Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Homeopathy — a response

Dougal Jeffries
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (519): 803-804.
Dougal Jeffries
Scilly Isles. E-mail:
Roles: General Practitioner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Dougal.jeffries@ioshc.cornwall.nhs.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Corrections - August 01, 2005

I hope I may be allowed to reply to the several letters1–4 commenting on my deliberately provocative personal column on homeopathy.5 All four authors assert their belief that homeopathy ‘works’, two of them making the claim that the fact that it works in babies and animals proves that this is more than a placebo effect. None of them cites any objective source of evidence for their beliefs, nor do they address the main point of my piece, which was to try to lay out the extraordinary, and to me still literally incredible, rationale that lies at the heart of homeopathic practice.

I agree wholeheartedly with Peter Hanrath and Andrew Hillam regarding the direction of much of our current target- and contract-driven practice, as I hope my more recent piece on statins illustrates.6 I have no quarrel with the use of complementary therapies per se, but I do think that such therapies should be subject to the same scientific scrutiny as is now expected of conventional therapies. As a novice in acupuncture I am well aware that much of its benefit is likely to be due to non-specific effects, and I don't agonise too much over its probable additional specific, neurologically-mediated mechanisms — but I welcome research that explores both these areas. It is my firm belief that the scientific approach can be brought to bear on the still mystifying power of such factors as suggestion, the personality of both doctor and patient, the nature of the relationship between them and so on.

Nigel Williams (in his letter)1 mentions a meta-analysis7 in the Lancet in 1997. More recently Bandolier8 published a ‘systematic review of systematic reviews’ of homeopathy and concluded as follows: ‘Much of the argument about homeopathy ends up being about trivial differences of little or no clinical relevance. Until large well-conducted trials tell us differently, the conclusion is that homeopathy does not work …’. A search of the Bandolier website9 leads to a number of commentaries on trials of homeopathy, not one of them showing any clear evidence of benefit. Clinical Evidence10 contains only one reference, that being a negative report of two RCTs for homeopathic treatment of warts. The Cochrane collaboration11 adds nothing further.

Finally — and hot off the press — Shang et al from Switzerland12 report on a comparison of 110 homeopathy trials and 110 matched trials of conventional treatments. They found insignificant evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, and strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. They conclude that, ‘This finding is compatible with the notion that the effects of homeopathy are placebo effects’.

It is this absence of evidence for any specific effect of homeopathic remedies that led me to use the word ‘deception’ in the title of my column; it is the absence of harm, and the apparent non-specific beneficial effects of the homeopathic approach that made me qualify it as ‘benign’. None of your correspondents has convinced me that this is an unfair description.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Williams N
    (2005) Letter: Homeopathy is where the heart is. Br J Gen Pract 55:556.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Hanrath P
    (2005) Letter: Homeopathy — a benign deception? Br J Gen Pract 55:556.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Doney D
    (2005) Letter: Homeopathy. Br J Gen Pract 55:638.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Hillam A
    (2005) Letter: The merits of homeopathy. Br J Gen Pract 55:716.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Jeffries D
    (2005) Homeopathy — a benign deception? Br J Gen Pract 55:490.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Jeffries D
    (2005) Anyone for a statin? Br J Gen Pract 55:650.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Linde K,
    2. Clausius N,
    3. Ramirez G,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 350:834–843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    (2003) Homeopathy: systematic review of systematic reviews. Bandolier, 116–118.
  7. ↵
    Bandolier website: http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/.
  8. ↵
    1. Bigby M,
    2. Gibbs S,
    3. Warts
    (2004) Homeopathy. Clinical Evidence 12:http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/skd/1710/1710_I6.jsp (accessed 12 Sep 2005).
  9. ↵
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration
    , www.cochrane.org.
  10. ↵
    1. Shang A,
    2. Huwiler-Muntener K,
    3. Nartey L,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 366:726–732.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 55 (519)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 55, Issue 519
October 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Homeopathy — a response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Homeopathy — a response
Dougal Jeffries
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (519): 803-804.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Homeopathy — a response
Dougal Jeffries
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (519): 803-804.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242