Talk:Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs

Would it be worth adding a section that puts the HTA into the context of the PEK commission? It's particularly useful to say what they said about the report and how that led to homeopathy being withdrawn from the insurance reimbursement scheme.

Dr Shaw in his article in Swiss Med Wkly doesn't get the history quite right. Briefly, the PEK was set up, they commissioned the HTAs and the Shang et al. analysis and several other reports. When they got everything together, they criticised the homeopathy HTA for being far too optimistic when it 're-assessed' the results of the trials they looked at to be more positive than the original authors concluded. As a result, homeopathy was withdrawn from reimbursement. After lobbying by homeopathists, a referendum was arranged and because that was in favour of homeopathy (surprise, surprise) the Swiss Government had no choice but to reinstate it. However, because they are bound by law only to include EBM (I forget the exact phrase), they made this reimbursement temporary until 2017. Future reimbursement is contingent on homeopaths coming up with *robust* evidence for homeopathy by 2015.

There is more about this whole story on my blog, written by myself and Sven Rudloff: That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report http://www.zenosblog.com/2012/05/that-neutral-swiss-homeopathy-report/

Or should this be a separate entry? It's up to you guys! --Zeno (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

weak link

The paragraph linking Peter F. Matthiessen and Gudrun Bornhöft to Panmedion may be legit, but the original links are gone and the replaced links don't make the case as strongly. Is there better info still available? MarmotHead (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)