integrative medicine
A recent paper entitled “Research Ethics and Integrity and the Different Forms of Misconduct: Applications and Challenges in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research” caught my eye. As the subject is close to my heart and often covered on this blog, I studied it carefully. Here is the abstract:
Research ethics and integrity are foundational to the credibility, safety, and societal trust of scientific inquiry. As the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) grows globally, concerns about research misconduct (including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have become increasingly salient. With up to 80% of populations in certain countries utilizing TCIM, the field’s expansion underscores the need for rigorous, ethically grounded evidence to guide practice and policy. However, around 470 TCIM-related articles have been retracted to date, as indicated on the Retraction Watch database, which may be due to ethical or non-ethical concerns. This educational article critically examines the state of ethics and integrity in TCIM research, drawing on case studies of misconduct and highlighting the broader consequences for patient safety, scientific credibility, and healthcare integration. In addition, the educational article explores emerging ethical dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence (AI), including risks of automated fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and opacity in research reporting. To strengthen ethical conduct, we propose strategies spanning four domains: 1) improving education and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance research literacy, 2) embedding open science practices to promote transparency and reproducibility, 3) leveraging meta-research to monitor and advance research quality, and 4) developing policies and safeguards for responsible AI use. Upholding high ethical standards in TCIM research is essential not only to ensure reliable evidence but also to protect patients, sustain public trust, and enable meaningful integration of TCIM within evidence-based healthcare systems.
The full conclusions of the authors are as follows: “With the increasing global use of TCIM therapies, it is crucial for TCIM researchers to uphold high ethical standards to ensure the feasibility, validity, efficacy and safety of TCIM interventions. TCIM research challenges such as heterogeneity, complexity, and lack of standardization practices, alongside issues with research training and funding, create both transformative opportunities and ethical dilemmas that require reflection. Addressing these challenges requires a firm commitment to enhancing research ethics and integrity in TCIM. This commitment must be translated into action through multifaceted strategies: improving research and ethics literacy, fostering open science practices, and ensuring the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of TCIM research. Strengthening ethical and research practices will not only support its continued development as a discipline but also maximize its potential to contribute to global health.”
I find it most commendable that this subject has finally been addressed by a group of researchers, most of who are known advocates of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). I hope that this is proves to be a step in the right direction for the fileld of SCAM.
Yet, I fear that it is a small or even tiny step. The reason for my fear is that several important issues related to research ethics and integrity in SCAM are let untouched by the authors. In my view, the one of the most important amongst them is the SCAM researcher him/herself. As often discussed on this blog, SCAM research is unique amongst all areas of medical research for being populated by individuals who have a strong ideological bias in favour of SCAM.
These (pseudo)scientists tend to abuse science by trying to prove that their beliefs are correct. Rather than trying to falsify their hypotheses, they would bend over backwards to show that their favourite SCAM is effective. I tried to demontrate this clearly by establishing my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME on this blog.
As to the many other omissions of important ethical concerns from the above paper, I recommend having a look at our book “More Harm than Good?: The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine“. It offers a much more complete review of the ethical issues involved in SCAM research (amusingly, it was not cited in the paper above).
The WHO’s supportive stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has been discussed on this blog many times before. Now a BMJ editorial criticized the WHO for uncritically promoting SCAM within mainstream health systems. It argues that WHO’s new strategy gives undue legitimacy to interventions whose evidence base is often weak, inconsistent, or absent. The author’s main concern is not cultural respect or patient choice, but the risk that policy language about “integration,” “tradition,” and “people-centred care” can blur the line between evidence-based medicine and therapies that have not demonstrated reliable benefit. The article points out that, while some traditional practices may be harmless or even useful, broad institutional support should depend on rigorous proof of safety and effectiveness. It also warns that promoting such therapies may waste scarce resources, confuse patients, and create false equivalence with established medical care. More broadly, the editorial presents this as a scientific and ethical issue: global health bodies should strengthen standards, not weaken them. The WHO should prioritize robust clinical evidence, transparent regulation, and careful harm-benefit assessment before endorsing any therapy for widespread use. In short, the article sees WHO’s current approach as a misguided attempt to accommodate alternative medicine rather than critically evaluate it.
The team of international authors of the editorial argue that an ideal strategy should mandate pharmacovigilance, including adverse event reporting, as a prerequisite. Large workforces should be redirected toward evidence-based primary care, such as screening, vaccination, chronic disease identification and maternal health. Research funding should prioritise independent clinical trials with negative results published as systematically as positive ones. The WHO Traditional Medicine Global Library must catalogue documented harms alongside knowledge claims. Commercial conflicts of interest must be transparent. And WHO’s messaging must remain unequivocally aligned with scientific consensus – a proven tool against misinformation that mixed messaging would fatally undermine.
The authors conclude that “billions use traditional medicine – many from uninformed choices. The ethical response is not to validate what remains unvalidated, but to expand access to what withstands scrutiny. Patients everywhere deserve nothing less.”
Readers might remember that I posted my own critique of the WHO’s new strategy on this blog already on 6/11/2025. Here is an excerpt of my post:
The WHO aim to “advance the contribution of evidence-based traditional, complementary and integrative medicine” seems laudable, yet it also raises concerns: once any form of medicine is “evidence-based”, it is not “traditional, complementary and integrative”. Then it is by definition EBM, evidence-based medicine! Thus, the entire premise of the WHO Global traditional medicine strategy 2025–2034 makes no sense.
The fact that “traditional medicine is the primary or preferred care for billions of people worldwide” does not necessarily mean that its “clinical potential is considerable”. More likely it means that billions have to rely on obsolete forms of medicine from the dark ages because they cannot afford effective treatments. This is far from an opportunity; it is a challenge for us to improve this inhuman situation.
The fact that “acupuncture is recommended for migraine”, while the evidence for this (and almost all similar) recommendations are not supported by sound evidence, amounts to a scandal. One would have hoped that, instead of promoting unproven ‘traditional medicine’, an urgent task of the WHO would be to warn people of bogus and often dangerous claims that are ubiquitous in this sector.
The fact that “1% of global health research funding is dedicated to traditional medicine” might look unfair at first glance. But global health research funding is in the range of US$ 200 billion per year. Thus 1% would amount to 2 billion, and I suggest that one could do plenty of good research with this money. Instead, the sector tends to waste its funds on lousy pseudo-research, as anyone interested can confirm by reading this blog. Why does the WHO not point this out and take measures to stop pseudo-science in the realm of ‘traditional medicine’? Do they really think that offensive ideological platitudes such as “restoring balance is a scientific, rights-based and sustainability imperative” cuts the mustard?
My recommendation to the WHO is as simple as it is important: if you want to create meaningful articles, documents or strategies on ‘traditional medicine’ (or indeed any other subject), don’t charge biased proponents with the task but recruit a few well-informed critical thinkers as well.
It is good that the BMJ editorial concurs with my assessment. The question is, will it have an effect? Considering the multiple times we had to criticise the WHO for its irresponsible stance on SCAM, it would be high time for adopting an evidence-based attitude.
Breast cancer and its treatments affect patients’ physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. Practices such as Reiki are used to support symptom management, particularly during chemotherapy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients within the framework of Martha E. Rogers’ “Science of Unitary Human Beings.”
The research was conducted as a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, and DergiPark databases, with the search updated through May 2026 prior to the final analysis. Randomized controlled trials, experimental studies, and quasi-experimental studies investigating Reiki interventions in breast cancer patients were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were independently assessed by two researchers using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Four studies meeting the inclusion criteria included a total of 339 participants. The included studies suggested that Reiki practice may reduce fatigue and improve overall comfort and well-being. Some studies also reported improvements in quality of life, comfort, mental well-being, and mood.
The authors concluded that Reiki appeared to be a safe and well-tolerated complementary intervention in the included studies. Reiki practice may contribute to symptom management, improve quality of life, and support psychological well-being in breast cancer patients. However, due to the limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and methodological differences, larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.
This is a weird review, if there ever was one!
- It certainly did not follow the PRISMA guidelines.
