Bio Statistics, intellectual property rights and Regulatory affairs

                                                                     1st chapter

                                                       click here for 1st chapter

                                                                2 nd Chapter

                                              click here for second chapter

                                                        For Remaning Chapters

                                               Click Here

                                                             Price One share 

New international study reveals 76% of modern medicine doctors recommended homeopathic medicine for children

1. 99% Doctors Have Recommended Natural Remedies for Children
2. 76% of doctors have also recommended homeopathic medicine for a child
3. Doctors advocated complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) where they associated a lower risk of side effects compared to conventional medications
4. Doctors involved in the study reported a higher usage of CAM than conventional drugs

KARLSRUHE, Germany : A new international study1 of 582 paediatric physicians published today has found almost all have prescribed or recommended a complementary and alternative medicine2 (CAM) for a child in the last year. 99% of the doctors involved in the study – Usage and attitudes towards homeopathy and natural remedies in general paediatrics: a cross-country overview – had recommended a natural remedy and 76% a homeopathic medicine. Study lead Professor André-Michael Beer, head physician of the Department of Natural Medicine in Blankenstein Hospital, Germany, comments: “Evidence suggests an increased use of natural medicine prescribing in children, but this study shows us, for the first time, the almost universal acceptance of complementary medicine and the factors influencing doctors’ decision making.”

“It is interesting to note that the doctors in the study who use CAM themselves are more likely to recommend it for their patients. They know from personal experience that these medicines help. Often sceptics of homeopathic and natural remedies are those who have never tried these medicines themselves.”

Side effects, when compared to conventional medications, were a key driver for doctors’ decision making; 70% associated homeopathic preparations with a lower risk of side effects and 60% for natural medicines. Dr María Pilar Riveros-Huckstadt, a paediatrician at the Centro de Salud La Cala in Mijas Costa, Spain, adds: “In paediatrics, it is good for doctors to have other options such as homeopathy and natural remedies to recommend for mild ailments such as infant colic and teething that avoid the potential side effects of conventional treatments. These natural remedies are effective and can positively impact the quality of life for young children and their families.”

                          

  

For which illnesses is CAM recommended?The study showed that in homeopathy a key indication is teething: 37% of doctors stated a frequent use. 53% of doctors frequently advocated natural remedies for upper respiratory tract infections, 45% for infant colic and 33% for sleep disturbances.

81% of paediatric doctors and general practitioners who took part in the study said they feel comfortable discussing CAM with parents and parent values highly influenced doctors. Dr Riveros-Huckstadt explains: “Physicians should feel comfortable discussing the variety of approaches – conventional and natural – so parents can make informed choices to suit the individual needs of the child.”

52% of doctors involved in the study reported recommending CAM for children of parents who prefer natural or homeopathic remedies themselves.

Across all countries, significantly more physicians recommended CAM where parents expressed concerns over conventional drugs. Parents worried about side effects (51%) and efficacy of conventional drugs (39%) influenced doctors’ recommendations

Interestingly one in five doctors (21%) would recommend a natural or homeopathic remedy if the parents had a higher education level.

Recognition of the benefits of homeopathyOver three-quarters of the doctors in the study had recommended a homeopathic medicine for a child. More than half (51%) agreed homeopathy can enhance recovery and symptom relief

The study found that recommendation of homeopathic remedies is driven by doctors’ belief that they are associated with a lower risk of side effects (70%).

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160703005011/en/Study-Reveals-99-Doctors-Recommended-Natural-Remedies

Hold the masters advice for successful results in homoeopathy

It is always a good to be reminded of the truth in homeopathy. Many masters have given us real pearls of wisdom and truth. Hold these close and you will have many more successful cases.

• We have no long acting drugs; the action is immediate, continued favorable condition depends on the quality of the vital force and it’s harmonious action. (H.A. Roberts)
• If the symptoms for which a remedy is given are removed and a new symptom appears, with hold the hand if you wish the case to go on to recovery. (Lippe)
• Susceptibility exists in the vital force, not in the tissues. (J.T.Kent)
• Ultimately the constitutional peculiarity is bound to reveal itself in a form pointing to it’s remedial counterpart. Nature calls for relief in her own language which it behoves us to learn properly. It is contained in the symptom picture but many times we are forced to look for it elsewhere. (C.M. Boger)
• On uterine Contractions and Pulsatilla – It will often cause in five minutes a very strong contraction of the uterus, sometimes almost in a painless way. (J.T.Kent)
• Never leave a remedy until you have tested it in a higher potency if it has benefited the patient. (J.T.Kent)
• Do not dip into a chronic state when dealing with an acute condition, and vise versa. (H.A. Roberts)
• Why prescribe for a part of the patient when you have the whole patient with you? The patient was sick before the glands were. (Hayes)
• Some have been confused by primary and secondary effects of medicine. You need not worry over this. You only need to know that certain symptoms follow each other. Primary and secondary action reverse themselves in different individuals. (J.T.Kent)
• The constitutional remedy is found by a series of symptoms absolutely new to that patient. (C.T.Boger)
• There is no better evidence of the good action of remedy than mental improvement. (J.T.Kent)
• Keep a symptom, don’t follow a remedy. (H.A. Roberts)
• In a cure, the discharge may not come back at the original place but from some other mucous membrane. (G. Miller)
• The bond between two miasms can be broken only by a prescription that will meet the totality of the most active one. (J.H. Allen)
• All maladies which show skin eruptions are always present internally before showing local symptoms externally. (S. Hahnemann)
• Don’t leave your inter-current remedy too soon, it may be the curative remedy. (F.E. Gladwin)
• Look for the picture of the chronic following recovery from an acute condition. (H.A. Roberts)
• If we could accept opinion we should have to go back to Allopathy, because we find there only a record of man’s experiments; a mass of heterogeneous opinions. (J.T. Kent)
• Man must be studied as he is, as he was, everything of man and of the human race in general, in order to understand disease. (J. T. Kent)
• Minutes or hours in acute; days, weeks, or months in chronic diseases, never repeat while amelioration holds. (M.L. Tyler)
• The principle of Homeopathy is applicable to any range of potency. (C.M. Boger)
• Hahnemann’s central idea is fundamental that the further an outstanding symptom seems removed from the ordinary course of disease, the greater is that symptoms value in determining the remedy. (C.M. Boger)
• If you love homeopathy, it will love you. Such is natural charity. (J.T. )
• It is impossible to learn homeopathy except from a master. (G. Miller)
• The homeopathic principles, when known, are plain, simple, and easily comprehended. They are in harmony with all things known to be true. (J.T. Kent)
• When you make failures you may be sure that they are within yourself. If you think the failure is in homeopathy you will begin your corrections on the wrong side of the ledger. (J.T. Kent)

Why homeopathy has a bright future in India? Observation by the Director National Institute of Immunohematology

Prof ( Dr ) Kanjaksha GhoshMBBS( Hons ), MD ( Med ), MNAMS ( Path ) , MRCPI, MRCP ( UK ) , FRCPath( Lond ) ,DNB ( Haematology ),FAMS ,FACP ( USA ), FNASc.
Director, National Institute of Immunohaematology (ICMR)
13 th Fl KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai -400012. 

