panacea
The Nazi relic of the German Heilpraktiker – alternative health practitioner, who practise so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)) – is a topic that I wrote about repeatedly, e.g.:
- Prison sentence for a German HEILPRAKTIKER who issued false vaccination certificates
- Another death caused by a ‘Heilpraktiker’, non-medically trained alternative practitioner?
- A German Heilpraktiker was sent to jail for fraud
The path to becoming a Heilpraktiker is as unique as it is scandelously unregulated. By law, the profession requires no mandatory curriculum, no accredited school attendance, and no state-regulated university degree. Technically, anyone over the age of 25 holding a basic middle-school education (Hauptschulabschluss) can sit for the exam (the Heilpraktikerüberprüfung), even without any education or training at all. While some candidates choose to prepare by voluntarily attending a private and expensive school (a Heilpraktikerschule) for one to three years, the lack of standardized educational oversight leaves massive gaps in crucial medical and professional subjects.
Chief among these neglected subjects is, in my view, medical ethics. For those who do attend a school, average ethics instruction ranges from minimal to non-existent. Because private institutes design their own proprietary curricula, ethics is rarely taught as a standalone subject. Instead, it is briefly touched within broader modules concerning Berufs- und Gesetzeskunde (Professional and Legal Studies).
This systemic omission is directly tied to the narrow scope of the state licensing exam. Conducted by local health departments (Gesundheitsamt), the examination is explicitly designed around Gefahrenabwehr, i.e. the prevention of immediate danger to public health. The state’s priority is ensuring that applicants know what they are legally forbidden to do, such as managing highly infectious diseases, prescribing prescription-only medications, or practicing dentistry.
Consequently, broader ethical education is completely sidelined. Vital topics like the biomedical principles of patient autonomy, managing clinical conflicts of interest, and the complexities of informed consent are virtually absent. While some voluntary professional associations have established a code of conduct (Berufsordnung für Heilpraktiker), learning and understanding these ethical guidelines is entirely voluntary and self-guided.
Beyond ethics, maany other critical subjects are severely neglected in the Heilpraktiker schools, e.g.:
- Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Scientific Literacy: students are rarely taught how to critically appraise clinical research, differentiate between correlation and causation, or recognize the cognitive biases inherent in anecdotal “success stories.”
- Pharmacology and Interaction Risks: While forbidden from prescribing prescription drugs, practitioners heavily utilize herbs and other dietary supplements. The study of how these substances interact with each other and a patient’s conventional pharmaceutical regimens is usually overlooked.
- Emergency Medicine and Differential Diagnosis: Because training lacks mandatory, standardized clinical rotations, practical competency in identifying red flags, such as atypical cardiac symptoms or early-stage oncological presentations, is dangerously variable.
The Heilpraktiker system offers unparalleled freedom of practice. At the same time, there is a near total lack of rigorous educational standards. This huge and dangerous imbalance leaves practitioners ill-equipped and put the public at unacceptable risks. Here are some examples of what can thus happen:
- The Klaus Ross / 3-Bromopyruvat (3-BP) Tragedy (2016): In one of Germany’s most notorious SCAM scandals, a Heilpraktiker operating a “Biological Cancer Center” in Brüggen treated terminally ill cancer patients with 3-Bromopyruvat, an unapproved, highly experimental chemical compound. Using an inaccurate kitchen scale to mix the powder himself, he administered massive overdoses via intravenous infusions. At least three patients died within days of the treatment, leading to his conviction for negligent homicide.
- The “BG-Mun” Fake Cancer Cure Scandal (Schrobenhausen): A Heilpraktiker, working alongside a businessman, defrauded desperately ill cancer patients by selling a fake “miracle serum” called BG-Mun for up to €5,900 per package. The practitioner explicitly pressured patients to abandon their conventional oncological treatments (like chemotherapy), promising that the serum would reverse tumor growth. Chemical testing later revealed the expensive liquid was nothing but worthless dilutions of glucose and basic amino acids. Multiple patients, including a 52-year-old esophagus cancer patient who went public with the story, died after their cancers metastasized following their cessation of proper medical care.
