anthroposophical medicine
A contentious debate has just erupted in Germany over the government’s plan to remove homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine from coverage under statutory health insurance (GKV). Former prominent politicians, including Green Party leader Winfried Kretschmann (former Minister President of Baden-Württemberg) and SPD leader Malu Dreyer (former Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate), signed an “open letter” opposing the removal, arguing it would harm patients and violate ethical principles.
The open letter, launched by the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ) on June 17, 2026, claims that removing these therapies would be “an expensive wrong decision at the expense of patients.” It cites studies suggesting homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect and argues that the majority of German citizens value and benefit from these treatments. Signatories include former Federal Interior Minister Otto Schily (SPD), Greens co-founder Lukas Beckman, actress Sarah Wiener, Alo natura founder Götz Rehn, and “Tatort” actors Hans-Jochen Wagner and Felix Klare, along with former BMG state secretaries Marion Caspers-Merk and Edgar Franke.
The German Ministry of Health (BMG) defends the planned removal as part of the “GKV Contribution Rate Stabilization Act,” which aims to save €20–50 million annually. The ministry correctly states there is “insufficient scientific evidence for effectiveness” and that no evidence exists to justify cost coverage for these therapies. Under the new law, statutorily insured patients would need to pay for homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine themselves or obtain private insurance.
The Bundestag’s final reading of the law was delayed from June 26 to July 10, 2026, giving lawmakers more time to review the open letter before the parliamentary summer recess. This delay reflects the political sensitivity of the issue.
Opposition to the open letter comes from major healthcare organizations. The GKV-Spitzenverband (health insurance federation) supports removing services without scientific evidence, the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (doctors’ association) welcomes returning to “proven treatment methods.” and IQWIG, the health economics institute, confirms that homeopathy and anthroposophy lack evidence for GKV coverage.
This controversy is unusual because Kretschmann (Greens) and Dreyer (SPD) have in the past been aligned with evidence-based medicine and scientific attitude towards so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Allow me to congratulate the signatories for producing what possibly is the finest piece of health-related BS of 2026!
These days, it is not often that I function as a co-author of a scientific paper. One rare exception has just been published:
This survey investigated prevalence, usage, and perceived scientific legitimacy of anthroposophic medicine (AM), a prominent form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It further explored associations with socioeconomic and psychological factors, with particular attention to authoritarian orientation, as measured by the KSA-3 scale and low ambiguity tolerance.
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among the Austrian population assessing sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare utilization, attitudes toward conventional medicine, AM, and SCAM, as well as selected psychological variableA total of 429 individuals completed the survey. To enhance representativeness, the sample was post-stratified according to recent election results. Regression models and appropriate statistical tests, selected based on data distribution and scale level, were used to evaluate associations between sociodemographic factors, psychological characteristics, and the use of and attitudes toward AM and SCAM.
Individuals over 50 showed higher SCAM preference (p = 0.044), and were more likely to have used AM at least once (p = 0.083). Similarly, women showed higher SCAM preferences (p = 0.004) and a higher likelihood of AM use (p < 0.001). Participants who viewed AM as scientific tended to be older (p < 0.001), have a higher income (p < 0.001), and resided more often in rural areas (p = 0.012). Psychologically, lower ambiguity tolerance and stronger perceived health control correlated with a stronger belief in AM’s scientific legitimacy (p < 0.05). Higher authoritarian orientation was also significantly associated with an increased belief in AM as scientific and a preference for eminence-based approaches (p < 0.001).
We concluded that, in our sample, we demonstrate how differences in specific socioeconomic and psychological factors correspond to differences in attitudes toward SCAM and AM. These findings represent a promising foundation for more interdisciplinary research aimed at uncovering the underlying drivers of AM and SCAM utilization.
