Guest post by Richard Rasker
Almost two years ago, in March 2018, a group of 124 doctors and other medical professionals published an article in the French newspaper ‘Le Figaro’, warning the general public for the false promises, unproven claims and dangers of alternative medicine.
Homeopathy in particular is denounced as an unscientific belief in magic, utterly lacking in plausibility as well as in evidence of efficacy for any condition. Subjecting people to these kinds of unproven treatments is unethical, and may result in serious harm by delaying proper medical treatment. Also, homeopaths and other alternative practitioners often express anti-vaccine sentiments, endangering children by dissuading their parents from vaccination.
For these and several other reasons, these 124 medical professionals made an appeal for alternative and esoteric treatments to be excluded from the field of science-based medicine, and to stop reimbursement of homeopathic and other alternative treatments under France’s national health care insurance system.
In a somewhat belated response, French homeopaths are now filing no less than 63 disciplinary complaints with the French Medical Council against the signatories of the appeal in Le Figaro, apparently for “uncollegial behaviour” and “defiling medical ethics”. The homeopaths are represented by homeopathic doctor Daniel Scimeca, president of the French Federation of Homeopathic Societies, who also has close relations with Boiron laboratories, the biggest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world.
At the time of this writing, 11 complaints have been adjudicated, resulting in 7 warnings, and 4 releases or dismissals. It is unclear how serious such a ‘warning’ should be taken, but it is clear that homeopaths are trying to punish real doctors for supporting and expressing an overwhelming scientific consensus, i.e. that there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopathy is actually good for anything.
And even though these French homeopaths do not resort to the sort of vile, underhanded media smear campaign perpetrated by the late Claus Fritzsche against Dr. Ernst, there are certain parallels – the most important of which is that proponents of unproven ‘medicine’ attempt to silence science-based criticism by unscientific means, instead of open discourse about the merits (or more precisely: the lack thereof) of their chosen profession.
I personally find it rather worrying that almost two-thirds of the complaints resulted in a slap on the wrist for the medical professional involved. Especially in a field that is so strongly dependent on both science and trust, well-founded criticism should be encouraged and made public, not punished and silenced.
- In 2017, Mr Lawler, aged 79 at the time, has a history of back problems, including back surgery with metal implants and suffers from pain in his leg.
- His GP recommends to consult a physiotherapist.
- As waiting lists are too long, Mr Lawler sees a chiropractor shortly after his 80th birthday who calls herself ‘doctor’ and who he assumes to be a medic specialising in back pain.
- The chiropractor uses a spinal manipulation of the neck with the drop table.
- There is no evidence that this treatment is effective for pain in the leg.
- No informed consent is obtained from the patient.
- This is acutely painful and brakes the calcified ligaments of Mr Lawler’s upper spine.
- Mr Lawler is immediately paraplegic.
- The chiropractor who had no training in resuscitation is panicked tries mouth to mouth.
- Bending the patient’s neck backwards the chiropractor further compresses his spinal cord.
- When ambulance arrives, the chiropractor misleads the paramedics telling them nothing about a forceful neck manipulation with the drop and suspecting a stroke.
- Thus the paramedics do not stabilise the patient’s neck which could have saved his life.
- Mr Lawler dies the next day in hospital.
- The chiropractor is arrested immediately by the police but then released on bail.
- The expert advising the police is a prominent chiropractor.
- One bail condition is not to practise, pending a hearing by the GCC.
- The GCC decide not to take any action.
- The police therefore release the bail conditions and she goes back to practising.
- The interim suspension hearing of the GCC is being held in September 2017.
- The deceased’s son wants to attend but is not allowed to be present at the hearing even though such events are normally public.
- The coroner’s inquest starts in 2019.
- In November 2019, a coroner rules that Mr Lawler died of respiratory depression.
- The coroner also calls on the GCC to bring in pre-treatment imaging to protect vulnerable patients.
- The GCC announce that they will now continue their inquiry to determine whether or not chiropractor will be struck off the register.
The son of the deceased is today quoted stating that the GCC “seems to be a little self-regulatory chiropractic bubble where chiropractors regulate chiropractors.”