- Severe Complications from Autologous Blood Therapy (Eigenbluttherapie): A widespread SCAM among Heilpraktiker involves drawing a patient’s blood, mixing it with ozone, oxygen, or homeopathic remedies, and reinjecting it back into the muscle or vein to “stimulate the immune system.” Due to insufficient training in strict clinical hygiene, numerous documented cases have occurred where patients suffered from sepsis, internal abscesses, and systemic bacterial infections requiring emergency ICU hospitalizations.
- Misdiagnosis of Life-Threatening Emergencies: Because the Heilpraktiker exam does not mandate clinical training, practitioners have no clinical experience and frequently miss time-critical medical diagnoses. Documented cases include patients presenting with atypical chest pain being treated with acupuncture for “energy blockages” rather than being immediately referred to a hospital for an evolving myocardial infarction. Similarly, early-stage, highly curable melanomas or other malignancies have been misidentified as benign skin lesions or metabolic imbalances, delaying life-saving surgeries until the diseases reached terminal stages.
- Ineffective SCAMs for Acute Psychiatric Crises: Some Heilpraktiker choose to specialize in psychotherapy (Heilpraktiker für Psychotherapie). Scandals have arisen where patients suffering from severe clinical depression or acute psychotic episodes were treated solely with Bach flower remedies, St. John’s wort, or talking therapy rooted in esoteric ideas. The rejection of conventional psychiatric intervention and pharmaceutical stabilization in these acute phases has directly led to preventable self-harm and suicides.
So, why does Germany put up with the Heilpraktiker?
Despite repeated and fierce criticism, the German Heilpraktiker is sustained by a combination of law, politics, and tradition. The primary legal shield is Article 12 of the German Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of occupation (Berufsfreiheit). Because the state’s entry exam pretends to screen for immediate public danger (Gefahrenabwehr), courts pretend the system is legally sufficient; completely banning the profession would trigger severe constitutional challenges.
Furthermore, as often discussed on this blog, SCAM enjoys immense public popularity in Germany. Millions of Germans value the Heilpraktiker for the long and empathetic consultations that the overburdened conventional insurance system rarely permits. This widespread voter support, coupled with a highly organised political lobby, makes outright abolition a political non-starter.
Thus Germany continues to have a two-tier health system. This paradox exposes a profound cultural contradiction in the German psyche, which is famously stereotyped as risk-averse, highly bureaucratized, and obsessed with systemic order. While Germany tends to regulate everything from highway speeds to the exact composition of its beer, its tolerance of the Heilpraktiker system represents a massive, hazardous blind spot.
By clinging to an outdated Nazi-law out of political convenience and romanticized cultural traditions, the state has allowed this two-tier medical landscape to persist – one built on rigorous science, and another shielded by a legal loophole. In trying to uphold the constitutional freedom of occupation, the German legislative framework inadvertently compromises a far more fundamental duty: the protection of the public from dangerous quacks. This leaves a nation known for “playing it safe” in the ironic position of legally sanctioning pseudo-scientific nonsense within its healthcare system.
A fuller analysis of the Heilpraktiker can be found in my book “Vorsicht Heilpraktiker” [in German].
Because homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where none of the original substance remains (often beyond Avogadro’s number), the ethical concerns with this treatment must focus on veracity (truth-telling), patient autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Here are some of the problems that ensue**:
Violations of Veracity and Informed Consent
Informed consent is an essential element of medical ethics and dictates that a patient must be given full, accurate, and evidence-based information regarding a treatment’s nature, mechanisms, risks, and efficacy to make an autonomous decision.
Homeopathy operates on two main principles: “like cures like” (Law of Similars) and the “law of minimum dose” (the more diluted a substance, the more potent it becomes). Scientifically, these principles contradict established kowledge of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology. Presenting these concepts nevertheless as scientifically valid violates veracity.
When a practitioner administers or sells a homeopathic remedy without explicitly stating that it contains no active ingredients and performs no better than a placebo in clinical trials, the patient’s autonomy is compromised. In other words, patients are making a healthcare choice based on deception or omission.
Maleficence
While homeopathics are physically inert and thus unlikely to cause direct harm, homeopathy poses a severe threat via indirect harm.
The most critical ethical issue occurs when patients use homeopathy for severe, progressive, or life-threatening conditions (such as cancer, severe infections, or chronic diseases like diabetes). Delaying or entirely replacing evidence-based medicine with placebo treatments (i.e. homeopathy) violates the duty of non-maleficence (do no harm). It can lead to preventable suffering, worsening of the condition, or even death in extreme cases.
Homeopathic “Vaccines” (Homeoprophylaxis) is an apt example. Some homeopaths offer all sorts of homeopathic vaccinations as alternatives to standard immunizations. Marketing these as effective protection against potentially deadly diseases like measles, polio, or pertussis erodes public herd immunity, leaves individuals entirely unprotected, and can endanger us all. This is a massive failure of both individual and public health ethics.
Beneficence
Beneficence requires healthcare providers to act in the best interest of the patient by offering treatments that provide a tangible, therapeutic benefit.
While the empathetic, unhurried nature of a homeopathic consultation can provide psychological comfort, homeopaths cannot ethically justify charging high fees for what is essentially a placebo wrapped in pseudo-medicine. Relying on a mechanism that depends on the patient remaining ignorant of the treatment’s true nature is fundamentally paternalistic and violates modern standards of beneficence.
Justice and the Exploitation of Vulnerability
The ethical principle of justice involves fairness, equity, and the responsible distribution of healthcare resources. It is regularly violated in the realm of homeopathy.
Homeopathic remedies are cheap to manufacture, yet they are marketed at unjustifiably inflated prices. Targeting vulnerable populations, such as the chronically ill, parents anxious about medication side effects in their children, or low-income individuals seeking cheap alternatives, is an ethical violation of justice.
When public the health insurance programs of certain countries, or mainstream pharmacies fund or promote homeopathic products alongside effective medicines, they misallocate resources and mislead the public. In other words, they give a false stamp of authority to quackery, draining resources that could support evidence-based public health initiatives.
So, how unethical is homeopathy? My short answer is: VERY!
** for a more detailed discussion, please have a look at our book.
I recently coined a new term: Chutzpah-Based Medicine (CBM). It requires a bit of an explanation which I herewith try to deliver. Medical decisions should rely on a rational hierarchy: systematic reviews at the top, followed by randomised clinical trials, observational studies, and way down at the bottom we anecdotal experience and opinion. The new paradigm of “Chutzpah-Based Medicine” (CBM) turns this pyramid upside down.
In CBM, double-blind trials are replaced by double-down charisma. Why wait 10 years for evidence when you can assert a medical breakthrough in 15 seconds on video with dynamic lighting, an unbuttoned linen shirt, and absolute, unshakable certainty? Here is an overview of the core tenets and leading luminaries of this revolutionary field.
The Dogmas of CBM
- The Confidence-to-Evidence Ratio: The validity of any health claim is directly proportional to the volume, velocity, and eye contact with which it is delivered.
- The “Big Pharma Secret” Axiom: If a treatment worked and had evidence, it would evidently be mainstream. Therefore, the total absence of evidence is the ultimate proof that “They” are trying to suppress it.
- Quantum Syllogism: If you insert the word “quantum” before anything, biology no longer applies, and anything becomes possible.
Four Ambassadors of CBM
- Gwyneth Paltrow
The undisputed pioneer of High-End CBM. Paltrow proved that with enough aesthetic minimalism and raw audacity, one can sell jade eggs, vaginal steaming, and “psychic vampire repellent” as essential wellness routines. Scientific consensus is but a sign of unrefined taste. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- Time for Gwyneth Paltrow’s ‘Emotional Detox Bath Soak’
- We all have misungerstood good old Gwyneth Paltrow. At heart, she is a true sceptic!
- What is it with Gwyneth Paltrow and the vagina?
- Rectal ozone therapy? Gwyneth seems to like it!
- Dr. Mehmet Oz
Before entering politics, Dr. Oz laid the groundwork for CBM. He demonstrated that a cardiothoracic surgeon could look directly into a camera and declare green coffee bean extract a “miracle burn in a bottle” without blinking. “Magic” is, according to Oz, a valid clinical outcome. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- It seems to me that Dr. Mehmet Oz is breaking the law!