- It evaluated the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients; much clearer can one not display a pro-Reiki bias!
- It included non-randomised trials.
- None of the included studies were of sufficiently good quality.
But the weirdest aspect must be the conclusion of the abstract: it aknowledges the fact that the primary studies were rubbish and nevertheless praises the multiple alleged benefits of Reiki. If the evidence is unconvincing due to many flaws of the primary data, the only adequate conclusion should read something like this:
Because of serious flaws of the included studies, the evidence that Reiki affects the symptoms of breast cancer patients fails to be positive.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) likes to present itself as a champion of disease prevention. Its advocates routinely claim to promote health before disease develops, to strengthen the body’s defences, and to address root causes rather than symptoms. This rhetoric is highly attractive, because prevention sounds proactive, humane, and economical. Crucially, it is also good for the SCAM practitioner’s bank account. Yet there is a snag: almost none of the preventive claims made for SCAM are supported by reliable evidence, whereas the prevention that works comes overwhelmingly from conventional medicine and science.
To show preventive benefit, an intervention must demonstrably reduce the incidence of symptom, disease, complication, or mortality in properly designed studies. That may require randomised trials, epidemiological studies, large cohorts, reproducible findings, and enough follow-up to show that fewer people actually experienced the given endpoint. Mainstream medicine has repeatedly met this standard. Immunization, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, lipid lowering, cancer screening, and risk-factor modification are all products of biomedical research, not of alternative healing traditions.
SCAM, by contrast, tends to use prevention in a loose, impressionistic, and unfalsifiable way. A practitioner may claim that a treatment “balances energy,” “supports immunity,” or “keeps the body in harmony,” but such phrases do not establish a preventive effect. They are placeholders for evidence, not evidence itself. In practice, the absence of disease after treatment is treated as proof that the treatment worked, even though the same outcome occurs every day without any intervention at all.
Acupuncture is a good example. Its defenders portray it as a preventive system capable of preserving general health or warding off illness, but the evidence base does not support that claim. Some reviews do suggest that acupuncture may help with some pain-related and symptom-focused conditions, yet its preventive value is largely unproven. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that acupuncture prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Chiropractic care is even more revealing because preventive claims are often tied to the doctrine of spinal “subluxation” and nervous system dysfunction. Yet the literature on prevention is thin and methodologically weak. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that chiropractic prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Herbalism benefits from the romantic appeal of “natural” remedies, but that appeal should not be confused with demonstrated preventive efficacy. Individual plant compounds have certainly inspired real drugs, yet that is a triumph of pharmacology, not of herbalism as a system. When herbal medicines are tested for prevention, results are usually weak, inconsistent, or insufficient to support recommendation. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that herbal medicine prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Homeopathy is one of the most extreme cases within SCAM. It is often sold as gentle, individualized, and even preventive, but its basic principles are scientifically implausible, and its clinical evidence is either flawed or negative. Preventive homeopathy, including ideas such as “homeoprophylaxis,” is particularly problematic because it can give people a false sense of security while displacing interventions that genuinely prevent disease, such as vaccination. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that homeopathy prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
SCAM speaks almost constantly about prevention, but the evidence for actual preventive benefit is close to non-existent. What we know about prevention, what truly reduces disease incidence and improves population health, comes from conventional medicine, epidemiology, public health, and biological science. SCAM will no doubt continue to borrow the language of medicine and prevention, but – as far as I can see – it has failed to supply the proof.
Quackademia, a term created [as far as I remember] by David Colquhoun for the infiltration of quackery into academia, has often been discussed on this blog, e.g.:
- Quackademia in Canada: the first bachelor’s degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Quackademia galore: An Oxford ‘university’ starts a course in ‘veterinary chiropractic’
- Quackademia at its most rampant: the ‘Certificate in Holistic Health and Healing Arts’ (HHHA) at the University of New Mexico
- Another blow to quackademia: TCM course at a Sydney university is to be stopped
- Vienna 2019: the end of quackademia
- Quackademia down under
- Quackademia revisited
- Quackademia
Now growing backlash against quackademia seems to finally emerge also in France – opposition against university programs that give academic legitimacy to unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The Higher Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education is preparing to review these courses, after criticism that universities are lending credibility to practices that have not been scientifically validated.
Across France, more than 200 university diplomas are said to exist in areas such as reflexology, aromatherapy, auriculotherapy, hypnosis, acupuncture, homeopathy, meditation, and related practices. Critics argue that this amounts to a form of institutional “entryism,” because the university label can make such practices look medically endorsed even when they are not.
The main concern is not just whether these therapies work, but whether universities should be teaching them at all. A January report on health misinformation reportedly recommended banning the academic labeling of healthcare practices that have not been validated, and that recommendation is at the center of the debate. Experts warn that, if a SCAM is scientifically validated, it belongs in medicine; if it is not, it may still be studied, but should not be taught as an academic medical qualification. They also warn that these programs can mislead the public and create a false impression of legitimacy. Yet, some deans and faculty leaders say that certain courses, especially acupuncture, hypnosis, or mindfulness, can be acceptable when used for specific indications and when properly framed. They distinguish those from programs in naturopathy, aromatherapy, or homeopathy, which they see as much harder to justify inside medical faculties.
As the Conference of Medical Deans is preparing to examine the issue rigorously, they should – I feel – also consider the ethical implications. Teaching dangerous nonsense to naive students is not just not academic, it is deeply unethical. If done well, this excercise should lead to a major cleanup of universities regarding SCAM, or at the very least to much tighter rules about what can carry an academic label.
Having observed French quackademia for decades, I am tempted to exclaim:
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!
I came across an interesting paper entitled “The Ethics of Tawas and Other Rituals in Medical Practices“. Here is its abstract:
Rituals in medical practice have either been seen as an anthropological aspect of current biomedical processes or as a pre-scientific aspect of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In either tendency, the literature has since failed to account for these rituals as rituals—conveyors of meaning, expressions of identity, and even as a rite of passage from illness to wellness. As an alternative to current discussions, this paper presents the case study of tawas, a diagnostic ritual from Philippine traditional medicine that determines personalistic and mystical causes of illnesses. As a non-intrusive procedure, tawas involves incantations and some ritual objects, e.g., rice, candle, axe, etc., that do not pose any direct harm nor benefit to the patient. While complete reliance on tawas at the expense of proper medical procedures could harm patients, the very ritual of tawas itself occupies a limbo within non-beneficence and non-maleficence. Following a Wittgensteinian perspective of treating rituals as meaning-laden human activities, this paper argues that rituals like tawas, much like other rituals embedded in biomedical practices, should be understood as rituals and not as empirical cures, thereby allowing their tolerance in medical practice in general.
The author seems to advocate for the cultural integration of traditional practices like tawas into a broader medical framework. They categorize tawas not as a physiological intervention, but define it as a conveyor of meaning. By addressing the “meaning-laden” aspect of illness, the ritual may address the psychological and social dimensions of a patient’s health, even if it has no effect on their physical pathology.
It is claimed that, since tawas involves non-intrusive objects (candles, rice), it is physically benign. At the same time it is acknowledged that “complete reliance” on tawas could harm patients. From a clinical safety standpoint, the “limbo” is only maintained if the ritual is strictly adjunctive rather than alternative.
The text uses a Wittgensteinian perspective, focusing on rituals as expressions rather than theories. Modern neuroscience suggests that the “ritual” of care—the white coat, the focused attention, the diagnostic process—triggers real neurobiological changes (e.g., dopamine and endorphin release). Aacknowledging the symbolic healing power that rituals have on patient anxiety and the “meaning response,” which can objectively improve health outcomes by reducing cortisol and stress.
The author identifies tawas as a diagnostic ritual which might well be the most contentious point. In science, a “diagnosis” must be reliable and valid. Tawas clearly fails the scientific criteria for validity. The author’s defence is that tawas shouldn’t be judged by those criteria at all. While this might be philosophically sound, in a clinical setting, a “mystical diagnosis” must conflict with a biological one, potentially leading to patient non-compliance with life-saving treatments.
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
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 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.
