Where do you stand?

Should alternative medicine be taught in medical schools?



View results after you vote
Voting opened on Apr 17th 2012

Readers' comments



Also the above article has included some negatives which are no longer held up to be the truth. The Lancet report was found to be flawed and the 2010 parliamentary debate biased.

Further, I don't know what is wrong with Journalism today. Seems no one can get their facts straight." The number of homeopathic hospitals in Britain is dwindling."

Just three days ago, this was in the news:
"Bath PCT ...have agreed to continue to fund the homeopathic service - ie GP referrals to the homeopathic treatment with the excellent doctors at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital and their outreach clinics in Bath and Devon will continue."

Please get up to date Journalists!


The reasons why RCT's are not the last word in trials is detailed in this link:


It's written by a Doctor and the comments sections shows several doctor's in support of homeopathy. Its from Pulse-a site for health professionals only.
Overall- a lot more well informed than the guys commenting against homeopathy here.
Further to this I would like to add that most people with chronic conditions are on a cocktail of drugs. Do RCT's take this into account when they test for their new drugs going to market?
Answer: NO.

Also the aetiology of chronic disease shows that people often end up with several debilitating conditions/diseases often exacerbated by pharmaceutical drugs. Are these multiple conditions addressed in RCT's?
Answer: NO.

William Alderson

Those arguing against homeopathy in these comments have kept making demands for a specific form of evidence. Though the demand takes the form of "robust, independent evidence that homeopathy works better than placebo" or evidence "published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal", it comes down to replicated large-scale double-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy.

What should not be forgotten is that this form of evidence costs. For the private sector to invest in it, it must see a profit, but it is in the nature of homeopathy that it is impossible that such research into existing homeopathic medicines will generate such profit.

In other words, this research must be conducted by non-profit-making organisations, such as the public sector. Hardly surprisingly, opponents are demanding that no public money should be spent on homeopathic research.

Given that good quality evidence already does exist, and has existed for over 150 years. this appears to be a cynical attempt to prevent any further evidence being produced.

Demands for evidence also ignore the fact that there is no scientific standard of efficacy. Instead, a standard is arbitrarily selected for a particular RCT, and changing the standard will change the measure of efficacy, even though the real action of the drug has not changed. This is why so many drugs allegedly proved to be efficacious are then withdrawn because they are more dangerous and less effective in real life than in the trials.

Science is not about evidence alone, but about evidence which tests a general theory. Writers on conventional medicine acknowledge that there is no theory of health and disease underpinning conventional medicine, and so they make it clear that the abstract evidence of RCTs has to be modified by expertise derived from clinical practice.

Homeopathy has a robust underlying theory and its practitioners test this theory against the evidence from clinical practice every day. They and their patients have found that it works. Conventional medical practitioners could lear a lot from studying homeopathy in theory and practice.

AlanHenness in reply to William Alderson

I've not asked for any 'specific form of evidence', just something good and robust, yet none has been forthcoming.

Should I just start asking for woolly, inconclusive, shoddy, unverified and unverifiable 'evidence' and be content with that?

Why is there no good, independent evidence for homeopathy?

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

Alan you asked for good independent evidence.
In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.
--13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
--6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
--5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
--5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
--5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
--4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
--18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
--8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological
problems, and
--13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.
Of course this will be unacceptable to you because let's face it-all and any evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy is not acceptable to you right?
The assertion of Medical Doctor's that homeopathy works is not okay with you. The assertion by Homeopaths and the millions of people who use homeopathy is not okay by you either.
Peer reviewed articles in the British Medical Journal and the British Pharmacological Journal, among a host of others, is not okay by you either.
We've been down this road before. Let's face it, you are not interested in facts. Your argument stems from the fact that you cannot/will not accept that anything outside of the bio chemical model of health can possibly work.
I have seen you trashing everything from Acupuncture to Massage to Chinese Medicine to Naturopathy (nutrition). Lately I have seen you trashing Organic Food.
As for the organic food issue I have seen you saying that there is no good quality or robust evidence to say that organic food is better than non-organic!!!!!!!
Well firstly I doubt that is true and in the highly unlikely event that it were...do you really need a scientific report to tell you that putting pesticides and toxic ingredients into our food is detrimental to your health?
Sir, I think you doth protest too much.

William Alderson in reply to AlanHenness

In the London cholera epidemic of 1854 figures were collated on behalf of the British government for treatment at all the hospitals in London. The records were supervised by independent inspectors. In the case of the homeopathic hospital, the appropriate inspector refused to visit, and another inspector reluctantly agreed to do it. He acknowledged that he was "prepossessed against the homeopathic system".

Those hospitals using conventional medicine reported mortality rates of 46-61.9%, which are in line with the rate expected today when no treatment is given (50-60%).

The homeopathic hospital had a mortality rate of 33.3% for those taken into care in the worst two stages of the disease (4 and 5). It had no fatalities at all among those taken into care in stage 3.

An attempt was made to suppress these facts, leading to a debate in Parliament.

Hpuse of Commons (1854-1855). Return to an Address of the Honourable House of Commons. Sessional Papers, no. 255. xlv: 189-226

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

guest-ilnllwa said:



Also, it really isn't any good presenting evidence in the kind of summary you have without providing its citation information so others can go and read it for themselves.

