Letter: NHS homeopathy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Professor Ernst states that "scientists point out that where there is no molecule there can be no effect". This argument is more than 50 years out of date and is worthy of the flat earth society award. It rules out radio and television, and even electricity. The phenomena of matter and energy are much more complex than he pretends.
He mentions the "100 rigorous clinical trials of homeopathy (that) have been published", and then dismisses the results as unconvincing. Over the past 10 years homeopathic physicians have indeed conducted a number of rigorous studies, using the same research models of audit, randomised controlled trials, and meta analysis that are used by orthodox medicine today. The results have been very positive. If the results of such trials are unconvincing then so are the results of similar studies supporting treatments provided by orthodox medicine.
What most people do not know is that orthodox medicine is not so far ahead of homeopathy in so far as evidence-based medicine is concerned. Until quite recently most orthodox treatments, both medical and surgical, were prescribed because doctors thought they worked, not because there were clinical trials which proved that they worked.
Dr DAVID CURTIN MB BS MFHom
Integrated Medical Centre,
London W1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments