The Lancet 2005; 366:690
27 August 2005
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67149-8
SourceThat homoeopathy fares poorly when compared with allopathy in Aijing Shang and colleagues' systematic evaluation is unsurprising. Of greater interest is the fact that this debate continues, despite 150 years of unfavourable findings. The more dilute the evidence for homoeopathy becomes, the greater seems its popularity.
For too long, a politically correct laissez-faire attitude has existed towards homoeopathy, but there are now signs of enlightenment from unlikely sources. The UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology issued a report about complementary and alternative medicine in 2000. It recommended “any therapy that makes specific claims for being able to treat specific conditions should have evidence of being able to do this above and beyond the placebo effect”. Going one step further, the Swiss Government, after a 5-year trial, has now withdrawn insurance coverage for homoeopathy and four other complementary treatments because they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria.
In a Comment, Jan Vandenbroucke gives a philosophical interpretation of Shang's study. One other philosopher he might have included is Kant, who reminds us that we see things not as they are, but as we are. This observation is also true of health-care consumers, who may see homoeopathy as a holistic alternative to a disease-focused, technology-driven medical model. It is the attitudes of patients and providers that engender alternative-therapy seeking behaviours which create a greater threat to conventional care—and patients' welfare—than do spurious arguments of putative benefits from absurd dilutions.
Surely the time has passed for selective analyses, biased reports, or further investment in research to perpetuate the homoeopathy versus allopathy debate. Now doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homoeopathy's lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients' needs for personalised care.
The Lancet