Several of the reported findings confirm previous research in this area. What might be new is that, our evaluation demonstrates that individuals with heightened authoritarian tendencies are more inclined to invest in SCAM treatments. In fact, our results show a statistically significant association between authoritarian orientation and the conviction that AM is scientifically valid. An observation that becomes even more fascinating when contrasting it with the finding that there is no statistically significant correlation between authoritarian orientation and whether a participant has tried AM before – only a slight tendency. This dissociation between the robust link to epistemic judgment and the absent link to behavior merits closer attention. It suggests that authoritarian dispositions operate primarily at the level of knowledge evaluation rather than treatment choice: individuals with higher authoritarian orientation are not more likely to have used AM, but they are significantly more likely to regard it as scientifically valid. This pattern is consistent with theoretical accounts of authoritarianism as a disposition toward deference to perceived legitimate authority. Within this framework, “scientific validity” may function less as an empirical assessment and more as a marker of epistemic trust: a judgment shaped by the perceived authority of the source rather than by engagement with the underlying evidence. The finding thus opens a productive line of inquiry into how the category of “scientific validity” itself operates as a site of authority attribution, and how psychological dispositions mediate the reception of epistemic claims in healthcare contexts.
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.
Ita Wegman (22 February 1876 – 4 March 1943) was born 150 years ago today. Together with Rudolf Steiner, she was a central figure in the development of anthroposophic medicine, an approach that interprets illness through spiritual–cosmological concepts. In 1921, Wegman founded the Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut in Arlesheim, Switzerland—today the Ita Wegman Clinic—the first hospital dedicated to anthroposophic medicine. Practices developed there included rhythmical massage, a gentle bodywork technique intended to “harmonize” physiological rhythms, and mistletoe-based cancer therapy derived from Viscum album, later marketed as Iscador, as well as many other remedies influences by homeopathy. Wegman also co-founded Weleda, which remains a major producer of anthroposophic remedies and cosmetics.
Despite its continued use in parts of Europe, mistletoe therapy (including Iscador) has not demonstrated reliable clinical efficacy in improving cancer survival or tumor outcomes in well-controlled trials. Major systematic reviews conclude that evidence for benefit is inconsistent, methodologically weak, and often biased, with any reported improvements largely limited to subjective quality-of-life measures. It is therefore regarded by mainstream oncology as an unproven therapy rather than an evidence-based treatment. For Wegman’s other therapeutic innovations the evidence is even less convincing.
Her collaboration with Steiner was both professionally formative and personally intense. They met in the early 1900s, and Wegman later credited Steiner with inspiring her decision to pursue medicine relatively late, enrolling at the University of Zurich. From 1919 onward, their cooperation deepened: Steiner supplied esoteric frameworks derived from anthroposophy, while Wegman sought to translate these ideas into clinical practice. Their collaboration culminated in the book “Fundamentals of Therapy” (1925), published shortly after Steiner’s death.
Speculation about a romantic relationship between Wegman and Steiner has persisted for decades. Purported “love letters” dated to 1924 describe expressions of affection, but most scholars regard them as forgeries, citing factual errors, the absence of originals from Steiner archives, and stylistic inconsistencies with Steiner’s documented correspondence. Steiner himself described their bond in karmic terms, claiming a debt from a past incarnation that explained their closeness despite his marriage to Marie von Sivers. Historian Peter Selg and others interpret the relationship as an intense spiritual and intellectual partnership rather than a conventional affair, though contemporaries did circulate rumors.
Steiner died on March 30, 1925, after a prolonged illness. The exact cause remains uncertain and not definitively confirmed as stomach cancer. Wegman provided Steiner’s main care from September 1924 until his death, leaving her clinic to nurse him in his studio at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland. She is said to have employed anthroposophic approaches, but specific treatments remain sparsely documented in available accounts.
Following Steiner’s death, Wegman’s authority within the movement became increasingly contested. In 1935 she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society amid internal power struggles and accusations of doctrinal deviation; this expulsion was formally reversed in 2018. Wegman’s political stance during the Nazi period remains controversial. While anthroposophy as a movement was partially suppressed in Nazi Germany, several leading anthroposophists – including Wegman – sought accommodation rather than resistance. Wegman expressed hopes in the early 1930s that National Socialism might support a spiritual renewal of society and did not publicly oppose the regime. Although she was not a member of the Nazi Party and later faced restrictions, her posture is best described as opportunistic accommodation and ideological ambiguity.
Wegman’s collaboration with Steiner created the foundations of anthroposophic medicine. It also generated enduring scientific, ethical, and political controversies – particularly regarding the medical validity of its treatments and its leaders’ responses to authoritarian power after Steiner’s death.
