Prof. Chaturbhuja Nayak
Former Director, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
New Delhi, INDIA
The Lancet has recently published a comment entitled “Benefits and risks of homoeopathy” . The commentator Ben Goldacre has denigrated Homoeopathy by citing the results of five studies which have not produced statistically significant benefit over placebo. But, he has taken a partial view of the results of some of the studies, referred by him, where the authors have not totally branded homoeopathy as placebo response.
Rather the authors have admitted that there was some evidence that homoeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo, that the evidence of clinical trials is positive.
However, they have suggested to undertake further high quality studies to confirm these results. While many high quality trials with proven efficacy of homoeopathy have been done, Ben Goldacre has cherry-picked five only to suit his own conclusions.
Goldacre has rightly cited that during the Cholera epidemic in the 19th century, death rate at London Homoeopathic Hospital was three times lower than those at Middlesex hospital. While admitting that the then contemporary treatments were harmful, he is not ready to accept the credibility of London Homoeopathic Hospital, where the mortality rate was three times less than an allopathic hospital. On the other hand, he j okes, “the homoeopathic treatments were at least inert”. How could the inert homoeopathic medicines result in 3 times less mortality than the conventional medicine?
Download full paper : www.similima.com/pdf/benefits-homeopathy.pdf