It is always good to hear of a therapy that has been given the sanction from a serious body with comments, research and results which quantify how positive the use of homeopathy can be.
Back in 2005, the Swiss government produced a scathing report about an analysis by Shang et al, which was published in the Lancet and widely publicised by sceptics of alternative medicine as signalling the “end of homeopathy”.
This Shang study had a scientific team which evaluated 110 clinical trials of homeopathy and then compared them with the same number of trials of conventional medicine.
The Swiss authors noted that Shang and his colleagues had neglected to follow the basic accepted QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) guidelines on best practices for scientific reporting (Forsch Komplementmed., 2006).
The Swiss report also quoted the views of David Sackett, a Canadian who is considered one of the leading experts in ‘evidence based medicine’. He argued that the ‘gold standard’ study, otherwise known as the randomised, placebo-controlled trial, may not be the only means of judging the safety and effectiveness of a treatment. For example, it could not be used to evaluate surgery – what a joy to hear this comment.
The sceptics disregard the results from homeopathy mainly because they don’t understand it and because they can’t allocate any reasoning to the above mentioned controlled trials. Homeopathic high potency remedies induce regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms. Switzerland is a good example of belief in this treatment.
Nearly two-thirds of all medical practitioners in Switzerland rate alternative medicine, 40 per cent use it and 85 per cent would like their country’s national health to include this therapy. Read more
Kathryn Borg
