Deze website gebruikt analytische cookies om bezoekersstatistieken bij te houden. Zo kunnen we de website verbeteren. Deze cookies worden geïnstalleerd door Google.
Homeopathie werkt bewezen beter dan placebo
Homeopathische geneesmiddelen werken. Dat is in 1997 al bewezen. De European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) beweert echter in een recent advies dat er geen bewijs zou zijn, maar baseert dit op onbetrouwbare, deels frauduleuze rapporten. De Artsen Vereniging Integrale Geneeskunde (AVIG) roept de EASAC op tot een wetenschappelijke dialoog over homeopathische geneeskunde samen met homeopathische onderzoekers. Het bewijs voor homeopathie doet niet onder voor dat van regulier. De conclusie van de eerste vier meta-analyses die er gedaan zijn naar alle dubbelblinde, gerandomiseerde onderzoeken (RCT’s) waren positief. De conclusie van de vierde meta-analyse (Klaus Linde, Lancet, 1997) was dat homeopathie significant beter werkt dan placebo. Met andere woorden: homeopathie werkt. De alom gerespecteerde epidemioloog Vandenbroucke noemde zelfs de hoge kwaliteit van dit onderzoek tijdens zijn jubileumlezing van The Lancet in 1998. De EASAC baseert haar conclusie echter op een vijfde meta-analyse, namelijk die van Shang en Egger. Deze meta-analyse is gebaseerd op voornamelijk dezelfde RCT’s als de vierde meta-analyse en werd in 2005 gepubliceerd. Hun conclusie, ‘zwak bewijs voor homeopathie en sterk bewijs voor reguliere middelen’, bleek later bij een analyse door de onderzoekers Lüdtke en Rutten te berusten op een niet openbaar gemaakte selectie van 8 van de 110 homeopathische onderzoeken en 6 van de 110 reguliere onderzoeken. Zo’n geheime selectie is verdacht en ongeoorloofd. Uiteindelijk ging het om onvergelijkbare onderzoeken. Het effect van alle 110 homeopathische onderzoeken bleken bij deze analyse van dezelfde sterkte te zijn als de reguliere onderzoeken en de kwaliteit van de homeopathische onderzoeken was beter. Ook een Australisch rapport met een negatieve conclusie over het bewijs van homeopathie wordt aangehaald. Deze conclusie kon onder andere worden bereikt door alle studies met minder dan honderdvijftig proefpersonen uit te sluiten – een maatregel die elke wetenschappelijke grond mist en die ingaat tegen de richtlijnen van het onderzoeksinstituut dat het rapport uitbracht. Een onafhankelijk onderzoeker als de Zweedse professor Hahn stelde recent zelfs vast dat het bewijs voor homeopathie alleen onderuit gehaald kan worden door meer dan 90% van de onderzoeken te schrappen of door dubieuze statistiek. Bijwerkingen Ook stelt de EASAC, zonder onderbouwing, dat homeopathie schadelijk kan zijn. Alle onderzoeken wijzen echter uit dat homeopathie – bij oordeelkundig gebruik – veilig is en in principe – door de wijze van bereiden waarbij het middel verdund en geschud wordt – geen bijwerkingen heeft. Een bekende tegenstander van homeopathie, Edzard Ernst, vond in de wereldliteratuur over 34 jaar slechts vier overlijdens die mogelijk met homeopathie te maken konden hebben. Volgens de EMA overlijden in de EU jaarlijks ongeveer 200.000 mensen aan bijwerkingen van reguliere middelen… De EASAC noemt het onthouden van een reguliere behandeling als een gevaar van een homeopathische behandeling. Het onthouden van een noodzakelijke behandeling is volgens ons gewoon slechte geneeskunde en heeft niets te maken met homeopathie. Leden van de Artsen Vereniging Integrale Geneeskunde (AVIG) hebben als artsen de opleiding en nascholing genoten om goed te kunnen beoordelen welke methode een patiënt nodig heeft. Binnen de visie van de integrale geneeskunde staat juist het kiezen van het beste uit beide werelden voorop. Zelfde soort bewijs voor homeopathische als voor reguliere geneesmiddelen? Dat adviseert de EASAC. Blijkbaar hebben zij zich niet verdiept in de homeopathische methode. Geneesmiddelen worden in de homeopathische geneeskunde namelijk niet alleen uitgezocht op de ziekte of klacht maar ook op het totaalbeeld van de mens. Het is een individuele vorm van geneeskunde. Ook in de reguliere geneeskunde is gebleken dat niet iedereen op hetzelfde middel hetzelfde reageert en wordt er gestreefd naar een individueel voorschrift. Homeopathie in veel landen geaccepteerd In een aantal landen is homeopathie een geaccepteerde en geïmplementeerde vorm van geneeskunde. In India, Brazilië en in verschillende