The comments on the study on homoeopathy reported in Lancet (Effect only in mind, September 5) is a conspiracy to malign the subject. The authors have reported that they analysed 110 trials each from homoeopathy and conventional medicine. But actually they discarded a majority of them on the excuse that their methodology was flawed. The conclusion was drawn after comparing the outcomes of only eight homoeopathy and six allopathy trials. Homoeopathy treats the patient, but not the disease. It targets each patient individually on the basis of the variations of their complaints and physical or mental characteristics. Not only the selection of medicine, but also its potency, dose and repetition are tailored to each individual patientís needs. Holistic and individualistic approach being the hallmark of homoeopathy, a particular medicine may be needed for a number of diseases, whereas a group of patients suffering from the same disease may require different medicines. Therefore, the randomised placebo-controlled trials chosen by the researchers do not follow the tenets of homoeopathy, even though these are the suitable modalities for research in allopathy, in which a single drug is usually tested in a particular disease. Why have the researchers adopted such an inappropriate tool to judge the efficacy of homoeopathy' Homoeopathy and allopathy trials evaluated by the researchers must have been done under different circumstances, such as different teams of experts, objectives, set-ups, techniques, methodologies, outcome assessments, methods of selecting medicines and dosages etc. Without such variations in the experimental procedures, is it rational to compare their efficacy' Homoeopathy is being criticised without any rhyme and reason.
Prof. Chaturbhuj Nayak Director
Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
We invite readersí opinions about the articles published in KnowHOW.
Mail your letters to:
Third Law, KnowHOW,
6 Prafulla Sarkar Street