Your comments on other topics are, of course, irrelevant to the subject here - homeopathy.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

Wrong-the subject here is alternative medicine Alan! The headline of the article says so. However I think the way the article is written belies the on-going media attack on homeopathy. As I said before Journalism in this country has become very shoddy. The article has the headline alternative medicine-which could include herbal medicine, acupuncture, body work such as reiki and shiatsu etc but somehow the article ends up being about homeopathy! Strange that. And somehow Alan you have managed to make every post you have made to be about homeopathy. What is going on here?

I would suggest it's just another money spinner for a magazine/newspaper as skeptics and those who want freedom of choice come to this page to debate this really rather pointless issue. I say pointless because the history of efficacy and safety of alternative medicine has a history of hundreds of years, particularly traditional chinese medicine-on which many alternative therapies are based.

I know that Alan likes to believe that the rest of the populous aside from him, is gullible and unable to assess what treatments are of benefit to their own health...I would suggest that the opposite is true and that the increasing popularity of alternative medicine is exactly because of its history of efficacy and safety.

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine and the predominant topic in the comments. However, you are right - the article refers to alternative therapies in general.


You know nothing about what I like and your characterisation of me is utterly wrong and without foundation! I do not think that people who use alt med are gullible - neither do I believe those selling them are charlatans! So, please be a bit more careful in your assumptions.


You can suggest it if you like, but that doesn't make it true. What would substantiate your claims is good evidence!

Would you rather discuss the lack of good evidence for reiki? Acupuncture? Reflexology?

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

I am happy to discuss the good evidence for supporting the ongoing integration of complimentary/alternative medicines and therapies into mainstream healthcare.
I'm afraid I am aware of your beliefs on this subject. I have looked at your blog and twitter and the many comments you make in articles such as this one, and believe my 'characterisation' of you to be pretty spot on. Although with the caveat that while you present yourself as someone who is concerned about the gullible public_I do not believe your concern to be genuine. Rather I simply see your ongoing obsessive involvement in this kind of debate to be about a personal belief that you hold that has nothing to do with what most people want and to be frank-deserve-which is access to alternatives other than pharmaceutical drugs.

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

The difference between us might be that - despite what you might like to believe - I *will* change my views, if and when robust evidence is found.

Could you say what would make you change your views on, say, homeopathy or other alt med?

guest-ilnllwa in reply to guest-ilnllwa

Ultimately Alan as I have said before, the debate/debacle that is ongoing in the comments pages of these articles, is of little relevance in the reality of everyday life. The reality remains that the NHS chooses to keep homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic,massage, osteopathy, clinical hypnotherapy and other therapies as part of its service, although it would be a great benefit if there were more practitioners and services available.

Ultimately they do this because this is what people want. I f people didn't want/use these services then it would follow that there is no place for them, but that is not the case.

That is good evidence in itself and alongside personal experience of the benefit of some of these therapies, it is good enough for me.

The NHS website has the following:


guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

I am unable to say that I would change my views on complimentary/alternative medicine and therapies. I am not swayed by the literature produced by sources who often have vested interests. Using homeopathy in particular has demonstrated to me time and time again that it is safe, effective and that it enacts a lasting cure that does not bypass or compromise the natural systems of my body. A scientific paper based on a biochemical model of health stating otherwise would not sway my opinion no.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to guest-ilnllwa

While the article linked to above is far from comprehensive and does demonstrate a lack of in depth knowledge about complimentary therapies, I have posted it to show that while hospitals still have a long long way to go to become real places for healing, you have to start somewhere and the article shows it is definitely starting. Looks like you have bigger fish to fry Alan that you might have at first thought.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

The fact that you don't like/accept the evidence is really not the problem of scientists, medical professionals, complimentary/alternative therapists or the general public.
It is your problem. Choosing to respond to evidence in the way you do-rubbishing the trials, reports and analysis which show efficacy-only belies how little respect you have for ALL the professionals and individuals I have mentioned above-your audacity never ceases to amaze.

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

I really wish alternative therapists could learn to spell 'complementary' properly! :-)

It's also a pity that you understand so little about science - the way we progress isn't by blindly accepting what someone writes in a paper - it's by constantly criticising everything; finding flaws; finding inaccuracies; spotting miscalculations; correcting flawed statistics; spotting and compensating for bias, so that, eventually we get closer and closer to something that really is robust and stands up to scrutiny. Once that's been done, we can be more certain that what we then know is a better understanding of the world and how it works. It might never be perfect (and no one ever claims it is), but at least we can say that we've done what we can to eliminate the basic errors and misconceptions that we could find.

That is what scientists do, day in and day out - they criticise and point out the flaws in others' research - it is utterly cut-throat, but that is the way to progress - not by uncritical acceptance of established dogma.