I sympathise with this statement. On this blog, I have repeatedly voiced my concerns about the GCC – see here, for instance – which I therefore do not need to repeat. My opinion of the GCC is also coloured by a personal experience which I will quickly recount now:
A long time ago (I estimate 10 – 15 years), the GCC invited me to give a lecture and I accepted. I do not remember the exact subject they had given me, but I clearly recall elaborating on the risks of spinal manipulation. This was not too well received. When I had finished, a discussion ensued in which I was accused of not knowing my subject and aggressed for daring to ctiticise chiropractic. I had, of couse, given the lecture assuming they wanted to hear my criticism. In the end, I left with the impression that this assumption was wrong and that they really just wanted to lecture, humiliate and punish me for having been a long-term critic of their trade.
I therefore can fully understand of David Lawler’s opinion about the GCC. To me, they certainly behaved as though their aim was not to protect the public, but to defend chiropractors from criticism.
On 11/11/2019, the York Press reported from coroner’s inquest regarding a chiropractor who allegedly killed a patient. John Lawler suffered a broken neck while being treated by a chiropractor for an aching leg, an inquest has been told. His widow told how her husband was on the treatment table when things started to go wrong. She said he started shouting at chiropractor Dr Arleen Scholten: “You are hurting me. You are hurting me.” Then he began moaning and then said: “I can’t feel my arms.”
Mrs Lawler said Scholten tried to turn him over and then manoeuvred him into a chair next to the treatment table but he had become unresponsive. “He was like a rag doll,” she said. “His lips looked a little bit blue but I knew he was breathing. “I said ‘Has he had a stroke?’ She put his head back and said ‘no, his features are symmetrical’.
When the paramedics arrived, they treated Mr Lawler and to hospital. He had an MRI scan and a doctor told Mrs Lawler that he had suffered a broken neck. She was then informed that her husband was a paraplegic and he could undergo a 14 hour operation which would be traumatic but even before that could happen he “faded away” and died.
There are, as far as I can see, four issues of interest here:
- It could be that Mr Lawler had osteoporosis; we will no doubt hear about this in the course of the inquest. If so, normal force could have led to the fracture, and the chiropractor would claim that she is not to blame for the fracture and the subsequent death of her patient. The question then would be whether she was under an obligation to check whether, in a man of Mr Lawler’s age, his bone density was normal or whether she could just assume that it was. In my view, any clinician applying a potentially harmful therapy has the obligation to make sure there are no contra-indications to it. If that all is so, the chiropractor might have been both negligent and reckless.
- Has neck manipulation been shown to be effective for any type of pain in the leg? That’s an easy one: No!
- Has the chiropractor obtained informed consent from her patient before commencing the treatment? The inquest will no doubt verify this. As many chiropractors fail to do it, I would not be too surprised if, in the present case, this was also not done. Should that be so, the chiropractor would have been negligent.
- One might be surprised to hear that the chiropractor manipulated the neck of a patient who consulted her not because of neck pain but because of a condition seemingly unrelated to the neck. This is an issue that comes up regularly and which is therefore importan; some people might be aware that it is dangerous to see a chiropractor when suffering from neck pain because he/she is bound to manipulate the neck. By contrast, most people would probably think it is ok to consult a chiropractor when suffering from lower back pain, because manipulations in that region is far less risky. The truth, however, is that chiropractors have been taught that the spine is one organ and one entity. Thus they tend to check for subluxations (or whatever name they give to the non-existing condition they all aim to treat) in every region of the spine. If they find one in the neck – and they usually do – they would ‘adjust’ it, meaning they would apply one or more high-velocity, low-amplitude thrusts and manipulate the neck. This could well be, I think, how the chiropractor in the case that is before the court at present came to manipulate the neck of her patient. And this might be how poor Mr Lawler lost his life.
Is there a lesson to be learnt from this tragic case?
Yes, I think there is: if you want to make sure that a chiropractor does not break your neck, don’t go and consult one – whatever your health problem happens to be.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued another warning about homeopathy. Here are some of the most relevant excerpts:
… Homeopathic products … are marketed without FDA review and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness, quality and labeling. FDA uses a risk-based approach to monitor these products and to evaluate reports of adverse effects.
… Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations. In addition, some products may be labeled as homeopathic that do not conform to traditional homeopathic principles.
As the homeopathy industry continues to grow at a rapid pace, we want to clarify for both consumers and industry how we assess the potential safety risks of these products. That’s why in 2017, the FDA issued a draft guidance discussing our, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labeled as homeopathic. Today, we are taking two new steps toward clarifying this approach.
