The many truths of homeopathy

Homeopathy research

Homeopathy is controversial - even in research. Who believes that science has objective knowledge and therefore society and politicians „the truth“ As a basis for decision-making, homoeopathic research can teach us something: science and its results can be very heterogeneous, even contradictory.

And that's how it works „several truths“ in a research area. This is immediately clear from the various experts who argue for the effectiveness of homeopathy: „The effectiveness of homeopathy can be considered as proven, taking into account internal and external validity criteria, professional professional application as safe.“ This is the conclusion, for example, of a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) carried out by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) as part of the Evaluation Complementary Medicine (PEK) program. This comprehensive investigation of the FOPH was aimed at providing the basis for the effectiveness, expediency and cost-effectiveness of complementary medicine. Contrary to the Swiss BAG, on the other hand, Prof. Dr. med. Windeler, head of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG): „A medical benefit of homeopathy has not been proven. You do not even have to continue researching, the matter is done“, Windeler is sure.

Zankapfel potentiation
Since the founding of homeopathy, the main point of controversy between homeopaths and conventional medicine physicians is the potentiation - ie the dilution and spillover of homeopathic remedies. So far, no scientific model can fully explain the mechanism of action of so-called high potencies, in which no molecule of the starting substance is more detectable. Even if effects of potentized drugs have already been proven in laboratory tests (see below). And „because it can not be what can not be“, From the missing explanatory model the accusation is often developed that homeopathy can only be a placebo medicine instead of turning to open questions.

Clinical research and health services research
Modern clinical research focuses almost exclusively on the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, with the result that the role of the medical history or the way in which the homeopathically appropriate drug is found is usually masked out. In a reductionist approach that will „total package“ The homeopathic treatment is broken down into individual parts whose effects are assessed separately from the other parts.

That homeopathy is more than the sum of its parts, however, is reflected in the daily medical practice, the patient satisfaction and not least in the influx of doctors, who educate themselves homeopathically. Thus, the number of homeopathically trained physicians has more than doubled from 1995 (around 3,000) to today (over 7,000). For some, this is a sign of the delusion of the medical profession, for others the conclusive enforcement of a functioning healing method.

The opposite of the reductionist research approach can be found in the so-called supply research. By definition, this research area examines the care of patients under everyday and practical conditions. Here, homeopathy is considered as a holistic healing method. In the health services research, the effectiveness of homeopathy even among critics as proven. In addition to the already mentioned Swiss HTA report, there are relevant studies of the Charité Berlin and some health insurance companies. Overall, health services research shows that homeopathy works effectively in practice and is more cost-effective than conventional medical procedures. Thus, a homeopathic practice only causes half of the costs of an average primary care practice, homoeopathic patients rarely need inpatient care, take less expensive special care and are less likely to experience drug side effects than conventionally treated patients. In addition, homeopathy in chronically ill patients in direct comparison with conventional medicine „significantly stronger improvements“ (Model study Homeopathy of the IKK Hamburg).

From a social science perspective
Against the background of different perspectives, it is not surprising that heated discussions on homeopathy are emerging in research circles. That these are mostly debates in the „ivory tower“ Science, which is of little relevance to patients, shows the sociological perspective - for example, the results of a Germany representative Allensbach survey (2009): 57 percent of Germans use therefore homeopathic medicines - a total of one quarter of the population are there „convinced users“ homeopathic medicines and without any limitation in their effectiveness. Only two percent of the population consider homeopathic remedies to be ineffective.

According to a Forsa survey (2010), the coverage for the „convinced user“ a very subordinate role: 98 percent of them said that critical reporting does not diminish their confidence in homeopathy. From this, one could conclude that a directly experienced experience of healing has more weight for a person than any intelligent intellectual access to the healing method. (Guest article German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians, 17.12.2010)

Also read:
www.dzvhae-homoeopathie-blog.de
Traditional medicine and naturopathy hand in hand
Health: Chicken full of antibiotics
Smoking cessation without aids