Homeopathy is a placebo effect?

Southgerman newspaper: „Homeopathy is a pure placebo effect“

29/02/2012

Under the heading "Homeopathy is a pure placebo effect" published on February 1, the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) an online article by the journalist Markus C. Schulte of Drach, which deals with homeopathy research. Public media are not scientific journals. For this reason, one should not put too high demands when a respected daily newspaper ventures into the depths of a scientific controversy. For an up-to-date medium like the Süddeutsche Zeitung, however, it is at least unusual for Schulte von Drach to do without his current research on homeopathy in his article. For example, the current results from basic research of the Swiss physicist Dr. Ing. Stephan Baumgartner (KIKOM) with no word mentioned. Baumgartner has found specific effects of high potencies in experiments on plants (1). Schulte von Drach completely omits the results of current provings, which in the context of specific effects of homeopathic remedies are likely to be of relevance to any science journalist. Instead, he called drug tests flat rate as frivolous - arguments for which he remains the reader guilty.

Current studies that meet high methodological standards show a specific drug effect of homeopathic remedies (2). Whether the omission of these and other facts from the current research on homeopathy is due to the continuously decreasing search times in German daily newspapers, or whether the results simply did not fit the author into the argument, can only be speculated. It becomes conspicuous only when Schulte von Drach, as a journalist, refrains from giving an original soundtrack of Prof. Dr. Dr. Harald Walach on the subject to catch up. Walach is a professor of research methodology with a focus on complementary medicine at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) and editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Forschende Komplementärmedizin. „If he had spoken with me before publishing his article what is common among journalists, he could have avoided serious mistakes“, so Walach. Homeopathy research is a highly complex and hotly debated field: „It has long been known that homeopathy is implausible. To derive an ineffectiveness from this is wrong logic. To say that empiricism has shown that homeopathy is a placebo is, in my view, too simplistic a reading of empirical results and a logical mistake“, says Walach.

While Schulte von Drach has refrained from confronting Walach with his criticism before publishing his article, the DZVhÄ editorial team has asked the author for an opinion: „In my article, I have taken up two aspects - including the question of effectiveness - and the text, of course, does not claim to have complete treatment for homeopathy“, Schulte writes of Drach, „But I am convinced that I comprehensively dealt with the issues raised.“ For omitting current research results from homeopathy research, the SZ journalist explains: „What is known as homeopathic proving, ignores - like homeopathy as a whole - largely the findings of the natural sciences in general and medicine in particular. And the specific effectiveness of the funds themselves is obviously not given, as the study shows. Now you may want to cite individual studies that say otherwise. In this sense, the homeopathic proving is frivolous.“ Schulte von Drach relies on the scientific implausibility of homeopathy. Can not be what has not yet been scientifically explainable? On the other hand, it is far ahead of many experts in the field of homeopathy research, who are currently not convinced by the current study situation „obviously“ consider that homeopathic remedies are ineffective (see, for example: Rainer Lüdtke, Norbert Schmacke at al., Claudia M. Witt, Peter F. Matthiessen et al., Michael Teut et al.). Unfortunately, he does not address the controversy within the scientific community on homeopathy research - that would be a very interesting contribution to the science department of the SZ - but shares his own with the SZ readers „right one“ Conclusion with. He classifies the research of Mr. Baumgartner as follows: „If there was something in the work of Mr Baumgartner, then his work would necessarily have to be published in "Science" or "Nature" and he would be a candidate for the Nobel Prize. So far, however, he does not seem to be able to convince the physical world of his data. I also remind you here of the research at the University of Leipzig by Nieber and Süß, and what came out of it“ (HN November 2005 reported, see www.welt-der-homoeopathie.de> Press).

Journalistically interesting is the headline of the SZ article. It is set as a quotation of the quantum physicist Anton Zellinger, which appears in the article, but does not at all deal with homeopathy research. Without „quotation marks“ If this statement were already a false statement of fact by the SZ editorial staff. In any case, the Swiss Press Council takes this view in a ruling of last year (HN May 2011 reported). A detailed argumentative discussion with Schulte von Drach and a statement by Walach can be found in the DZVhÄ's science blog at www.dzvhae-homoeopathie-blog.de (pm)

1. e.g. Hunter, T .; Scherr, C .; Simon, M .; Heusser, P .; Baumgartner, S .; Effects of homeopathic arsenicum album,
nosode, and gibberellic acid preparations on the growth rate of arsenic-impaired duckweed, ScientificWorld
Journal. 2010 Nov 4; 10: 2112-29.

2. e.g. Möllinger et al: Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials Produce Specific Symptoms Different from placebo. research
Complemented 2009; 16: 105-110. As well as Möllinger, H .; Schneider, R .: Homeopathy: more than just a placebo effect? - Results from a randomized, three-arm, placebo-controlled, double-blind study comparing the effects of verum and placebo in a homeopathic drug trial. AHZ 2007; 252: 72-76.

Picture: Günther Richter