Wed 24 Feb 2010
In an announcement made last Monday, MPs sitting on the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee urged the UK government To withdraw NHS funding and MHRA licensing of Homeopathy. In its report: Evidence Check 2 – Homeopathy [PDF 1.6Mbytes], the committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.
The Committee carried out an evidence check to test if the Government’s policies on homeopathy were based on sound evidence. In preparing its report, the committee, which scrutinizes the evidence behind government policies, took evidence from scientists and homeopaths, and reviewed numerous reports and scientific investigations into homeopathy. It found no evidence that such treatments work beyond providing a placebo effect. The Committee found a mismatch between the evidence and policy. While the Government acknowledges there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect, it does not intend to change or review its policies on NHS funding of homeopathy.
This was a challenging inquiry which provoked strong reactions. 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. We await the Government’s response to our report with interest.
The committee also urges governments in other European countries where homeopathy is popular – notably Germany, France and Austria – to be equally wary of funding homeopathy. “We feel there’s a real message, not just in the UK,” says committee chairman: Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis.
The report draws attention to homeopathic remedies derived from body parts such as hip joints and colons, animals such as iguanas and dragonflies, and even products exposed to different kinds of sunlight. In the case of remedies derived from fragments of archaeological monuments such as the Great Wall of China and Stonehenge, they point out that it is hard to understand how even homeopathy’s own principle of “like cures like” could apply.
Edzard Ernst of the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, Devonshire says the MPs’ report should be noted in other countries where homeopathy is widely practised but not subjected to serious critical scrutiny. “The evidence is negative, and it’s internationally negative, because there’s no difference between countries in terms of evidence,” he says.
The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, which backs complementary therapies, including homeopathy, acknowledges that homeopathy is “scientifically implausible”, but defends the use of such remedies nonetheless. In a published response to the committee’s report, the foundation wrote “For patients suffering from long term disease, where no scientific, evidence based medicine can offer effective treatment, it does not matter how it works. What matters to them is whether they get better, whether pain and other symptoms are alleviated.” It added that “Science is a vital tool in healthcare, but so are compassion and caring and treating patients with dignity. It is not clear that the Committee took that into account.”
More extensive coverage in New Scientist – Stop funding homeopathy, say British MPs

