Advertisement

Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift

, Volume 160, Issue 9–10, pp 256–258 | Cite as

Homöopathie

  • Edzard Ernst
Short communication

Zusammenfassung

Selbst nach 200 Jahren ist die Homöopathie eine höchst umstrittene Methode. Ihre Prinzipien stehen im krassen Widerspruch zu den Erkenntnissen der Wissenschaft. Die rund 200 klinischen Studien zeigen in ihrer Gesamtheit nicht, dass Homöopathika einem Plazebo überlegen sind. Der Einsatz von Homöopathika als ein ungefährliches Plazebo ist ethisch nicht zu rechtfertigen. Es folgt, dass die Homöopathie nicht für die medizinische Routine empfohlen werden kann.

Schlüsselwörter

Homöopathie Alternativmedizin Evidenz Ethik 

Homeopathy

Summary

Even after 200 years, homeopathy has remained a highly disputed method. Its principles fly in the face of science. The totality of about 200 clinical trials fails to demonstrate its efficacy beyond placebo. Its use as a benign placebo is ethically unjustifiable. It follows that homeopathy cannot be recommended for use in medical routine.

Keywords

Homeopathy Alternative medicine Evidence Ethics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Ernst E. The heresy of homoeopathy. A brief history of 200 years of criticism. Br Homeopath J, 87: 28–32, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Mathie RT. The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homeopathy, 92: 84–91, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 54: 577–582, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet, 366: 726–732, 2005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Frass M, Schuster E, Muchitsch I, et al. Asymmetry in The Lancet meta-analysis. Homeopathy, 95: 52–53, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Rutten AL, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy, 97: 169–177, 2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Wilson P. Letter to the editor: analysis of a re-analysis of a meta-analysis: in defence of Shang et al. Homeopathy, 98: 127–133, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, et al. Critical review and meta-analysis of serial agitated dilutions in experimental toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol, 13: 481–492, 1994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cracknell NR, Mills DS. A double-blind placebo-controlled study into the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy for fear of firework noises in the dog (Canis familiaris). Vet J, 177: 80–88, 2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Willich SN. Effect sizes in patients treated by homeopathy differ according to diagnoses – result of an observational study. Perfusion, 18: 356–360, 2005Google Scholar
  11. Di Blasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, et al. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet, 357: 757–762, 2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ernst E. Wer heilt, hat nicht immer recht. Wien Klin Wochenschr, 121: 223–224, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Singh S, Ernst E. Gesund ohne Pillen. Was kann die Alternativmedizin? München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2009Google Scholar
  14. Ernst E. Harmless Homeopathy? Int J Clin Rheumatol, 4: 7–10, 2009Google Scholar
  15. Schmidt K, Ernst E. MMR vaccination advice over the Internet. Vaccine, 21: 1044–1047, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Maurer W. Von einer anderen Realität im Internet. Impfskeptiker-Impfgener. Pharm Unserer Zeit, 1: 64–70, 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical SchoolUniversities of Exeter & PlymouthExeterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations