Download PDF
Homeopathy 2006; 95(01): 1-2
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2005.11.011
Editorial
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2005

Changing Reality

Editor
Peter Fisher
Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

This issue of Homeopathy features eight letters responding to the meta-analysis of homeopathy published in The Lancet of 27 August 2005.[ 1 ] There can be few readers of Homeopathy who are unaware of the controversy triggered by this publication; the accompanying press release attracted world-wide attention for its claim that the meta-analysis showed that homeopathy is no more than a placebo effect.

This meta-analysis was part of Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme (PEK) sponsored by the Swiss government. We also publish a statement from the scientific review board of PEK protesting at political interference in the scientific process.

 

  • References

  • 1 Shang A., Huwiler-Müntener K., Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726-732.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harald Walach, Klaus Linde, Reiner Eichenberger, Hans Stalder, Finn Børlum Kristensen, Jos Kleijnen. Summary consensus statement of the Review Board of the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme, (Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin, PEK) regarding the PEK process and products. Homp 2006; 95: 28-30.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vandenbroucke J.P. Homeopathy and ‘the growth of truth’. Lancet 2005; 366: 691-692.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McCarthy M. Critics slam draft WHO report on homeopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 705-706.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rosenbaum P. What end is this anyway?. Homp 2006; 95: 55-56.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rutten L. Proof against Homeopathy does in fact supports Homeopathy. Homp 2006; 95: 57-61.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kiene H., Kienle G.S., von Schön-Angerer T. Bias in meta-analysis. Homp 2006; 95: 54.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Reilly D. Sir, is that bias?. Homp 2006; 95: 55.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Frass M., Schuster E., Muchitsch I. et al. Asymmetry in The Lancet meta-analysis. Homp 2006; 95: 52-53.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bellavite P., Pitari G., Italiano M. Homeopathy and placebo. Homp 2006; 95: 51.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Poitevin B., Demonceaux A., Jeulin D. et al. French doctor's response. Homp 2006; 95: 63-64.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thurneysen A. Open Letter to the Editor of The Lancet from the Swiss Association of Homeopathic Physicians (SVHA). Homp 2006; 95: 61-62.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ste Laudy J., Belon P. Improvement of flow cytometric analysis of basophil activation by high histamine dilutions. A novel basophil specific marker: CD 203c. Homp 2006; 95: 3-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mardon J. Poetry and homeopathy. Homp 2006; 95: 20-27.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar