Zu den wesentlichen Aufgaben eines Wissenschaftlers gehört es grundsätzlich, Für und Wider, Pro und Contra einer Sache zu zeigen. Alexander Tournier verstößt gegen diese Pflicht.
Thymian zeigt in
Alexander Tourniers Lüge und Fälschung der EU-Statistik
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=9954.msg23803#msg23803wie Alexander Tournier eine Quelle (seine Quellenangabe 2) sowohl falsch darstellt als auch die avon ihm angegebenen Tatsachenbehauptungen falsch sind.
Die Quelle:
[*quote*]
2. Homeopathic medicinal products. Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directives 92/73 and 92/74 | Full Text
https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Commission_Report_Dir_92-73_and_92-74_Homeo_July_1997.pdf[*/quote*]
Wie Julian in
Alexander Tournier, ein notorischer Lügner und Fälscher
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=9954.msg23822#msg23822zeigt, macht Alexander Tournier in
Homeopathy use around the world
https://www.hri-research.org/resources/essentialevidence/use-of-homeopathy-across-the-world/und in
Der Einsatz der Homöopathie weltweit
https://www.hri-research.org/de/quellen/wichtiges-forschungsmaterial/der-einsatz-der-homoeopathie-weltweit/eine Quellenangabe 5:
[*quote*]
5. Professor Woods of the MHRA, response to Q211, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee hearing of evidence in preparation of Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy report (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2010) | Full Text
[*quote*]
Dabei lügt und fälscht Tournier in Bezug auf die von ihm gemachten Aussagen
[*quote*]
UK
10% of people in the UK use homeopathy – an estimated 6 million people.5
[*/quote*]
und
[*quote*]
Frankreich
Oscillococcinum, ein homöopathisches Arzneimittel gegen Grippe, ist eines der meistverkauften rezeptfreien Medikamente in Frankreich.5
[*/quote*]
Tourniers Betrug ist aber noch viel weitreichender. Die von ihm angegebene Quelle
"House of Commons Science and Technology Committee hearing of evidence in preparation of Evidence Check 2:
Homeopathy report (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2010) | Full Text"
https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Evidence-Check-2-Homeopathy-report-2010.pdfwurde aus Sicherungsgründen im Forum eingelagert:
House of Commons: Homeopathy Fourth Report of Session 2009–10
https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Evidence-Check-2-Homeopathy-report-2010.pdfhttp://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=9964.msg23820#msg23820Wie man dank Archiv leicht nachprüfen kann. ist die angegebenen Quelle sogar GEGEN Homöopathie! Die Schlußfolgerungen und Empfehlungen lauten nämlich:
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=9964.msg23820#msg23820[*quote*]
Conclusions and recommendations
The policy on NHS funding and provision of homeopathy
1.
We recommend that the Government determine the total amount of money spent by
the NHS on homeopathy annually over the past 10 years, differentiating
homeopathic products, patient referrals and maintenance and refurbishment of
homeopathic hospitals, and publish the figures. (Paragraph 15)
Our expectations of the evidence base
2. We consider that conclusions about the evidence on the efficacy of homeopathy
should be derived from well designed and rigorous randomised controlled trials
(RCTs). (Paragraph 20)
3. We expect the conclusions on the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy to give
particular weight to properly conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews of
RCTs. (Paragraph 25)
4. We have set out the issue of efficacy and effectiveness at some length to illustrate that
a non-efficacious medicine might, in some situations, be effective (patients feel
better) because of the placebo effect. That is why we put more weight on evidence of
efficacy than of effectiveness. (Paragraph 39)
5. We would expect the Government to have a proper understanding of the power and
complexities of the placebo effect and the ethical issues surrounding its use in a
clinical setting; otherwise it cannot hope to make good decisions relating to patients
and public health. (Paragraph 40)
6. Our expectations of the evidence base relevant to government policies on the
provision of homeopathy are straightforward. We would expect the Government to
have a view on the efficacy of homeopathy so as to inform its policy on the NHS
funding and provision of homeopathy. Such a view should be based on the best
available evidence, that is, rigorous randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses
and systematic reviews of RCTs. If the effects of homeopathy can be primarily
attributed to the placebo effect, we would expect the Government to have a view on
the ethics of prescribing placebos. (Paragraph 47)
The evidence check: NHS funding and provision
7. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to
provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note
that this is the settled view of medical science. (Paragraph 54)
8. We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances
previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible. (Paragraph 61)44
Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy
9. Research funding is limited and highly competitive. The Government should
continue its policy of funding the highest quality applications for important scientific
research determined on the basis of peer review. (Paragraph 63)
10. We recommend that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Professor Harper,
Chief Scientist at the DH, get together to see if they can reach an agreed position on
the question of whether there is any merit in research funding being directed
towards the claimed modes of action of homeopathy. (Paragraph 64)
11. In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that
homeopathic products perform no better than placebos. (Paragraph 70)
12. We recommend that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Professor Harper
get together to see if they can reach an agreed position on the question of whether
there is any good evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy and whether there is a
genuine scientific controversy over the efficacy of homeopathy and publish this.