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Dr. Joseph Mercola
He is a true titan of digital CBM mastering the art of building a multi-million-dollar supplement empire by warning millions that modern medicine is a toxic conspiracy, while conveniently offering his own unapproved tanners, liposomal vitamins, and other SCAMs as the sole salvation. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- The ‘moral and intellectual decay’ of COVID disinformants
- The anti-vaccination movement is financed by the dietary supplement industry
- Deepak Chopra
Chopra brought profound philosophical chutzpah to CBM by blending endocrinology with poetic quantum bollox. By asserting that human bodies are “localized energy fields” capable of “quantum healing,” he elevated clinical vagueness into a high-margin spiritual enterprise. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- Deepak Chopra – Karma can be a real bitch!
- The ‘LOVETUNER’: Have a look at this, and you will never again think that Deepak Chopra is a charlatan
- Deepak Chopra’s finest hour
- Deepak Chopra enters my ‘ALT MED HALL OF FAME’
While Evidence-Based Medicine requires years of arduous testing, CBM offers immediate answers, simple villains, and premium-priced remedies. Why let a clinical trial get in the way of an excellent means of getting rich quickly?
The various forms of fasting have many, mostly positive health effects. The most obvious is that of losing weight and body fat. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of measuring the effects of a 14-day Periodic Fasting (PF) intervention (<200 cal) on multi-organs of primary interest (liver, visceral/subcutaneous/bone marrow fat, muscle) using non-invasive advanced magnetic resonance spectroscopic (MRS) and imaging (MRI) methods.
One subject participated in a 14-day PF under daily supervision of nurses and specialized physicians, ingesting a highly reduced intake: 200 Kcal/day coupled with active walking and drinking at least 3 L of liquids/day. The fasting was preceded by a 7-day pre-fasting vegetarian period and followed by 14 days of stepwise reintroduction of food. The longitudinal study collected imaging and biological data before the fast, at peak fasting, and 7 days, 1 month, and 4 months after re-feeding. Body fat mass in the trunk, abdomen, and thigh, liver and muscle mass, were respectively computed using advanced MRI and MRS signal modeling. Fat fraction, MRI relativity index T2* and susceptibility (Chi), as well as Fatty acid composition, were calculated at all-time points.
A decrease in body weight (BW: −9.5%), quadriceps muscle volume (−3.2%), Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue (SAT −34.4%; VAT −20.8%), liver fat fraction (PDFF = 1.4 vs. 2.6 % at baseline) but increase in Spine Bone Marrow adipose tissue (BMAT) associated with a 10% increase in global adiposity fraction (PDFF: 54.4 vs. 50.9%) was observed. Femoral BMAT showed minimal changes compared to spinal level, with a slight decrease (−3.1%). Interestingly, fatty acid (FA) pattern changes differed depending on the AT locations. In muscle, all lipids increased after fasting, with a greater increase of intramyocellular lipid (IMCL: from 2.7 to 6.3 mmol/kg) after fasting compared to extramyocellular lipid (EMCL: from 6.2 to 9.5 mmol/kg) as well as Carnosine (6.9 to 8.1 mmol/kg). Heterogenous and reverse changes were also observed after re-feeding depending on the organ.
These results suggest that investigating the effects of a 14-day PF intervention using advanced MRI and MRS is feasible. Quantitative MR indexes are a crucial adjunct to further understanding the effective changes in multiple crucial organs especially liver, spin, and muscle, differences between adipose tissue composition and the interplay that occurs during periodic fasting.
This interesting and well-reported study supports the idea that fasting does not just “burn fat” uniformly; it shifts energy stores differently across organs and fat depots. Visceral fat appears more responsive and more durable in its reduction than subcutaneous fat, which is relevant because visceral fat is more strongly linked to cardiometabolic risk. Because this was a case report with one participant, the findings are best viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive.
This double-blind, three-arm randomised trial evaluated the efficacy of homeopathic medication in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Patients at eleven outpatient clinics and two medical centres were randomised to receive:
- (1) individualised homeopathic case taking (IHCT) and standardised homeopathic medication with Galphimia Glauca (GG),
- (2) IHCT and individualised homeopathic treatment (IHG),
- (3) IHCT and placebo (PG).
The primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life, assessed using the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) after three and four weeks. Secondary outcomes included response rate (≥0.5-point change in RQLQ), rescue medication use, and total nasal and non-nasal symptom scores (TNSS, TNNSS).
Sixty-two SAR patients (mean age ± SD: 46.9 ± 14.9; 43.5% female) were recruited, approximately 25% of the planned sample size. After weeks three and four, there were no significant differences in RQLQ (p=0.244) between GG (adjusted mean, 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.7), IHG (1.7, 1.2-2.3), and PG (1.4, 0.8-2.0). High response rates were observed (GG: 86.4%, IHG: 66.7%, PG: 81.3%), while RM use was 21.7%, 55.6%, and 29.4%, respectively. There were no relevant differences in RM score, TNSS and TNNSS between the three groups. Eight adverse events but no serious adverse events were reported.
The authors concluded that standardised and individualised homeopathic drugs were not superior compared to placebo suggesting that treatment response was not based on study medication. The validity of the study and its conclusions are limited by the fact that the recruitment target was not achieved.
Multicentre studies like this one are useful for recruiting large numbers of patients. SAR is a common condition; the recruitment of a large sample should therefore have been fairly straight forward. So, why was this study so woefully under-powered? An average of 6 patients per centre is dismal, to put it mildly!
This leaves us with a failed study of a failed (implausible) hypothesis; its negative findings cannot be properly interpreted (other than showing the incompetence of the trialists).
Why publish such a waste of resorces at all?
Search me!
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
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!
Homoeopathy and I is the title of a paper that I published in 2009. My aim was to denounce the popular notion that held I had started my research with a grudge against homeopathy. The honest truth is that – if anything – my attitude was even slightly positive. Here is the key section from this 2009 paper:
In 1993, I was appointed to the world’s first Chair in Complementary Medicine, and it became my job to investigate scientifically all sorts of complementary treatments, including homoeopathy. In the course of this activity, my co-workers and I published numerous articles on homoeopathy. Systematically, reviewing the totality of my publication list, I found a total of 46 papers with ‘homeopathy’ in the title. The following quotes from these articles were selected to best describe my attitude toward homoeopathy at the time:
• Homeopathicremedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe (8).
• It might be argued that arnica …is ineffective but homeopathy may still works (9).
•…only 23% of Australian homeopaths believe that immunisation is important (10).
• Homeopathy, I fear, has soon to come up with … more convincing evidence (11)…
• Future evaluations of homeopathy should be performed to a high scientific standard (12)…
•…studies on the safety of the practice of homeopathy must not be ignored (13)…
•…systematic reviews based on Medline searches can lead to similar (possibly slightly less positive) overall conclusions (14)…
•…a detailed eye-witness account claiming that all attempts [by researchers during the ‘Third Reich’] to show that homeopathy works has led to negative results (15).
•…the best way forward is clearly to do rigorous research (16)…
• Thus, the question of whether homeopathy works or not has remained unanswered for 200 years (17).
• The most pressing question, ‘Is homeopathy clinically more effective than placebo’, needs to be answered conclusively (18).
• There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus (19)…
• Some of the well-argued cases against homeopathy should become essential reading for all homeopaths (20).
•…the published evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies … are more efficacious than placebo (21)…
•…homeopathic remedies are associated with the same clinical effects as placebo (22).
•…the picture painted by Linde and colleagues … may well be slightly more positive (23)…
•…[our] goal is to conduct rigorous, impartial research in [homeopathy] (24)
• The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials (25).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are not uniform (26).
•…at present, the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies is not known (27).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are obviously far from uniform (28).
•…the trial data … do not suggest that homeopathy is effective (29)…
•…the definitive answer, in my view, has to come from a series of rigorous trials (30).
• Large, multicentre trials of homeopathic remedies … represent the best way of advancing the debate (31).
•…the re-analysis of Linde et al. can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos (32).
•…randomised clinical trials … do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies (33).
•…both homeopaths and university heads of medical departments clearly advocate further research into the effectiveness of homeopathy (34).
•…homeopathy is not different from placebo (35).
