If you have private health insurance, you might well be helping to pay for other people’s snake oil.
In the face of overwhelming evidence that homeopathy doesn’t work, most Australian private health insurers continue to offer rebates on it – sending a clear message that this stuff is medicine rather than mystical.
Top Comments
The constant repetition of a negative message does not make it correct, unfortunately. This applies to homoeopathy too.
UK, 2005
A meta-analysis published in 2005 in The Lancet medical journal looks at 110 previous studies and picks out 8, drawing a conclusion that homoeopathy is no better than a placebo. This prompts an editorial titled 'The End of Homoeopathy.' No details are provided about which eight studies had been chosen, and only under pressure from the homoeopathy community is this information later released. It emerges that other high-quality positive studies had been excluded without any justification given. The Lancet meta-analysis is condemned by several scientists and experts from around the world for poor methodology.
UK, 2010
UK Science and Technology Committee 'Evidence Check' report hearings are mostly stacked with people holding strongly anti-homoeopathy views, including members of Sense About Science, a
anti-naturopathy body that had received substantial pharmaceutical funding. When the negative report comes to a vote, 1 of the 3 Yes-vote MPs is a Sense About Science Supporter, whiile the other 2 join the committee late, but in time for the vote. None of the three Yes-voters has in-depth knowledge of homoeopathy. Chair Phil Willis emphasises “This is not an inquiry into whether homoeopathy works or not…….I want to make that absolutely clear.”
AUSTRALIA, 2012
The NHMRC disregards Phil Willis's message, and uses the 'Evidence Check' report to describe homoeopathy as 'unethical' prior to its own supposedly independent and unbiased review.
AUSTRALIA, 2014
The NHMRC releases the final version of its Homoeopathy Review report in December. Unsurprisingly, it comes to negative conclusions. An FOI request by Complementary Medicines Australia reveals several concerning elements. 2 of 3 experts consulted by the NHMRC have expressed numerous concerns about 'fatally flawed' methodology and the selective use of data, but their concerns have been overridden.
More specifically, these are:
> Excluding randomised controlled trials in favour of systematic reviews, thereby bypassing Level 1 evidence.
> A limited number of databases are accessed, in at least one case for a non-scientific reason.
> Ignoring non-English studies.
> Limiting studies to a narrow 16-year time window.
> Appointing no homoeopathic expert to the review panel.
The review itself is chaired by Professor Peter Brooks, directly after resigning membership of
the anti-naturopathy body Friends of Science in Medicine.
AUSTRALIA 2014 ONWARDS
The NHMRC uses its flawed review as leverage to start attacking homoeopathy through a) criticising pharmacies that sell homoepathic medicine, and b) pushing health funds to stop covering homoeopathy. In doing so, it steps over the line from being a research body to taking on the role of an pressure group. Its allies in the media take on the role of going after homoeopathic training on the basis that some taxpayers' funds are supporting it.
I would suggest that your title could be improved. My idea would be to remove the word 'Science' from it. Just a thought.
It's amazing how polarising Alternative medicine can be. People who have no understanding of how it works, or have never tried it become so adamant and angry that others have success with it.
Here's a little explanation -
Water seems to have properties that are able to retain different structures once heavily diluted.. almost to the point of nothing being there. Researches have found even though the water has been diluted to a point that it should only be straight water, they're able to differentiate the different homeopathic medicines using Spectroscopy. So on a more subtle than molecular level the substance is retained in the water.
Once western medicine is able to test and measure things on this level more understanding and acceptance will come. It is extremely expensive to run trials that are accepted by the TGA/FDA etc.. furthermore the tests required to show the differences and effects of the substances wouldn't be accepted as they're designed for more dense molecular based medicine that is easier to measure.
Unfortunately it will take time and advancements in a number of areas before understanding/acceptance comes.
uh Mr James Randi... are you still out there? Sorry Guest, didn't mean to be abrasive but heck as religions, ufo's and other para's go, homeopathy is surely the worst of the worst? Courtesy James Randi: "Did you hear of the guy who overdosed - he took one pill". But then I guess, if I believe in G-d and I do too, then you have every right to believe in something diluted by water.
Stick to your meds then Judit. Prove it doesn't work, if people get good results from it and it is curing things that western medicine doesn't why lump it in with Religion and UFO's... actually they seem highly likely to be real as well ;)