The reason I don't like the evidence put forward by homeopaths, etc, is that much of it is fatally flawed, and that means that the conclusions cannot be relied upon. The problem here is that many are not willing or able to open their minds to that fact.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

Well I have to go now. Glad you have been able to laugh-scientific evidence shows it is enormously beneficial to our health!
What is not funny is you are trying to fry not only little fish and big fish at once-you are trying to fry the wrong kind of fish entirely.
We seem to agree that big pharma is corrupt. (it would be hard not to.) I agree that this is not the whole case when looking at the case for complementary medicine.
I don't have time to waste editing my posts for perfect grammar here either despite your school masterish tone.

In all seriousness Alan if you are concerned about the public and the quality of their healthcare, I would suggest you look at the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Currently details are leaking of a global corporate power grab of breathtaking scope -- attacking everything from a free Internet to health and environmental regulations, and we have just 4 days to stop it.

It is essentially a giant global pact, with an international tribunal to enforce it, that has been kept secret for years (even from our lawmakers) and then brought down like a Death Star on our democracies.



guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

In all seriousness Alan if you are concerned about the public having access to a fair and impartial system of healthcare then I would suggest you look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement which...
"...in addition to making drugs unaffordable to people who need them, the economic costs implied by this market distortion are enormous. The latest round of negotiations ends in just four days time.
The latest round of negotiations ends in just four days time.
I think you need to prioritise when it comes to chasing down the perpetrators of fraudulent and underhanded tactics that are more about greed than they are about health and healing.
When we know that this level of corruption exists it can only make sense to integrate more individualised and holistic practices into our healthcare system to ensure than large corporations and pharmaceutical/agrochemical funded science do not have a monopoly over our health and food supply. We need to research and test in a wide range of ways all the myriad of possible medicines and therapies available to us.
I think gunning for people who support and practice complimentary medicine and therapies is a waste of everybody's time when no complimentary therapy has been shown to be responsible for any deaths and has a long history of providing benefit as oppose to conventional medicine which is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and its benefits are easily called into question, most particularly when set against the often dangerous side effects.

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

Thanks for that link - it's very interesting. Thanks also for your opinion on how I should prioritise my time.


'Individualised and holistic' does not imply alternative therapies, though! What we do need are treatments that have good evidence behind them, not ones that don't.


Absolutely. As long as that research is good research (eg finding out *if* a treatment works, not trying just to verify a preconceived notion that it does work - that difference is crucial to science), and we pay attention to the results of that good research and evaluate it properly.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

It is more than interesting, it potentially threatens consumer choice and access worldwide. I didn't post it to score any points.
It does concern me deeply that massive corporations are trying to corner the market in healthcare.
We would all like to see perfect evidence than can be trusted and relied 100% on for efficacy and safety. Such evidence does not exist. (Although alternative medicine has been shown over time and experience to be safe). Modern medicine proves that trials of efficacy and safety are unsatisfactory-with drugs having to be withdrawn from the market daily because of unforeseen, or undisclosed dangers. This is not the case with alternative medicines.
When Doctors, Scientists and other health professionals all state that we need a more comprehensive method of conducting and evaluating trials than we currently have, why do you keep focusing on this narrow area of evaluation?
Your 'not good enough' evidence mantra is itself 'not good enough'. When half of pharmaceutical drugs at least are not properly tested, it is an odd cry indeed from a man who constantly expounds on the virtues of 'proper' medicine.
I still await your response to a previous request made by another poster...we have obliged you many times with evidence for homeopathy, even if you don't accept of it. Now please oblige us with the same since you seem set on certain standards. Can you tell us if the 'proper' medicine that you hold us in such high esteem and that is being tested daily on millions meets these same standards? Since vaccines are a central tenet of modern day healthcare...
*Can you please post a link to a double blind placebo controlled human study demonstrating the efficacy of vaccines? Peer reviewed too please, no anecdotal evidence about "eradicating polio" either please?*

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa


Agreed. But when we do have good evidence that shows treatments not to be effective, we should drop them and look for something that does work. Why should this not apply to disproven therapies like homeopathy?

"(Although alternative medicine has been shown over time and experience to be safe)."

As I said, there are rarely direct harms caused by homeopathy, reiki, reflexology (but there are direct harms from the likes of herbal), but that completely misses the point.


I'm afraid you are showing that you don't understand epidemiology or statistics and this really isn't the place for a statistics 101 course. However, as I mentioned somewhere else, the book 'A Lady tasting Tea' by David Salzburg gives a very readable introduction and an understanding of why we need to understand stats and how they can be used to filter out conclusions from a mass of data.


I have stated that there is a lot wrong with pharmaceutical companies and their research. That does not mean that all medicines have no good evidence. However, the topic of discussion her is the lack of good evidence for alternative therapies. Do you think that homeopaths, researching homeopathy hide negative results in the way that some pharmaceutical companies have done?

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

Was it a question about the lack of evidence for alternative therapies, which, as you rightly pointed out, is what this discussion is supposed to be about. However, I note that I'm waiting for many answers from you about alternative therapies, standards of evidence, the law, regulations, etc.

Of course, you are under no obligation whatsoever to answer any of them.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

It was this question

I think it only fair for me to ask given that you seem to know so much about 'robust evidence' that you give us an example of 'robust' evidence demonstrating the efficacy of vaccines-a central tenet of modern day healthcare...

