Condemnation for The Lancet’s stance on homeopathy

EHM News Bureau - Mumbai

Scientists and experts from around the world are condemning the meta-analysis of homeopathy and The Lancet medical journal for publishing a poor quality report on 26 August. Leading homeopaths and researchers from the USA, India, Greece, Canada, Israel as well as the UK, many of them medically qualified, are calling for an end to attacks on homeopathy.

As many as six previous meta-analysis on homeopathy have all shown an effect in favour of homeopathy. One of these studies was published by the European Commission.

The report professed to be based on 110 homeopathy studies, but in the end selected only 8 studies to draw the conclusion that homeopathy is no better than placebo. The article admits that some high quality studies showed that homeopathy works, but these were ruled out.

“Out of the millions of trials in conventional medicine, their primary outcome relies on the comparison of ridiculously small numbers - 8 trials of homeopathy and 6 trials of conventional medicine,” says Dr Joyce Frye, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Prof Chaturbhuja Nayak, director of the India Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, challenges the study, “It conflicts with the previous meta-analysis published in the same journal in the years 1994 and 1997 where Homeopathy was proved to be effective. It seems that the authors have begun their work with a bias.”

Medical doctors agree. Dr Paolo Bellavite, professor of General Pathology, University of Verona and Dr Giuseppina Pitari, professor of Biochemistry, University of L’Aquila, went further, “A prejudice against homeopathy is shown by the authors. As a matter of fact, there is much data to support the evidence of a physical and chemical plausibility of homeopathy along with a strong scientific consistency but this evidence has been ignored.”

The Guernsey branch of the British Medical Association (BMA) has defended the inclusion of homeopathy in some of its doctors’ services. Mikel Aickin PhD, Research Professor at the University of Arizona commented, “The Lancet article appears to be part of a recent trend, in which medical journals are publishing articles of exceedingly low quality to justify attacks on controversial therapies.”

The Lancet’s senior editor, Zoë Mullan, admits an inherent conflict on the part of the authors, “Prof Eggers stated at the outset that he expected to find that homeopathy had no effect other than that of placebo. His “conflict” was therefore transparent. We saw this as sufficient”.