staten van de VS zelfs als medisch specialisme. In de ons omringende landen is homeopathie een officieel erkende behandelmethode die vaak aan de universiteit wordt onderwezen. In Zwitserland wordt homeopathie, naast natuurgeneeskunde, acupunctuur en antroposofie volledig vergoed vanuit de basisverzekering, onder meer op basis van wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Recente Zwitserse evaluaties tonen in alle opzichten positieve resultaten, ook financieel. In Nederland maken veel mensen naar tevredenheid gebruik van homeopathie, vooral mensen met een chronische aandoening. Een Nederlandse studie toonde enkele jaren geleden aan dat huisartsen die naast reguliere ook homeopathische geneeskunde toepassen ruim 12% goedkoper werken dan gemiddeld. Samenwerken als wetenschappers in plaats van elkaar bestrijden Ten slotte doet de AVIG samen met internationale belangenverenigingen en onderzoekers een oproep aan de EASAC om samen te werken. In een gezamenlijke conferentie kan de stand van zaken van het wetenschappelijk homeopathisch onderzoek worden vastgesteld. Referenties kunt u vinden op www.homeopathie.nl WWW.FACULTYOFHOMEOPATHY.ORG/RESEARCH
The Research Evidence Base for Homeopathy Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy • Two major reviews of RCTs of individualised homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions. 6,7 • Four of ve major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions. 1-4 Based on a smaller selection of trials, a fth review came to a negative conclusion about homeopathy. 5 • Positive conclusions have been reported in 9 of 35 reviews of RCTs in specic categories of medical condition (the other 26 are largely inconclusive): •allergies and upper respiratory tract infections 8,9 •childhood diarrhoea 10 •post-operative ileus 11 •rheumatic diseases 12 •seasonal allergic rhinitis 13-15 •vertigo 16 Placebo-controlled RCTs of homeopathy - the original data • Up to the end of 2014, the peer-reviewed literature included 153 papers reporting placebo-controlled RCTs, of which 104 have data eligible for our analysis: 43 positive; 5 negative; 56 not statistically conclusive. In addition to the medical conditions above, there is a positive balance of evidence in the following, for example: •in‑uenza 17,18 •insomnia 19-21 •sinusitis 22,23 • There is evidence from singleton placebo-controlled RCTs in favour of homeopathy for a number of other conditions including: bronchitis, 24 chronic fatigue syndrome, 25 bromyalgia, 26 premenstrual syndrome. 27 Cost eectiveness of homeopathy • 70.7% of 6,554 follow-up patients, treated at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital for a wide range of chronic medical complaints, reported positive health changes. 31 • Many patients who attended the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital were able to reduce or stop conventional medication following homeopathic treatment. 32 Basic Science • Laboratory research has obtained evidence that water may retain information about homeopathically-prepared solutes. 33-35 • Additional laboratory studies have shown that homeopathic dilutions can exert biological eects e.g. 36-38 • Integration of homeopathy with conventional treatment is associated with better clinical outcomes for similar or lower costs. 28-30 Clinical observational studies WWW.FACULTYOFHOMEOPATHY.ORG/RESEARCH 1. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. Br Med J 1991; 302: 316–23. 2. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43. 3. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6. 4. Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy – A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33. 5. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726–32. 6. Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med 1998, 4: 371–388. 7. Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014, 3: 142. 8. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice –summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementärmed 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29. 9. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 1. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine;eCAM, 2006; 3:293-301 10. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22: 229–34. 11. Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E. Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 25: 628–33. 12. Jonas WB, Linde K, Ramirez G. Homeopathy and rheumatic disease – Complementary and alternative therapies for rheumatic diseases II. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2000; 26: 117–23. 13. Wiesenauer M, Lüdtke R. A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 1996; 3: 230–6. 14. Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. Br Med J 2000; 321: 471–6. 15. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 2. eCAM 2006; 3:397–409. 16. Schneider B, Klein P, Weiser M. Treatment of vertigo with a homeopathic complex remedy compared with usual treatments: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Arzneimittelforschung 2005;55: 23–9. 17. Ferley JP, Zmirou D, D’Adhemar D, Balducci F. A controlled evaluation of a homoeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza like syndromes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1989; 27: 329–335. 18. Papp R, Schuback G, Beck E, et al. Oscillococcinum® in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation. Br Homoeopath J 1998; 87: 69–76 19. Kolia-Adam N, Solomon E, Bond J, Deroukakis M. The efficacy of Coffea cruda on insomnia: a double blind trial. Simillimum 2008; 21: 91–99. 20. Naudé DF, Couchman IMS, Maharaj A Chronic primary insomnia: efficacy of homeopathic simillimum. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 63–68. 21. Harrison CC, Solomon EM, Pellow J. The effect of a homeopathic complex on psychophysiological onset insomnia in males: a randomized pilot study. Altern Ther Health Med 2013;19: 38-43. 22. Friese K-H, Zabalotnyi DI. Homeopathy in acute rhinosinusitis. A double-blind, placebo controlled study shows the effectiveness and tolerability of a homeopathic combination remedy. HNO 2007; 55: 271–7. 23. Zabolotnyi DI, Kneis KC, Richardson A, et al. Efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis: a prospective, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Explore (NY) 2007; 3: 98–109. 24. Diefenbach M, Schilken J, Steiner G, Becker HJ. Homeopathic therapy in respiratory tract diseases. Evaluation of a clinical study in 258 patients. Z Allgemeinmed 1997; 73: 308–14. 25. Weatherley-Jones E, Nicholl JP, Thomas KJ, et al. A randomized, controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res 2004; 56: 189–97. 26. Bell I, Lewis D, Brooks A, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology 2004; 43: 577–582. 27. Yakir M, Kreitler S, Brzezinski A, et al. Effects of homeopathic treatment in women with premenstrual syndrome: a pilot study. Br Homeopath J 2001; 90: 148–53. 28. Witt C, Keil T, Selim D, et al. Outcome and costs of homeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders. Complement Ther Med 2005; 13: 79–86. 29. Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Baur R, Willich SN. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3,981 patients. BMC Public Health 2005; 5: 115. 30. Trichard M, Chaufferin G Nicoloyannis N. Pharmacoeconomic comparison between homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis in children. Homeopathy 2005; 94: 3–9. 31. Spence D, Thompson E, Barron S. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university hospital based outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 5: 793–8. 32. Sharples F, van Haselen R, Fisher P. NHS patients’ perspective on complementary medicine. Complement Ther Med 2003; 11: 243–8. 33. Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride, Physica (A) 2003; 323: 67–74. 34. Bell IR, Lewis DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Gas discharge visualisation evaluation of ultramolecular doses of homeopathic medicines under blinded, controlled conditions. J Altern Complement Med 2003; 9: 25–38. 35. Elia V, Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999; 879: 241–8. 36. Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, et al. Critical review and meta-analysis of serial agitated dilutions in experimental toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 1994; 13: 481–92. 37. Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm Res 2004; 53: 181–8. 38. Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, et al. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies – A systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med 2007; 15: 128–38. REFERENCES The Lancet paper by Shang et al.