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

No, but, along with a myriad of other things, it's not something I've looked into and I have never claimed to have either. But can you confirm you agree that it also has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of evidence for alternative therapies?

Perhaps you could answer the question I asked: do you agree that homeopaths and other alternative therapists should abide by the law, regulations and rules? If you have answered it somewhere, I apologise for asking it again but can you point me to your answer or repeat it here?

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

Perhaps it would be better to - finally - get round to discussing what actually constitutes robust evidence? I've mentioned it many times, but no one has said why they think the evidence for homeopathy might be *good* evidence.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

Why are you diverting to laws and regulations? Laws and regulations are a huge and separate issue from the one we seem to be discussing here. Looking through the thread it seems that your main objection to intergrating complementary and alternative medicines into our current healthcare provision is that there is not enough good and/or robust evidence. You appear to have no problem with the fact that there is no double blind placebo controlled human study demonstrating the efficacy of vaccines.
It is these kind of studies that you holding up as being the only robust way to evaluate efficacy. But when allopathic medicine cannot provide such evidence for the efficacy of vaccines-the cornerstone of its model of healthcare-your point becomes moot. There is clearly NO gold standard regarding vaccines.

People can do their own research and they will find a long list of pharmaceutical drugs currently being used by millions that have not been subject to double blind placebo controlled human study demonstrating their efficacy.
I am not implying that there is a conspiracy, I am simply saying that your suggestion that there is some gold standard for allopathic medicine which homeopathy does not adhere to is incorrect. There is no gold standard and the pharmaceutical corporations need to get their own science and their own house in order as does the medical profession before we can start talking about standards.
While you are unable to offer a single link to any such trial for vaccines, I feel that there is no further point discussing with you. You simply can't swallow your own medicine but you're quite happy to try and shove it down everybody else's throats.

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

Because the laws, regulations and rules govern what claims can be made about alternative therapies and by whom! And I'm really not convinced you know what they are.

But trying to shift the discussion onto vaccines is a complete diversion - it might be interesting, but it still has nothing to do with the paucity of evidence for alternative therapies!

We still have barely touched on what constitutes good evidence and I can't understand why you seem to shy away from that. What do you think is an acceptable standard of evidence for a healthcare claim?

But what you seem to want to say, by bringing up vaccines or whatever, is that, because the evidence for vaccines is lacking (and I don't know whether or not that is true), that it's OK for homeopaths to also make claims that are not backed by good evidence! Are you quite happy to be seen as bedfellows of despicable Big Pharma, employing the same tactics as them and making unsubstantiated claims or do you want to be seen as ethical and above all that?

guest-ilnllwa in reply to AlanHenness

That's hardly what I am saying Alan. It is quite clear that your cries for evidence is just a part of your tactics to discredit homeopathy-it is even clear from reading about your anti-homeopathy group The Nightingale Collaboration that you will use such insistent tactics as you post day and night online, often several people under one username. You yourself seem unable to be clear about what you are saying. On the one hand you tout currently available prescription drugs to have been rigorously tested and therefore to be trusted. But when I ask for evidence of this rigorous testing for the cornerstone of our healthcare-vaccination-you can't produce anything.
I am saying that your points are moot. I am saying that pharmaceutical drugs are constantly withdrawn for having serious side effects that somehow did not show up during these so called rigorous tests.
I am saying that the tests that you do purport to be acceptable do not stand up when considered from a holistic point of view. For example, most people with chronic conditions are on a cocktail of drugs.
Do RCT's take this into account when they test for their new drugs going to market? Answer: NO.
Are these multiple conditions addressed in RCT's? Answer: NO.

guest-ilnllwa in reply to guest-ilnllwa

I have to go as I am not being paid to post incessantly.
Despite having been given a vast amount of evidence based science supporting homeopathy, you continue on with your lack of good evidence mantra. It does get tedious. I really do think after seeing your posts here and elsewhere-for some time now-that most people can see that it's a tactic you employ to distort the evidence.
The scenario goes.. "here's a fairly recent Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial which supports the efficacy of homeopathy and is published here in a mainstream science journal":


And you go..."blankety blank"

Catherine Walker

In Germany, Austria, Switzerland and France it is already taught.
50,000 doctors are homeopaths in these countries. In Switzerland, after long research, it is seen as a cost–effective way to provide state medical care.

Those who are truly informed about homeopathy and its benefits know that it can never be assessed by any "this remedy cures that ailment" criteria, but that "this remedy works on that individual" and has real benefits to long–term health.

Vets and pharmacists know it works well too and, just as with medicine, it is included in their teaching in France and the German speaking countries too.

Oreg in reply to AlanHenness

That's a silly game. Why don't you just tell her?

The Swiss actually found the evidence for five types of pseudo medicine, homeopathy included, to be inconclusive. Therefore, the government will gather more evidence and reevaluate it in 2017.


The whole concept of "Placebo" needs to be reviewed. If one looks with a pragmatic eye at the statistical gymnastics necessary to account for placebo in the current memdical paradigm, it is clear that there is something horribly wrong. Medical training has deviated from the humanistic personal approach taught by Osler (and his contemporaries such as Pottenger); and has instead sacrificed the uniqueness of each patient and the potential of all organisms to self-repair on the altars of scientific technique and organisational expediency. The fundamental relationship between emotional/mental/spiritual states and "physical" physiology has been demonstrated to any reasonable persons satisfaction, but just as the different systems of the body are farmed out to specialisations, the mind and the body have been more or less separated by medical progress with as much determination as was applied by Madame guillotine in the French Revolution. Looked at from outside the medical system, double blind placebo trials are essentially a financial and management tool whose main purpose is to provide a semblance of accountability to politicians and a veneer of respectability to everyone else. In reality this is the ONLY area of science that has placed all its eggs in one invesigative basket, and the increasing dependence and blind devotion to PCDBTs bears very little scientific scrutiny when either the general rules of good scientific practice are considered or the holistic (mind-body-"spirit") nature of human physiology is taken into account. CAM equally has its drawbacks, and is hopelessly vague and woffly, but at least on the whole it is more attuned to the reality of what it is to live in a real human body. I am not talking here about all conventional medical doctors or CAM practitioners, because clearly in all human spheres there are more and less empathic people. But institutionally and culturally we would be well served by a bit of a shake up and some opportunity to find common ground.

AlanHenness in reply to guest-ilnllwa

guest-ilnllwa said:

"The pharmaceutical companies are so corrupt"

At least we can agree on something (although I wouldn't rely on Natural News as a reliable source of health information).

Now, do you have any good, independent evidence that homeopathy works better than placebo?


This is not a discussion about homeopathy, but about scientific proof. Several authors (Kleijnen, BMJ 2991, Vandenbroucke, Lancet 1998) concluded that proof for homeopathy was not inferior to proof for conventional medicine. The conclusion of the Lancet in 2005 was based on two undisclosed subsets of 8 out of 110 homeopathy and 6 out of 110 conventional trials. After disclosure these subsets appeared incomparable. In fact, the 2005 comparison in the Lancet showed no difference in efficacy, only better quality in homeopathy trials. The conclusion of the parliamentary committee in 2010 was based on a statistical interpretation that would also discard conventional medicine. Science can be very subjective!
Lex Rutten MD. Breda, Holland


The other matter that no-one appears to have mentioned is the risks connected with conventional medicine. Adverse effects from conventional medicine are the 3rd cause of death in the USA after cancer and cardiovascular disease, it fills 12% of hospital beds in the UK at any one time with people suffering adverse events, it results in 198,000 deaths a year in the EU plus 25000 deaths a year from superbugs ALL OF WHICH COST HEALTH ECONOMIES BILLIONS IN AFTERCARE AND COMPENSATION. The sick joke of it all is that according to BMJ Clinical Evidence only 11% of conventional medicine has any hard evidence to support its use - see here: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisations.html

AlanHenness in reply to economed

economed: The risks of conventional medicine (which always must be balanced against the benefits, of course) do not affect the lack of any good evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy.


And then give the same numbers for homeopathy so we can make a fair comparison.

economed in reply to AlanHenness

Up to the end of 2011, 163 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy have been reported in 140 full papers in peer-reviewed journals. This represents research in 77 different medical conditions. Of these 163 RCTs, 67 (41%) were positive, 11 (7%) negative and 85 (52%) non-conclusive. For further information on sytematic reviews and outcome studies look here: http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/

100s of millions of people use homeopathy worldwide and no doubt it could make similar claims to the ones you make for conventional medicine - if money could be found to pay for the particular type of epidemiological/prevalence research needed.

AlanHenness in reply to economed

I have no idea whose questions you thought you were answering, but it certainly wasn't mine.

But this is not a counting game: you don't get to add up the positives and compare them with the others. You have to take the quality of the evidence into account otherwise you end up including all sorts of dross and nonsense and skewing the answer. And when you take the largest and highest quality trials, the results do not show that homeopathy is any better than placebo.

AlanHenness in reply to economed

But why, despite 200 years, does this evidence not exist? Why haven't homeopaths found the money to do proper research? But without it, how do you know that homeopathy is successful? How do you know it's not killing millions more than it claims to cure?


As A HOMEOPATHIC DOCTOR I am totally convinced of the importance of
complementary medicine!!

Too often, also with children and animals, I have seen too
impressivw results...in acute cases within 3 minutes!!

If a remedy does not give a reaction within 5 minutes, in acute
cases, I start to look for another remedy.....which then acts

Right now I am begining to work with bioresonance, the 21st
century- approach to homeopathy. Exciting!!!

Marie-Therese Feringa, homeopathis physician in Hilversum, Holland.


If you view research on the placebo effect comparing orthodox medicine and homeopathy, in randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials, you will see that there is only a 1% difference between the two. It is often forgotten that there can be a placebo effect in ANY treatment. I have successfully treated conditions where the orthodox medical profession have declared the patients symptoms to be 'incurable' so surely had the patient been inclined toward a placebo effect they would have been cured by antibiotics and steroid treatment? Homeopathy is no more a placebo than any other form of medicine, and in fact often works where other treatments have failed. Bring the entire medical profession together to work together and do the population a favour.