You  may rightfully ask “Why should a person who has no official degree in homeopathy should speak about future of homeopathy in India”.  My humble answer to this question will be that due to providence of luck , good fortune and my official position as the Director of one of the leading Institutes of Indian Council of Medical Research.  I have a ring side view of epidemics, degenerative and malignant disorders spreading in this country and how  available medical system is not able to control it.  I am also a witness to rising resentment of patients due to lack of empathy and astronomical cost of management of various disorders through portals of modern medicine.

Bright future ahead

I was trained as a physician and hematologist with modern medicine but like many families in West Bengal I continued to study homeopathic medicines at home from my school days.  Hence my study of homeopathy is for far longer period than my study of modern medicine.  I have witnessed many astonishing cures with homeopathic medicines in my own life to convince me that this system of medicine has a bright future in our country.

Though Honingberger brought homeopathy to India, from the beginning of 20th century some of the giants in modern medicine embraced homeopathy.  The name of Dr.Mahendralal Sarkar immediately comes to my mind.  Subsequently many allopathic doctors have embraced homeopathy even at the risk of calling them “Mongrel”.  We should remember Hahnemann himself was an allopath before he discovered the secrets of homeopathy.  His disciples like Herring was also a leading allopathic practitioner  of his time.

You may also legitimately ask me why do I think homeopathy has a bright future  in India?

(i)  The common causes of death due to various diseases in India is still Diarrheal Disorders, upper respiratory infections, malaria  etc.  In all these diseases homeopathy records one of the highest number of cures.  We all remember what happened during cholera epidemic in London and the feat achieved by homeopathic physicians of that country with almost no death in their hands compared to 10-15 % deaths in allopathic hospitals.

(ii)  Some of the disorders like Bronchial Asthma, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, allergies have no permanent cure in modern medicine but good to excellent results may be obtained with homeopathic medicine cheaply.

(iii)  We are losing so many patients due to dengue, H1N1, Influenza etc.  As Herring has said in every epidemic a medicine may be found as “Genus Epidemicus”  which will cure majority of these patients during that epidemic.  We need a homeopath with keen eye and sharp understanding of the science for finding a homeopathic medicine for every  “Genus Epidemic us” .

(iv)  In early twentieth century a large number of homeopaths from Bengal proved several local herbs and trees for homeopathic medicine.  Dr.Sarat Chandra Ghose was a leading homeopath of his time who proved several local herbs into homeopathic medicine.  India has thousands of herbs, vegetables, insects which are different from the Western world.  These medicines are waiting to be proved for homeopathic usage.  We need many young homeopaths to come ahead and prove these medicines.

We must ask   ‘Is homeopathy and allopathic medicines are two parallel lines that should never meet? ‘ I don’t think so as advances in modern medicine is bringing into attention many unique actions of drugs where such action could not be explained by existing theories of pharmacology eg. action of various cytokines depends on the context in which the drug is acting!  Does this not resemble mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine?  I am sure these two apparently opposite views will meet. But we need many path breaking researches to achieve that. Please remember ‘Hypothesis of one century becomes the common sense of the next ‘.

A homeopathic physician should learn how allopath treat disease and vice versa.  We are healers and how to heal patients quickly and effectively should be in our minds.  A homeopath should be proud of his profession and should practice with keenness, knowledge and observations so that he/she can contribute towards understanding of this great art.

Medical Ethics for Homeopaths

Homoeopathic Practitioners Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of EthicsCentral Council of Homoeopathy. India

Regulations 
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (l) of section 33 read with section 24 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (59 of 1973), the Central Council of Homoeopathy, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, hereby makes the following regulations, namely :-
1. These regulations may be called the Homoeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982.

DECLARATION AND OATH 
2. (a) At the time of registration, each applicant shall submit the following declaration and oath read and signed by him to the Registrar concerned attested by the Registrar himself or by a registered practitioner of Homoeopathy

• (1) I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity
• (2) Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity
• (3) I will maintain the utmost respect for human life.
• (4) I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, political beliefs or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient.
• (5) I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity in accordance with the principles of Homoeopathy and/or in accordance with the principles of biochemic system of medicine (tissue remedies).
• (6) The health of my patient shall be my first consideration.
• (7) I will respect the secrets which are confided to me.
• (8) I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due.
• (9) I will maintain by all means in my power the honour and noble traditions of medical profession.
• (10) My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters.
• (11) I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

(b) Hahnemannian Oath 
“On my honour I swear that I shall practise the teachings of Homoeopathy, perform my duty, render justice to my patients and help the sick whosoever comes to me for treatment. May the teachings of master Hahnemann inspire me and may I have the strength for fulfilment of my mission.”

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
3. Character of Medical Practitioner 
The primary object of the medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for the dignity of man; financial reward is a subordinate consideration. Whosoever chooses this profession assumes the obligation to conduct himself in accordance with its ideals. A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall be an upright man, instructed in the art of healing. He shall keep himself pure in character and be diligent in caring for the sick. He shall be modest, sober, patient and prompt and do his duty without anxiety, and shall be pious and conduct himself with propriety in his profession and in all the actions of his life.

4. Standards of Character and Morals 
The medical profession expects from its members the highest level of character and morals, and every practitioner of Homoeopathy owes to the profession and to the public alike a duty to attain such a level. It shall be incumbent on a practitioner of Homoeopathy to be temperate in all matters, for the practice of medicine requires unremitting exercise of a clear and vigorous mind.

5. Practitioner’s Responsibility 
A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall merit the confidence of patients entrusted to his care, rendering to each full measure of service and devotion. The honoured ideals of the medical profession imply that the responsibilities of a practitioner of Homoeopathy extend not only to individuals but also to the entire society.

6. Advertising 
(1) Solicitation of patients directly or indirectly by a practitioner of Homoeopathy either personally or by advertisement in the newspapers, by placards or by the distribution of circular cards or handbills is unethical. A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall not make use of, or permit others to make use of, him or his name as a subject of any form or manner of advertising or publicity through lay channels which shall be of such a character as to invite attention to him or to his professional position or skill or as would ordinarily result in his self-aggrandisement provided that a practitioner of Homoeopathy is permitted formal announcement in press about the following matters, namely :

• (i) the starting of his practice;
• (ii) change of the type of practice;
• (iii) change of address;
• (iv) temporary absence from duty;
• (v) resumption of practice;
• (vi) succeeding to another’s practice.

(2) He shall further not advertise himself directly or indirectly through price lists or publicity materials of manufacturing firms or traders with whom he may be connected in any capacity, nor shall he publish cases, operations or letters of thanks from patients in non-professional newspapers or journals provided it shall be permissible for him to publish his name in connection with a prospectus or a director’s or a technical expert’s report.

7. Payment of Professional Service 
(1) A practitioner of Homoeopathy engaged in the practice of medicine shall limit the sources of his income to fees received from professional activities for services rendered to the patient. Remuneration received for such services shall be in the form and amount specifically announced to the patient at the time the service is rendered; in all other cases he shall deem it a point of honour to adhere to the compensation for professional services prevailing in the community in which he practices.
(2) Fees are reducible at the discretion of the practitioner of Homoeopathy and he shall always recognise poverty as presenting valid claims for gratuitous services.
(3) It shall be unethical to enter into a contract of “no cure no payment”

8. Rebates and Commission 
A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall not give, solicit or receive, nor shall he offer to give, solicit or receive, any gift, gratuity, commission or bonus in consideration for the referring, recommending or procuring of any patient for medical, surgical or other treatment nor shall he receive any commission or other benefit from a professional colleague, trader of appliances, dentist or an occulist.

DUTIES OF HOMOEOPATHIC PRACTITIONERS TO THEIR PATIENTS
9. Obligations to the Sick 
Though a practitioner of Homoeopathy is not bound to treat each and every one asking for his services except in emergencies, he shall, for the sake of humanity and the noble traditions of the profession, not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but shall be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he incurs in the discharge of his professional duties.

10. Practitioner’s Responsibility
(1) A practitioner of Homoeopathy is free to choose whom he will serve provided be shall respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency or whenever temperate public opinion expects the service.
(2) Once having undertaken a case, a practitioner of Homoeopathy shall not neglect the patient nor shall he withdraw from the case without giving notice to the patient, his relatives or his responsible friends sufficiently long in advance of his withdrawal to allow them time to secure another practitioner.

11. Termination of Service 
(a) The following shall be valid reasons for his withdrawal :

• (1) where he finds another practitioner in attendance;
• (2) where remedies other than those prescribed by him are being used;
• (3) where his remedies and instructions are refused;
• (4) where he is convinced that illness is an imposture and that he is being made a party to a false pretence;
• (5) where the patient persists in the use of opium, alcohol, chloral or similar intoxicating drugs against medical advice;
• (6) where complete information concerning the facts and circumstances of the case are not supplied by the patient or his relatives.

(b) The discovery that the malady is incurable is no excuse to discontinue attendance so long as the patient desired his services.

12. Acts of Negligence 
(1) No practitioner of Homoeopathy shall wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient of necessary medical care.
(2) A practitioner of Homoeopathy is expected to render that diligence and skill in services as would be expected of another pracitioner of Homoeopathy with similar qualifications, experience and attainments.
(3) His acts of commission or omission shall not be judged by any non-homoeopathic standards of professional service expected of him but by those standards as are expected from a Homoeopath of his training, standing and experience.
(4) A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall use any drug prepared according to Homoeopathic principles and adopt other necessary measures as required.

13. Behaviour towards Patients 
The demeanour of a practitioner of Homoeopathy towards his patients shall always be courteous, sympathetic, friendly and helpful. Every patient shall be treated with attention and consideration.

14. Visits 
A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall endeavour to add to the comfort of the sick by making his visits at the hour indicated to the patients.

15. Prognosis 
(1) The practitioner of Homoeopathy shall neither exaggerate nor minimize the gravity of a patient’s condition. He shall ensure that the patient, his relatives or responsible friends have such knowledge of the patient’s condition as will serve the best interest of the patient and his family.
(2) In cases of dangerous manifestations, he shall not fail to give timely notice to the family or friends of the patient and also to the patient when necessary.

16. Patience, Delicacy & Secrecy 
Patience and delicacy shall characterize the attitude of a practitioner of Homoeopathy. Confidences concerning individual or domestic life entrusted by patients to a practitioner and defects in the disposition or character of patients observed during the medical attendance shall not be revealed by him, to anyone unless their revelation is required by the laws of the State.

DUTIES OF PRACTITIONERS TO THE PROFESSION 
17. Upholding honour of Profession 
A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall, at all times, uphold the dignity and honour of this profession.

18. Membership of Medical Society 
For the advancement of his profession a practitioner of Homoeopathy may affiliate himself with Medical Societies and contribute his time, energy and means to their progress so that they may better represent and promote the ideals of the profession.

19. Exposure of Unethical Conduct
A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall expose, without fear or favour, the incompetent, corrupt, dishonest or unethical conduct on the part of any member of the profession.

20. Association with Unregistered Persons
A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall not associate himself professionally with any body or society of unregistered practitioners of Homoeopathy.

21. Appointment of Substitutes
Whenever a practitioner of Homoeopathy requests another to attend to his patients during his temporary absence from practice, professional courtesy requires the acceptance of such appointment by the latter, if it is consistent with his other duties. ‘The practitioner of Homoeopathy acting under such an appointment shall give the utmost consideration to the interests and reputation of the absent practitioner. He shall not charge either the patient or the absent practitioner of Homoeopathy for his services, except in the case of a special arrangement between them. All such patients shall be restored to the care of the absent practitioner of Homoeopathy upon his return.

