risk/benefit
This AI-verdict made me wonder: Who is for and who against the critical evaluation of so-called alternative medicine? And I asked a follow-up question:
Can you try to quantify this and give me % figures who is against a critical evaluation of alternative medicine, who is for it, and who is neutral. Can you do this for 1. the general population, 2. proponents of alternative medicine and 3. skeptics?
Here is the reply I got from Gemini:
To quantify these dynamics accurately, we have to look at large-scale sociological data on public attitudes toward science, peer-reviewed medical data (such as surveys by Pew Research, YouGov, and the European Commission), and the behavioral patterns of online discourse.
When it comes to a “critical evaluation” (meaning scientific testing to prove if a therapy works beyond a placebo), the groups break down along very distinct ideological lines. Here is how the percentages estimate across your three requested demographics:
Breakdown of Attitudes Toward Critical Evaluation
1. The General Population
The broader public is largely pragmatic, but a major chunk is passively open to alternative therapies without strictly demanding clinical trial proof.
- Against Critical Evaluation (~15% – 20%): These individuals hold a strong distrust of mainstream pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. They believe alternative medicine operates on a different “energy” or “holistic paradigm” that standard science is fundamentally incapable of or biased against measuring.
- For Critical Evaluation (~35% – 45%): This group highly values evidence-based medicine, expects consumer safety protection, and agrees that if a therapy claims to cure an illness, it should prove it under a microscope or in a randomized controlled trial.
- Neutral / Passive Consumers (~40% – 50%): This is the massive middle. They don’t track clinical trials, but they will try acupuncture for back pain or take turmeric if a friend recommends it. They view alternative medicine through a lens of “well, it can’t hurt to try,” evaluating it based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific data.
2. Proponents of Alternative Medicine
This group includes dedicated practitioners, wellness influencers, and avid consumers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).
- Against Critical Evaluation (~70% – 80%): The vast majority actively resist standard scientific evaluation, often viewing figures like Edzard Ernst as hostile prosecutors rather than objective evaluators. They argue that randomized controlled trials are “too reductionist” to capture holistic healing or claim that clinical science is rigged by corporate interests.
- For Critical Evaluation (~5% – 10%): A small minority of CAM practitioners (often in fields like medical acupuncture or osteopathy) welcome rigorous trials, hoping to find a mechanism of action that will grant them mainstream medical legitimacy and insurance coverage.
- Neutral (~10% – 15%): These are individuals who focus strictly on the individual client experience. They don’t care about data or institutional pushback either way; their attitude is simply “if my client says they feel better, that is the only science I need.”
3. Skeptics & Pro-Science Advocates
This demographic comprises secular organizations, evidence-based medical professionals, and science communicators who actively follow work like Ernst’s.
- Against Critical Evaluation (<1%): Virtually non-existent in this group, as evaluation is their core tenet. The only micro-fraction here might be extreme fringe elements who feel certain alternative therapies are so fundamentally absurd (like breatharianism) that evaluating them is a waste of scientific funding.
- For Critical Evaluation (~90% – 95%): The overwhelming majority. They strongly defend the stance that there is no such thing as “alternative” medicine—there is only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. They view critical evaluation as an ethical necessity for patient safety.
- Neutral (~5%): A tiny sliver who may agree with the premise of science but feel indifferent about fighting the cultural battle against wellness trends, preferring to let people believe what they want as long as it isn’t directly killing them.
The Reality of the “Viral Sharing Power”
The Disparity: While alternative health advocates outnumber skeptics in raw volume and content creation—churning out high-yield, emotionally comforting narratives—the pro-science corrections achieve highly concentrated “viral bursts.”
When a prominent alternative health claim is cleanly and definitively debunked by data, it provides a highly shareable, “gotcha” piece of content for the large, silent neutral majority and the highly active skeptic network. A data-driven correction acts as a high-utility intellectual tool, allowing regular people to cut through multi-million dollar wellness marketing, which is why a single well-structured critique can match or outpace the reach of thousands of individual wellness posts.
______________________
I know, there are good reasons for being cautious about such AI analyses. Yet, unless someone can point me to more reliable data, I will go with this one – not least because it coincides with my own experience and also because I quite like its findings.
Yesterday, I received a comment that ended stating: “… this site, and quite possibly Edzard, has well and truly lost the plot.” The author has made many comments before that led me to ignore him; so, I did not think twice about what he had to express. Yet, later it started me wondering what people feel about my blog and my work in general. I have to admit that I know very little about these questions. What is more, I have no idea how to find out.
What does one do in such a situation?
Yes, you guessed it, one asks AI. Specifically, I asked AI (Gemini) what people state about me and my work on social media.
Here is the response:
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter and the world’s first professor in this field, occupies a highly polarized space in public and academic discourse. Because he evaluates alternative therapies strictly through the lens of evidence-based medicine, opinions of him are cleanly split based on how the observer views the relationship between science and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
1. The Pro-Evidence & Skeptical Community
Within mainstream medicine, scientific research, and skeptical organizations, Ernst is widely praised as a heroic, objective defender of public health.
- Rigorous Science First: Proponents point out that Ernst is uniquely qualified to critique CAM because he is formally trained in multiple modalities and practiced them early in his career. Online advocates frequently rally around his blunt philosophy on medicine. As Ernst famously co-wrote in his book Trick or Treatment:
“There is either medicine that is effective or not, medicine that is safe or not. So-called alternative therapies need to be assessed and then classified as good medicines or bogus medicines.”
- The Defender of Patient Safety: On social media, users routinely share his warnings regarding the “indirect harm” of alternative medicine, arguing that unscientific advice can be fatal. Ernst summarized this stance sharply in a peer-reviewed paper: “Alternative practitioner’s claims about ‘root causes’ and holistic care are usually pure nonsense; their pampering may be agreeable, but it can undoubtedly cost lives.”
- A “Whistleblower” Against Pseudo-Science: Proponents view him as a courageous figure who faced severe institutional backlash—including losing his department’s funding after publicly criticizing King Charles III (then the Prince of Wales) for promoting homeopathy. On platforms like Reddit, supporters echo the sentiment that Ernst “stands up for clinical truth when institutions bow to royal influence and political correctness.”
2. The CAM Practitioner & Advocate Community
Among alternative healthcare providers, natural health advocates, and some “integrated medicine” proponents, Ernst is viewed with deep hostility and suspicion.
- “The Scourge of Alternative Medicine”: Detractors frequently use social media to label him as a close-minded dogmatist who is fundamentally biased. A common refrain in CAM forums and X replies accuses him of severe bias: “Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
- Accusations of Scientific Flaws: Specific professional groups have actively challenged his data. For example, within the chiropractic community, critics point to his reviews on the dangers of spinal manipulation and claim he misattributed injuries caused by untrained practitioners to qualified chiropractors. In a formal response published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, chiropractic researchers directly attacked his methodology, stating:
“Ernst, by incorrectly labelling care providers as chiropractors… has added to the over-reporting of deaths… the fact that the care providers were not chiropractors is easily confirmed.”
- Institutional Deafness: On wellness blogs and natural health spaces, critics state that his clinical, data-first approach misses the point of holistic healing entirely. As one practitioner noted in an online debate: “He treats patients like spreadsheets. He completely disregards the mind-body connection, individual patient testimony, and the cold reality that conventional medicine fails millions of people every day, forcing them to look elsewhere.”
While Edzard Ernst is swimming against a massive volume of alternative health advocates who view him as their “nemesis reserving his most poisonous venom for their professions,” his data-driven, pro-science corrections achieve significantly higher viral sharing power among the public.
_____________
Nothing truly new, of course, but quite interesting nevertheless, I thought.
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.
Spinal manipulative therapies, including chiropractic and osteopathic maneuvers, are widely practiced for musculoskeletal complaints. However, serious complications such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak with subsequent intracranial hypotension (IH) have been described. The pathophysiological mechanism is presumed to involve mechanical stress on the spinal dura during high-velocity movements, leading to dural tears, particularly in the cervicothoracic region.
A team of Italian neuroscientists conducted a scoping review in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, through a comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus. They complemented the review with an illustrative case from their own institution.
The researchers identified 21 eligible papers, including 21 patients with IH following spinal manipulation. Most patients were women (81%), aged 29-54 years, and the majority underwent cervical maneuvers.
SMT techniques vary, most often involving high-velocity cervical maneuvers. The most frequent were axial tension with rotation in seven cases (33.3%), unspecified cervical manipulation in four cases (19%), and thoracic spinal manipulation in two cases (9.5%). Less common single-case techniques included rotation with hyperextension, combined cervical and thoracic mobilization, axial tension with lateral flexion, and occipital/shoulder tension technique (n = 1 case each).
Symptom onset was typically within the first week, and all presented with orthostatic headache, often accompanied by nausea, neck pain, tinnitus, or visual disturbances. Neuroimaging consistently revealed features of IH, with pachymeningeal enhancement and subdural collections as the most frequent findings; spinal imaging frequently demonstrated extradural CSF collections. Management was conservative in about one-third of cases, but most required epidural blood patching, which was effective in the majority. Surgical repair was necessary in rare, refractory cases, particularly in the presence of structural spinal abnormalities. Overall prognosis was favorable, with 95% of patients achieving full recovery.
The authors’ illustrative case highlights the potential for severe complications such as subdural hematomas and recurrence if the underlying leak is not addressed:
A 65-year-old patient without a previous history of headache presented with a progressively worsening headache, with orthostatic features, poorly responsive to medical therapy, that has lasted for the past 20 days. The patient denied any recent trauma. He reported having undergone cervical osteopathic manipulations within the past 3 months for recurrent cervicalgia. A brain MRI without contrast was performed, showing a large bilateral subdural hematoma with significant mass effect on the cortical gyri. The patient was admitted to the emergency department and underwent neurosurgical evacuation of a bilateral chronic subdural hematoma via burr holes. Subsequently, endovascular embolization of the middle meningeal arteries was performed as an adjunctive treatment to reduce the risk of recurrence. The surgical procedure was performed without complications. A cranial CT scan showed a reduction in the volume of the hematoma. Therefore, the patient was discharged. However, after a transient improvement in the symptoms, the patient continued to present a fluctuating headache without positional features, with four to five episodes per month. He was readmitted to our clinic and, upon arrival at the ER, a head CT scan showed an increase in pneumocephalus and a recurrence of the hematoma. The following day, an MRI of the neuraxis with contrast was performed, which revealed radiological findings suggestive of IH: pachimeningeal enhancement, subdural fluid collection, dural venous engorgement, cervical spinal longitudinal extradural collection, and effacement of the suprasellar cistern. The Bern score was 7. Given these findings, a surgical revision of the previous burr holes was performed without periprocedural complications. After the first day, a non-targeted epidural blood patch (EBP) was performed under local anesthesia by injecting 16 mL of autologous blood into the L3–L4 epidural space. The procedure was uneventful. A cranial CT scan showed satisfactory surgical outcomes, highlighting a reduction in the volume of the hematoma and of the pneumoencephalus. The patient was subsequently discharged with complete resolution of the headache.
The authors concluded that clinicians should recognize the possibility of CSF leaks after spinal manipulation, especially in patients with new-onset orthostatic headache.
I feel compelled to point out that, considering the multiple risks of upper spinal manipulations and the almost total lack of evidence of benefit from such treatments, the risk/benefit balance of spinal manipulation is clearly not positive. It follows, I think, that it would be wise for patients not to allow such therapies being carried out, and for healthcare professionals to discourage them.
Dame Shirley Porter died on May 2. She passed away in Herzliya, Israel, where she had spent much of her time since the early 2000s. Dame Shirley had been the former leader of Westminster City Council and a dominant figure in 1980s UK municipal politics. Once hailed as the “Iron Lady of the town halls,” her career was ultimately defined by the “homes for votes” scandal, which led to her being labeled by the district auditor as the “most corrupt” politician of her era.
The daughter of Tesco founder Sir Jack Cohen, Porter used her wealth to influence both politics and public policy. Beyond the well-documented legal battles over her misuse of council powers – which eventually saw her pay a £12.3m settlement in 2004 – Porter was a prolific, if often controversial, philanthropist. Notably, she was the primary financial backer of the Smallwood Report (2005). Entitled The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS, the report was commissioned by the then Prince of Wales and written by economist Christopher Smallwood. The study was heavily criticized by myself and several others for advocating that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to be funded by the UK taxpayer. The editor of The Lancet, dismissed the findings as “dangerous nonsense” and I suggested the report’s pro-SCAM conclusions were written befor anyone had even looked at the evidence.
Dame Shirely was also a trustee of the London Institute for Mathematical Sciences and as a co-founder of the Porter Foundation. Through these organizations, she funded major capital projects including the Porter School of Environmental Studies at Tel Aviv University and various galleries at the V&A and the National Portrait Gallery.
She is survived by her daughter, Linda.
Despite overwhelming evidence proving that homeopathics are pure placebos, a faction of German healthcare professionals – predominantly people who profit from homeopathy – continues to argue against their removal from statutory insurance. They claim that defunding homeopathy would eliminate vital treatment options, ultimately driving patients toward more expensive conventional interventions. However, from a health economics perspective, this argument is fundamentally flawed; subsidizing treatments that lack proven efficacy is not a cost-saving measure, but rather a misallocation of limited healthcare resources.
Recognizing this inconsistency, German policymakers have finally shifted towards a more evidence-based approach. The federal cabinet recently approved a draft law to reform the statutory health insurance system, which includes a pivotal provision: homeopathic and anthroposophic medicines, along with their associated services, will no longer be eligible for reimbursement as optional benefits (Satzungsleistungen) by public insurers.
This legislative move serves as a long-overdue correction to a historically irrational policy that was initiated by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Excluding these treatments, the government is now finally acknowledging that public healthcare contributions should not fund therapies devoid of scientific backing. This decision brings Germany in line with other European countries like France and the UK, and marks a significant alignment of national policy with the dual principles of evidence-based medicine and responsible fiscal management.
At its core, this reform addresses a long-standing critique of how so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has been integrated into the German healthcare system. For many decades, institutional tolerance allowed ineffective treatments to gain a veneer of legitimacy and public financing. Consequently, this shift is more than a mere technical adjustment; it represents a symbolic turning point in the relationship between science, medicine, and public policy.
The removal of homeopathy from insurance coverage is undoubtedly both scientifically justified and economically imperative. It signals a decisive transition of German medicine towards a more rational, evidence-based healthcare system that prioritizes proven outcomes over tradition.
Zack Polanski the current Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, previously worked as a professional “cognitive hypnotherapist”.
My own assessment of hypnotherapy states that is the use of a trance-like state (hypnosis) for therapeutic purposes. It can be traced back to ancient cultures, but more recently Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) introduced hypnotherapy into medicine. Initially Mesmer was highly successful—until a Royal Commission investigated his method of ‘animal magnetism’ and concluded its effects were entirely due to imagination. Hypnotherapy induces in many but not all individuals a state of deep relaxation that is potentially helpful in a range of conditions. Today, there are different schools of hypnotherapy, e.g. Ericksonian hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioural hypnotherapy, curative hypnotherapy. Various different healthcare professionals practise hypnotherapy, including doctors, dentists, psychologists and nurses. Hypnotherapy is used to treat many conditions or symptoms, from pain and stress to irritable bowel syndrome and drug dependency. The evidence from clinical trials is mixed. Most systematic reviews emphasise the often poor-quality of the primary studies, e.g.:
“Hypnosis reduces pain intensity and anxiety ratings in adults undergoing burn wound care. However, because of the limitations discussed, clinical recommendations are still premature.”
“Due to exploratory designs and high risk of bias, the effectiveness of hypnosis or hypnotherapy in stress reduction remains still unclear.”
“There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision.”
“We have not shown that hypnotherapy has a greater effect on six month quit rates than other interventions or no treatment. The effects of hypnotherapy on smoking cessation claimed by uncontrolled studies were not confirmed by analysis of randomised controlled trials.”
“Current research concerning the efficacy of hypnosis to relieve insomnia is lacking in key methodological elements”
Contrary to what is often claimed, hypnotherapy is not entirely free of adverse effects. It has been associated with the ‘false memory syndrome’ where unpleasant recollections that have never occurred are implanted into the patient’s brain. Hypnotherapy should not be used by patients who suffer from psychoses or personality disorders.
Polanski’s practice was based at a clinic on Harley Street, a London district renowned for private healthcare. His work focused on personal development, confidence building, and body-image issues. Polanski’s hypnotherapy career became a subject of public scrutiny due to a 2013 report by The Sun newspaper, in which it was claimed that during a consultation, Polanski offered to use hypnosis to facilitate breast enlargement. While Polanski later stated the piece was a “misleading” representation of his methods and intended as an experiment in internal self-image, recent investigative reporting has cast doubt on his subsequent narrative.
Although Polanski has frequently asserted that he apologized for the article “the day after” its publication in a BBC radio interview. This claim is, however, contested. In a 2013 interview with BBC Radio Humberside, Polanski reportedly discussed the technique and stated that “the evidence is growing” regarding its efficacy. Independent analysis of the clinical evidence-base for hypnotherapy fails to find good evidence regarding physical outcomes. Similarly, the evidence regarding the efficacy of hypnotherapy for personal development and confidence building is at best varied, with outcomes often depending on the specific application and individual context. My own assessment does not arrive at a positive conclusion.
Polanski has claimed he was misrepresented in the Sun article. Yet, he also wrote in a 2019 blog post that he did not believe the journalist had done a “bad job” or misrepresented him. In that same post, he noted that the coverage led to numerous inquiries from men seeking similar hypnotic treatments for other physical augmentations, all of which he stated he declined.
The “breast enlargement” claim has been frequently cited by political opponents and the media to question Polanski’s judgment and credibility. The story has resurfaced repeatedly during his political campaigns, including through confrontations from members of the public and intense scrutiny during his time as leader.
Polanski maintains that his background in hypnotherapy provides him with unique insights into mental health and communication, which he views as assets in his political role. I would add that, for many of the conditions for which it is promoted, hypnotherapy is not an evidence-based treatment.
Polanski has expressed regret for the “distraction” the story has caused his party, even as critics continue to challenge the consistency of his account regarding the original 2013 events.
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.
