economic evaluation
The effect of calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation on fractures and falls in adults were assessed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised clinical trials were eligible, if they compared calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation with placebo or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) not receiving drug treatment for osteoporosis. The primary outcome was the risk of any fracture. Secondary outcomes included the risk of hip fracture, non-vertebral fracture, vertebral fracture, and falling, as well as the total number of falls. Pairs of reviewers independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. Findings were synthesised using random effects meta-analyses and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, with application of thresholds for absolute effects considered important.
The review included 69 trials involving 153 902 participants. Participants in most of the trials were community dwelling (87%) and not at high risk of fractures or falls (73%). For the primary outcome of any fracture, little to no effect was found from use of calcium supplements (11 trials, 9067 participants; risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.01; moderate certainty), vitamin D supplements (36 trials, 92 045 participants; 1.00, 0.95 to 1.06; high certainty), or combined supplementation (15 trials, 51 126 participants; 0.91, 0.84 to 0.99; high certainty). Calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation appeared to have little to no effect on other fracture and fall outcomes, based largely on moderate to high certainty of evidence. The findings remained robust after an extensive exploration of heterogeneity across multiple subgroup analyses. Evidence for high risk patients or those requiring residential care was limited for many outcomes for calcium monotherapy and for combined supplementation.
The authors concluded that, based on absolute risk reductions and thresholds considered clinically meaningful, this review found little to no benefits from use of calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation on the prevention of fractures and falls.
An accompanying BMJ editorial points out that observational studies have associated low dietary calcium and low serum levels of vitamin D with low bone density and falls. Consequently, calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation has been widely promoted for preventive musculoskeletal health in older adults…
Th editorial concludes that other interventions, such as balance and resistance exercise, and several multicomponent interventions (eg, combining exercise, hazard assessment, or education with other interventions tailored to risk assessment) have been shown to offer meaningful prevention of falls and falls related injuries.
This new systematic review is a prime example for the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact. But all is not negative – think of the money that can now be saved and put to better use!
Guest post by Udo Endruscheit
Two years ago, in a guest post on this blog, I described the long and winding history of homeopathy in Switzerland — a story marked by political expectations, institutional entanglements, and repeated attempts to reconcile a lack of evidence with a desire for legitimacy. I ended that article with the hope that the country would not embark on yet another “honour lap” around the same unresolved questions.
In 2024, however, Switzerland initiated a new evaluation of homeopathy — a renewed attempt to clarify its role within the national health insurance system. It was, in many ways, the beginning of yet another loop in the same story.
Now, in 2026, that loop has come to an unexpected end. The evaluation was halted.
Not postponed, not softened, not watered down — simply stopped.
And this stop is not merely a political gesture. It marks the structural endpoint of a system that has exhausted its internal possibilities.
A system designed to avoid the evidence question
To understand why Switzerland has arrived at this point, one must look beyond the political headlines and examine the institutional landscape that has shaped the country’s approach to homeopathy for more than a decade.
Three elements are central:
- The political mandate created by the 2009 referendum, which placed homeopathy and other CAM modalities into the basic health insurance package.
- The professional environment, in which thousands of Swiss physicians hold CAM qualifications and the national medical association (FMH) views integrative medicine positively.
- The academic anchor, the Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine (IKIM) at the University of Bern, which provides an appearance of scientific legitimacy without producing evidence capable of resolving the core question of efficacy.
This combination created a system in which homeopathy became institutionally normalised — not because of evidence, but because of political and professional expectations.
The HTA as a detour — and the beginning of the dead end
When the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) was tasked with evaluating homeopathy after the referendum, it faced an impossible dilemma:
- The clinical evidence was weak to non‑existent.
- The political expectation was strong.
- A direct assessment of the evidence would have produced a negative result.
The solution was a detour: a Health Technology Assessment (HTA). But HTAs are not designed to determine efficacy. They assume efficacy has already been established through robust clinical research. Their purpose is to assess cost‑effectiveness, safety, and system impact.
The Swiss HTA did the opposite. In its conclusion, it stated:
“The effectiveness of homeopathy can be considered as proven when internal and external validity criteria are taken into account.”
