat sample (n = 140) was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 two tailed. Statistically significant between-group differences were elicited in the ARSSQoL total (Mann-Whitney U [MWU]: 1227.0, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MWU: 1228.0, p = 0.001) favoring homeopathy against placebos. Sulfur was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either of the groups. Conclusions: IHMs demonstrated superior results over placebo in the short-term treatment of hemorrhoids of grades I-III. The findings are promising, but need to be substantiated by further phase 3 trials.
Are we to believe that the authors were able to pull off 2 large almost identical studies within just 2 years?
Pull the other one!
This review was aimed at analyzing the scientific evidence on Reiki intervention as a nursing care strategy for people with cancer. For this purpose, the researchers searched six databases, including primary studies, in Portuguese, Spanish and/or English, about the evidence on the use of Reiki intervention as a care strategy for cancer patients, totaling five publications.
The included studies suggest potential benefits of Reiki intervention, such as pain relief, reduction of physical symptoms (fatigue and insomnia) and improvement in emotional aspects, such as anxiety and stress. However, the results are still limited in terms of methodological robustness and generalizability.
The Brazilian authors concluded that, although the findings indicate beneficial effects of Reiki in people with oncological diseases, there is a limited production of clinical trials aimed at the application of this therapy in clinical nursing practice. Reiki can be considered a complementary strategy in nursing care, as long as it is integrated into an individualized therapeutic plan. It is recommended that studies with greater methodological rigor be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Reiki applied by oncology nurses.
The authors explain that “Reiki is a practice that uses the laying on of hands and symbols to channel universal life energy to recharge, realign and rebalance the human energy field. Its objective is to undo energetic blockages that compromise the flow of vital energy, and maintain harmony between the body, mind and spirit.” With just 2 sentences, the authors inply that Reiki has a sound scientific basis which they do not question in their paper at all. Yet phenomena such as live energy, regarging, realigning and rebalancing human energy fields, energetic blockages in the human body, flow of vital energy could not be less scientific. In fact, they are pure fantasy and have no basis in reality.
The authors also explain that 20 % (n=1) of the included studies were qualitative, 20 % (n=1) were quasi-experimental, 20 % (n=1) were reports of professional experience, and 40 % (n=2) consisted of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). On closer scrutiny, none of the RCTs was sufficiently rigorous to allow firm, positive conclusions. In other words, there is no good evidence and the conclusion that Reiki is beneficial for cancer patients is nonsense.
The authors note that, in 2017, with the publication of Ordinance No. 849, of March 27, Reiki was officially included in the Brazilian public health network. In view of the above mentioned lack of plausibility combined with a lack of effectiveness, this inclusion seems wholly irresponsible.
The case of the 14-year-old girl who died of cancer is now occupying the Klagenfurt Regional Court for the second time. The girl’s parent elected to trust miracle healers and esoteric practitioners. Ultimately, the 14-year-old arrived at the hospital far too late—the cancer was already so advanced that the girl died less than two days later.
The parents have already been convicted of torture and neglect. During their criminal trial, the doctor came into the prosecution’s focus. He had administered four infusions of “cat’s claw” to the 14-year-old. The doctor admitted to this last year during his testimony as a witness, where he raved about the “miracle plant” cat’s claw, claiming it could heal almost anything.
He was also accused of using a pendulum to “test” the girl’s tumor and certifying it as benign. His response at the time was that he does not use a pendulum; rather, he had “dowsed” the tumor using a biotensor—a small metal spring. He claimed that when he failed to get a clear result, he urgently recommended the parents seek a biopsy, which they strictly refused. He alleged they eventually broke off treatment with him.
According to the indictment, the doctor is allegedly responsible for a further patient’s death by administering the herbal infusion. The man had collapsed after receiving it, suffered a heart attack and a stroke, and died weeks later from the consequences.
Furthermore, the doctor is accused of “grossly negligently causing a danger to the life and health of at least 6,550 people from May 2007 to May 2025.” Contrary to the standards of medical practice, he is said to have intravenously administered essences that were only approved as food products. The prosecutor referred to an analysis of the infusion solutions: “These were not pure; they contained soil and ash particles.” They were reportedly “brewed together in a backyard” – the contamination, she noted, could lead to the formation of blood clots. During his questioning, the trained intensive care physician rejected all guilt: “I feel in no way responsible.” He stated he had treated numerous cancer patients—for example, with cat’s claw or high-dose vitamin C.
In the case of the 14-year-old, the doctor insisted he was able to “see that something was not right” using the device. He claimed he only learned much later that the parents had canceled a biopsy appointment after their session with him. Furthermore: “Father and daughter always rejected any conventional medical therapy or diagnostics.” He maintained that he always noted his infusions could only boost the immune system and improve well-being, but never promised anything.
Regarding the case of the other deceased man, the doctor argued that the patient had already received 17 infusions from him prior to the incident in question and had always felt better afterward. After the final infusion, the patient felt unwell for a while, but his condition supposedly improved. The doctor claimed it was absolutely not anaphylactic shock: “Otherwise, I wouldn’t have let him go home.”
The defendant questioned each and every expert opinion obtained for the case. Regarding the statement that it is impossible for a tumor to shrink due to his infusions, he said, “I wouldn’t sign off on that.” As for the infusions, he claimed they were filtered multiple times and specially prepared for intravenous use.
A date for this has not yet been set. So, watch this space!
The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Products (AEMPS) has just published a comprehensive technical report entitled “Homeopathy and Homeopathic Products: Evaluation of Evidence on Their Efficacy and Safety”, which categorically concludes that there is no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy as a therapeutic tool. After a systematic review of scientific literature and evaluations by state agencies internationally, the report states that the observed effects are comparable to placebo.
The report, which analyzed 64 systematic reviews published since 2009, highlights that most studies suggesting benefits from homeopathy have low methodological quality, often invalidated by small samples, short follow-up periods, or biases in randomization. Furthermore, it notes that as the quality and rigor of clinical trials increase, the supposed effect of homeopathy diminishes until it disappears entirely.
From a scientific standpoint, the principles of homeopathy clash with the laws of physics and current pharmacology. In typical dilutions like 12 CH—where one part of the original substance is mixed with 100 parts of solvent twelve times consecutively—it is mathematically impossible for a single molecule of the original ingredient to remain in the preparation, breaking any cause-and-effect relationship between the product and the therapeutic effect.
To illustrate this disproportion, the report points out that a dilution of just 6 CH (far less extreme than 12 CH) equates to dissolving a packet of sugar in the entire Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, the AEMPS classifies theories like “water memory”—the belief that the liquid retains the properties of a substance even without its molecules—as empirically baseless postulates that challenge scientific and rational thinking.
In compliance with European and national regulations, the AEMPS has completed a regularization process that has resulted in the market withdrawal of numerous products. As of the report’s publication date, no homeopathic product with authorized therapeutic indications exists in Spain. The 976 that remain registered did so via a simplified procedure, based on extreme dilutions ensuring the preparation’s innocuousness, which does not require proof of therapeutic effect and legally prohibits any therapeutic claims on labeling.
Spain aligns with a global trend of health institutions adopting critical stances:
- United Kingdom: The Science and Technology Committee recommended halting public funding and requiring labeling warnings about lack of efficacy.
- Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that homeopathy should not be used for chronic or serious diseases.
- France: The Haute Autorité de Santé eliminated public reimbursement for these products in 2021 due to lack of demonstrated efficacy.
- Germany: Approval is expected in 2026 for the definitive removal of homeopathy coverage from statutory health insurance.
- United States: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers these products “unapproved new drugs,” and the Federal Trade Commission requires warnings that there is no scientific evidence of their functioning.
Although there is a popular belief that these preparations are innocuous because they are “natural,” serious adverse reactions have been reported, including poisonings from poor dosing and infant deaths linked to teething products in other countries.
