Against All World Congress of Skeptics

6th World Congress of skeptics: IQWiG chief Windeler: „The 'protection of species' of complementary medicine in German health legislation is scientifically and practically completely unfounded“

01/06/2012

From 18 to 20 May, the sixth World Congress of Skeptics took place in Berlin „Society for the scientific study of para-sciences“ (GWUP) was organized. According to a study by the Heidelberg sociologist Edgar Wunder - originally a co-founder of the GWUP and editor-in-chief of the Vereinsblatt Skeptiker - the GWUP is an ideologically motivated one „disposition Community“ and a „Task Force“ against everything that runs counter to established science. Miracle left the club. The GWUP has nothing to do with scientific education, rather it operates „ Meinungsmache“. About 300 participants counted the "World Congress of the skeptics".

Speakers included Jürgen Windeler, Director of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The IQWiG is an independent scientific institute for the investigation of benefit and harm of medical measures to patients. The institute informs about possible advantages and disadvantages of different diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

In his lecture „No difference in the methods - evaluation of the benefits of conventional and complementary medicine“ Windeler found clear words that show the attitude of the top medical examiner in Germany towards complementary medical healing methods. Windeler's membership of the GWUP, which is listed on his website as „prominent skeptic“ is in conflict with the claim of the IQWiG.

Jürgen Windeler: „Evidence-based medicine raises the question of whether there is any benefit - not how it comes about“

„I do not want to have anything to do with the label complementary or alternative medicine“, Windeler agreed at the beginning of his speech the plenum in the hall of the Berlin "Crowne Plaza" and reaped encouragement. The German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ), together with other complementary physicians, regularly calls for a diversity in medical research methodology and evaluation. Windeler said: „This raises the question of whether there are medical reasons for such a differentiation. In my view, these are not.“ In addition, the most important medical expert in Germany commented on the special status of the special therapeutic directions through the fifth social code (SGB V). The „species protection“ complementary medicine in legislation „scientifically and practically totally unfounded“, so Windeler.

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) examines the benefits of a treatment method for patients, Windeler explained, to positive results for complementary medical healing from health care research - by definition, the research of the success of healing methods under everyday and practical conditions - went to the head of IQWiG in this context not a word. For this he commented on the argument of the homeopathic doctors, the healing method stimulates the self-healing powers of the patient: „The most important thing is that this question of self-healing powers is not relevant for medicine. Because evidence-based medicine raises the question of whether there is a benefit - not how it comes about.“ In addition to these remarks, Windeler also told the visiting skeptics about his private opinion, against which background his „factual explanations“ quite explain. „Personally, I do not accept the terms complementary and alternative medicine in any way“, so Windeler. The conclusion of the lecture, he put with an indication of a homeopathic drug in a potency, which according to the Avogadro number can no longer contain a molecule of an active ingredient, causing the audience for general amusement. The collective laugh mingled with dedicated applause.

The DZVhÄ has checked with Jürgen Windeler - in particular on the importance of health services research
„The term care research says that research in care should take place here. This objective is very important because we know very little about the practice of care. Wherever the use of interventions is of interest, the research methods suitable for such a research question - ie comparative prospective studies - should be carried out“, Windeler explained.

This attitude welcomes the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ). Exactly such studies - albeit due to a lack of research funding in a manageable number - are already available in health care research on homeopathy. For example, by Professor Claudia Witt of the Charité Berlin: „Homoeopathic versus conventional treatment of children with eczema: A comparative cohort study“. Conclusion of the study: There were no relevant differences in treatment success between the groups of children treated either conventionally or homeopathically for their atopic dermatitis. So, by logical converse, Windeler accepts medical homeopathy for neurodermatitis as a scientifically proven and equivalent treatment to conventional medicine?

Confronted with the situation, Windeler explained that one aspect was very important: The fact that in such a study no difference in treatment success between conventional and homeopathic treatment was found, could have very diverse causes and „not just the interpretation that A is as good as B“, says the IQWiG boss.

May not be, therefore, what can not be - in the spirit of the skeptics? The question of whether homeopathy in atopic dermatitis is a scientifically proven, effective treatment method based on the Witt study implies that it is here „ positive effects“ give, so Windeler. „However, this is by no means clear from the study. "In addition, he reaffirmed his fundamental view of SGB V and a variety of methods in medical research: „The special position of the special therapy directions is scientifically or medically unjustified“, and „Plurality in the sense of equivalent other methods does not need, does not exist and is not to be expected.“

Picture: Andreas Müller