JuliaClaire in reply to AlanHenness

Not evidence you will consider, but if you look into Hydradenitis Suppurative as an example, you will find people suffering without hope. I currently have a case where this has cleared up for several months where drug treatment has failed. I appreciate that you will brush this to one side as it is against your beliefs. However, I can assure you, my patient is beside herself with relief having suffered severe pain and discomfort for some years. That is good enough for me. Also, you may wish to consider that many Homeopaths offer free treatment, without a fat wage packet or performance related bonuses. So to dismiss us as quacks praying on weak minded people is insulting to all concerned. Each to his/her own.

AlanHenness in reply to JuliaClaire


How on earth do you know what evidence I will consider or what my beliefs might be?

If you have good evidence, please provide a link to it.

I have said nothing about homeopaths being paid. This is because it is irrelevant to whether there is good evidence that homeopathy is efficacious.

I have also said nothing about homeopaths preying on 'weak minded people' and I have insulted no one.


Oh dear me this poll upsets me greatly. I hope that the link has been posted on pro-homoeopathy websites and the poll thus rigged by an influx of supporters. Elsewise I weep for the readers of the economist!


If homeopathy would be teached to medical students, these young docters will know what is true about homeopathy and what not in stead of believing stories about homeopathy not being investigated properly,i.e. doubleblind etc., which is of course not true. There are many good studies that prove homeopaty is effective. And we can see it in our daily practice. I want young docters to enjoy this in future.
Trudy van den Berg, the Netherlands

guest-ioomimo in reply to AlanHenness

Dear Allan,
Yes I can. Last year this study was made in Holland. I cut the information from the paper and pasted it below. It shows that animals react on homeopathy. It gives us an opportunity to diminish the danger of resistant bacteria by using so many antibiotics in animals. I think it is a great study.
Ever seen a pig having a placebo-effect? And if so, how could this placebo effect be bigger with homeopathy than with antibiotics?
Trudy van den Berg, the Netherlands
"Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics
in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in
neonatal piglets" by I Camerlink1,*, L Ellinger2, EJ Bakker3 and EA Lantinga1
1Biological Farming Systems Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
of diarrhoea.
the homeopathically treated litters, there was less transmission and duration appeared
shorter. Homeopathy (2010) 99, 57–62.

guest-ioomimo in reply to AlanHenness


Dear Allan,
It was published in a peer-reviewd scientific journal named Homeopathy.
I am glad that you are interested in reading the whole article. Most opposers don't because they decide beforehand that it is not possible, so why read more? I want to warn you, reading with interest could result in understanding and seeing homeopathy as a serieus kind of healthcare.

I will explain why this study is very interesting for human medicine. Medical students learn that people die in hospital from infections because bacteria become more and more resistand to antibiotics. The cause of this problem is the tremendous use of antibiotics in animal farms. Antibiotics are given to prevent bacterial diseases in animals.
This study shows that with using homeopathy to prevent diarroe in pigs you do not need to give antibiotics. It will save human lives!
Furthermore it is a lot cheaper. This must be interesting for the economist.
Enjoy reading the study.
Trudy van den Berg, the Netherlands

Peter Vintner in reply to guest-ioomimo

Homeopathy is a placebo, so in a randomised controlled study the piglets get a placebo or a placebo. Are you suggesting this is serious, or even vaguely scientific? Do you actually understand how any of this works. This is a ridiculous, pointless study. It's not even worthy of the description.

I recommend you read up on Cargo Cult Science. Google it.

A real study would compare the homeopathic so-called remedy with the best available remedy - in this case antibiotics.
Also, "seemed to be" isn't exactly scientific is it!

Just so I can be sure you understand what homepathy is, have you any idea how many molecules of water you would need in order to find a single molecule of supposed ingredient in a 30K dilution? Perhaps you'd be kind enough say?

guest-ioomimo in reply to Peter Vintner

Dear Peter,
Isn't it interesting that the one "placebo" works significantly better than the other placebo?
If in a study one anti-biotic is compared to another anti-biotic and the second is significantly better, you won't mention placebo-effect at all.
There are different "real" studies.
Calling a serious study "ridiculous and pointless" is not scientific at all, it is disrespectfull.
This is my last comment. I have other things to do. Finding a good remedy for my patient is a lot more important for me. If homeopathy did not work, I would not be sitting here telling you that it is important doctors should learn homeopathy in college. That was the poll about, wasn't it?
I wish you all a healthy life, with or without homeopathy.
Trudy van den Berg

guest-ioomimo in reply to AlanHenness

Dear Allen,
I fear that you only listen to yourself. If you really read every comment in this discussion, you would know the answers already. The problem is that you seem not interested at all in my answers. You only want to make your own statement. If ever in your life this becomes an obsticle for you, there are very good homeopathic remedies to help you. Now I am going to see a next patient. For me, seeing people get cured in my practice is the evidence it works. Why would I be a homeopatic doctor if nobody got cured? They would never send their relatives and friends to me if they did not experience a big change for the better. I do not mind you not believing it. It is your choice. I had a good time chatting with you and whish you a healthy life. Enjoy it. One tip: beeing positive and friendly is much more fun than breaking other people down, believe me.
Trudy van den Berg


If regular therapy is the best there is why people still looking for an alternative?
The only true and succesfull scientist is a scientist that has the courage too overcome the fixed ideas of his teachers.
It is a matter of time that the Berlin wall around the regular medecine will fall.
Martin Dicke


I have been using Homoeopathy for over 20 years and IT WORKS FOR ME!!

