Wenn man erfolgreich Homöopathie anwendet, so gibt es immer wieder das Gegenargument: Da ist ja kein Teilchen mehr drinnen. Im Artikel von Prof.Hans Peter Dürr (Quelle:Nachrichtenspiegel), ist der aktuelle Stand der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, wo die Materie, wie wir sie uns gedacht haben, nicht mehr auffindbar ist. Die Quantenphysik wurde aber, so wie Prof.Dürr richtig beschreibt, eben nicht in alle Wissenschaften aufgenommen. Die Industrie bedient sich zwar der Ergebnisse, doch scheint nicht einmal die Relativitätstheorie von Albert Einstein, wo Materie sich in Welle auflösen kann, von vielen Forschern verstanden zu werden? Allerdings hat dieses Manko noch nichts mit nicht sorgfältig durchgeführter Analyse zu tun. Für die australische Untersuchung, die dazu führt, dass die Homöopathie unwirksam wäre, was weltweit zur Skepsis gegen die Homöopathie führt, sind vollkommen unübliche Methoden verwendet worden. (Quelle:https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/the-australian-report-on-homeopathy/):
- NHMRC did the homeopathy review twice, producing two reports, one in July 2012 and the one released to the public in March 2015.
- The existence of the first report has never been disclosed to the public – it was only discovered through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
- NHMRC say they rejected the first report because it was poor quality despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist and author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews.
- FOI requests have revealed that a member of NHMRC’s expert committee overseeing the review process – Professor Fred Mendelsohn – confirmed the first review to be high quality saying – “I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.”
- NHMRC said the results of the second report published in 2015 were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies.
- NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or since. NHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants.
- These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leaving only 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’. As they assessed all 5 of these trials as negative, this explains how NHMRC could conclude that there was no ‘reliable’ evidence.
- Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, signed conflict of interest form declaring he was not “affiliated or associated with any organisation whose interests are either aligned with or opposed to homeopathy”, despite being a member of anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’
- NHMRC’s guidelines state that such committees must include experts on the topic being reviewed, yet there was not one homeopathy expert on this committee.
Also, wenn Ihnen jemand mit Homöopathie geholfen hat, so haben Sie sich das nur genauso viel eingebildet, wie Sie sich eine Hilfe durch konventionelle Medizin einbilden, nämlich in etwa 50%. Der Plazebo-Effekt mit 50% gilt für alle Anwendungen in etwa gleich. Es ist schade, dass der Untschied, verschiedener Heilmethoden so hochstilisiert wird. Wir dürfen dankbar sein, dass es sowohl konventionelle Medizin, als auch Homöopathie gibt.