You can read this report directly on : https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/the-australian-report-on-homeopathy/?fbclid=IwAR250kBgyE2k87nUCWyh7hHTgxM0eInKGMw_pRtTkZkf745iAXguZqTw8OI
In March 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an Information Paper on homeopathy, commonly referred to as ‘The Australian Report’.1
This document concluded that “…there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”.
The report triggered headlines around the world suggesting NHMRC had found that homeopathy does not work for any condition.3
However, on 26 August 2019 NHMRC CEO Prof Anne Kelso provided the following clarification on the findings of the 2015 Homeopathy Review:
“Contrary to some claims, the review did not conclude that homeopathy was ineffective.”
An extensive investigation by the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) into NHMRC’s conduct, combined with an in-depth scientific analysis of the review by HRI, revealed evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct, including the fact that the published report was NHMRC’s second attempt – a first report written in 2012 was never disclosed to the public.
Missing first report finally released
After an ongoing campaign by stakeholders and the general public, in August 2019 NHMRC finally released the draft 2012 report in which the author concluded that there is “encouraging evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy” in five medical conditions.
Australian Report key facts

• NHMRC did the homeopathy review twice, producing two reports, one in July 2012 and the one released to the public in March 2015.
• The existence of the first report was not disclosed to the public – it was only discovered through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
• NHMRC say they rejected the first report because it was poor quality despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist and author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews.
• FOI requests have revealed that a member of NHMRC’s expert committee overseeing the review process – Professor Fred Mendelsohn – confirmed the first review to be high quality saying –  “I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.” 
• NHMRC said the results of the second report published in 2015 were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies.
• NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or since. NHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants.
• These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leavingonly 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’. As they assessed all 5 of these trials as negative, this explains how NHMRC could conclude that there was no ‘reliable’ evidence.
• Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, signed conflict of interest formdeclaring he was not “affiliated or associated with any organisation whose interests are either aligned with or opposed to homeopathy”,despite being a member of anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’
• NHMRC’s guidelines state that such committees must include experts on the topic being reviewed, yet there was not one homeopathy expert on this committee.

Complaint submitted to Commonwealth Ombudsman
In August 2016 HRI’s in-depth scientific analysis was used as part of a submission of complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman brought by Complementary Medicines Australia, Australian Homoeopathic Association and Australian Traditional Medicine Society.
An initial assessment found the complaint to be of sufficient merit to warrant a full investigation into NHMRC’s conduct. Over the intervening months, this process has involved ongoing input from both parties as NHMRC answers charges of bias, conflict of interest and scientific misconduct.
Download the Executive Summary of the Ombudsman submission here.
Rachel Roberts, HRI Chief Executive says, “NHMRC’s review is a shocking example of misreporting. Decision-makers and the scientific community rely on these kinds of reports and need to trust their accuracy. This is not about anyone’s personal opinion as to whether homeopathy works or not. It is about the importance of evidence being reported objectively, whatever it says, and NHMRC did not do that.”
As the complaint is ongoing, our full analysis – some 60 pages – cannot be shared as yet, but HRI’s data provided details demonstrating the following scientific failures by NHMRC which necessitate retraction of the Australian Report:

• Use of an inappropriate scientific method
• Failure to use standardised, accepted methods
• Failure to obtain sufficiently accurate data to perform a meaningful review
• Failure to conduct an effective preliminary and public consultation
• Significant post-hoc changes to the research protocol
• Impact of NHMRC’s unusual method on the review results
• Further evidence of bias and misreporting
• Poor reporting – lack of clarity, inconsistencies and errors
• Evidence that this was a case of deliberate bias, not scientific error.

Dr Alex Tournier, Executive Director of HRI, explains: “The inaccuracies in NHMRC’s report are so extreme that we decided to work with the AHA to conduct a thorough investigation to fully uncover exactly what went on.”
The complainants are now waiting to hear back from the Ombudsman regarding their submission. As NHMRC’s inaccurate Homeopathy Review has had a significant impact on the field of homeopathy research worldwide, HRI will share any news regarding the complaint as the case progresses.
Roberts says: “The public has a right to know that there are high quality studies showing homeopathy works for some medical conditions, such as hay fever, sinusitis and diarrhoea in children – information that was lost only due to NHMRC’s mishandling of the evidence. If the evidence on conventional medicine was treated this way there would be an outcry – and rightly so. NHMRC’s job was to accurately summarise the body of evidence for homeopathy for the public, a task in which they categorically failed.”
The missing first report
NHMRC’s investigation into Homeopathy ran from 2010 to 2015. NHMRC initially worked with an external contractor at the University of South Australia (UniSA) – from April 2012-August 2012 – to produce a review of the evidence on Homeopathy to inform the Australian public.
The report produced was called The Effectiveness of Homeopathy: An overview review of secondary evidence.
This review, paid for by Australian tax payers, was never made public and NHMRC refused to release it for over three years, despite repeated Freedom of Information requests.
After terminating the contract with the first review team, a second external contractor – OptumInsight – was hired to do the Homeopathy review again from December 2012-March 2015.
HRI is not alone in criticising the accuracy of NHMRC’s findings
FOI requests have brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the conclusions of the 2015 report during peer review, prior to final publication. The Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that for some conditions, “…. ‘no reliable evidence’ does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. NHMRC chose not to act on this feedback and did not amend their conclusions.
The real story behind the headlines
More
Contrary to NHMRC’s findings, there are ‘good quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result‘ (to use NHMRC’s description of a reliable study) which show that certain homeopathic treatments are effective for certain conditions such as hay fever, sinusitis, upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhoea in children and lower back pain. The fact that the results of such studies were unjustifiably dismissed means that NHMRC have misled the public by misreporting the evidence for effectiveness of homeopathy.
Find out more on our Australian Report FAQs page
Document archive
NHMRC publications 2014
Draft Australian Report
Overview Report
Overview Report Appendices
Review of Submitted Literature
List of Submitted Evidence
HRI publications 2014-15
HRI response
HRI submission to public consultation