Weleda is the anthroposophic firm, founded in 1921 by Ita Wegman, the lover of Rudolf Steiner, that produces anthroposophic and homeopathic remedies as well as cosmetic products. It has been reported that the company is to re-examine its Nazi-era history amid revelations that it benefited from gruesome human experiments in a Nazi concentration camp during the Holocaust.
The German historian Anne Sudrow exposed the Weleda experiments in a new book under the auspices of the Dachau memorial. In response to the revelations, the company, now headquartered in Arlesheim, Switzerland, said it will re-examine its Nazi-era history. An in-house study, published last year, failed to uncover Weleda’s role in human experiments.
As reports of the revelations emerged, the company denounced Nazism in a corporate statement. “At Weleda, we condemn the atrocities of National Socialism in the strongest possible terms,” it said. “Fascism, anti-Semitism, racism, or right-wing extremist ideology have no place in our company. Weleda is a place of humanity. ‘Never again’ expresses our stance.”
_______________________
I have not yet read Anne Sudrow’s book (it’s not yet available as a hard copy), but I fear that the above cited article is not entirely correct. I think it erroneously conflates two seperate experiements by Sigmund Rascher: the hypothermia experiments and the ones on the Weleda frostbite cream. The latter seemed to have been much smaller and did not cause a high number of fatalities. Importantly, the research was unethical, fraaudulent and lousy!
The other allegation, namely that anthroposophic or biodymamic agricultural research took place in the Dachau “herb garden”, an annexe of the concentration camp where inmates were cruelly exploited for slave labor, is to the best of my knowledge correct. This work was carried out, I think, under the supervision of ex-Weleda employees. The main aim was to grow plenty of medicinal plants and render the Third Reich independent from foreign supplies.
But don’t take my word for it; perhaps I am mistaken – I will report back once I have read the book.
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) tends to prioritize inherent general immunity instead of vaccination, thereby contributing to widespread vaccine hesitancy or refusal amidst the general public. The objective of this investigation was to furnish evidence regarding the profiles and drivers of seasonal influenza vaccine hesitancy (IVH) among TCM clinicians. Between January and May 2022, the Chinese researchers conducted a nationwide survey in China with embedded an influenza vaccine hesitancy scale to 3085 registered clinicians (1013 TCM and 2072 Western medicine (WM) clinicians).
The results suggest that TCM clinicians exhibit lower possibility of influenza vaccine uptake and are less likely to recommend the immunisation to the patients. 58.3 % TCM clinicians and 52.3 % WM clinicians were categorized as being influenza vaccine hesitant. Compared to WM clinicians, TCM clinicians have lower confidence in vaccine (p < 0.001) and are less inclined to accept others’ vaccination recommendation (p < 0.001). Higher educational attainment in TCM (postgraduate: OR = 1.98, 95 %CI,1.30–3.02; doctor: OR = 2.20, 95 %CI, 1.28–3.77) and ignorance of influenza vaccination cost policy (OR = 1.76, 95 %CI, 1.18–2.63) are significantly associated with increased influenza vaccine hesitancy.
The authors concluded that the concerns and doubts towards influenza vaccine is highly prevalent in the Chinese clinicians, especially those practicing TCM. High TCM educational degrees and ignorance of influenza vaccination cost policies are two primary risk factors for developing influenza vaccine hesitancy.
The findings are, I think, far from surprising. There is plenty of evidence about the negative stance towards influenza and other vaccination that practitioners or proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) display, e.g.:
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
- Use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status
- Chiropractors Aren’t The Solution To The Primary Care Shortage: the thorny issue of vaccination
- An osteopath and anti-vaccination activist received a well-deserved and long-overdue indefinite suspension
- Prison sentence for a German HEILPRAKTIKER who issued false vaccination certificates
- Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage
- Naturopath jailed for selling fraudulent vaccination documents
- Vaccination rates of Canadian healthcare professionals: those of chiropractors and naturopaths are at the lowest
- A Professor for Integrative and Anthroposophical Medicine claims that severe adverse effects of COVID vaccinations are 40 times more frequent than officially recognized
- Preference of so-called alternative medicine predicts negative attitudes to vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- A well-known opponent of vaccination has died of COVID after self-treatment with MMS
- The International Chiropractors Association’s Statement on Vaccination
- A naturopath promoting fake news about COVID vaccinations
- More information on homeopaths’ and anthroposophic doctors’ attitude towards vaccinations
- The UK Society of Homeopaths, a hub of anti-vaccination activists?