•…the best clinical evidence … does not warrant positive recommendations (36).
•…the evidence is insufficient for firm recommendations (37).
•…the results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo (38)…
-
- This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies … are superior to placebo(39).
•…this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists (40).
•…Mathie’s methodology was not as strong as it should have been, and this deficit has led to conclusions that may be falsely positive (41).
•…homeopathy may actually be more expensive than good conventional care (42).
•…the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies … do not outweight the potential for harm (43).
•… homeopathic remedies are placebos, but homeopaths can be skilled doctors who may significantly help their patients (44).
• Our analysis … found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy (45)…
•… promotion can be regrettably misleading, dangerous and counterproductive (46).
•…do we condone treatments because of their popularity or their effectiveness? (47)
•…homeopathy is not based on solid evidence and, over time, this evidence seems to get more negative (48).
• The evidence from rigorous clinical trials … testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition (49).
• There is no evidence at all that homeopathic remedies can change the natural history of any cancer (50).
•…context effects of homeopathy … are entirely sufficient to explain the benefit many patients experience (51)…
• Amongst all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one (52)…
•…recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence (53)…
[all references can be found in the original paper]
Since then (2009) I – often together with others – have published several further articles with “homeopathy” in the title. This means that my original paper needs updating. Here are the titles of (and links to) these articles (appologies, if I missed a few):
- Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy?
- Homeopathy
- Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us?
- Homeopathy, non-specific effects and good medicine.
- A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
- Homeopathy, a “helpful placebo” or an unethical intervention?
- The ethics of British professional homoeopaths.
- Homoeopathy debate. Protecting patients?
- Pharmacists and homeopathic remedies.
- Homeopathy in severe sepsis.
- Call for doctors not to practice homeopathy or refer to homeopaths.
- Homeopathy for eczema: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials.
- The most thorough assessment to date of homeopathy
- Should doctors recommend homeopathy?
If you study these articles, you will find that my arguments around homeopathy remained entirely evidence-based. The overall point is, I hope, clear: I did not embark on my research into homeopathy aiming to disprove it or to dismiss it outright [a claim I still hear with some regularity]. To begin with (in 1993), I was not only open but positively inclined. At all times, however, I was keen to follow the best available evidence. If my attitudes/verdicts became less and less positive, it is merely because the evidence became more and more overtly negative.
Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) is a major cause of disability worldwide. Conventional pharmacological treatments offer limited benefits and carry potential risks, prompting interest in alternative approaches, including homeopathy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of a standardised homeopathic biotherapic (Lumbar Vertebra, LM2 potency) for CNSLBP.
A randomised, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 120 participants diagnosed with CNSLBP. Participants received both the biotherapic and placebo in two treatment phases separated by a washout period. The primary outcome was pain intensity (numeric rating scale); secondary outcomes included functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index), adverse events and use of pain medications. Data were analysed using random effects generalised linear models.
Both the biotherapic and placebo interventions led to significant within-group reductions in pain and disability (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two interventions for either outcome (pain: p = 0.435; disability: p = 0.840). The magnitude of change in pain intensity did not reach the pre-defined minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and mean pain scores at the study endpoint remained above the inclusion threshold. Adverse events were mild and comparable across groups.
The authors concluded that no specific effect of the Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic was demonstrated. Improvements are likely due to non-specific effects such as the therapeutic environment, patient expectations and placebo response. Clinicians should consider the substantial role of non-specific responses in CNSLBP and avoid medications with unfavourable risk–benefit profiles.
One the one hand, the authors from the Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Sao Paulo, the School Health Unit, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Sao Paulo, and the epartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil should be congratulated for publishing a squarely negative result in the journal ‘Homeopathy’ that is known for publishing even the most implausible positive findings.
On the other hand, one might criticise them: why on earth did they ever conceive the hypothesis that homeopathy in general or “Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic” in particular might be effective for CNSLBP (the study did not receive any funding or financial support, apart from the study medications donated by HN-Cristiano Pharmacy (Santana, São Paulo, Brazil), which had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or discussion of the results)? I have never met a homeopaths who would make such a claim, and one could easily argue that such a trial is an unethical waste of resources.