Vaccine injury payouts exceed $4 billion, yet most people remain uninformed about the risks linked to vaccinations
Posted by: Dena Schmidt, staff writer in Drug Dangers, Vaccine Dangers December 1, 2018 48 Comments
Read this article from Natural Health directly on their web site :
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine-injury-2788.html
(NaturalHealth365) Recent data from the Health Resources & Services Administration reveals some alarming information about vaccine side effects and the legal outcome of a vaccine injury.
Payouts from a vaccine injury compensation fund have now exceeded $4 billion, and this reflects the government’s own assessment that just one percent of all vaccine injuries are reported.
As we would expect: the pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plus many other ‘health’ organizations continue to insist that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ – despite the huge payouts issued by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
There has never been a wider level of brainwashing throughout a society.  Too many uninformed citizens are being kept in the dark about the true risks associated with these vaccines.
The most disturbing reality linked to vaccine injury payouts
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) was launched by President Reagan in 1986 as an ‘alternative remedy’ to judicial action for vaccine injuries. A key component is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) with its own “vaccine court.”
Within this system, consumers are required to meet an extremely high burden of proof to win their cases. Over its 30-year history, consumers have filed more than 20,000 petitions.
The result?  Less than one-third of these victims receive compensation, and since only about one percent of vaccine injury cases are reported, only a fraction of those affected by vaccine side effects ever receive monetary compensation for their pain.
While some victims do receive a legal victory, overall it seems like this program cares more about protecting the vaccine manufacturer.  If big pharma is not held accountable for its actions, why should they focus on making vaccines safer?
Despite horrific side effects: Vaccines get promoted, more than ever!
Meanwhile, the CDC childhood vaccine schedule guarantees a large and lucrative market for the pharmaceutical companies.  As you may know, there’s been a push – in recent years – to vaccinate teenagers with the HPV shot.
In addition, the highly ineffective flu vaccine is heavily marketed to people of all ages.
The source of many vaccine side effects has been linked to the toxic metals – which are included as so-called ‘necessary’ ingredients.  Many vaccines on the market today contain: aluminum, mercury and other ingredients that essentially function as neurotoxins – suppressing the immune system; leading to nervous system issues and cognitive problems.
Parents beware: children under the age of 3, in particular, receive these unsafe ingredients in amounts that far exceed acceptable levels.
The reason why vaccines cause problems like, autism and autoimmune disorders
According to ‘conventional wisdom,’ adults should not receive more than 25 micrograms (mcg) of aluminum at one time; infants or children – no more than 10 micrograms.  Yet, while adhering to a typical vaccine schedule, small children will be exposed to at least 250 mcg on their first day of life! (plus, much more before the age of 3)
In addition to neurological problems, autoimmune disorders and autism, many vaccine side effects include: chronic aches and pain, paralysis and even sudden premature death.  Regulatory agencies and the drug companies themselves need to start focusing on better ways to protect our society from disease.
Injecting neurotoxins into the human body is NOT ‘safe’ or ‘effective.’  It’s just wrong.
We, as concerned citizens, must educate ourselves and (always) make informed decisions about our healthcare.
Sources for this article include:
ChildrensHealthDefense.org
NaturalHealth365.com

 

'Independent' researchers have shares in drug companies they're testing
About the author: 
Bryan Hubbard - WDDTY
You can read this article directly on https://www.wddty.com/news/2018/09/independent-researchers-have-shares-in-drug-companies-theyre-testing.html
September 14th 2018 in Cancer, Drugs

Independent drug trials aren't always quite so independent. Researchers are still not revealing the pay-outs they're getting from drug companies whose drugs they are testing—and in some cases they even have shares in the company.
Around a third of researchers are not disclosing their financial conflicts of interest despite the enormous pressure from medical journals for transparency in clinical trials.
Some researchers get speaking fees, others receive 'research grants' and others hold shares in the drug company whose drug they are reviewing, but which they are not revealing in their research that is presented as being independent.
A review of the work of 344 cancer researchers discovered they had received a total of $216m in payments from drug companies in just over a year—and which they had never disclosed.
But they are under no obligation to reveal their connection to the drug company. "It's an honour system. The journals ask the authors to make these disclosures, but there's no legal force behind it," said Erick Turner of the Oregon Health & Science University.
He and his researchers looked at the Open Payments Database, a US system where all drug company pay-outs are supposed to be recorded, and compared them to the disclosures made in published clinical trials of cancer drugs.
It's known that drug company pay-outs influence doctors in their prescribing decisions, and the researchers are concerned the same could also be true for scientists conducting clinical trials.


