Sadly, several organised groups are agressively targetting homeopathy and other complementary therapists on the basis that there is no ‘scientific’ evidence for efficacy. Quite apart from the fact that there is sound evidence (see other news stories), there are some major questions asked about the reliability of the methods being used to test conventional medicine.

In her blog on Pulse, Karine Nohr, says it’s “time to take a reality check on evidence from clinical trials.”

Her article looks at the shortcomings of conventional medicine in terms of its ‘so called’ research evidence: “Critics of the research in complementary medicines need to take heed of the scepticism that is increasingly present regarding ‘evidence’ for orthodox treatments.

“Of course we all want ‘evidence’, but evidence is only as good as the quality of the research, it’s transparency and the absence of bias. 85% of trials are sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies; when comparing drugs, the vast majority show that the sponsoring company’s drugs are more effective than the comparison drug.

If you haven’t already done so, I would urge anybody who puts ‘evidence’ on a pedestal to read ‘Reality Check’ in the BMJ. Ray Moynihan refers to the mounting corroboration that there is a massive positive bias in the publication of trials.”

She also points out that; “In the UK, NICE does not have a legal right of access to unpublished trial results which the industry submits to the regulator and the MHRA is unable to prosecute companies for witholding information, so how can NICE ensure that their recommendations are evidence based?

The problems of selective publication are further explored in the subsequent two articles of the same BMJ, urging greater access and transparency of data, disclosure of unpublished evidence and better quality reporting by the European Medicines Agency, in order to provide more useful information to all.”