Editing Homeopathy (section)

=== Lack of scientific evidence ===
The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy<ref name="Adler2">{{Cite news|author=Adler J|date=February 4, 2004|title=No way to treat the dying|magazine=[[Newsweek]]|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581}}</ref> and its use of preparations without active ingredients have led to characterizations of homeopathy as pseudoscience and quackery,<ref name="Dearden2">{{cite news|last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date=February 7, 2017|title=Russian Academy of Sciences says homeopathy is dangerous 'pseudoscience' that does not work|newspaper=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-academy-of-sciences-homeopathy-treaments-pseudoscience-does-not-work-par-magic-a7566406.html|access-date=February 7, 2017}}</ref><ref name="pmid146761792">{{cite journal|last1=Atwood|first1=KC|year=2003|title="Neurocranial restructuring" and homeopathy, neither complementary nor alternative|journal=Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery|volume=129|issue=12|pages=1356–57|doi=10.1001/archotol.129.12.1356|pmid=14676179}}</ref><ref name="NdububaQuack2">{{cite journal|last1=Ndububa|first1=VI|year=2007|title=Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?|journal=Nigerian Journal of Medicine|volume=16|issue=4|pages=312–17|doi=10.4314/njm.v16i4.37328|pmid=18080586|doi-access=free}}</ref> or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".<ref name="Ernst2">{{cite journal|last1=Ernst|first1=E|last2=Pittler|first2=MH|year=1998|title=Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials|journal=Archives of Surgery|volume=133|issue=11|pages=1187–90|doi=10.1001/archsurg.133.11.1187|pmid=9820349|doi-access=free}}</ref> The [[Russian Academy of Sciences]] considers homeopathy a "dangerous 'pseudoscience' that does not work", and "urges people to treat homeopathy 'on a par with magic{{'"}}.<ref name="Dearden2" /> The Chief Medical Officer for England, [[Sally Davies (doctor)|Dame Sally Davies]], has stated that homeopathic preparations are "rubbish" and do not serve as anything more than placebos.<ref>{{cite news|last=Silverman|first=Rosa|title=Homeopathy is 'rubbish', says chief medical officer|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9822744/Homeopathy-is-rubbish-says-chief-medical-officer.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130126102237/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9822744/Homeopathy-is-rubbish-says-chief-medical-officer.html|archive-date=January 26, 2013|access-date=January 24, 2013|issn=0307-1235|oclc=49632006}}</ref> In 2013, [[Mark Walport]], the UK [[Government Chief Scientific Adviser]] and head of the [[Government Office for Science]] said "homeopathy is nonsense, it is non-science."<ref name="Collins2">{{cite news|author=Nick Collins|date=April 18, 2013|title=Homeopathy is nonsense, says new chief scientist|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130420234704/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html|archive-date=April 20, 2013}}</ref> His predecessor, [[John Beddington]], also said that homeopathy "has no underpinning of scientific basis" and is being "fundamentally ignored" by the Government.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Gray|first=Richard|date=April 9, 2013|title=Homeopathy on the NHS is 'mad' says outgoing scientific adviser|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9982234/Homeopathy-on-the-NHS-is-mad-says-outgoing-scientific-adviser.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9982234/Homeopathy-on-the-NHS-is-mad-says-outgoing-scientific-adviser.html |archive-date=January 11, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=2020-10-28|website=The Telegraph|language=en-GB}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the [[National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine]], says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics". He adds: "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."<ref name="Adler2" /> [[Ben Goldacre]] says that homeopaths who misrepresent scientific evidence to a [[Scientific literacy|scientifically illiterate]] public, have "... walled themselves off from academic medicine, and critique has been all too often met with avoidance rather than argument".<ref name="Goldacre20072">{{cite journal|last1=Goldacre|first1=Ben|year=2007|title=Benefits and risks of homoeopathy|journal=The Lancet|volume=370|issue=9600|pages=1672–73|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61706-1|pmid=18022024|s2cid=43588927}}</ref> Homeopaths often prefer to ignore [[Meta-analysis|meta-analyses]] in favour of [[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry picked]] positive results, such as by promoting a particular [[observational study]] (one which Goldacre describes as "little more than a customer-satisfaction survey") as if it were more informative than a series of randomized controlled trials.<ref name="Goldacre20072" />

In an article entitled "Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?"<ref name="Baum_&_Ernst2">{{cite journal|last1=Baum|first1=Michael|last2=Ernst|first2=Edzard|year=2009|title=Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?|journal=The American Journal of Medicine|volume=122|issue=11|pages=973–74|doi=10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.03.038|pmid=19854319|quote=Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine... These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect... To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine (e.g., Bach Flower remedies, spiritual healing, crystal therapy) is, therefore, not an option}}</ref> published in the ''[[American Journal of Medicine]]'', [[Michael Baum (surgeon)|Michael Baum]] and [[Edzard Ernst]]{{spaced ndash}}writing to other physicians{{spaced ndash}}wrote that "Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine... These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect...".