Homeopathy should be removed from the NHS as it is "scientifically implausible" and does not work, a damning report by British MPs said yesterday.
The MPs said homeopathy was no more than a "placebo" – meaning that its pills have no direct effect but may lead to patients feeling better or recovering because they think they are getting treatment.
Homeopathists hit back last night, accusing the MPs of being "irresponsible" in making sweeping judgements.
The NHS finances four homeopathic hospitals and a number of general practitioners also offer the treatment.
But Phil Willis, chair of the Science and Technology Committee, said: "We were seeking to determine whether the Government’s policies on homeopathy are evidence based on current evidence. They are not.
"It sets an unfortunate precedent for the Department of Health to consider that the existence of a community which believes that homeopathy works is ‘evidence’ enough to continue spending public money on it.
"This also sends out a confused message, and has potentially harmful consequences."
The MPs also criticised the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for licensing homeopathic products without adequate scientific evidence. It said the label for Arnica, a popular treatment for bruising, was "actively misleading" to patients in suggesting there was an active drug.
One committee member Ian Stewart, a Labour MP, dissented from the report.
Homeopathic products are diluted in water so many times that none of the original ingredient survives and are selected to mimic the symptoms of disease. Practitioners say this creates a treatment that stimulates the body to fight disease.
Recently campaigning scientists staged mass "overdoses" of homeopathic medicine outside pharmacies. Nobody suffered side-effects.
Cristal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association, said homeopathic patients might be pushed towards more expensive treatments.
She said: "It does seem an irresponsible way of decision-making for a Committee of four voting members to draw conclusions that impact the health and welfare of thousands of patients from just four and half hours of verbal testimony on three distinct topics and from a number of written submissions that were each limited to just 3,000 words."
Leave a Reply