First, we have revised the 2017 draft guidanceExternal Link Disclaimer to provide further information around our approach and are asking for public input on the revised draft. The draft guidance details a risk-based enforcement policy prioritizing certain categories of homeopathic products that could pose a higher risk to public health, including products with particular ingredients and routes of administration, products for vulnerable populations, and products with significant quality issues. We encourage the public to review this revised draft guidance and comment before it is finalized. We will consider feedback gathered through this new public comment period, the more than 4,500 comments interested stakeholders submitted on the original 2017 draft guidance, and information gleaned from a 2015 public hearing on the current use of homeopathic drug products. When finalized, this guidance will help provide transparency regarding the categories of homeopathic drug products that we intend to prioritize under our risk-based enforcement approach.
Second, the agency is withdrawingExternal Link Disclaimer the Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400, entitled “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed.” Risk is an important driver of the FDA’s regulatory and enforcement actions for all drug products, including homeopathic drug products. Since the issuance of CPG 400.400 in 1988, the FDA has encountered multiple situations in which homeopathic drug products posed a significant risk to patients, even though the products, as labeled, appeared to meet the conditions described in CPG 400.400. However, CPG 400.400 is inconsistent with our risk-based approach to regulatory and enforcement action generally and therefore does not reflect our current thinking. Therefore, it is appropriate to withdraw CPG 400.400 at this time.
… the FDA has issued warning letters to companies who produce homeopathic drug products for significant violations of current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations and various other violations. So far in 2019, we’ve issued more than 10 warning letters to companies for violations concerning homeopathic products. Recently, we issued warning letters to Kadesh Inc., U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc., Fill It Pack It Inc. and Bershtel Enterprises LLC dba WePackItAll, which had jointly manufactured and packaged eye drops produced in non-sterile conditions which could result in serious eye infections. These warning letters should alert all companies that homeopathic drug products must be manufactured and labeled in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and agency regulations…
If you ask me, ‘homeopathic drug products’ is a misleading name. A drug is defined as a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. But highly diluted homeopathics do not contain a substance that has physiological effects.
They should be called
- homeopathic pseudo-drugs,
- homeopathic placebos,
- or fake drugs.
And their labels should make it clear that:
- these products contain no active ingredients,
- and have not been shown to work beyond placebo.
That would be the type of honest and transparent information which consumers deserve and have a right to.
The UK-based homeopathic pharmacy AINSWORTH has attracted my attention several times already. Amongst other things, Tony Pinkus, the director of the firm, once accused me of having faked my research and I suspected him of violating the basic principles of research ethics in his study of homeopathy for autism.
In a big article, the Mail informs the reader that:
- AINSWORTH sell a guide (entitled ‘The Mother & And Child Remedy Prescriber’ and decorated with the codes of arms of both the Queen and Prince Charles) informing young mothers that homeopathy ‘will strengthen a child’s immune system more ably than any vaccine’.
- The guide also claims that infections like mumps and measles can be treated homeopathically.
- AINSWORTH sells homeopathic remedies used as vaccines against serious infections such as polio, measles, meningitis, etc.
- AINSWORTH’s guide claim that homeopathy ‘offers the clearest answer as to how to deal with the prevention of disease’.
- The guide claims furthermore that homeopathy is ‘a complete alternative to vaccination’.
- It even lists 7 homeopathic remedies for measles.
- AINSWORTH claim that homeopathy provides ‘natural immunity’.
- AINSWORTH sell products called ‘polio nosode’, and ‘meningeoma nosode’.
The Mail quotes several experts – including myself – who do not mince their words in condemning AINSWORTH for jeopardising public health. The paper also calls for AINSWORTH’s two royal warrants to be removed.
AINSWORTH, Buckingham Palace, and Clarence House all declined to comment.
I must have published well over two dozen articles in the peer-reviewed literature (and many more on this blog) warning of the indirect risks of homeopathy. The most obvious example of such risks is the advice many homeopaths give about vaccinations. Here is, for instance, a quote from an abstract I published in 1996:
… the question whether the homeopath is risk-free in all cases needs discussing. As a case in point, the attitude of some homeopaths towards immunization is quoted as an example of particular concern… the notion of totally risk-free homeopathy is untenable.
Almost a quarter of a century later, it seems that my cautions might finally be heeded. Several of today’s daily papers –THE GUARDIAN, THE DAILY MAIL, THE TIMES and THE DAILY TELEGRAPH – report that the message seems to have reached the higher echelons of the NHS in England. Here are a few short excerpts of what the TELEGRAPH tells its readers.
