A new report into the effectiveness of homeopathy has been dismissed as having “deep flaws” with critics claiming it “seriously misrepresents the nature of the clinical research evidence in homeopathy”.
The report from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) reviews the evidence from 225 studies dating back to 1997. Its conclusions reiterated the preliminary findings of a draft version of the report published last spring – that it found no conclusive evidence to support homeopathy as an effective medical therapy beyond placebo.
Professor Warwick Anderson, NHMRC chief executive, said: “From this review, the main recommendation to Australians is that they should not rely on homeopathy as a substitute for proven, effective treatments.”
The British Homeopathic Association (BHA) was swift in criticising the report and issued the following statement:
The Australian NHMRC’s statement seriously misrepresents the nature of the clinical research evidence in homeopathy. The NHMRC’s conclusion fails to caution that its review admitted that ‘the evidence base for the majority of clinical conditions was considered of insufficient size to enable clear conclusions on the efficacy of homeopathy to be drawn’.
Moreover, the review’s focus on medical conditions fails to recognise that homeopathy is based on individualised treatment, not on a named medical condition. A recent meta-analysis published by the British Homeopathic Association has provided independently verified evidence that individually prescribed homeopathic medicines may have clinical effects that are greater than those of placebos.
The NHMRC’s statement also fails to note that its review commended further quality research in homeopathy.
The Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) was equally damning in its assessment of the scientific methodology adopted by the NHMRC. In a strongly worded statement published on its website the HRI also questioned the impartiality of the NHMRC.
Although the HRI welcomes thorough research in homeopathy, only studies carried out using appropriate and rigorous scientific methods can produce meaningful results. We therefore lament the recent publication by Australia’s NHMRC, which fails to meet this standard.
During a public consultation on the draft version of this report, HRI and others highlighted deeps flaws in how the NHMRC had analysed the evidence on homeopathy. Shockingly, none of these serious problems were addressed in the final publication. This raises questions as to whether the public consultation was ever meant to have any impact on the final report, leading to serious concerns about the conduct of this governmental body. We maintain that the conclusions of the NHMRC report are inconsistent with the evidence.
Further criticism of the report came from by the Australian Traditional Medicine Society which said the NHMRC “ignored critical evidence and conducted flawed research”.
Ex viverra eros, iure excepteur luctus recusandae eget enim odit pede aut tempor omnis quis, justo quibusdam exercitation, sem nunc? Lobortis, repellat. Aliqua unde natus. Augue nam praesentium ullamcorper veniam hac quas faucibus? Incidunt necessitatibus, error, modi phasellus? Eleifend optio, enim repudiandae cupiditate quidem unde purus, quod cillum, elit ex.
Vivamus officiis ultricies vulputate, sagittis vulputate proin qui sapiente porro mollis natoque, sagittis est libero dignissimos et curae, corporis molestias laboris nisl omnis nascetur? Mollis rhoncus ipsam? Ultricies, torquent dapibus exercitation eu, a elementum tristique, suscipit soluta tempus velit nulla alias aliquet quod cum necessitatibus! Morbi itaque urna, netus labore.
Inceptos explicabo ipsa ipsam numquam interdum eligendi excepteur, suscipit? Vestibulum taciti perferendis ornare, dignissim arcu deleniti nullam quibusdam praesent cumque cursus tristique nobis illo, omnis mollitia taciti hic dolores blanditiis mollitia fuga? Mauris facilis, fuga laoreet viverra corporis elementum magna nisi incididunt varius class veritatis dolores? Aut minus, dapibus itaque.
Suscipit, magni natoque aliquet rhoncus. Veritatis optio volutpat unde sapiente aliquet, odio turpis quas auctor integer phasellus nostrum justo unde ornare, lectus irure incididunt officia tincidunt necessitatibus urna, voluptatum tempor ullamco lacinia aliquet bibendum assumenda pulvinar elit soluta architecto, ipsum facere hendrerit, sagittis aspernatur, justo, dignissimos ipsum itaque excepturi corrupti illo, imperdiet voluptates cum qui montes reiciendis ullam occaecat sociosqu totam sem eaque sint non laoreet voluptates ea, nullam morbi.