Edzard Ernst and his homeopathy
A hate-love?
Do the skeptics really realize what eminence they are referring to when they – demonizing the evidence of homeopathy – refer to the supposed homeopathic-scientific authority of Prof. Edzard Ernst? Are they aware of the scientific zigzag course he has been taking before he (thinking that he is young again?) just like the german technocrats (who are still „green“ behind the ears) started thrashing the homeopathy sack with his stick instead of paying attention to the street how he should do at his age? In September 1997, just before the publication of a meta-analysis on postoperative ileus, in which Prof. Ernst was co-author, he wrote a „short report“ in the German Medical Journal with the title: „Homeopathy: Arguments and Counter-Arguments“.
I quote from this:
His answers to the following arguments and counter-Arguments are:
„The concepts of homeopathy are absurd“
„[…] it is clear that by far not everything that is and has been used therapeutically in medicine is based on a plausible rationale. […] What ultimately counts in clinical medicine is therefore not the plausibility but the proof of effectiveness; in other words, the (currently?) obvious absurdity of homeopathic concepts should not be an absolute obstacle to the use of homeopathy. „
„Apparent healing successes of homeopathy are apparent successes“
“[…] There are currently three different meta-analyzes by three independent working groups, as well as a systematic overview of recognized high quality. These publications come to a positive result without exception (they imply that homeopathic drugs are superior to placebo), but they all acknowledge that methodological weaknesses in the individual studies do not allow a definitive conclusion. Indeed, it is not possible to find a single study that would stand up to severe criticism. The analysis commissioned by the European Union is particularly noteworthy because it was prepared by a team of supporters and critics of homeopathy and impartial experts (the author of this work was a member of this group and belongs to the latter category). All homeopathy studies were collected here with great effort and those that were randomized and placebo-controlled were analyzed. She comes to the following conclusion: „It is likely that, among the homeopathic approaches examined, some studies have effects that go beyond zero therapy or placebo.
The argument of opponents of homeopathy „that homeopathy has been checked many times by high-level scientists, by state commissions, in specialized clinics at universities, but has had no specific effect“ is therefore misleading […]. „
„Another argument relates to the credibility of homeopaths:“ The sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the righteousness of homeopathic researchers „
“[…] Dishonesty may exist in many areas of medicine. Before you charge them across the board, however, you should have evidence of these allegations in your hand. So the argument is not convincing […]
„There is no uniform homeopathy at all“
„[…] However, the argument does not stand out when it comes to discrediting homeopathy itself. There are also different orientations in other areas of medicine. It would be the task of any such flow to prove its importance. This requirement should also be placed on homeopathy and its diverse currents. „
„Homeopaths enrich themselves on patients„
„[…] As already stated, dishonesty may exist here as there. In the absence of evidence, however, it would be wise not to make such accusations. „
„Do we need more research?„
“[…] There are examples of controlled studies that meet all requirements for individualization, diagnosis and other things. […]. This group of people argues that, given the shortage of funds, medical research should focus on the most promising projects. Homeopathy is not plausible and therefore does not belong in this category.
Although there is undeniable logic in this thesis, (in my opinion) it must be rejected. Homeopathy is extremely popular today. As long as large sections of the population are using therapy, it would be simply unethical not to try to answer the essential questions related to the benefits and risks. ”
„Conclusion„
“The dispute over homeopathy is as old as this form of treatment. The arguments are now well known, but only partially correct. A solution to this ongoing dispute is unlikely. In this situation, only exact new research can probably continue. What we need are not another one to two hundred undecided studies, but two to three adequately designed studies by the impartialists to prove their effectiveness
[Quod erat demonstrandum (see below): Efficacy of individualized homeopathic treatment of insomnia: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial]
Two hundred years of discussion, it would seem, does not make one or the other camp, but medicine as such ridiculous. What is worse, it ultimately harms our patients. „
In close temporal connection with the above analysis,
which is quite benevolent towards the arguments for homeopathy, the meta-analysis on the effects of homeopathic remedies on postoperative ileus is published: „Homeopathy for postoperative ileus ?: A meta-analysis“ with the result:“ Meta-analyzes indicated a statistically significant (p <0.05) weighted mean difference (WMD) in favor of homeopathy (compared with placebo) on the time to first flatus. Meta-analyzes of the three studies that compared homeopathic remedies ≥12C versus placebo showed no significant difference (p> 0.05). Meta-analyzes of studies comparing homeopathic remedies <12C with placebo indicated a statistically significant (p <0.05) WMD in favor of homeopathy on the time to first flatus. Excluding methodologically weak trials did not substantially change any of the results.
There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue.“
What can we conclude as homeopaths (and also the skeptics) from the above?
Even if Edzard Ernst, confronted with his earlier statements, reacts in an unruly manner and even argues the homeopaths‘ increasingly unfounded arguments, it can be felt (especially with this behavior) that he seems to be torn in his assessment of homeopathy. This uncertainty is also revealed in his statement on a recent placebo-controlled sleep quality study, which had shown that homeopathic therapy had an effect that significantly exceeded the placebo level:
Although the following articles in the blog try to find the proverbial „hair in the soup“ in a wide variety of ways, one of his own theses (among others*) for the „inexplicable“ result of the study – that in its basic statement [Effect above the placebo level] remains undisputed – are:
„HOMEOPATHY WORKS AFTER ALL.“
* fraud [German: Betrug], coincidence, some undetected / undisclosed bias
Dr. Heinrich Hümmer Germany
Homöopathie wirkt 