References
(Source: JAMA Oncology, 2018; doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3738)

24-08-2018#releasethefirstreport
Al eerder heeft de Vereniging Homeopathie aandacht besteed aan het feit dat de Australische National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)  weigert een groots opgezet wetenschappelijk onderzoek met waarschijnlijk positieve resultaten voor de homeopathie te publiceren. 
Velen hebben de petitie getekend, waarmee de bevolking de NHMRC oproept het originele rapport te publiceren. De teller staat inmiddels al op bijna 12.000. Ook de Australische ombudsman onderzoekt de kwestie inmiddels en er is een heuse Twitter campagne opgestart. Er zijn al vele berichten aan de @nhmrc gestuurd met het verzoek het rapport te publiceren. Hierbij wordt gebruik gemaakt van #releasethefirstreport.
Wil jij ook weten wat er in het nooit gepubliceerde homeopathie onderzoek staat en heb je een Twitter account? Stuur de @nhmrc dan een berichtje of kijk op het web site https://releasethefirstreport.com/ en teken de petitie als je wilt!
Een bericht van de Vereninging Homeopathie van 24 augustus 2018

Eerdere onderzoeken hebben al laten zien dat een beetje koorts zorgt voor een sterker immuunsysteem. In een nieuwe studie wordt dit bevestigd en tevens vastgesteld dat een beetje koorts niet alleen een natuurlijke bescherming is tegen infecties maar ook tegen kanker.
Hoe hoger de temperatuur boven de 'normale' 37 graden C komt, hoe sneller het lichaam de natuurlijke afweer versnelt tegen tumoren, wonden en infecties. Omgekeerd kan een lage lichaamstemperatuur van ongeveer 34 graden ontstekingsprocessen veroorzaken.
Onze 24-uurslichaamsklok kan omgaan met de natuurlijke temperatuurdaling wanneer we slapen, maar het risico van ontstekingsziekte en kanker stijgt wanneer het gedurende een langere periode laag is. Dit kan ook de verklaring zijn waarom ploegarbeiders of mensen die last hebben van frequente jetlag of slapeloosheid meer vatbaar zijn voor ontstekingsziekten.
Uit de studie blijkt dat een verhoogde lichaamstemperatuur ook zorgt voor een snelle afgifte van een eiwit, A20, dat het lichaam beschermt tegen ontstekingsziekten en kanker. Zelfs kleine stijgingen van de lichaamstemperatuur helpen de afweersystemen van het lichaam, vonden de onderzoekers. Het onderzoek bevestigt onderzoek van enkele jaren geleden dat aantoonde dat mensen die hoge koorts hadden gehad, minder kans hadden om kanker te krijgen.



Website:
https://www.mmv.nl

Vereniging Homeopathie in onderhandeling met zorgverzekeraars
Wanneer je wel eens gebruik maakt van natuurlijke geneeswijzen is het je vast al eens opgevallen dat deze therapieën onvoldoende worden vergoed door de zorgverzekeraars. Dit terwijl uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek is gebleken dat juist gebruikers van natuurlijke geneeswijzen minder zorg gebruiken dan gemiddeld. Uit een onderzoek van de Universiteit van Tilburg in 2014 is gebleken dat het verschil in zorgkosten van een patiënt met een complementair werkende huisarts en een vergelijkbare patiënt met reguliere huisarts (zonder onderscheid tussen de basis- en aanvullende verzekering) op 10,1% uitkomt.
Het onderzoek is gebaseerd op geanonimiseerde gegevens uit de Agis Health Database, waarin gegevens voor verzekerden van Agis zijn vastgelegd. In het databestand komen 9323 huisartsen en huisartsenpraktijken voor, waarvan 109 als complementair werkend konden worden geïdentificeerd.
De Vereniging Homeopathie gaat komende weken het gesprek aan met een aantal zorgverzekeraars. Doel is de vergoeding voor homeopathie en natuurlijke geneeswijzen in het algemeen te verbeteren. Zo strijden we voor een betere vergoeding per consult en voor de voorgeschreven middelen. Ook streven we naar korting op de zorgverzekeringen.

German footballers love homeopathy
A survey of the German football league revealed homeopathy was used extensively with good effect by medical officers in the 1st and 2nd divisions.
Ninety-two per cent of teams treated players homeopathically; the therapy was seen as having definite advantages over other treatments.
Doctors and teams used homeopathy because it reduced the stress of exertion, produced faster recovery from injury, didn’t cause harmful side effects, was safe to use with other medical treatments, didn’t produce ‘doping’ infringements, and generally benefited the athletes.
More Information: Homeopathy and football: EM professionals rely on gentle medicine
https://homeopathyplus.com/german-football-teams-love-homeopathy/
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/homoeopathie-und-fussball-em-profis-setzen-auf-sanfte-medizin-a-556276.html