In reply: Wardle’s letter raises several points that deserve comment. Wardle calls me dogmatic, misinformed and antihomeopathic. Such ad hominem attacks hardly promote a rational debate. When I started my job of scrutinising homeopathy 17 years ago, I was pro-homeopathy1 — I once worked in a German homeopathic hospital — and became more sceptical as the evidence base for homeopathy became more clearly negative.2 This, it seems to me, is the opposite of dogmatic.
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK.
Correspondence: Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk
- 1. Ernst E. Homoeopathy and I. Int J Clin Pract 2009; 63: 1558-1561.<eMJA full text>
- 2. Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. Homeopathy: is the evidence-base changing? Perfusion 2006; 19: 380-382.
- 3. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy — Fourth Report of Sessions 2009–10. Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.