- HOMEOPATHY = “the complete alternative to vaccination” ?!?!
- Are anthroposophy-enthusiasts for or against vaccinations?
- Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health
- Naturopaths’ counselling against vaccinations could be criminally negligent
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Use of alternative medicine is associated with low vaccination rates
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
With so much evidence and unquestionable serious harm being caused by these SCAM anti-vaxxers, the obvious question is this:
WHY IS SO LITTLE BEING DONE ABOUT IT?
RUDOLF STEINER died 100 years ago today – a good reason, I think, to remember the utter nonsense he postulated (not only) in the realm of healthcare. Here is a slightly abbreviated section from my recent book:
Rudolf Steiner was born on 25 February 1861 in Kraljević, Austrian-Hungarian empire. At the age of 9, Steiner allegedly had his first spiritual experience; he saw the spirit of his deceased aunt. Realizing Rudolf’s potentials, his father sent his son first to a ‘Realschule’ in Wiener Neustadt and then to the ‘Technische Hochschule’ (Technical University) in Vienna where he studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, botany, biology, literature, and philosophy. While Steiner was still a student, he was appointed as the natural science editor of a new edition of Goethe’s works.
In 1890, Steiner moved to Weimar, Germany, where he was employed at the Schiller-Goethe Archives. Concurrently, he started working for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1891 from the University of Rostock; the title of his dissertation, later published as a book, was ‘Wahrheit und Wissenschaft’ (Truth and Science).
In 1897, Steiner moved to Berlin, where he joined esoteric circles and studied Eastern and occult religions. In 1899, he married Anna Eunicke. Subsequently, Steiner met Marie von Sivers, an actress from the Baltic region and also a devotee of anthroposophy. They got married in 1914.
Steiner had by then joined the Theosophical Society and, in 1902, was made its General Secretary. Years of disagreement with key members of the organisation prompted him to leave the society in 1912. On 28 December of that year, Rudolf Steiner, along with a group of prominent German theosophists, founded the Anthroposophic Society.
Anthroposophy, a term borrowed from the 19th-century Swiss philosopher and physician Ignaz Troxler, is based on the notion that there is a spiritual world that is accessible only to the highest faculties of mental knowledge. Steiner rejected experimentation as a means of gaining knowledge; instead, he relied on imagination, inspiration and intuition. He claimed that his anthroposophy centered on “knowledge produced by the higher self in man.” He believed that humans once participated more fully in spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike consciousness, but had since become restricted by their attachment to material things.
In 1913 at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland, Steiner built the first ‘Goetheanum’, which he called a “school of spiritual science.” The building was destroyed by a fire in 1922 and subsequently replaced by the new ‘Goetheanum’ that still exists today. Steiner also worked on various other projects, including education (Waldorf schools) and biodynamic agriculture.
In the late 1910s, Steiner and his mistress, Ita Wegman, started working with medical doctors to create his anthroposophic medicine. In 1920, they founded the ‘Klinisch-Therapeutische Institut’ in Arlesheim, and on 21 March 1921, they organised the first of a series of courses for doctors in Dornach. This day is now considered to be the birth of anthroposophic medicine. In the same year, pharmacists and physicians gathered under Steiner’s guidance to create the pharmaceutical company, ‘Weleda’. At around the same time, Wegman founded the first anthroposophic medical clinic, the ‘Ita Wegman Clinic’ in Arlesheim.
Anthroposophic medicine cannot be adequately described through a single therapeutic modality. It has been aptly called a ‘pluriversum of theories and practices under the umbrella of an anthroposophic worldview’. The anthroposophic concept comprises a range of medications many (but not all) of which are plant-based, as well as art therapy, eurhythy (dance therapy), special dietary approaches, physiotherapy and other modalities. According to Steiner, humans have four ‘bodies’: The physical body, the ‘etheric’ body – which is based on formative forces, the ‘astral’ body – which reflects a person’s emotions and inner drives, and a conscious body – which is the domain of the ego and self.