AlanHenness in reply to magnannymouse

That's the problem. Do you think that, just because it might have worked for you that we should simply roll it out for everyone? Or do you think we should do some checking first to see it it works for anyone else? That's been done, of course, and lo and behold, when tested independently, homeopathy works no better than placebo. So if we did use it for everyone instead of medicines that have some evidence they do work, we would be depriving them of those treatments. Is that OK with you?

magnannymouse in reply to AlanHenness

I believe Homoeopathy is classed as Complementary. Just who is talking about replacing conventional with Homoeopathic? I most certainly am not so why were you?
My own personal experience is that it works and it is my own personal choice to use it. What you do, what you believe, how you interpret is your choice, I just don't happen to agree with you. I'm not criticising conventional medicine but I am supporting Homoeopathy.

Peter Vintner in reply to magnannymouse

Just so you know, homeopaths don't consider it as complementary. It is supposed to be a system of medicine based on the "law of similars" and miasms, and the idea that the more a substance is diluted the more potent it becomes. Homeopathy has nothing to do with treating pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, prions, or fungus. According to homeopathy they are not the cause of disease. Homeopathy predates the germ theory of disease.
But let's say you do think homeopathy is complementary. In what way is it complementary. How do you know whether it is the homeopathy or the real medicine doing its job. It's interesting you don't actually say what homeopathy works for, or on whose advice you use it.


Homeopathy is in good company with electricity and anesthetics as each are very useful and effective but we dont know how they work! Homeopathy is the 2nd widest used medicine in the world and has been providing non-toxic and effective health care for over 200 years. FYI Ayurveda medicine has been around for at least 10,000 years. TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) can be documented at 5,000

Peter Vintner in reply to LynneJulie

Pretty wrong on so many levels all round there.
Homeopathy has never cured anything, ever. It won't and can't, and it is exceptionally well understood. Of course it's not in the interests of anyone making a living from it to admit that it is bogus medicine, but that doesn't alter the facts.
You like others cannot provide or cite a single documented, evidenced and corroborated case study of an incontrovertible cure of anything at all, ever. Homeopathy is nothing more than a simple, effective scam, potentially far bigger than anything Bernie Madoff ever laid a thieving finger on. It costs nothing to make, is exceptionally profitable and is being marketed all over the place - except is has success record absolutely no better than the giving of big hugs and warm words. It's a very attractive proposition for anyone wanting to make a few quid taking advantage of the worried well.
As regards electricity I think you'll find it's pretty well understood - what it is, how and why it works. You know what electrons are? You know that computer connected to the Internet you typed your evidence-free anecdote on? Unless you live in the 18th century of course.
Ask yourself, with so called ancient medicines, why people dropped like flies at the outbreak of various plagues and blights. Why was the average lifespan so low? Why did people die from blood poisoning caused by tooth abscess, tetanus, appendicitis, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, broken bones...? Why was the child mortality rate so horrendously high? Those ancients weren't so wise when looking at the current sum of human knowledge. Ancient medicine was severely limited, mostly superstitious and utterly crap.
Please don't bring up the subject of willow bark and aspirin, unless you're going to acknowledge the general absence of bird shit, slime and insects from modern packets of aspirin.
Traditional Chinese medicine... ah, the mystery of the Orient, and all that nonsense. Same questions about high infant mortality, short lifespans, death from plagues, vulnerability to diseases that are now treatable or curable.
Such is the accumulation of the sum of human knowledge.
Ptolemy of Alexandria plotted the stars in the second century AD. He had no idea of the different distances to those stars and planets, or the 3D space in which they exist. Nearly 2,000 years later there are those who still believe in astrological predictions made from Ptolemy's 2D representations of his sky, in spite of the fact that humans have learned so much more about the Universe in that time that belief in astrology is rendered demonstrably nonsensical, and its practitioners either mendacious or chronically deluded (most likely mendacious). This isn't to insult Ptolemy, because he didn't have any of the increasingly sophisticated and sensitive technology that incremental scientific discovery has made available to modern astronomers and cosmologists. The heavenly bodies are not what Ptolomy thought they were.
The same applies to medicine. If it's been around for 10,000 years it is exactly what didn't help those ancients get through their miserable and excruciatingly painful short lives. Medicine like astronomy has moved on a bit and has taken to discarding falsehoods and ineffective treatments. Superstition was fine for 10,000 years ago. It was mostly fine actually for 200 years ago. Thanks to the scientific method though superstition and "tradition" no longer good enough and it is thoroughly dishonest to suggest otherwise.

