INH-Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie, GWUP e. V., Arheilger Weg 11, 64380, Roßdorf, Hessen, Germany.
Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2024 Mar;136(5-6):177-184. doi: 10.1007/s00508-023-02164-w. Epub 2023 Mar 24.
Homeopathy was first postulated by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 and 220 years later homeopathy is the most popular and widespread alternative medicine. Partly, it is also part of the national healthcare and insurance systems but homeopathy is not without controversy within the medical and healthcare community. Its implausible basic assumptions, some of which contradict natural laws, do not lead us to expect that its remedies have any specific effect. In fact, there is no study or systematic review to date that reliably certifies homeopathy to have an effect beyond the placebo effect and other context effects. In this respect it must be disconcerting how widely homeopathy is applied and represented in therapeutic practice. It indeed claims a role within scientific (evidence-based) medicine but cannot substantiate this claim. It displays clear characteristics of pseudoscience [1]. This implies a lot of problems, such as misleading people and tackling medical ethics up to scientific publication practices. Furthermore, it turns out that quite a few people do not know exactly what homeopathy is, which may lead them to make wrong decisions for their personal health. This article summarizes the information about homeopathy and its problematic implications and serves as a general introduction to this topic and its unacceptable role in today's medicine.The medical irrelevance of the sham method of homeopathy has been proven with more than sufficient probability [2]. As a major testimonial, the statement "Homeopathic products and practices" of the European (EASAC 2017) can be regarded. The primary aim of this brief report is therefore not to take another look at homeopathy from a medical scientific perspective, but rather focus attention on the implications of the still continuous and largely uncritically accepted existence of this method in medical practice, in the medical scientific sphere and in the judgement of the general public.
顺势疗法最初由德国医生塞缪尔·哈内曼于 1796 年提出,220 年后,顺势疗法成为最受欢迎和广泛应用的替代医学。部分原因是,它也是国家医疗保健和保险系统的一部分,但在医学和医疗保健界,顺势疗法并非没有争议。其难以置信的基本假设,其中一些与自然规律相矛盾,使我们无法期望其疗法具有任何特定的效果。事实上,迄今为止,没有研究或系统评价能够可靠地证明顺势疗法除了安慰剂效应和其他背景效应之外还有效。在这方面,顺势疗法在治疗实践中被广泛应用和代表的情况令人不安。它确实声称在科学(基于证据的)医学中发挥作用,但无法证实这一说法。它表现出明显的伪科学特征[1]。这意味着存在很多问题,例如误导人们、处理医疗伦理问题,甚至涉及科学出版实践。此外,事实证明,相当多的人并不清楚顺势疗法到底是什么,这可能导致他们在个人健康方面做出错误的决定。本文总结了顺势疗法的信息及其存在的问题,并作为对该主题及其在当今医学中不可接受作用的一般性介绍。顺势疗法的虚假方法在医学上的不相关性已经得到了充分的证明[2]。欧洲(EASAC 2017)的声明“顺势疗法产品和实践”可以作为一个主要的证明。因此,本简要报告的主要目的不是从医学科学的角度重新审视顺势疗法,而是关注这种方法在医学实践、医学科学领域和公众判断中仍然持续存在且在很大程度上未经批判地被接受的影响。