Homeopathie: Het ontmoedigingsbeleid piept, kraakt en bezwijkt!

In Australie is al enige tijd een grote campagne bezig die homeopathie onder de bevolking moet ontmoedigen. Een elk middel wordt daarvoor aangepakt, waaronder het onjuist interpreteren van onderzoeksresulaten.

De opzet was om in een grootschalig onderzoek aan de Australische bevolking aan te tonen dat homeopathie in wetenschappelijke studie’s niet kon bewijzen wat het beweert te kunnen. Echter spraken de resultaten dit tegen, en zou het uitbrengen van het onderzoek het tegendeel bewerkstelligen. Daarom hebben de wetenschappers maar besloten van het wetenschappelijke pad te wijken om op andere manieren hun van te voren gewenste conclusie te kunnen presenteren.

Homeopathie & Big Pharma

Blijkbaar is het succes van homeopathie zo’n grote streep door de creditrekening van Big-Pharma dat geen enkel middel geschuwd worden om maar zoveel mogelijk geld richting de reguliere zorg te laten stromen.

Een oud gezegde zegt: Wie geneest heeft gelijk. En met genezen heeft de huidige reguliere zorg nog al een probleem. Want je hoeft geen wetenschapper te zijn om te concluderen dat de afgelopen decenia’s er alleen maar meer mensen ziek worden, en dat het uitbannen van ziekten zeker geen haalbare kaart is onder de huidige koers. Misschien is het tijd voor een andere kapitein die het zinkende schip weet te redden!

Bezoek eens een homeopaat! Mijn contact gegevens vindt u hier (klik)

Hieronder het  (engelstalige) artikel. Of via de link (klik).

Jeroen Weegink, klassiek homeopaat Oldenzaal

Dr (hc) of homeopathy (CCU/USA)

Artikel:

AUSTRALIA’S peak medical research body, the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), has admitted under Senate scrutiny that they did not follow recognised scientific guidelines or standards in reviewing the evidence on homeopathy, using an approach also applied to reviews of other natural therapies.

The Homeopathy Review was the first of 17 natural therapy reviews the NHMRC conducted between 2012 and 2015, used to justify removal of the Private Health Insurance rebate for these therapies, which was passed by the Senate on 11 September 2018.

The NHMRC’s response to a Senate Question on Notice posed by Senator Stirling Griff on 30 May 2018, reveals that instead of using accepted scientific methods they simply made them up along the way.

The integrity of the Homeopathy Review rests on NHMRC’s public assurance that it “used internationally accepted methods” and that it used “a rigorous approach that has been developed by Australian experts in research methods” when evaluating health evidence.

The Senate probe has forced the NHMRC to admit that this was not true

In its response to Senator Griff’s question the NHMRC has admitted, “At the time this work was underway there was no relevant guidance or standard endorsed by NHMRC, or a relevant international organization, on the development and content of evidence statements” – which formed the basis of the Review’s published conclusion of ‘no reliable evidence’.

The NHMRC has also admitted that the criteria used were, “drafted over a number of months following the completion of the overview search for literature”.

“Here we have an admission under Senate scrutiny that instead of using accepted scientific methods, the NHMRC review team not only invented the methods along the way, they also did this well after the evidence had already been collated and assessed”, said Your Health Your Choice’s Petrina Reichman.

“This removed essential safeguards routinely applied to scientific review processes to ensure they are conducted transparently and ethically”, she said. “This means there was absolutely nothing stopping the review team from manipulating the methodology to get whatever answer they wanted”.

Research protocols are an important safeguard used to reduce/ prevent reporting bias in scientific studies. Before a study begins, a protocol is created that outlines in detail all essential aspects of the project, such as the research question being asked, methods of data retrieval, criteria used to determine which studies will be included or excluded from the review, and how the data will be analysed to produce the final results.

Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal that the original research protocol was agreed and finalised in December 2012 but was never published. It bears no resemblance to the protocol the NHMRC review committee eventually applied.

FOI documents also reveal that the NHMRC review committee systematically reinvented the research protocol between April and July 2013, after the contracted reviewer had already completed its initial evidence assessment in March 2013. All the criteria used for the evidence statements were retrospectively developed during this period.

“Even worse, FOI document also reveal that none of these retrospective changes to the Review’s research protocol were disclosed to the public in the NHMRCs final report, even though they assured the public they conducted a “transparent” review”, said Ms Reichman. “In scientific investigation you ALWAYS have to reveal all changes to the protocol for ethical reasons”.

“This is a serious research scandal of the highest degree, revealing the extent to which the review team secretly manipulated the methods well after the contractor had already collated and assessed the evidence, with none of the changes disclosed in the final report released to the public.”

These manipulations directly resulted in the findings of 171 out of the 176 included studies being retrospectively categorised as “unreliable”, meaning they were dismissed from the Review’s published findings of “no reliable evidence”. The Review’s findings were therefore based on only 5 “reliable” trials – not reported to the public.

If standard, accepted scientific methods were used, the review team would have had to report that 88 of the 176 studies (50%) reported statistically positive results, with many of these studies being of high methodological quality. Only 9 (5%) of the 176 studies reported negative findings and the rest inconclusive – strikingly similar to conventional medical research findings.

“It doesn’t get more serious than this. The NHMRC has misled both the Australian public and Government, damaging the NHMRC’s high standing and the public’s trust in science and taxpayer funded institutions”.

These events occurred after the NHMRC terminated a taxpayer funded First Review in August 2012, without publicly disclosing its existence, findings or expenditure – raising further serious questions regarding research integrity and misappropriation of public funds. The Review published in 2015 was the second attempt.

These and other issues concerning the NHMRC Homeopathy Review have been detailed in a Submission of Complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for investigation.

Read more below for further details regarding NHMRC’s response to Senator Stirling Griff’s Question and make up your own mind: was the NHMRC Homeopathy Review science fact or fiction?