However, the AEMPS warns that the main associated risk is the abandonment or delay of proven effective medical treatments. Citizens opting for homeopathy to treat serious or chronic conditions may endanger their health by replacing evidence-based therapies with products lacking such evidence.
The AEMPS report reaffirms the Ministry’s commitment to public health protection and evidence-based medicine. In line with other international agencies, it emphasizes the need for transparent information so citizens can make safe health decisions. The conclusion of the report is firm:
Given the lack of evidence of efficacy, homeopathy cannot be considered a valid therapeutic alternative, and its use must not lead to delaying or abandoning treatments proven to be effective.
It’s hard to believe: my very 1st paper was published exactly 50 years ago. I remember it like it was yesterdy! It was a busy time with lots of distractions: at the time, I was preparing for my finals at the medical school, playing in jazz clubs 2-4 times per week, and having a rather tumultous love-life. On top of all that, I had to finish the work on my doctorate which then produced the said article.
The experimental work on the doctorate did not at all progress as hoped. I needed blood samples from the poor women who were admitted with septic abortion, a very serious condition. More often than not, the poor patient was dead before I could get a blood sample. When finally the sample was complete and the results were in, I had to calculate the stats on my little HP pocket calculator. Once this was done, I had to draw graphs by hand and write up my thesis. 
The article for publication was then written mostly by my supervisor, Dr. Henner Graeff, who later became Professor and head of gynaecology at the TMU, Munich. He was a good supervisor, excellent scientict, and a very kind man. Sadly, he died in 2011; I owe him a lot.
For what it’s worth, here is the Medline-listed abstract of out paper:
Soluble fibrin monomer complexes (SFMC) were determined in patients with septic abortion (body temperatures of more than 39 degree C and/or chills without apparent signs of endotoxic shock), with infected abortion, with non-infected abortion and with normal pregnancies. Quantitative gel filtration (4% agarose) of beta-alanine precipitated plasma samples yielded the relative (percent of total fibrinogen content) and absolute (mg/100 ml plasma) amount of SFMC. The relative (5.5+/-1.4%, mean+/-SD) and absolute (21.5+/-8.6 mg/100 ml) amount of SFMC was significantly increased in patients with septic abortion compared to patients with normal pregnancies or non-infected abortion (p less than 0.001). Patients with infected abortion (p less than 0.001). Patients with infected abortion already revealed increased levels of SFMC (4.3+/-1.2%, 14.2+/-6.8 mg/100 ml) though their platelet count was still unaltered (infected abortion: 221+/-47 X 10(3) platelets/mm3; septic abortion; 99+/-36 X 10(3) platelets/mm3). The use of heparin in patients with septic abortion resulted in a decrease in SFMC. Chain characterization of SFMC frequently revealed a slight degradation of the alpha-chains probably due to fibrinolytic activity in vivo; gamma-gamma dimers representing intermolecular covalent bindings were not observed. The findings are in agreement with our former assumption that patients with septic abortion have a pronounced state of hypercoagulability.
PIP: The effect of septic abortion on plasma levels of soluble fibrin monomer complexes (SFMC) was studied by quantitative gel filtration (4% agarose) of beta-alanine precipitated plasma samples. Pregnant patients and those with infected or noninfected abortions were also studied. The relative and absolute amounts of SFMC were significantly (p less than .001) increased in cases of septic abortion compared with cases of normal pregnancy or uninfected abortion. Patients with infected abortion showed increased absolute and relative levels of SFMC, though not to the extent of septic abortion cases. However, unlike septic abortion cases, platelet count was not reduced. When heparin was used in septic abortion cases, SFMC decreased. A slight degradation of the alpha-chains of SFMC probably due to in vivo fibrinolytic activity was observed. The findings confirm that patients with septic abortion have a marked degree of hypercoagulability.
When I think back to all this, I am tempted to say that today’s medical students have it relatively easy – but, of course, that’s precisely what the old relics of every generation have always said.