NHS leaders have gone to war on homeopathy by attempting to have the practice blacklisted amid fears it is fuelling anti-vax propaganda. The chief executive and medical director of NHS England have written to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), the statutory body that oversees healthcare regulation, urging it to strip accreditation from the Society of Homeopaths (SoH). They argue that endorsing the society affords it a “veneer of credibility” that lures vulnerable patients towards “bogus treatments”.
In particular, the health chiefs accuse homeopaths of propagating “mis-information” about vaccines. It follows the release of a major report last week which showed the uptake of pre-school vaccines is declining…
Mr Stevens said last night: “Anything that gives homeopathy a veneer of credibility risks chancers being able to con more people into parting with their hard-earned cash in return for bogus treatments which at best do nothing, and at worst can be potentially dangerous. Whether touted as a miracle cure or as protection from serious diseases – like so-called homeopathic vaccines – homeopathy is no replacement for rigorously tried and tested medical treatments delivered or prescribed by properly-qualified professionals, and by stopping people seeking expert help, misinformation and ineffective remedies pose a significant risk to people’s health.” His letter points out that both the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), take the position that homeopathic remedies are not scientifically valid.
What can I say?
I am, of course, tempted to say: I told you so!
But, on second thought, I prefer: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
And then I am bound to add: next, have a look at some other SCAM providers. Perhaps start with:
In the name of public health, I thank you.
These days, I am often not sure what puzzles me more, Boris Johnson or homeopathy. Come to think of it, our PM seems, in fact, to have a lot in common with homeopathy/homeopaths. With my tongue lodged firmly in my cheek, I can see some communalities:
- They are both popular in the UK but have their origins elsewhere.
- They were both laughed at by people who are serious.
- They have both been around for far too long.
- They both are useless.
- They both have plenty of charisma.
- They both, however, have little more than that.
- They have a long history of misleading the public.
- They have both been taken to court.
- They both failed to accept the judgement when it went against them.
- They are both particularly successful with the female section of the population.
- They both thrive on personal attacks.
- They both make far-reaching claims which turn out to be false.
- They both claim to want only the best for the public.
- They both consider themselves as progressive.
- In truth, however, they are both deeply regressive.
- They both do not to think that ethics are all that important.
- They both irritate people who are rational thinkers.
- They both negate the evidence and act in overt contradiction to the evidence.
- They both tend to think that popularity is a measure of efficacy.
- They both managed to mislead even the Queen.
- Nevertheless, they both enjoy royal support (at least for the time being).
- They both seem to think that the laws (of the land/of nature) do not apply to them.
- They are both only bearable when highly diluted.
- They are both a complete waste of money.
- They are both dangerous when the public follow their advice.
Have I forgotten anything?
Do tell me, please.
In Germany there are about 150,000 doctors, and around 7,000 specialize in homeopathy. Multiple surveys confirm that Germans do like their SCAMs, particularly homeopathy. Two examples:
- A 2016 cross-sectional analysis conducted among all patients being referred to the Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine at Essen, Germany, over a 3-year period showed that 35% of the 2,045 respondents reported having used homeopathy for their primary medical complaint. 359 (50.2%) patients reported benefits and 15 (2.1%) reported harm.
- More recently, a questionnaire survey concerning current and lifetime use of SCAM was distributed to German adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The results suggested that 45% of the respondents were currently using or had used at least one SCAM modality in their life. Homeopathy and acupuncture were most frequently used SCAMs, followed by mind-body interventions.
But since a few years, the German opposition to homeopathy has become much more active. In particular the INH, the GWUP, and the Muensteraner Kreis have been instrumental in informing the public about the uselessness and dangers of homeopathy. The press has now taken up this message and, as this article explains, now the debate about homeopathy has finally reached the political level.
The head of the main doctors’ association and the SPD’s health specialist have called for an end to refunds for homeopathy treatments in Germany. The head of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV), which represents 150,000 doctors and psychotherapists in Germany, recently urged health insurance companies to stop funding homeopathic services. “There is insufficient scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic procedures,” Andreas Gassen told the Rheinische Post. “If people want homeopathic remedies, they should have them — but not at the expense of the community.“
Gassen’s comments follow those of the Social Democrat (SPD) health issues specialist and lawmaker Karl Lauterbach who has pressed for a law banning refunds for homeopathy. “We have to talk about it in GroKo,” Lauterbach said earlier this month, suggesting a discussion in the government grand coalition. He said the benefits paid for by insurers should be medically and economically sensible. He has the support of the Federal Joint Committee which decides on what is covered by payments from the statutory health funds.
