,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Central results of the HRI research on the Australian review that claimed homeopathy doesn’t work better than a placebo:
- It was conducted twice, which was previously unknown. Since the first review did not show the desired results, a second one was created. #Homöopathie THREAD
- It was conducted twice, which was previously unknown. Since the first review did not show the desired results, a second one was created. #Homöopathie THREAD
- The existence of the first report was never disclosed to the public, but only revealed by a request under the Australian Freedom of Information Act.
- The NHMRC had published the review based on more than 1,800 studies. In fact, only 176 studies were reviewed. Of these 176 studies, 171 were excluded from the review.
Reasons for this were that they either were not written in English or had less than 150 participants. There were only 5 studies on which the review is based.
- These criteria are incomprehensible and have not been used by the NHMRC in any other review. The NHMRC itself carries out studies with fewer than 150 participants.
- The chairman of the NHMRC committee responsible for the review is a member of the political lobby group "Friends of Science in Medicine" (FSM), which actively opposes homeopathy.
Nevertheless, the chairman signed a "Declaration of Interest" stating that he was not affiliated with an organization "working for or against homeopathy".
- In preparation of the review the NHMRC-own rules were violated, for example the fact that at least one expert - in this case, a homeopathic expert - must belong to the committee.
And now think about that this Australien meta study, which was done so unscientifically, is the basis of the NHS in the UK not funding homeopathy anymore, also the Australian, Spanish and now the French government actively opposing homeopathy.