22. Charges for service to Practitioners of Homoeopathy
(1) There is no rule that a practitioner of Homoeopathy shall not charge another practitioner of Homoeopathy for his services, but a practitioner of Homoeopathy shall consider it a pleasure and privilege to render gratuitous service to his professional brother and his dependents, if they are in his vicinity or to a medical student.
(2) There is no rule that a practitioner of Homoeopathy shall not charge another practitioner of Homoeopathy for his services, but a practitioner of Homoeopathy shall consider it a pleasure and privilege to render gratuitous service to his professional brother and his dependents, if they are in his vicinity or to a medical student.
23. (1) The practitioner of Homoeopathy called in an emergency to visit a patient under the care of another practitioner of Homoeopathy shall, when the emergency is over, retire in favour of the latter; but he shall be entitled to charge the patient for his services.
(2) When a practitioner of Homoeopathy is consulted at his own residence, it is not necessary for him to enquire of the patient if he is under the care of another practitioner of Homoeopathy.
(3) When a consulting practitioner of Homoeopathy sees a patient at the request of another practitioner of Homoeopathy, it shall be his duty to write a letter stating his opinion of the case with the mode of treatment he thinks is required to be adopted.

24. Engagement for an Obstetrics Case
(1) If a practitioner of Homoeopathy is engaged to attend to a woman during her confinement, he shall do so. Refusal to do so on an excuse of any other engagement shall not be considered ethical except when he is already engaged on a similar or other serious case.
(2) When a practitioner of Homoeopathy who has been engaged to attend on an obstetrics case is absent and another is sent for and delivery is accomplished, the acting practitioner of Homoeopathy shall be entitled to his professional fees; provided he shall secure the patient’s consent to withdraw on the arrival of the practitioner of Homoeopathy already engaged.
25. When it becomes the duty of a practitioner of Homoeopathy occupying an official position to see and report upon an illness or injury, he shall communicate to the practitioner of Homoeopathy in attendance so as to give him an option of being present. The medical officer shall avoid remarks upon the diagnosis or the treatment that has been adopted.

DUTIES OF PRACTITIONERS IN CONSULTATION 
26. Consultation shall be EncouragedIn cases of serious illness, especially in doubtful or difficult conditions the practitioner of Homoeopathy shall request consultation. He shall also do so in perplexing illness, in therapeutic abortions, in the treatment of a woman who had procured criminal abortion, in suspected cases of poisoning, or when desired by the patient or his representative.

27. Punctuality in Consultation
Utmost punctuality shall be observed by a practitioner of Homoeopathy in meeting for consultation. If the consultant practitioner of Homoeopathy does not arrive within a reasonable time such as a quarter of an hour after the appointed time, the first practitioner of Homoeopathy shall be at liberty to see the patient alone provided he shall leave his conclusion in writing in a closed envelope.

28. Patient referred to another Physician
When a patient is referred to another practitioner of Homoeopathy by the attending practitioner of Homoeopathy, a statement of the case shall be given to the latter practitioner of Homoeopathy. The latter practitioner of Homoeopathy shall communicate his opinion in writing in a closed cover direct to the attending practitioner of Homoeopathy.

29. Consultation for Patient’s Benefit
In every consultation, the benefit to the patient shall be of first importance. All practitioners of Homoeopathy interested in the case shall be candid with a member of the patient’s family or responsible friends.

30. Conduct in Consultation
(1) In consultations, there shall be no place for insincerity, rivalry or envy. All due respect shall be shown to the practitioner of Homoeopathy in charge of case and no statement or remarks shall be made which would impair the confidence reposed in him by the patient. For this purpose, no discussion shall be carried on in the presence of the patient or his representatives.
(2) All statements of the case to the patient or his representatives shall take place in the presence of all the practitioners consulting, except as otherwise agreed; the announcement of the opinion to the patient or his relations or friends shall rest with the attending practitioner of Homoeopathy.
(3) Differences of opinion shall not be divulged unnecessarily; provided when there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion, the circumstances shall be frankly and impartially explained to the patient or his friends.
(4) It shall be open to them to seek further advice if they so desire.

31. Cessation of Consultation 
Attendance of the consulting practitioner of Homoeopathy shall cease when the consultation is concluded, unless another appointment is arranged by the attending practitioner of Homoeopathy.

32. Treatment after Consultation 
(1) No decision shall restrain the attending practitioner of Homoeopathy from making such subsequent variations in the treatment as any unexpected change may require; provided at the next consultation, reasons for variation are stated.
(2) The same privilege, with its obligations, belongs to the consultant when sent for in an emergency during the absence of the attending practitioner of Homoeopathy. The attending practitioner of Homoeopathy may prescribe at any time for the patient, but the consultant, only in case of emergency.

33. Consultant not to take Charge of the Case
(1) When a practitioner of Romoeopathy has been called as a Consultant 10 none but the rarest and most exceptional circumstances shall justify the consultant taking charge of the case.
(2) He must not do so merely on the solicitation of the patient or his friends.

34. Bar against Consulting Non-registered Practitioner
No practitioner of Homeopathy shall have consultation with any practitioner of Homoeopathy who is not registered.

DUTIES OF PRACTITIONERS TO THE PUBLIC 
35. Practitioners as Citizens 
Practitioners of Homoeopathy as good citizens, possessed of special training, shall advise concerning the health of the community wherein they dwell. They shall play their part in enforcing the laws of the community and in sustaining the institutions that advance the interest of humanity. They shall cooperate with the authorities in the observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations and shall observe the provisions of all laws relating to Drugs, Poisons and Pharmacy made for the protection and promotion of public health.

36. Public Health 
Practitioners of Homoeopathy engaged in public health work, shall enlighten the public concerning quarantine regulations and measures for the prevention of epidemic and communicable diseases. At all times the practitioners shall notify the constituted public health authorities of every case of communicable disease under their care, in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the health authorities. When an epidemic prevails, the practitioner of Homoeopathy shall continue his labours without regard to the risk to his own health.

37. Dispensing
A practitioner of Homoeopathy has a right to prepare and dispense his own prescription.

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
38. The following actions shall constitute professional misconduct

• (1) Committing adultery or improper conduct with a patient, or maintaining an improper association with a patient;
• (2) Conviction by a Court of Law for offences involving moral turpitude;
• (3) Signing of or giving by any practitioner of Homoeopathy under his name and authority any certificate, report or document of kindred character which is untrue, misleading or improper;
• (4) Contravention of the provisions of laws relating to Drugs and regulations made there under;
• (5) Selling a drug or poison regulated by law to the public or his patients save as provided by that law.
• (6) Performing or enabling an unqualified person to perform an abortion or any illegal operation for which there is no medical, surgical or psychological indication;
• (7) Issue of certificates in Homoeopathy to unqualified or non-medical persons provided that this shall not apply so as to restrict the proper training and instruction of legitimate employees of doctors, midwives, dispensers, surgical attendants or skilled mechanical and technical assistants under the personal supervision of practitioners of Homoeopathy.
• (8) Affixing a signboard on a chemist’s shop or in places where the practitioner of Homoeopathy does not reside or work;
• (9) Disclosing the secrets of a patient that have been learnt in the exercise of profession, except in a Court of law under orders of the presiding judge.
• (10) Publishing photographs or case-reports of patients in any medical or other journal in a manner by which their identity could be made out without their permission, provided that if the identity of patients is not disclosed, their consent is not necessary;
• (11) Public exhibition of the scale of fees provided that the same may be displayed in the physician’s consulting or waiting room;
• (12) Using of touts or agents for procuring patients;
• (13) Claiming to be a specialist without having put on substantial number of years of study and experience in the subject concerned or without possessing a special qualification in the branch concerned.

‘Scientific method’ and its ‘golden rules’ are misused by powerful people to crush simple truth of homeopathy

‘Scientific method’ and its ‘golden rules’ are misused by powerful people to crush simple truth of homeopathy

Chandran K C

It is really terrifying to see how ‘scientific method’ and its ‘golden rules’ are misused by powerful people to crush simple truth of homeopathy, and to shield their vested anti-people business interests in healthcare industry. It is disheartening to see how our respected ‘men of science’ and ‘democratic rulers’ have turned mere puppets of global healthcare corporate kings and greedy big pharma giants.  I am totally shattered to witness this dark ‘other side’ of science and democracy which I cherished so much all my life.

I have in front of me the ‘NHMRC INFORMATION PAPER- Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions’ published in March 2015 by National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia, after an elaborate study of all published materials(http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02a_information_paper.pdf ). I have been studying it minutely for the last few days, along with all its appended documents.

Learned NHMRC ‘hired’ pundits have given their final verdict of homeopathy in this ‘Information Paper’: “Homeopathy is Good for Nothing!” It is “Nothing better than Placebo!” Homeopathy should not exist- FINISHED!

NHMRC concludes: “Based on the overall findings of the assessment of the evidences of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC has reached the following final conclusions: There is no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered. There were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective.  Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner, and should keep taking any prescribed treatments. For some health conditions, studies reported that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. For other health conditions, some studies reported that homeopathy was more effective than placebo, or as effective as another treatment, but those studies were not reliable. To be confident that the reported health benefits of homeopathy were not just due to chance or the placebo effect, they would need to be confirmed by other well-designed studies with an adequate number of participants. For the remaining health conditions it was not possible to make any conclusion about whether homeopathy was effective or not, because there was not enough evidence.”

After going through the Information Paper as well as the appended documents carefully, I feel that NHMRC showed some sort of undue haste in arriving at such a totally negative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy. They seem to be more inclined towards ‘excluding’ materials and evidences rather than evaluating them, and declare all seemingly positive evidences as “inconclusive” and “unreliable”. This hurry sparks doubts in my mind regarding the real goal of this project. Important question is, is it appropriate for scientific method to utilize ‘lack of sufficient evidence’ as an ‘evidence against’ homeopathy? Does ‘search for truth’ means ‘denying truth’?

Before advancing further with this critique, we have to know the people behind this ‘Information Paper’, and their real objectives in taking up a work of this type, that may have catastrophic effects up on a low-cost medical system currently accepted by millions of people around the world for their day to day health care requirements. It is very serious, since the ‘paper’ recommends that “homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions”! It is so serious that recommendations made in this paper may be utilized by interested parties to undermine even the very existence of homeopathy as a system of medical practice. Before declaring homeopathy is ineffective, NHMRC could have conducted some well designed studies and researches of their own, instead of arriving at hasty conclusions from assessments of already ‘published materials’ only, that too by hired ‘contractors’. I wonder what held them back from doing this, if they were really dedicated to finding out truth in the common interest of the society! At least in the interest of finding truth, they could have concluded their report by recommending the scientific community to undertake serious research works on homeopathy, since all the works so far done were found to be ‘methodologically flawed’, ‘unreliable’ and ‘inconclusive’!

NHMRC introduced themselves as follows: “NHMRC is Australia’s peak body for supporting health and medical research by funding the best research, selected through a competitive peer review process. NHMRC also develops health advice for the Australian community, health professionals and governments in the form of public health and clinical practice guidelines, Statements, Information Papers and evidence reviews. NHMRC also provides advice on ethical behavior in health care and in the conduct of health and medical research. The work of NHMRC is guided by its Strategic Plan, and defined by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Act 1992. The Strategic Plan covers a three year period and is submitted to the Health Minster for approval, prior to being tabled in Parliament. The NHMRC Strategic Plan 2013–2015 has identified ‘claiming benefit for human health not based on evidence’ as a major health issue for consideration.”

According to them, “this Information Paper is an example of NHMRC’s function to ‘advise the community’ under section 7(1)(a) of the NHMRC Act 1992. Published research on a topic of interest has been identified, analyzed and synthesized into a summary of the evidence for the Australian community, health professionals and policy makers. This information can then be utilized to assist people in making healthcare choices, guide clinical practice or influence policy and perhaps new funding approaches, all of which lead to improvements in health and health care delivery. Within our health system, there are practices which are currently not based on sturdy evidence. Health and medical research is the means by which we test the value of procedures, processes, systems and products offered to patients, or proposed as preventive means by the health system and its policy and decision makers. NHMRC is a strong advocate for the development and use of evidence to inform policy and practice and in recent years, NHMRC and other health research funding bodies have increased funding for such research. NHMRC is of the view that when offering treatments for illness, all registered health practitioners must give consideration to the evidence for the effectiveness of such treatments. This consideration should be reflected in their professional ethics and clinical practices.”

According to the NHMRC report, the ‘Information Paper’ is the outcome of their assessment of the evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy, based on: a) an overview of published systematic reviews by an independent contractor, b) an independent evaluation of information provided by homeopathy interest groups and the public, and, c) consideration of clinical practice guidelines and government reports on homeopathy published in other countries. Kindly do not misunderstand, NHMRC did not conduct any research by themselves about homeopathy that led them to a judgment. It was only an “assessment” based on available published materials.

