What alternative health

practitioners might not tell you






Ask for evidence




Keep Libel out of Science


free speech is not for sale 165




Note that some links will break as pages are moved, websites are abandoned, etc.

If this happens, please try searching for the page in the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.

Read the original article

“…in order for informed consent to occur…a doctor would have to say that:

  • Homeopathy has no demonstrated benefits for patients other than placebo
  • The vast majority of doctors are opposed to homeopathy, often vehemently
  • There is no active ingredient in homeopathic products—it has all been diluted
  • away.
  • It is based on two false premises, that "like cures like" and that the more dilute
  • a product, the more powerful it is
  • It is biologically implausible and completely inconsistent with our
  • understanding of medicine, biology, pharmacology and pathology

The authors of this letter consider that practicing homeopathy, or endorsing it by referring patients, is not consistent with the ethical or regulatory requirements of practicing medicine, and call for doctors to do neither.”

[Signed] Shaun Holt, Adjunct Professor, School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Andrew Gilbey, Lecturer, College of Business Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand; David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology, Dept of Pharmacology, University College London, England; Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery & Visiting Professor of Medical Humanities, University College London, England; Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, England.

New Zealand Medical Journal (15th April 2011)  [PDF]

Related article in the New Zealand Sunday Star Times: Doctors warn of medical "madness", criticism of homeopathy reaches new levels

Related press release