In August 2005, the Lancet published a study1 which was reported as having compared 110 similar trials on homeopathy and conventional medicine, and reached the conclusion that homeopathy is no better than placebo. An accompanying editorial by The Lancet editor entitled ‘The end of homoeopathy’2 lead to widespread media attention. However, the conclusions of this study were in fact based on only 8 of the 110 trials, none of which involved usual homeopathic care. Furthermore, if you switch just one of the 8 trials they picked from the 110 for a different one, the results are reversed, showing that homeopathy works beyond placebo.3 This demonstrates that the findings of this paper are completely unreliable. The sequence of events surrounding this issue of The Lancet, the political controversy which followed and key flaws of the study itself, are summarised in ‘Homeopathy and the Lancet‘.3 A paper with continued global impact The Shang et al. paper has become notorious because, despite such fundamental flaws, it continues to be mis-quoted to this day as definitive ‘proof’ that homeopathy doesn’t work e.g.: “Over 150 trials have failed to show it works” Dr Ellie Cannon – resident GP for the Mail on Sunday. ‘Health Comment’, Mail on Sunday, 14 September 2014 “We’ve had over 100 trials of homeopathy now. For any medical treatment, after 100 trials have failed to give good overall evidence of benefit, this is the point at which a sensible person, with no vested interests in that one particular treatment, would loudly and clearly state: “No more money should be spent researching this blind alley”. Ben Goldacre – British physician, academic and science writer.‘Pharma Chameleon’, New Europe, 17 April 2011 – Issue 93. Results of the Shang paper Shang et al.’s findings as reported in the abstract of the paper are: 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0·88 (95% CI 0·65–1·19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0·58 (0·39–0·85) for conventional medicine (six trials). Note: These ‘odds ratios’ mean that, for these particular 8 trials of homeopathy, if you analyse them together, the results suggest that the effects seen are due to placebo rather than a real clinical effect. How reliable are these results? The role of the Shang paper in the homeopathy debate cannot be overstated, so the issue of quality and reliability of the paper is paramount. Unfortunately, the poor scientific quality of the paper is obvious, having been described by experts in the field of homeopathy research3,4,5,6,7 as well as independent researcher Prof Hahn, who highlights the main problem: To conclude that homeopathy lacks clinical effect, more than 90% of the available clinical trials had to be disregarded.8 More Relevance of Shang’s 2005 paper in 2015 Reliability of the analysis is not the only problem with the Shang paper. As we take a fresh look at the evidence in 2015, we also need to consider how well this study reflects the entirety of today’s evidence base. A rigorous study by Mathie et al. published in 2014, found that homeopathic medicines, when prescribed during individualised treatment, are 1.5- to 2.0-times more likely to have a beneficial effect than placebo.13 This study includes 151 placebo-controlled randomised trials – 41 more than Shang’s team identified in 2005, but which would have met their inclusion criteria if they had been available at the time. This demonstrates the extent to which the 10 year-old Shang et al. paper, which now covers only 73% of the eligible trials, has been superseded. Read HRI’s brief summary of Mathie et al.’s study or listen to Robert Mathie presenting his findings at the HRI Rome 2015 conference. Shang et al. key facts
The Australian report
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 concludes that “…there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”. This report triggered headlines around the world suggesting NHMRC had found that homeopathy doesn’t work for any condition.3 Australian Report key facts An extensive detailed investigation by Gerry Dendrinos of the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) into NHMRC’s conduct, combined with an in-depth scientific analysis of the report by HRI, revealed evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct in producing this report:
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. Download the Executive Summary of the Ombudsman submission here. Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive of HRI says “NHMRC’s review is just bad science. 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 the 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:
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 – from April 2012-August 2012 – to produce a review of the evidence on Homeopathy to inform the Australian public. The report produced was called ‘A Systematic Review of the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Homeopathy’. This review, paid for by Australian tax payers, was never made public and NHMRC continue to refuse to release it, 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 The Information Paper is designed for the general public and aims to provide a summary of the findings of a review of systematic reviews, carried out by NHMRC to assess the evidence base for effectiveness of homeopathy in humans.2 Confusing ‘lack of evidence of effect’ with ‘evidence of a lack of effect’ The Report’s conclusion that there is ‘no reliable evidence’ that homeopathy works, has been widely misunderstood, with people believing it meant that the NHMRC found that homeopathy does not work for the conditions tested, which would be a completely different result. This misunderstanding triggered widespread media coverage, propagating the inaccurate story that the NHMRC found homeopathy to be no better than placebo for all the conditions. In fact, NHMRC concluded that homeopathy worked no better than placebo for only 13 of the 61 health conditions they investigated. HRI’s in-depth scientific analysis of the Australian Report revealed multiple examples of bias and misreporting which explain how NHMRC arrived at such a definitive and negative position, at odds with the conclusions of the majority of other more academically rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathy. Most crucially, NHMRC’s findings hinge primarily on their definition of reliable evidence: for a trial to be deemed ‘reliable’ it had to have at least 150 participants and a quality score of 5/5 on the Jadad scale (or equivalent on other scales). Trials that failed to meet either of these criteria were dismissed as being of ‘insufficient quality and/or size to warrant further consideration of their findings’. Setting such a high quality threshold is very unusual, but the N=150 minimum sample size criterion is arbitrary, without scientific justification, and unprecedented in evidence reviews. Out of 176 individual studies the NHMRC included in the homeopathy review, only 5 trials met their definition of ‘reliable‘, none of which, according to their analysis, demonstrated effectiveness of homeopathy. This explains why NHMRC concluded there is ‘no reliable evidence’ that homeopathy is effective. For context it is worth remembering that if it was indeed the case that ‘no reliable evidence’ existed for homeopathy, it would put homeopathy in the same evidence category (“unknown effectiveness”) as 46% of conventional treatments used in the NHS, but in fact this conclusion is inaccurate. 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 https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/the-australian-report-on-homeopathy/ Liesbeth Ellinger schreef 02 oktober in de NRC:
Lees dit artikel uit NRC.next Homeopathie werkt wel Homeopathie werkt wel Wetenschap Homeopathie werkt wel Nu zeggen onderzoekers van EASAC, een raad van nationale wetenschappelijke kennisinstituten, weer dat homeopathische medicijnen niet langer als medisch product zouden mogen worden aangemerkt, omdat onvoldoende vaststaat dat ze echt werken. (Homeopathie-middelen niet langer vergoeden, 21/9). Als er gezegd wordt „er is geen enkel wetenschappelijk bewijs dat homeopathie werkt”, weet dan dat dit een leugen is. Homeopathie werkt wel degelijk, en dat is zelfs wetenschappelijk bewezen. Zelf hebben we een overtuigend dubbelblind onderzoek gedaan naar het voorkómen van diarree bij biggen. Het idee dat homeopathie alleen werkt als je erin gelooft, is onzin. Als dierenarts, gespecialiseerd in homeopathie, behandel ik dagelijks honden, katten en paarden, vaak met al jarenlange, zogenaamd ongeneeslijke klachten. Als die binnen een week gaan opknappen, is dat dan geloof van het paard in homeopathie? Of geloof van de eigenaar, die ziet dat zijn kreupele paard plots weer goed loopt? Geloof van de dierenarts, die op de röntgenfoto ziet dat de artrose verdwijnt? Met veehouders werken we hard om het gebruik van antibiotica terug te dringen. Door homeopathische middelen te gebruiken, lukt het een aantal veehouders om antibioticumvrij te werken. Dat is enorm belangrijk, omdat we steeds meer problemen krijgen met antibioticumresistentie. Liesbeth Ellinger dierenarts en onderzoeker, gespecialiseerd in homeopathie |
AuteurNathalie Parmentier is Klassiek Homeopaat en Orthomoleculaire Therapeut in Laren en Amsterdam Archieven
Oktober 2023
Categorieën |
THE POWER OF NATURE Homeopathie Amsterdam
'Het Coachhuis' Van Eeghenlaan 27 1071 EN Amsterdam THE POWER OF NATURE Homeopathie Laren
Zevenenderdrift 19 1251 RA Laren |