For non-anthroposophist, these concepts are hardly comprehensible. They are based on associations between planets, metals and organs, from which therapeutic rules are derived. These affinities also form the basis of the many anthroposophical medicines, which are produced by liquefaction, aeration, solidification, combustion, potentiation and other processes. The history of the constituents of anthroposophic remedies is often considered to be more important than their material composition. According to Steiner and his substantial writings, “the spirit of the plant, which is drawn out of the tree by the parasitic plant act on the astral”. During the years before his death, Steiner, who had no medical background, often saw patients himself. He would then stare at them and divine both the diagnosis and the treatment; in other words, he acted as a clairvoyant lay-healer.
The Nazi movement had an ambivalent attitude to Steiner and to anthroposophic medicine. On the one hand, several leading Nazis such as Hess were clearly in favour of anthroposophic medicine. Steiner’s wife, Marie Steiner-von Sivers (1867 – 1948) who made significant contributions to anthroposophic medicine had publicly expressed sympathy for the Nazi regime since its beginnings. On the other hand, a political theorist of the Nazi movement, Dietrich Eckart, criticised Steiner in 1919 and (wrongly) suggested that he was a Jew. In 1921, Adolf Hitler accused Steiner of being a tool of the Jews, while other Nazis even called for a “war against Steiner”. In 1922, Steiner gave a lecture in Munich which was disrupted by Nazi thugs. Such hostilities led Steiner to leave his home in Berlin and move to Dornbach; he stated that, if the Nazis came to power in Germany, it would no longer be possible for him to live in Germany.
From 1923 on, Steiner showed signs of increasing frailness. He nonetheless continued to lecture widely. His last lecture was given in late September 1924. Steiner died at Dornach on 30 March 1925 in the presence of Ita Wegman.
As recently as 2019, a quarter more homeopathic remedies were sold than today in Germany, reported the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG [my translation]. The largest manufacturer is removing individual remedies from its range and most state medical associations have cancelled the corresponding training courses for doctors.
Demand for homeopathic remedies continued to fall in 2024: while a good 45 million packs were sold in 2023, the number fell to around 43 million in 2024. The number of remedies dispensed on prescription fell even more sharply by 14 per cent from just under one million to just over 830,000.
According to the official pharmacy retail price, the total turnover of homeopathic remedies in 2024 was 779 million Euros. In 2019, sales were still around 834 million Euros, with around 56 million packs sold, a quarter more than last year.
This development is reflected in the companies’ figures. According to the annual report of the Willmar Schwabe Group, which includes Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU), one of the largest manufacturers, sales in 2023 were negative in the ‘tense homeopathy environment’, some individual products had become unprofitable ‘and are being withdrawn from marketing’.
Homeopathy is repeatedly criticised due to the absence of active ingredients in the highly diluted remedies. Most state medical associations have cancelled corresponding additional training courses in recent years, including the medical association in Baden-Württemberg in 2024.
Just over a year ago, Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced plans to remove the possibility for health insurance companies to reimburse homeopathic and anthroposophic remedies as part of so-called statutory benefits. However, these plans have not yet been realized.
_________________________
A dismayed fan of homeopathy posted on ‘X’ [my translation]: “Homeopathy is on the retreat? Well, conventional medicine has successfully fought off the competition. They no longer want to share. They don’t care what happens to the patients.”
I don’t think this is quite true! What has happened is more simple and has little to do with competition. The evidence that homeopathy generates more good than harm is clearly not positive. Therefore – in the name of evidence, consumer protection, suffering patients and medical ethics – it is unavoidable that homeopathy is in decline. In fact, it seems surprising that it is still being reimbursed!
Many German newspapers reported that a 10-year old boy who had contracted diphtheria has died after months of suffering in a Berlin hospital. The child had not been vaccinated.
The boy had been admitted with a sore throat to the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine in Potsdam where diphtheria was diagnosed. His condition deteriorated amd the child was then transferred to a clinic in Berlin where he was given intensive care. For months, the boy was then hospitalized and suffered pityfully until he finally succumbed to the disease.