Why did NHMRC conduct such an ‘assessment’ of homeopathy?  Listen what they say: “NHMRC is responsible for supporting health and medical research as well as providing Australians with advice based on best available evidence. This advice assists people in making informed decisions about their health care. This includes providing advice about the use of conventional therapies, as well as complementary and alternative medicines or traditional practices which, despite their longstanding history of use, may not have been demonstrated to be effective. Many health care practices and products are promoted as beneficial to health when there is little or no evidence to support these claims. In some cases these claims may mislead people to reject practices and treatments that are proven to be effective, in favor of non-evidence-based treatments. People who use homeopathy need to understand the potential benefits and risks to enable them to make an informed decision. Health practitioners also need to know what homeopathy is, be aware of the current scientific evidence from research on homeopathy, and understand any possible benefits and risks to patients—particularly when people decide to use homeopathy instead of other evidence-based treatments. For these reasons, NHMRC undertook an assessment of the evidence to provide Australians with reliable information on the effectiveness of homeopathy”.

I repeat my question once again: Why NHMRC did not conduct some well designed studies and researches of their own regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy, instead of arriving at hasty conclusions from assessments of already ‘published materials’ only, knowing well that they are ‘unreliable’ due to flawed methodology, that too by hired ‘contractors’? What held them back from taking up this most important task, if they were really dedicated to finding out truth in the common interest of the society! Why a responsible body such as NHMRC  could not hire a team to conduct such a research work strictly following the scientific methodology, so that ‘reliable’ and ‘conclusive’ output is ensured? If people at NHMRC were genuinely interested to know whether homeopathy works or not, it would have been the easiest way for them, rather than searching for ‘unreliable’ databases!

Only imaginable reason is, NHMRC actually wanted to build a defenseless case against homeopathy, rather than finding out the truth! It was their only goal mandated by their bosses- nothing else!

This work was overseen by the ‘Homeopathy Working Committee’ established by the NHMRC. “Given their collective expertise in evidence-based medicine, study design, and complementary and alternative medicine research, the Homeopathy Working Committee also provided advice on how the evidence should be interpreted in developing an Information Paper.”

Who were the “experts” that constituted this “homeopathic working committee”, who “provided advice on how the evidence should be interpreted in developing a Information Paper” of this type?

See the list of Committee members and their credentials given in the Information Paper:

1. Professor Paul Glasziou, MBBS, PhD, FRACGP, General practitioner Professor and Director of the Centre for Research into EvidenceBased Practice, Bond University, Queensland Expert in evidence-based medicine

1. Professor Peter Brooks, AM, MBBS, MD (Lund), FRACP, FAFRM, FAFPHM, MDHonCausa, FRCP (Glas, Edin), Rheumatologist Director of the Australian Health Workforce Institute, University of Melbourne, Victoria (to September 2013) Executive Director Research, Northern Hospital, Epping, Victoria Former board member, Australian Centre for Complementary Medicine Education and Research, University of Queensland

1. Professor Frederick Mendelsohn, AO, MB BS, PhD, MD, FRACP Neuroscientist Former Chair in Medicine and Director of the Howard Florey Institute, University of Melbourne, Victoria

1. Mr John Stubbs, BA, DipAcct Consumer Executive Officer, canSpeak Honorary Associate, School of Medicine, University of Sydney, New South Wales Member, Australian Health Ethics Committee, NHMRC Member, Consumer Consultative Group, NHMRC

1. Associate Professor Evelin Tiralongo, BPharm(Hons), PhD, GradCertHigherEd Pharmacist Discipline head for complementary medicine teaching and research, School of Pharmacy and Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland Member, Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre, Griffith University Member, Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research

1. Dr Nikolajs Zeps, BSc(Hons), PhD Research scientist Director, St John of God Subiaco Hospital Research network Adjunct Professor School of Health Sciences, Curtin University Adjunct Professor, Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Surgery and School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Western Australia Founding Director, Australian Clinical Trials Alliance Member, Research Committee, NHMRC Member, Australian Health Ethics Committee, NHMRC: Triennium 2010–2012

1. Professor Chris Baggoley, AO, BVSc(Hons), MBBS, BSocAdmin, FACEM, FIFEM , Australian Government Chief Medical Officer

• As the overview only included systematic reviews, some individual studies of homeopathy may not have been considered (particularly recent studies published since the latest systematic reviews). This risk was offset by inviting homeopathy interest groups and the public to provide extra evidence at two stages of the review: before the overview and at public consultation on the draft of this Information Paper. From this process an additional 42 studies were considered as part of the assessment of the evidence. These studies did not alter the overall findings of the assessment of the evidence.

• To assess the quality of individual studies, the research group had to rely on the way that these were reported by systematic reviews. Details of study design (e.g. the outcomes measured and the length of follow up), the statistical significance of the results and the clinical importance of any reported health benefits were not always available. Also, the description of an individual study was sometimes inconsistent between systematic reviews. In these instances, the findings of the systematic review which was assessed to be of a higher quality was considered.

• It was not possible to separate the evidence for clinical homeopathy (in which the homeopath chooses one or more homeopathic medicines to treat a particular health condition) and individualized homeopathy (in which the homeopath matches all the person’s symptoms to a single homeopathic medicine), because most of the systematic reviews did not analyze these separately. Most of the studies used clinical homeopathy.

• It was not possible to make conclusions about the effects of homeopathy on each of the specific health outcomes (e.g. pain, mobility) relevant to a particular health condition (e.g. arthritis), because of the large number of outcomes and the different reporting of outcomes between the different systematic reviews. Instead, outcomes were aggregated for each health condition and a single conclusion made.

• It was often difficult in studies to find the details of other treatments with which homeopathy was compared. To interpret the studies that compared homeopathy with another treatment, it is necessary to understand whether the other treatment is an effective standard treatment. This information was often not available from the systematic reviews.

• It is also likely that some studies assessing homeopathic treatments have never been published. Searching of clinical trials registries can identify unpublished studies and enable researchers to obtain and analyze the results, but cannot identify studies that have not been registered. The overview identified only 10 systematic reviews that reported having considered publication bias, and only two of these made a comprehensive, systematic search for missing studies.”

1. As the overview only included systematic reviews, some individual studies of homeopathy may not have been considered

1. To assess the quality of individual studies, the research group had to rely on the way that these were reported by systematic reviews.

1. It was not possible to separate the evidence for clinical homeopathy (in which the homeopath chooses one or more homeopathic medicines to treat a particular health condition) and individualized homeopathy (in which the homeopath matches all the person’s symptoms to a single homeopathic medicine),

1. It was not possible to make conclusions about the effects of homeopathy on each of the specific health outcomes.

1. It was often difficult in studies to find the details of other treatments with which homeopathy was compared.

1. It is also likely that some studies assessing homeopathic treatments have never been published.

1. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.”

Out of these SEVEN ‘experts’, nobody belongs to the homeopathic community, or claims to have any ‘expertise’ or ‘knowledge’ about homeopathy. All of them belong to modern medical community, who represent a community having known ‘prejudices’ and ‘biases’ against homeopathy. Yet, the committee is called ‘Homeopathic Working Committee’! It is really a big fun to hear calling a body of ‘anti-homeopathic experts’ as ‘Homeopathic Working Committee! If their intentions were genuine, NHMRC should have included in this committee a couple of persons having expertise in homeopathy also, at least to give them a say and prove that there is no bias against homeopathy. Anti-homeopathic goal of NHMRC in taking up this task of ‘assessing’ homeopathy is evident from the constitution of this working committee itself.

 Let us come to the methodological aspects of NHMRC ‘assessment’.  It is consented that the assessment was based on “an overview of published systematic reviews by an independent contractor”. That means, it was that “independent contractor” who conducted the “overview of published systematic reviews” that led to the publication of this ‘Information Paper’.

NHMRC mentions in their ‘paper’ that they commissioned a professional research group OptumInsight (Optum) to do a thorough search of published research to find systematic reviews of studies (prospective, controlled studies) that compared homeopathy with no homeopathy or with other treatments and measured effectiveness in patients with any health condition. That means, OPTUM is the “independent contractor”.

The researchers of OPTUM searched databases of health publications to find systematic reviews published in English between 1 January 1997 and 3 January 2013. For each health condition, the research group collated the findings of the systematic reviews and assessed the quality and reliability of the evidence. The findings are described in detail in the Overview Report. The purpose of this approach was to use published systematic reviews as a way of identifying the body of evidence for homeopathic treatments. The professional research group of OPTUM did not accept the conclusions or interpretations of the systematic reviews, but instead considered the included studies. The professional research group evaluated the quality of each of the included studies, using the information provided by the systematic reviews.

Additional information was submitted by homeopathy interest groups and the public to NHMRC, for its consideration as a part of its review of homeopathy, on two occasions. The preliminary submitted literature on the effectiveness of homeopathy was provided by the Australian Homoeopathy Association and the Australian Medical Fellowship of Homeopathy as well as members of the public. During public consultation on the draft Information Paper, a range of stakeholders submitted 12  additional literature for consideration in the development of this Information Paper .

All submitted literature was assessed by OPTUM researchers to identify evidence within the scope of NHMRC’s assessment. Only the types of studies that were included in the overview (prospective, controlled studies) were assessed in detail. For each study included, OPTUM assessed the quality and reliability of the results and summarized the findings in a review of submitted literature. This evidence was considered when preparing this Information Paper.

Our study of NHMRC ‘Information Paper’ and their conclusions will not be complete unless we know the people behind OPTUM, whom NHMRC hired as “impartial contractors” to do the whole work. Then only you will understand that it is not an issue of ‘prejudice’ and ‘skeptic bias’, but a pre-planned, state-mediated, well financed,  global conspiracy against homeopathy, sponsored by international pharmaceutical lobbies. OPTUM is not “impartial contractors” or “hired researchers” as NHMRC tries to make out, but the real players with their own vested interests, who conducted and orchestrated the whole event for their powerful patrons in the big pharma and healthcare industry.

OPTUM introduces themselves in their website as a “health services and innovation company on a mission, with 94,000 people dedicated to improving the health system for everyone in it, powering MODERN HEALTHCARE by combining data and analytics with technology and expertise”. Visit www.optum.com to know the real role and stakes of this giant in global modern health care business.  OPTUM is a leading information and technology-enabled corporate health services business house with diverse interests and different areas of health care industry, including drug development, clinical trials, pharmaceuticals as well as medical insurance.   They also run their own pharma industry house known as ‘OptumRx’. OPTUM has a colossal presence in different spheres of international health care industry, mostly interested in eradicating all complementary medical systems including HOMEOPATHY, which may pose threat to their big pharma interests.

Now the picture is very clear. OPTUM is not “impartial contractors” or ‘job workers’ hired by NRHMC, but the executors of a global scale health industry conspiracy to “finish” HOMEOPATHY. Entrusting a team of anti-homeopathic experts as well as OPTUM for making “assessment” regarding effectiveness of homeopathy was actually  like appointing jackals as the caretakers of chickens!

If you go though the whole report, you will see how effectively and professionally OPTUM has done the work they were entrusted to do. Final outcome was pre-determined, and all “assessments” were aimed at that goal. Entrusting OPTUM as well as experts of anti-homeopathic professional interests for the ‘assessment’ of effectiveness homeopathy has actually proved to be like appointing ‘jackals’ as the caretakers of ‘chicken’!

See how the OPTUM researchers dealt with the 343 articles submitted by homeopathy interest groups and individuals and produced a BIG ZERO from them: “A total of 343 articles were submitted to NHMRC, of which a large majority (234) were of a research or publication type not meeting the inclusion criteria. A further 79 articles had already been included or considered in the Overview Report. On considering the remaining 30 articles, studies were excluded if they: covered an intervention not meeting the inclusion criteria; were of a research type not meeting the inclusion criteria; did not report on efficacy outcomes; the study design confounded the results; or were not published in English. This resulted in nine studies examining the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of eight different clinical conditions identified for further assessment. Five of the eight conditions (otitis media, delayed-onset muscle soreness, depression, bruising, and sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances) were examined in the overview. The results of these studies were considered in relation to the body of evidence identified in the overview but did not alter the overall conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathy because of their poor quality, poor design, poor reporting of the study design or method, or too few participants.”

See the fate of ‘public consultation’ submitted literature: “A total of 48 submissions were received from consumers, consumer groups, health care professionals, homeopathy practitioners and homeopathy organisations. Of the 153 articles cited in these submissions, 94 were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for the NHMRC review (e.g. they did not investigate the treatment of health conditions in humans, they had already been considered in an earlier stage of the NHMRC review, or they were not published studies). The remaining 59 studies, which had not been included in the overview report, were assessed against pre-determined criteria for consideration. After this assessment, 17 more of these studies were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for the NHMRC review. Of the remaining 42 published studies, three represented a single study, resulting in a final total of 40 studies assessing the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of health conditions, compared with no homeopathy or with other treatment. For each study, the risk of bias was systematically assessed using a standardised method (the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias) and analysed. The included studies investigated homeopathy for the treatment of 14 health conditions (16 studies) that were covered by systematic reviews included in the overview: rheumatoid arthritis, influenza-like illness, hot flushes, rhinosinusitis, ankle sprain, oral dryness, psychophysiological-onset insomnia, stress, dermatological reactions to radiotherapy, warts, osteoarthritis of the knee, chronic low back pain, upper respiratory tract infection and otitis media. Most studies were assessed to have a moderate, moderate-to-high or high risk of bias. Many of these studies were poorly designed, poorly conducted or poorly reported. In addition, the studies had too few participants to be able to detect differences in health outcomes between the treatment groups. The findings of these studies did not alter the overall conclusions of the NHMRC review. Although one small study with a low risk of bias favoured homeopathy for the treatment of cough in upper respiratory tract infections, this study did not have enough participants to outweigh the wider body of evidence considered in the overview”

“The OPTUM researchers searched databases of health publications to find systematic reviews published in English between 1 January 1997 and 3 January 2013. For each health condition, the research group collated the findings of the systematic reviews and assessed the quality and reliability of the evidence. The findings are described in detail in the Overview Report. The purpose of this approach was to use published systematic reviews as a way of identifying the body of evidence for homeopathic treatments. The professional research group did not accept the conclusions or interpretations of the systematic reviews, but instead considered the included studies. The professional research group evaluated the quality of each of the included studies using the information provided by the systematic reviews”.

Detailed assessments of NHMRC ‘Information Paper’ regarding effectiveness of of homeopathy in different classes of diseases are really amusing:

“There is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy, compared with placebo, for the treatment of these health conditions:  acne vulgaris, acute otitis media (inflammation of the middle ear) in children, acute ankle sprain, acute trauma in orthopaedic patients, amoebiasis and giardiasis (gastrointestinal conditions caused by parasites), ankylosing spondylitis, boils and pyoderma (types of skin infections), Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a stroke,  bronchitis, cholera, cough, chronic polyarthritis, dystocia (difficult labour), eczema, heroin addiction,  knee joint haematoma (bruising), lower back pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, oral lichen planus, osteoarthritis, proctocolitis, postoperative pain-agitation syndrome, radiodermatitis (skin damage caused by radiotherapy) in women with breast cancer, seborrhoeic dermatitis, suppression of lactation after childbirth in women who elect not to breastfeed, stroke, traumatic brain injury (mild), uraemic pruritis, vein problems due to cannulas in people receiving chemotherapy,

Why NHMRC reached this conclusion? “For each condition, only one study that compared homeopathy with placebo was found, and this study was unreliable. It was either poor quality (poorly designed or poorly done) or unknown quality, or it had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both”.

Don’t laugh, please! They could find only “one study”. That was “unreliable” also! Why should they wait to jump into their pre-determined ‘conclusion’?

NHMRC ‘paper’ continues: “There is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of these health conditions-  acute otitis media or otitis media with effusion (inflammation of the middle ear) in children (compared with antibiotics, mucolytic medicines, secretolytic medicines, antipyretic medicines, nasal sprays, or monitoring the condition but not providing treatment, allergic rhinitis (compared with antihistamines, cortisone or intranasal cromolyn sodium), anxiety or stress-related conditions (compared with lorazepam, diazepam or cognitive behavioural therapy), depression (compared with fluoxetine or diazepam) , eczema (compared with corticosteroids, antihistamines, or other unspecified therapies), non-allergic rhinitis (compared with aspirin, xylometazoline or other therapies), osteoarthritis (compared with paracetamol or various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), upper respiratory tract infection (compared with anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics or other therapies).

“There is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared with other therapies for the treatment of these health conditions: burns (second- and third-degree), fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome,  malaria, proctocolitis (inflammation of the rectum and colon), recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (yeast infection of the vagina and/or vulva, also called ‘thrush’), rheumatoid arthritis”

Again, why NHMRC reached this conclusion? Their answer: “For each condition, only one study that compared homeopathy with another treatment was found, and this study was unreliable. It was either poor quality (poorly designed or poorly done) or unknown quality, or it had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both.”

Do not miss this very important observation by NHMRC: “The studies of homeopathy were generally poor quality. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.”

If available studies of homeopathy were generally of “poor quality”, and “no conclusion could be made” on the basis of those studies, how could NHMRC come to the generalized conclusion that “homeopathy is ineffective”?  If they “could not be confident” by available studies, how could be they so “confident” to give a sweeping verdict against homeopathy.  NHMRC is bound to explain this point.

NHMRC admits the LIMIATIONS of their study as follows:

“The overview was based on finding systematic reviews of homeopathy, rather than searching for all individual published studies of homeopathy. The advantage of this strategy was to make use of the large amount of work that had already been done by researchers around the world in finding and assessing studies and to provide an overarching picture of the whole body of evidence. However, there were also some disadvantages:

One of these systematic reviews reported significant publication bias, which the authors suggested was primarily due to under-reporting of studies with statistically non-significant effects and with negative effects. Clinical trial registries (included the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry, the US government’s ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry) were searched but did not identify any extra studies.

Despite the above limitations, it is unlikely that a review of primary studies (rather than of systematic reviews) would have altered the findings. This is because the studies on homeopathy identified through this process were generally small and of poor quality (either poorly designed or poorly done). Due to the poor quality of the evidence base, the Homeopathy Working Committee had to apply caution when considering the results reported by studies. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.”

Let us sum up an abstract of the “limitations” NHMRC themselves identified in their methodology:

 All these are limitations of serious concern, which should have been properly attended and appropriately rectified before making any further “assessments” about homeopathy. Instead, NHMRC chose the comfort of ignoring these limitations by a sweeping remark: “Despite the above limitations, it is unlikely that a review of primary studies, rather than of systematic reviews would have altered the findings.”. They were so sure that nothing would alter their findings, as the ‘findings’ and ‘conclusions’ were pre-determined!