Lübbers Christian W, Endruscheit Udo
HNO Weilheim, Pöltnerstraße 22, 82362, Weilheim, Deutschland.
, Krayer Straße 227, 45307, Essen, Deutschland.
HNO. 2021 Aug;69(8):679-690. doi: 10.1007/s00106-021-01061-w. Epub 2021 May 19.
Many publications declare homeopathy to be "controversial." However, based on the findings of extensive research on homeopathy, there has long been a broad scientific consensus that there is no reliable evidence of specific medical effectiveness. Overall, the evidence clearly denies effects beyond those of placebo and context. All the more must it be seen as a phenomenon that homeopathy is still the subject of medical and therapeutic practice. This may lie largely in the fact that the homeopathic scene appropriates medical research and the concept of evidence in a way that is suitable to maintain the appearance that there is still a scientifically relevant discourse to dispute. The following article aims to justify that this is not the case, and that homeopathy is, therefore, obsolete as a therapeutic option, even according to the principles of contemporary medical ethics.
许多出版物宣称顺势疗法是“有争议的”。然而,基于对顺势疗法的广泛研究结果,长期以来科学界已达成广泛共识,即没有可靠证据表明其具有特定的医疗效果。总体而言,证据清楚地表明其效果不超过安慰剂及背景效应。顺势疗法仍是医学和治疗实践的主题,这更应被视为一种现象。这可能很大程度上在于顺势疗法领域以一种适合维持仍存在科学相关争议的表象的方式挪用医学研究和证据概念。以下文章旨在论证事实并非如此,因此,即使根据当代医学伦理原则,顺势疗法作为一种治疗选择也已过时。