The homeopathy lie?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Curt Kösters, a doctor and homeopath, on "The Homeopathy Lie: So Dangerous is the Teaching of the White Beads"

"The homeopathy lie: So dangerous is the teaching of the white balls", the title of the new book by the authors Nicole Heißmann from "Stern" and Christian Weymayr from GWUP will be published in October. Although review copies of the publication have not yet been published by the Piper publishing house, the title and announcement of the book leave no doubt as to the direction of the authors. The book is based on the persistent assertion that homeopathy is "without any scientific evidence". On the one hand, the authors are thus ignoring a whole series of positive studies on homeopathy that correspond to the so-called gold standard - that is, they were carried out in a double-blind and placebo-controlled manner. On the other hand, Weymayr and Heißmann consider studies from health services research - by definition the exploration of healing methods under everyday practical conditions - apparently not scientifically relevant. Health care research confirms the effectiveness of homeopathy, particularly in the case of chronic diseases. The factual claim that homeopathy is without any scientific evidence is simply wrong and gives the book title "The Homeopathy Lie" its own meaning.

Clash of ideologies? - A sham debate Weymayr and Heißmann exaggerate the homeopathy debate on a war of worldviews: "Above all, however, the white balls undermine thinking based on rational criteria - whoever believes homeopathy is possible must think everything possible." The lack of scientific plausibility of the mechanism of action of homeopathic high potencies becomes the argument for deathstroke: "An active ingredient that is diluted to nonexistence cannot work". Data from clinical research and basic research, which prove this, do not fit into the picture.

The selective perception of the study data, its epistemological and epistemologically amusing Palmström logic, the authors' entire line of reasoning and also the heroic self-stylization "In this courageous book, science journalists Christian Weymayr and Nicole Heißmann stand against a lobby that has become very powerful", all of this comes from the arsenal of the so-called "skeptic movement". These self-proclaimed “skeptics” already consider the pure existence of homeopathy to be an elementary threat to the scientific worldview. Surprisingly, these “skeptics” are vehemently opposed to further research into homeopathy - and they have prominent support.

Professor Jürgen Windeler, head of the extremely influential Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG): "You don't have to do any further research, the matter is done" (Spiegel Online July 12, 2010). So much for the increasingly powerful lobby of homeopathy. Professor Jürgen Windeler is a member of the GWUP (Society for the Scientific Study of Parasciences), the OPUS DEI of Belief in Science - as well as the co-author of the "Homeopathy Lie" Christian Weymayr. The GWUP is the organization of the “skeptics” and sees itself as the last bastion of the threatened scientific worldview. The misunderstanding here: natural sciences are neither a religion nor a substitute for religion, they do not need dogmas and no holy inquisition; Heresies take care of themselves or eventually become part of the prevailing teaching; and moreover, the natural sciences are by no means threatened in their social acceptance and relevance.

Of the star as a henchman in a GWUP campaign star an article on the promotion of the "homeopathy lie". The direction of approach should hardly differ. It is regrettable that large print media like the star to become a henchman of an ideological concern. Most of all, this is to be regretted for the authors: The offer for a differentiated and often critical examination of the phenomenon of homeopathy was made, but unfortunately not taken up by the authors. A presentation that differentiates between homeopathy and homeopathy research and takes into account the journalistic requirement of speech and counter-speech could have been interesting for all sides. However, the Holzhammer method is expected to have a higher circulation.

In summary, it can be said that once again an opportunity has been missed to deal objectively with the phenomenon of homeopathy and thus to advance a bit on the path of knowledge, instead the book fits seamlessly into the one-sided reporting on the subject. We, as scientifically thinking homeopathic doctors, deeply regret this.

About the author of the article:
Curt Kösters is a general practitioner, homeopath and co-founder of the Scientific Society for Homeopathy (WissHom).

Author and source information

Video: Secrets of taking a Homeopathic Case

Previous Article

Often the last resort for obesity: gastric surgery

Next Article

Bird flu virus H7N9 in the stool