Report this content as offensive or unsuitable

Tell us about this content

Important, please read before continuing

This form should only be used for serious complaints about comments posted to the Page Comments section that break the NHS Choices Moderation Rules. This would include, but is not limited to harassing, abusive, threatening, libelous, or otherwise objectionable material.

The comment about which you complain will be sent to a moderator, who will decide whether it breaks the NHS Choices Moderation Rules. You will be contacted in due course once a decision has been made.

We need your email address so we can keep you updated about the status of your complaint.


Return to this content

Original content

whackarat said on 23 February 2010

@Robert Mathie: Would that be the same meta-analysis which "...was later qualified by the authors, who wrote: 'The evidence of bias [in homeopathic trials] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.'"? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=345826566