Lancet editor admits bias against homeopathy!

[Dana Ullman, MPH]

Dear Friends,
The October, 2005, issue of Natural Foods Merchandizer (NFM)
reported on a "meta-analysis" that compared homeopathic clinical trials with
a "similarly matched" group of conventional clinical trials. NFM quoted
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine in England, as saying that
this study was well-conducted and "performed by a group with a high
reputation with no axe to grind."
Sadly (and predictably), Dr. Ernst has his own axe to grind, as did
the lead author of the Lancet's study. Even the Lancet's senior editor,
Zoullan, admitted that an inherent conflict on the part of the authors
existed, "Professor Eggers stated at the outset that he expected to find
that homeopathy had no effect other than that of placebo." In fact, Eggers
is widely known in Switzerland where he lives to frequently speak out
against homeopathy.
Because Professor Eggers and his team selectively chose which
conventional medical trials were "matched" to the 100+ homeopathic clinical
trials, Professor Eggers bias is important to mention.
The Lancet's own bias are long-standing and were further verified
when its senior editor also asserted, "His (Egger's) 'conflict' was
therefore transparent. We saw this as sufficient." One must, therefore,
understand that the Lancet allows bias when it is acknowledged to the
editors (but not to the readers).
If readers want to know the wide body of 200+ clinical trials
published primarily published in peer-review journals, I encourage you to
access my e-book, "Homeopathic Family Medicine: Evidence Based Homeopathy."
I update this e-book every 3 months usually with 5-10 new studies.

Dana Ullman, MPH
Berkeley, CA.
mail@homeopathic.com
www.homeopathic.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]