So, what is going to happen?
As I have written previously, one can only be sure of this:
- The German homeopathy lobby will not easily give up; after all, they have half a billion Euros per year to lose.
- They will not argue on the basis of science or evidence, because they know that neither are in their favour.
- They will fight dirty and try to defame everyone who stands in their way.
- They will use their political influence and their considerable financial power.
AND YET THEY WILL LOSE!
Not because we are so well organised or have great resources – in fact, as far as I can see, we have none – but because, in medicine, the evidence is invincible and will eventually prevail. Progress might be delayed, but it cannot be halted by those who cling to an obsolete dogma.
It is not that long ago that I published a post entitled HOMEOPATHY IN FRANCE: A TRIUMPH OF PROFIT OVER REASON. Today, I am pleased to post one with the reverse title.
It has taken a few years (compared to the UK where it has taken a few decades, it was nevertheless fast), but now it is done. Very briefly, this is what happened:
- In 2014, our book was published in French. I might be fooling myself, but I do hope that it helped starting a ball rolling in France where, up to then, homeopathy had enjoyed a free ride.
- Subsequently, French sceptics began raising their voices against quackery in general and homeopathy in particular.
- In 2018, they got organised and 124 doctors published an open letter criticising the use of alternative medicine as dangerous practised by charlatans of all kinds.
- In the same year, the Collège National des Généralistes Engseignants, the national association for teaching doctors, pointed out that there was no rational justification for the reimbursement of homeopathics nor for the teaching of homeopathy in medical schools stating that It is necessary to abandon these esoteric methods, which belong in the history books.
- Also in 2018, the University of Lille announced its decision to stop its course on homeopathy. The faculty of medicine’s dean, Didier Gosset, said: It has to be said that we teach medicine based on proof – we insist on absolute scientific rigour – and it has to be said that homeopathy has not evolved in the same direction, that it is a doctrine that has remained on the margins of the scientific movement, that studies on homeopathy are rare, that they are not very substantial. Continuing to teach it would be to endorse it.
- In 2019, the French Academies of Medicine and Pharmacy have published a document entitled ‘L’homéopathie en France : position de l’Académie nationale de médecine et de l’Académie nationale de pharmacie’. It stated that L’homéopathie a été introduite à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, par Samuel Hahnemann, postulant deux hypothèses : celle des similitudes (soigner le mal par le mal) et celle des hautes dilutions. L’état des données scientifiques ne permet de vérifier à ce jour aucune de ces hypothèses. Les méta-analyses rigoureuses n’ont pas permis de démontrer une efficacité des préparations homéopathiques. The academies concluded that no French university should offer degrees in homeopathy, and that homeopathy should no longer be funded by the public purse: “no homeopathic preparation should be reimbursed by Assurance Maladie [France’s health insurance] until the demonstration of sufficient medical benefit has been provided. No university degree in homeopathy should be issued by medical or pharmaceutical faculties … The reimbursing of these products by the social security seems aberrant at a time when, for economic reasons, we are not reimbursing many classic medicines because they are more or less considered to not work well enough …”
- Only weeks later, the French health regulator (HAS) has recommended with a very large majority (only one vote against) for the discontinuation of the reimbursement of homeopathic products.
- The health minister, Agnès Buzyn, announced “Je me tiendrai à l’avis de la Haute Autorité de santé”.
- Consequently, the powerful French homeopathy lobby created political pressure in multiple ways, including a petition with over 1000000 signatures and the last minute press-release below.
- President Macron allegedly was hesitant and considered a range of options, including a reduction of the percentage of reimbursement.
- Apparently, the minister stood up for science and, it was rumoured, even put her job on the line to turn this affaire into the triumph of reason it now has become.
- Yesterday, she announced the end of reimbursement and was quoted saying “J’ai toujours dit que je suivrais l’avis de la Haute Autorité de santé (HAS), j’ai donc décidé d’engager la procédure de déremboursement total“
It is important, I think, to use this occasion for considering the main arguments of the homeopathy lobby in their defence of homeopathy.
- Homeopathy is effective. This argument is demonstrably false and can only be made, if one abuses the published evidence. One way to demonstrate this is to look at the official verdicts from around the globe.
- Homeopathy may only be a placebo, but it prevents patients taking dangerous drugs instead. This argument is tricky but wrong. If patients are ill, they need an effective therapy and not homeopathy. If they are not ill, they need reassurance and not a placebo. We need to educate the public and doctors to understand this simple message rather than pulling wool over their eyes.
- Discontinuing homeopathy is an undesirable curtailment of our freedom of choice. This is a pseudo-argument, because nobody forbids anyone using homeopathy. All we advocate is that the public purse should only pay for effective treatments. Any other strategy means that we jeopardise funds for effective therapies.
- Homeopathy employs over 1000 workers, and any cut in reimbursement would jeopardise these jobs. This argument is also tricky (and it is probably the one that created a headache for politicians). It is, however, spurious. Firstly, job preservation is only a good thing, if the jobs in question are worth preserving. If they serve no good service to the public, they are probably not worth preserving. (We don’t need to all start smoking, for instance, in order to preserve the jobs in the tobacco industry.) Secondly, the argument contradicts the other arguments of the homeopathy lobby. If homeopathy were effective and helpful, people would carry on buying homeopathics regardless of any cut in reimbursement. Thirdly, I suspect the figure of > 1000 will turn out to be hugely exaggerated. Fourthly, arguments of this kind are deeply regressive; they have historically stood in the way of progress whenever an innovation was inescapable (think of the industrial revolution, for instance), and they have never succeeded.
To contemplate these arguments carefully is important, I feel, because this will help other rational thinkers to fight for progress, optimal healthcare and good science. There is still plenty of quackery out there. So, let’s celebrate the French triumph (à votre santé, Agnès Buzyn!!!) – and then roll up our sleeves and get cracking!
A few days ago, I reported that the German homeopathy manufacturer Hevert has taken legal action against German critics of homeopathy. This caused a storm of protests on twitter, in the press and even on TV. Hevert has remained silent in all this, but now a spokesperson and part owner of the firm, Mr Mathias Hevert, has given an interview to ‘Pharma Relations’ in an attempt to explain and justify Hevert’s position.
The interview does not tell us much, except for one particular passage:
Frau Grams hat sich meines Wissens nach gar nicht konkret auf die Produkte der Firma Hevert bezogen. Warum fühlten Sie sich dennoch aufgerufen, sozusagen stellvertretend für die Branche juristische Schritte einzuleiten?
Da homöopathische Arzneimittel neben pflanzlichen und schulmedizinischen Präparaten einen wichtigen Teil des breiten Hevert-Sortiments darstellen, fühlen wir uns bereits seit der Firmengründung 1956 eng mit der durch Pastor Emanuel Felke begründeten Komplexmittel-Homöopathie verbunden. Seit Monaten beobachten wir, wie die Homöopathie von Meinungsbildnern in den Sozialen Medien, der Presse und dem Fernsehen undifferenziert und ohne wissenschaftliche Grundlage denunziert wird. In Großbritannien wurden bereits einflussreiche Lobbygruppen aktiv, um die Homöopathie als Ganzes und ohne differenzierte Betrachtung der Datenlage zu verunglimpfen. Mit ihren Bemühungen schafften sie es sogar, die Politik zu gesetzlichen Einschränkungen des Feldes zu drängen. Um ähnliches in Deutschland – dem Mutterland der Homöopathie – zu verhindern, geht Hevert entschlossen gegen ungerechtfertigte und nicht fundierte Diskreditierungen der Homöopathie durch Lobbygruppen und andere Meinungsbildner vor.
Here is my translation of the bit that concerns me:
Q: Frau Grams has, as far as I know, not even concretely referred to the products of Hevert. Why do you still feel compelled to start legal procedures, so to speak for the sector?
A: … We observe since months how homeopathy is being denounced in an undifferentiated manner and without a scientific basis by opinion leaders in social media, the press, an on TV. In England, influential lobby groups have been active to denigrate homeopathy as a whole and without differentiated consideration of the data. Through their efforts, they have even managed to force politicians to implement legal restrictions in this area…
I must admit, I find this response quite extraordinary!
I am not aware of anyone or any group in England denigrating homeopathy without differentiated consideration of the data. All we did was to point out what the best available evidence tells us, exercise our critical thinking abilities, and report facts. And I do strongly object anyone claiming otherwise. In fact, I ask myself whether the above remarks by a representative of a manufacturer of homeopathics are not libellous and thus actionable.
What do you think?
But perhaps I have misunderstood something; in this case, could Mr Hevert please name the UK critics he had in mind when he made these comments?