The Fundamental Flaws of the NHMRC ‘Homeopathy Review’

The seriously flawed Australian NHMRC Homeopathy Review: In its latest bulletin, the Australian Homeopathic Association reports:
“The following observations have been compiled by Complementary Medicines Australia (CMA). This has been done using information and papers obtained from the NHMRC by a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

The Fundamental Flaws of the NHMRC ‘Homeopathy Review’

1. Shoddy Methodology
Many peak industry bodies, including Complementary Medicines Australia and a number of highly respected complementary medicines researchers, have expressed very significant concerns regarding the methodology used by the NHMRC.

2. Selective Research
Of a possible 1367 studies to examine the NHMRC chose only to examine 61.

3. Lack of Expertise
The NHMRC chose not to include a homoeopath on the homoeopathy review panel.

4. Conflict of Interest
Prof Peter Brooks, the Chair of the NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee, only resigned his membership of anti-complementary medicines fringe group Friends of Science in Medicine in April 2012 – coincidentally the same month he chaired his first NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee Meeting.

5. Ignoring Expert Review
Before publication of the ‘Review’ the NHMRC actively sought three expert opinions on the report. Two out of the three experts expressed numerous concerns about the methodology and selective use of the data and recommended the NHMRC should not come to the very definitive conclusion that it came to. The NHMRC then chose to ignore these expert opinions.”