This is a remarkable inversion of the HTA principle. The report asserted efficacy — without the evidence required to do so — while simultaneously admitting that the actual HTA questions (such as cost‑effectiveness) could not be answered reliably.
In retrospect, this HTA was not the beginning of a solution. It was the beginning of a dead end. A system that asserts efficacy without evidence cannot move forward. It can only circle around itself.
The IKIM: an academic structure without academic function
The IKIM at the University of Bern has played a central role in stabilising this circular logic. Its research output is broad in appearance but narrow in substance. It avoids the central question of efficacy and instead focuses on:
- sociological aspects,
- patient satisfaction,
- model validity,
- and experimental approaches that are not independently reproducible.
The IKIM does not produce evidence. It produces normality — the impression that homeopathy is a legitimate academic field simply because it is housed within a university.
This normality has been crucial for maintaining the political and professional acceptance of homeopathy in Switzerland. But it has also contributed to the structural dead end: an academic institution that cannot resolve the evidence question because it is not designed to ask it.
The 2026 decision: not a surprise, but a consequence
Against this background, the 2026 decision to halt the renewed evaluation of homeopathy is not really surprising. It is the logical endpoint of a system that has exhausted its internal possibilities.
- The evidence has not improved.
- The HTA detour has failed to provide a foundation.
- The institutional structures have stabilised expectations but not knowledge.
- The political mandate cannot be fulfilled without contradicting scientific standards.
The result is a dead end. Not because anyone wanted it, but because the system was built in such a way that no other outcome was possible.
A lesson beyond Switzerland
The Swiss case is often cited by proponents of homeopathy as a model of political and professional acceptance. But the 2026 decision reveals a different lesson:
A system that tries to reconcile political expectations with a lack of evidence will eventually reach a point where it can neither move forward nor turn back.
Switzerland has reached that point. The “endless story” of homeopathy in the Swiss health system has not been resolved — but it has reached its structural conclusion.
And unfortunately that conclusion is not a triumph of evidence. It is the recognition that evidence cannot be replaced by institutional normality. But one thing it certainly isn’t: an endorsement of homeopathy, even if its advocates will once again try to interpret it that way.
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.
The story of how my new book came to get published is long and tedious – too long and tedious to be told here in full. Let me therefore try to give you just a very brief summary:
- The ‘Apotheken Umschau‘ is a journal with a circulation of 6m in Germany.
- As it has a history of being very much pro-SCAM (so-called alternative medicine), I was surprised to be invited some 5 years ago to write a critical article about the subject.
- I was even more surprised to be invited weeks later to write a book along similar lines.
- I submitted a full book proposal and suggested the title WER RECHT HAT HEILT which is a play on words; the German dogma for SCAM practitioners is WER HEILT HAT RECHT [He who heals is right] which I turned around into He who is right heals. In English, this does not work very well but in German it is – I hope – quite funny.
- The proposal was swiftly accepted and I got cracking.
- When I had almost finished writing the book, I was informed that my suggested title was disallowed by the publisher’s lawyers.
- The publisher then changed the title and, as I had written the text around the agreed title, I had to rewrite much of the text.
- I nevertheless managed to meet the contractual deadline and submitted my manuscript on time.
- After a few months the first proofs arrived, and, to my surprise, the publisher had altered several crucial sections of my text. These alterations made my text less critical about SCAM.
- We then exchanged many emails and had several video conferences. Altogether I must have exchanged some 200 emails with this publisher of which about a third remained unanswered (my estimate).
- Eventually, we agreed that the publisher had the right to correct my (often rusty) German but not the content or gist of the book.
- It followed a long period of finalizing the wording of the text, the subtitles and of proofreading.
- When this was finished, I was told that the book’s publication was imminent. That was around 3 years ago.
- Looking on Amazon one day, I was struck to see my book advertised under yet another title. It had not been agreed with me. In fact, I had not even been informed about it (and hated it).
- I asked the publisher what was going on and was not given a satisfactory answer.
- Now followed a long period of silence where nothing at all happened, despite me sending increasingly angry emails from time to time.
- Then, suddenly, it was all ‘go’ again and work on the book restarted afresh.
- One day, I was told that now even my original title, ‘WER RECHT HAT HEILT’ was acceptable.
- I thus revised large sections of the book a third time.
- Now, things seemed to advance smoothly, and my book started to be advertised on numerous websites with the title page depicting ‘WER RECHT HAT HEILT’.
- But now, another surprise awaited me: I was informed that my book would need to be ‘peer-reviewed’ by two ‘experts’. I have published plenty of books and never had encountered peer-review apart from that on the initial book proposal.
- Eventually, I received the reviewers comments which were both worryingly incompetent and intensely annoying.
- I nevertheless addressed them all, if only by explaining why the reviewer was, in my view, mistaken.
- When this process was over, I was informed that the last touches were now being made on the graphics and that publication was imminent.
- However, nothing happened and my many emails asking for an explanations did not result in satisfactory explanations.
- Finally, at the end of 2024, I was informed that my book would not be published. The alleged reason was that I had not adequately responded to the comments of the reviewers.
- In my view, the whole painfully long process was marked by a level of unprofessionalism on the side of the publisher that, in my extensive experience as an author, I had never encountered before.
- Luckily, the copyright was returned to me.
- Now I was free to contact another publisher, the ALIBRI VERLAG, and they accepted to publish my book.
- I then revised and updated my text yet again and, within just 4 months, my book finally saw the light of day.
In retrospect, I quite understand that publishers who are into promoting SCAM and heavily rely on advertising cannot afford to publish a book criticising SCAM. This would, of course, be bad for business! What I don’t get, however, is
why ask me and accept my book outline in the first place?
PS
As the book is in German, I will soon post a translation of a short section that explains what it is all about.
I recently asked ‘GOOGLE GEMINI’ about my problems with King Charles. The reply was concise, to the point and roughly correct:
Edzard Ernst’s “problem” with King Charles (then Prince Charles) stemmed from a fundamental disagreement over the promotion and integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) within mainstream healthcare, particularly the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.
Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:
- King Charles’s Advocacy for CAM: King Charles has been a long-time, vocal proponent of various alternative therapies, including homeopathy, and has actively lobbied for their greater inclusion in the NHS. He established and supported organizations like The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health to promote these views.
- Ernst’s Evidence-Based Approach: Edzard Ernst, as the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, took a strictly evidence-based approach. His research consistently aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAM treatments through rigorous scientific methods (like systematic reviews and meta-analyses). He concluded that the vast majority of alternative therapies lacked scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond a placebo, and some were even potentially harmful.
- Clash over the Smallwood Report (2005): A major point of contention was a report commissioned by Prince Charles in 2005, written by economist Christopher Smallwood, which claimed CAM was cost-effective and should be available on the NHS. Ernst was initially involved in this report but withdrew his name and publicly denounced it as “complete misleading rubbish,” stating that the conclusions were written before the evidence was properly reviewed. He argued the report failed to address whether CAM treatments were actually effective.
- Lobbying and “Black Spider Letters”: Ernst criticized King Charles for “relentlessly meddling” in UK health politics and for using his influence to push for unproven treatments. This included Charles’s infamous “black spider letters” (so-called due to his distinctive handwriting) to government officials, lobbying for the inclusion of alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, in the NHS.
- “Duchy Originals” Products: Ernst also criticized products sold by Duchy Originals (a company founded by Prince Charles) that made unproven health claims, such as “Detox Tincture,” calling them “outright quackery” and “financially exploiting the vulnerable.”
- Impact on Ernst’s Career: The dispute had personal repercussions for Ernst. Prince Charles’s private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, filed a complaint with Exeter University, alleging that Ernst had breached confidentiality regarding the Smallwood report. Although Ernst was eventually “cleared of wrongdoing,” he stated that the ensuing 13-month university investigation was “very unpleasant” and led to the cessation of funding for his research unit, ultimately contributing to his early retirement. He felt that the university, despite clearing him, treated him as “persona non grata.”
In essence, the “problem” was a clash between the King’s personal conviction and advocacy for alternative medicine, and Ernst’s unwavering commitment to scientific rigor and evidence-based healthcare. Ernst believed that the King’s promotion of unproven therapies was irresponsible, potentially harmful to public health, and undermined scientific progress in medicine.
______________________
In case you want to learn the full details about “the King’s personal conviction and advocacy for alternative medicine”, please read the book below.