The boy had been attending a Waldorf school in Berlin. Such schools follow the bogus anthroposophical concepts of Rudolf Steiner and are notorious for their ant-vax stance. The school did not initially comment publicly on the pupil’s death. It was said to be a personal matter for the family. After the boy’s death, the school sent a letter to all parents informing them of the death: “His final path was characterized by strength and bravery, and he leaves a gap in our community that touches us all.”
For more on Waldorf schools see below:
- More on the dangers of Waldorf schools
- Waldorf schools are a danger to public health
- Anthroposophic medicine and vaccine hesitancy: are there links?
- More reasons to be concerned about Steiner schools
- Are anthroposophy-enthusiasts for or against vaccinations?
Through contact tracing by the public health department, another member of the child’s family was diagnosed with diphtheria. Fortunately, this person had been vaccinated and thus only suffered a mild course of the disease.
Diphtheria deaths are very rare in Germany. In 2023, one death due to cutaneous diphtheria in an adult was reported. In 2024, there has so far been one death due to respiratory diphtheria in an adult. In 1892, more than 50,000 mostly young people succumbed to the infection in Germany. Vaccination was introduced in 1913, which then reduced the number of infections to near zero.
While vaccination is effective in preventing severe illness, the treatment of diphtheria can be difficult and even unsuccessful, as the above case tragically demonsrates. Therefore my recommendation is to follow the official (but in Germany not mandatory) vaccination schedule.
“Crusade Against Naturopathy” (Kreuzzug gegen Naturheilkunde) is the title of a recent article (in German – so, I translated for you) published in ‘MULTIPOLAR‘. It is a defence of – no, not naturopathy – quackery. The authors first defend the indefencible Heilpraktiker. Subsequently, they address what they call ‘The Homeopathy Controversy‘. This is particularly ridiculous because homeopathy is not a form of naturopathy. Yes, it uses some natural materials, but it also employs any synthetic substance that you can think of.
The section on homeopathy contains many more amusing surprises; therefore, I have translated it for you [and added a few numers in square brackets that refer to my brief comments below]:
According to a representative survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research in 2023, 35 per cent of homeopathy users are fully convinced of its effectiveness, while 55 per cent rate it as partially effective. Only nine per cent of respondents described homeopathic medicines as completely ineffective. [1]
Nevertheless, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced at the beginning of 2024 that he wanted to abolish homeopathy as a health insurance benefit. Stefan Schmidt-Troschke, paediatrician and managing director of the ‘Gesundheit Aktiv Association’, then launched a petition for the preservation of homeopathic medicines as statutory benefits in statutory health insurance. The petition was signed by more than 200,000 people. In March 2024, the cancellation of homeopathy and anthroposophic medicines as additional statutory benefits was revoked. [2]
Shortly afterwards, in May 2024, the ‘German Medical Assembly’ passed a motion against homeopathy to bring about a total ban for doctors. Dr Marc Hanefeld, official supporter of the ‘Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie’, was behind the motion. Doctors should be banned from practising homeopathy in future, as well as billing via statutory and private health insurance. [3]
The case of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin shows just how much influence opponents of homeopathy have: for years, the hospital’s website stated ‘that homeopathic medicine can cure or improve even the most serious conditions’. After fierce protests – including from the health journalism portal MedWatch – the statement was removed. [4]
My comments:
- Effectiveness is not something to be quantified by popular votes. Responsible healthcare professionals employ rigorous clinical trials for that purpose.
- Lauterbach caved in because of the pressure from the Green Party and insists that his plans are merely postponed.
- The ‘German Medical Assembly’ decided that the use of homoeopathy in diagnostics and therapy does not constitute rational medicine. German doctors continue to be free to practice homeopathy, if they so wish.
- The notion that ‘homeopathic medicine can cure or improve even the most serious conditions’ is so obviously and dangerously wrong that it had to be corrected. This has little to do with the influence of opponents but is due to the influence of the evidence.
I feel that, if proponents of homeopathy want to save their beloved quackery from the face of the earth, they could at least get their facts right and think of some agruments that are a little less ridiculous.