001. Edzard Ernst at health.spectator.co.uk writes in "The Debate About Homeopathy is Over. These Verdicts Prove It" (2017-06-09):
"Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of Homeopathy: The Undiluted Facts and the awardee of the John Maddox Prize 2015 for standing up for science [...] I’m only a doctor. But surely you must trust this multitude of judgments made by officials who have no ax to grind and merely aim at informing the public responsibly: homeopathy is neither plausible nor evidence-based [...] he blogs at edzardernst.com [...]";
"I have collected all the ‘official verdicts’ about homeopathy that I could find, regardless of what they tell us. By ‘official verdict’ I mean recent statements from national or international organizations [...] that: are independent, conducted a thorough assessment of the evidence, have a reputation of being beyond reproach [...]";
give us the good news.
"the Russian Academy of Sciences [...says] 'the principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available’
[...] National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia [...says] 'homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness' [...] Health Canada [...says] 'these products are not supported by scientific evidence’ [...] Hungarian Academy of Sciences [...says] 'homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence based medicine' [...] Swedish Academy of Sciences [...says] 'the incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine' [...] US Food and Drug Administration [...says] 'we recommend parents and caregivers not give homeopathic teething tablets and gels to children and seek advice from their healthcare professional for safe alternatives’ [...] National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, US [...says] 'there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition’ [...] National Health Service, UK [...says] 'there is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition’ [...] House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK [...says] 'homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and the principles on which homeopathy is based are scientifically implausible' [...] Ministry of Health, Spain [...says] 'homeopathy has not definitively proven its efficacy in any specific indication or clinical situation’ [...] National Medical Council, Poland [...says] 'there is a constant increase in the quantity of evidence and the conviction of the scientific community in medicine, that homeopathy should be treated as one of the unscientific methods of so-called 'alternative medicine', which proposes worthless products without scientifically proven efficacy' [...] Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg, Belgium [...says] 'from a purely clinical perspective, the fact remains that there is no valid empirical proof of the efficacy of homeopathy (evidence-based medicine) beyond the placebo effect'";