LynneJulie in reply to Peter Vintner

Philip, you sound rather unhealthily angry which is never good for the human body to suffer for long - there are a wide range of homeopathic remedies for anger and I would be happy to send you one on a complimentary basis if you were willing to share with me more of your physical, mental emotional symptoms and modalities....oh and by the way, I trained to become a homeopath simply because it was the only medicine that provided my son with non-toxic solutions to his problematic behavioural and health problems and though he missed half his schooling and went to a number of schools he has just completed 4 A levels and is about to take up a place at a top UK Uni to read Engineering. I believe beyond question that this would not have been possible without the healing capacity of homeopathic treatment. Furthermore I see regular proof of the benefits of homeopathy through the regular referrals I receive from my patients.What proof can you give me that supports your theory that it doesnt work?

Peter Vintner in reply to LynneJulie

The fact that you can't get a simple thing such as my name correct may be indicative of something about you with regard to attention to detail.

However, with respect, fraud is fraud. And homeopathy is fraud just like any other consumer fraud.

You can offer me whatever you wish, but what you simply can't do is present a documented, evidenced and corroborated case study of homeopathy ever having incontrovertibly cured anything at all.

You would think that after 200+ years of meticulous note taking and record keeping, and supposed research, that homeopaths could come up with millions of such cases. Not anecdotes or stories, but actual documented case studies of incontrovertible cures with supporting, corroborating evidence. But no such case studies exist, not even one.

So it really doesn't matter what you or anyone chooses to believe. You are mistaken. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would always question their perception. You make claims about homeopathy which are completely unsubstantiated, and I suspect not complete with regard to detail. You trust only to your own beliefs without any reference to actual reality

Also it is transparently disingenuous and dishonest to make claims of efficacy without a shred of evidence (or even a single case study) in support, then invite someone to prove the contrary.

If I claim the existence of unicorns and invite you to prove they don't exist, you would consider that logical I suppose?
If I offer a medical remedy consisting of powdered unicorn horn, then claim it cures all forms of cancer and fungal diseases, and that I know of hundreds of people cured, you would accept that I suppose given that you can't provide evidence to the contrary.

I think you don't know the first thing about biology or chemistry, or how the human body works. If you are an honest person practising homeopathy then the first honest thing you could do would be to study basic chemistry and biology, because everything you think you know about homeopathy simply isn't consistent with how the real world works. If homeopathy works then the sum of human knowledge with regard to biology, chemistry and physics is completely wrong, and everything you derive from that knowledge doesn't exist or doesn't work.

Homeopathy is, just like the flat Earth and the geocentric planetary system, a demonstrably and incontrovertibly false idea. To continue to claim it is some kind of efficacious system of medicine in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (the 200 years worth of absolute absence of any genuine documented case studies) is without doubt dishonest.

Homeopathy is bogus medicine. Its practitioners make bogus claims because it is simply impossible for them to provide anything other than gossip and anecdotes of anecdotes in support. You simply would not accept such shoddiness from a real medical doctor.

Here's an anecdote of a dialogue I was a party to in London recently. The mother a friend of mine, a devout Catholic, had been ill for years. As a last resort she recently had a serious operation to remove her bladder. Now she is recovering well and feels better than she has done in years. She told us she'd been to see the surgeon, who complimented her on how fast she was recovering. She she said to us that she told the surgeon she attributed her recovery to the power of prayer.

She could just as easily have attributed it to homeopathy, as you have done above.

Michael Kohler in reply to LynneJulie

He should be angry. Homeopathy is a fraud which takes advantage of sick people, selling them distilled water instead of the medicine that could help them. I not only think it shouldn't be taught in medical school, but that the people who push this stuff should be in prison.


as this homeopathy is still going strong after 2 centuries, so: far longer than antibiotics etc... and as more and more people are asking for such treatment, we are runing short of qualified MD homeopaths and urgently need courses for a renewal of the medical population in this field ! this is so in switzerland, France, Germany , Italy etc...

I rather suspect people thought the Earth was flat or at the centre of the universe for far longer than 200 years. You will notice the Earth was never flat, nor at the centre of the universe, in spite of the overwhelming belief. A fact is not determined by the amount of time a group of people believe in it.

I expect you will find all sorts of people believing in all sorts of things held to be true since the year dot, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You arguments are not persuasive and in any event have no bearing on the facts that homeopathy is actually water and/or sugar pills, is efficacious for absolutely nothing, and your reference to the Kirlian effect was irrelevant tripe.

In the meantime, and in the real world, you still can't provide or cite a single documented, evidenced and corroborated case of homeopathy incontrovertibly curing anything, ever. Yet as a homeopath you are happy to tell all and sundry about how homeopathy can cure just about anything known and unknown. Even though you can't cite a single case of an incontrovertible cure, because it is demonstrably complete fantastical nonsense. On what basis do you make your claims if not on cases of incontrovertible cures?


Homeopathy is the best medical science. A think that the time of classical medicine is over. Why? Classical medicine is so expensive and with this poverty in the world classical medicine is useless.
My recommendation: USE HOMEOPATHY!!!
Borce Bozinovski Macedonia

Michael Kohler in reply to bobi868

Science based medicine keeps millions from dying (including me). There is vastly LESS poverty now than there was when modern medicine started up, despite the costs and rapid population growth.

Homeopathy is not science. It predates our understanding of what causes disease (pathogens, etc), and is based on a fallacious understanding of molecular chemistry. It is totally rubbish.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

