NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

NHMRC Draft Information Paper: Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions submission

ID: 
59
Personal Details
First Name: 
Richard
Last Name: 
Thomas
Questions
Q1. Is the draft Information Paper presented and written in a manner that is easy to understand?: 

No. (Hard copy to follow)

Response to NHMRC draft Paper on Homeopathy 2 June 2014

 In the NHMRC media release of 9 April 2014 the CEO stated:

health care choices should be based on good quality evidence”

 

The NHMRC medical working committee on homeopathy excluded good quality evidence

and only considered medical research evidence.

 

There is a significant difference between medical research and scientific research which the medical working committee has failed to appreciate. This difference is particularly relevant in regard to homeopathy.

 

The NHMRC has sought submissions on the clarity and content of the draft Report.

My requests for information to clarify several general (undefined) terms used in the draft Report have resulted in deficient responses from NHMRC.

 

The media release concludes with the statement that:

The NHMRC is acutely aware of strongly held views on the effectiveness of homeopathy”,

The NHMRC has presented a polarised view on the subject, based on beliefs* rather than facts.

 

This draft Report fails to meet the exacting standards of scientific inquiry.

On any reasonable level it falls well short of standards one would expect of the NHMRC.

 

*See page 3 NHMRC believes that homeopathy is based on beliefs, and, the conclusions of the NHMRC are presented as beliefs rather than facts. (page19).

Special note (reference):

Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy,expenditure and practice: a review. European Journal of Clinical Investigation Vol 43 Issue 5, pages 469 - 475 May 2013

Results: We located abundance of consistent evidence demonstrating that the industry has created means to intervene in all steps of the processes that determine healthcare research, strategy, expenditure, practice and education. As a result of these interferences, the benefits of drugs and other products are often exaggerated and their potential harms are downplayed, and clinical guidelines, medical practice, and healthcare expenditure decisions are biased.

 

 

 

 

 

Q2. Does the draft Information Paper clearly outline how the evidence was reviewed and interpreted by the Homeopathy Working Committee?: 

The draft outlined how the medical evidence was considered but the considerstions and conclusions 

were limited by terms of reference.

The NHMRC medical working committee on homeopathy excluded good quality evidence

and only considered medical research evidence

The NHMRC has sought submissions on the clarity and content of the draft Report.

My requests for information to clarify several general (undefined) terms used in the draft Report have resulted in deficient responses from NHMRC.

.

 

Q3. Is there additional evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of clinical conditions in humans that needs to be considered? To be considered in public consultation any additional evidence must:: 

In the NHMRC media release of 9 April 2014 the CEO stated:

health care choices should be based on good quality evidence”

 The NHMRC medical working committee on homeopathy excluded good quality evidence

and only considered medical research evidence.

 

There is a significant difference between medical research and scientific research which the medical working committee has failed to appreciate. This difference is particularly relevant in regard to homeopathy.

 This draft Report fails to meet the exacting standards of scientific inquiry.

On any reasonable level it falls well short of standards one would expect of the NHMRC.

 

Special note (reference):

 Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy,expenditure and practice: a review. European Journal of Clinical Investigation Vol 43 Issue 5, pages 469 - 475 May 2013

Results: We located abundance of consistent evidence demonstrating that the industry has created means to intervene in all steps of the processes that determine healthcare research, strategy, expenditure, practice and education. As a result of these interferences, the benefits of drugs and other products are often exaggerated and their potential harms are downplayed, and clinical guidelines, medical practice, and healthcare expenditure decisions are biased.

 

 

 

 

 

Page reviewed: 18 March, 2015