Common Harms of CSM
- Musculoskeletal discomfort: Temporary soreness, stiffness, or pain in the muscles or joints after treatment.
- Headaches: Some individuals may experience headaches following spinal manipulation.
- Fatigue: Feeling tired or experiencing fatigue after treatment.
These harms occur after CSM in about 50% of all patients. They impact on their quality of life and usually last 1-3 days.
Serious Harms of CSM
- Vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and stroke: A tear in the vertebral artery can lead to stroke; the harm can be permanent.
- Death: A stroke can be fatal.
- Atlantoaxial dislocation
- Spinal cord injury: Damage to the spinal cord, potentially resulting in numbness, weakness, or paralysis.
- Herniated discs: Manipulation can exacerbate existing disc issues or cause a new disc herniation.
- Fractures: Osteoporotic patients or those with bone conditions are at risk of vertebral fractures.
- Cauda equina syndrome: Compression of nerves in the lower spine, potentially causing bowel or bladder dysfunction.
- Nerve damage: Injury to spinal nerves, leading to numbness, tingling, or weakness.
- Eye Injuries: these include central retinal artery occlusion, nystagmus, Wallenberg syndrome, ptosis, loss of vision, ophthalmoplegia, dipiopia and Horner’s syndrome.
The frequency of these harms is not known.
Other Risks
- Neglect: This happens whenever a chiropractor treats a condition that can more effectively be treated with another therapy.
- Misleading advice: This occurs whenever a chiropractor gives advice outside his area of competence, for instance, a recommendation against immunisations.
- False diagnoses: Chiropractors often diagnose a ‘vertebral subluxation’, a condition that exists only in their fantasy.
- Worsening of existing conditions: Manipulation may exacerbate underlying spinal problems or conditions like spinal instability.
- Waste of money: This occurs each time a patient pays for ineffective CSM.
The frequency of these risks is not well-documented but can be estimated to be very high.
_____________________________
I have often pointed out that the value of a therapy is not solely determined by its potential for harm. It depends crucially on the risk/benefit profile. The benefits of CSM are few and mostly uncertain. Thus the question arises:
DO THE BENEFITS OF CSM OUTWEIGH ITS RISKS?
I let you, the reader, answer this question.
PS
References for the above statements can be found in my book.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore reasonable to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon; in part 2, we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means; in part 3, I looked at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz. In the 4th and last part of the series, I discuss Jay Bhattacharya and Gustav Chiarello.
Jay Bhattacharya – Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and health economist. He also is a critic of Fauci and a co-author of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration (2020), which advocated for “herd immunity” over lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. His new role would involve overseeing the NIH’s $48 billion budget. According to Kennedy’s plan, he would redirect much of the NIH funding toward alternative health approaches.
As Bhattacharya has not managed large research institutions, his ability to lead NIH effectively might be limited. His economic perspective could prioritize cost-effective research, and his opposition to lockdowns may appeal to those skeptical of them.
In summary, Bhattacharya’s academic credentials make him a fairly reasonable choice for NIH director, but his unreasonable pandemic views and lack of large-scale administrative experience raise concerns about his ability to lead the NIH effectively and without major disruptions.
Gustav Chiarello – Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (HHS)
Gustav Chiarello has degrees in economics, public policy, and law. He is/was the Senior Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, former attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and advisor to FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen during Trump’s first term. He has legal and policy experience as well as skills for overseeing HHS financial resources. However, his limited healthcare-specific experience may hinder his ability to address complex HHS budgeting challenges.
In summary, Chiarello appears competent for the new role. However, his lack of healthcare expertise may prove to be a drawback.
Context and concerns
A recurring theme across the mentioned nominees and appointments is their stance against vaccinations or public health mandates. This is already eroding trust in immunization programs, increasing infection rates and creating risks to public health. Another common concern is the lack experience of most individuals in managing large bureaucracies. This is likely lead to inefficiencies or mismanagement in crucial healthcare agencies.
The nominees/appointments will drive deregulation, reduce Medicaid funding and shift NIH research priorities toward alternative health. These changes are unlikely to generate improvements in US public health. Policies driven by misinformation or ideological agendas will lead to increased uninsured rates, reduced research funding, and public health setbacks.
The group’s competence is undermined by a pattern of vaccine skepticism, promotion of pseudoscience and limited administrative experience. The risks of disrupting scientific research, immunization programs, and healthcare access are real and substantial.
Because my expertise and understanding is limited to medicine, my discussions were confinded to the realm of healthcare. But Trump appointed people in all areas, of course. My limited expertise tells me that some of these have been even more disasterous than the ones we evaluated here. I have little doubt that Trump is about to change the world – and I fear that this will not be to the better.
The French newspaper ‘L’Express’ just published an open letter that might be of considerable relevance to the readers of this blog. Here is my translation:
Since 2016, all private sector employers have been required by law to offer supplementary health insurance to their employees. As a result, 96% of the population is now covered. The costs for this are also borne by each household, social security contributions and common taxes used to fund the general health insurance scheme.The same obligation applies since 2020 for the State in respect of its civil servants, and the French Ministry of Education, the country’s largest public employer, has just signed contracts with MGEN and CNP assurance. This contract, which complies with the ministerial order implementing the law and setting out the cover provided, is a cause for concern, as it provides for coverage of non-conventional healthcare practices (e.g. homeopathy, osteopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractic, relaxation therapy, etc.). According to the Ministry of Health itself, most of these practices have ‘not been the subject of scientific or clinical studies demonstrating their modes of action, their effects, their effectiveness or their harmlessness’.This coverage would reinforce the general public’s belief that these treatments are effective. This is happening while proven therapies such as psychology, prescription sport and dietetics are rarely covered by mutual insurance companies.In a report published in September 2024, the French Senate proposed to counter the sharp rise in complementary health insurance charges by reviewing the coverage of unconventional healthcare practices (so-called alternative medicine, SCAM). According to this report, the cost of these practices has increased fivefold over the last eight years, reaching almost €1 billion in 2023, excluding the cost of spa treatments.
Therapeutic excesses
We support this proposal. It is clear to us that, in addition to being useless, these unproven practices mislead patients as to what constitutes genuinely effective treatments, when in fact they are nothing more than an expenditure that does nothing to improve the health of anyone, at the expense of genuinely beneficial care. What’s more, they expose us to the risk of therapeutic aberrations, or even the abandonment of care in cases where it is necessary.The government says it wants to make savings on health spending. Wouldn’t it be more effective, and also better understood by the general public, to do so by promoting treatments whose effectiveness is supported by a scientific consensus? And would it not be better to stop the reimbursement of unproven practices likely to lead to delays in treatment and health abuses? We need to set a limit on ‘private solidarity’ expenditure, the cost of which continues to rise well above the rate of inflation, particularly for the most vulnerable households and the elderly.
The Ministry’s announcement of initiatives to combat misinformation in the health sector cannot be reconciled with the funding of unconventional therapies, about which Miviludes has repeatedly warned. The work of the Descartes Foundation shows that sensitivity to these practices and sensitivity to esotericism are linked, creating a breeding ground for health misinformation and conspiracy theories.
An individual choice
Mutual insurance companies cannot legitimise wellness practices at the expense of optimum reimbursement for proven treatments. Health issues are everybody’s business, and the most vulnerable should be able to count on national solidarity in the interests of all French people.
The Collectif No FakeMed is calling on the authorities to be rigorous in ensuring that only practices based on scientific knowledge, in both health economics and evidence-based medicine, are covered by the public purse and mutual insurance companies. It is possible to offer a cover for some wellness treatments, but this must be a matter of personal CHOICE, and therefore an option, not an obligation.
Signatories
Institutions and associations:
- Collectif No Fakemed;
- Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des pédicures-podologues;
- Collectif ‘Vaccins France informations & discussions’;
- Collectif Chanology France; syndicat ReAGJIR.
Individual signatories:
- Pr Agnès Buzyn, ancienne ministre, présidente du think tank Evidences ;
- Dr Pierre de Bremond d’Ars, médecin généraliste et président du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Isabelle Derringer, présidente du Conseil de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes ;
- Pascale Mathieu, présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Eric May, médecin généraliste, directeur santé Malakoff, président de la Fédération Nationale de Formation des Centres de Santé ;
- Éric Prou, président de l’Ordre national des pédicures podologues ;
- Dr Sophie Augros, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Mehdi Bahaji, anesthésiste-réanimateur ;
- Marie-Ange Barbier, diététicienne, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Damien Barraud, médecin hospitalier ;
- Karine Brezellec, trésorière adjointe du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Laurent Brindel, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Gérald Bronner, professeur à la Sorbonne, membre de l’Académie nationale de médecine, membre de l’Académie des technologies ;
- Dr Matthieu Calafiore, Maître de conférences des universités, directeur du département de médecine générale de l’Université de Lille ;
- Dr Julie Chastang, médecin généraliste, maîtresse de conférence des universités (Sorbonne Université) ;
- Pr Laurence Compagnon, médecin généraliste ;
- Dominique Costagliola, membre de l’Académie des sciences, directrice de recherche émérite Inserm ;
- Laurent Cordonier, docteur en sciences sociales, Chercheur associé au GEMASS, Sorbonne Université – CNRS (UMR 8598) ;
- Dr Raphaël Dachicourt, président de Réagir ;
- Dr Jeremy Descoux, Cardiologue, Président fondateur du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Arthur Dian, ancien ostéopathe, M2 en histoire et philosophie des sciences ;
- Jean-François Dumas, secrétaire général du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FMEdSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCP(Edin.) professeur émérite à l’Université d’Exeter;
- Élisabeth Feytit, créatrice du podcast d’éducation à l’esprit critique Méta de Choc ;
- Dr Jean-Jacques Fraslin, médecin généraliste ;
- Roger-Philipe Gachet, Secrétaire Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Julien Gere, neurologue ; Pr André Grimaldi, diabétologue ;
- Florian Gouthière, journaliste scientifique ;
- Dr Nicolas Groëll, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Jérome Grosjean, biologiste ;
- Kalou, créateur de contenu dédié à l’information et la prévention du phénomène sectaire ;
- Jean-Paul Krivine, rédacteur en chef de Science et pseudo-sciences, Association française pour l’information scientifique ;
- Dr Corentin Lacroix, Whydoc, médecin généraliste et vulgarisateur ;
- Marion Lagneau, trésorière du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Guillaume Limousin, ingénieur, docteur en sciences, professeur de mathématiques en collège ;
- Dr Christian Lehmann, médecin généraliste et écrivain ;
- Dr Stéphanie Marsan, médecin généraliste, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ; Dr Elodie Lemarthe, secrétaire générale du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr François Maignen, docteur en pharmacie et statisticien ;
- Dr Hervé Maisonneuve, médecine de santé publique ;
- Gilles Marchiano, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Matthieu Molimard, professeur de pharmacologie CHU de Bordeaux ;
- Dr François Morel, chirurgien, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Nathan Peiffer Smadja, infectiologue ;
- Grégoire Perra, enseignant et lanceur d’alerte sur les écoles Steiner-Waldorf et l’anthroposophie ;
- Sylvain Peterlongo, masseur-kinésithérapeute, membre du bureau du collectif No FakeMed ;
- Pr Nicolas Pinsault, vice-président du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Franck Ramus, CNRS ;
- Mathieu Repiquet, étudiant en médecine et en santé publique ;
- Pierre Rigal, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Laurent Salsac, infirmier, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Natalia Trouiller, lanceuse d’alerte sur les violences sexuelles dans l’Eglise catholique ;
- Stéphanie de Vanssay, enseignante, militante contre les dérives scolaires ;
- Brigitte Vincent, vice-présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Frederic Villebrun, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Nicolas Winter, praticien hospitalier aux urgences pédiatriques Valenciennes et vulgarisateur sur les réseaux To be or not Toubib ;
- Dr Florian Zores, cardiologue.
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!
On 27 January, the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. issued this MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
… Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending “wokeness” and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again. The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve…
… each agency must complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders. In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal…
The memorandum effectively froze funding for research, and understandably sent shockwaves through the US science community. A federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked the order yesterday, but it had already caused panic. Many US universities already advised faculty members against spending federal grant dollars on travel, new research projects, equipment etc., and the National Science Foundation canceled all of its grant review panels.
Some legal experts argue that Trump’s order is not legal: The US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to appropriate funds. While lawyers are now trying to sort out the mess Trump created, scientists are spooked because, should Trump get away with his idiocy, the harm to science not just in the US but worldwide would simply be immeasurable.