(Paragraph 72)
13. We regret that advocates of homeopathy, including in their submissions to our
inquiry, choose to rely on, and promulgate, selective approaches to the treatment of
the evidence base as this risks confusing or misleading the public, the media and
policy-makers. (Paragraph 73)
14. There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it
is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how
further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing
priorities. (Paragraph 77)
15. It is also unethical to enter patients into trials to answer questions that have been
settled already. Given the different position on this important question between the
Minister and his Chief Scientist, we recommend that the Government Chief
Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, investigate whether ministers are
receiving effective advice and publish his own advice on this question.
(Paragraph 78)
16. We do not doubt that homeopathy makes some patients feel better. However, patient
satisfaction can occur through a placebo effect alone and therefore does not prove
the efficacy of homeopathic interventions. (Paragraph 82)
17. We recommend that the Department of Health circulate NHS West Kent’s review of
the commissioning of homeopathy to those PCTs with homeopathic hospitals within
their areas. It should recommend that they also conduct reviews as a matter of
urgency, to determine whether spending money on homeopathy is cost effective in
the context of competing priorities. (Paragraph 86)
Should NICE evaluate homeopathy?
18.
We accept that NICE has a large queue of drugs to evaluate and that it may have
greater priorities than evaluating homeopathy. However, we cannot understand why
the lack of an evidence base for homeopathy might prevent NICE evaluating it butEvidence Check 2: Homeopathy
45
not prevent the NHS spending money on it. This position is not logical.
(Paragraph 90)
Homeopathy on the NHS
19. When doctors prescribe placebos, they risk damaging the trust that exists between
them and their patients. (Paragraph 97)
20. For patient choice to be real choice, patients must be adequately informed to
understand the implications of treatments. For homeopathy this would certainly
require an explanation that homeopathy is a placebo. When this is not done, patient
choice is meaningless. When it is done, the effectiveness of the placebo—that is,
homeopathy—may be diminished. We argue that the provision of homeopathy on
the NHS, in effect, diminishes, not increases, informed patient choice. (Paragraph
101)
21. We recommend that if personal health budgets proceed beyond the pilot stage the
Government should not allow patients to buy non-evidence-based treatments such
as homeopathy with public money. (Paragraph 104)
22. When the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it. Since the NHS Constitution
explicitly gives people the right to expect that decisions on the funding of drugs and
treatments are made “following a proper consideration of the evidence”, patients
may reasonably form the view that homeopathy is an evidence-based treatment.
(Paragraph 109)
23. The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS.
(Paragraph 110)
24. We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The
funding of homeopathic hospitals—hospitals that specialise in the administration of
placebos—should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to
homeopaths. (Paragraph 111)
Product Licences of Right
25.
We are concerned that homeopathic products were, and continued to be, exempted
from the requirement for evidence of efficacy and have been allowed to continue
holding Product Licences of Right. We recommend that no PLRs for homeopathic
products are renewed beyond 2013. (Paragraph 121)
The evidence check: licensing
26.
We conclude that the MHRA should seek evidence of efficacy to the same standard
for all the products examined for licensing which make medical claims and we
recommend that the MHRA remove all references to homeopathic provings from its
guidance other than to make it clear that they are not evidence of efficacy.
(Paragraph 128)46
Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy
27. We consider that the MHRA’s consultation, which led to the introduction of the
NRS, was flawed and we remain unconvinced that the NRS was designed with a
public health rationale. (Paragraph 135)
28. We fail to see why the label test design should be acceptable to the MHRA given that,
first, it considers that homeopathic products have no effect beyond placebo and,
second, Arnica Montana 30C contains no active ingredient and there is no scientific
evidence that it has been demonstrated to be efficacious. We conclude that the user-
testing of the Arnica Montana 30C label was poorly designed with parts of the test
actively misleading participants. In our view the MHRA’s testing of the public’s
understanding of the labelling of homeopathic products is defective. (Paragraph 140)
29. If the MHRA is to continue to regulate the labelling of homeopathic products, which
we do not support, we recommend that the tests are redesigned to ensure and
demonstrate through user testing that participants clearly understand that the
products contain no active ingredients and are unsupported by evidence of efficacy,
and the labelling should not mention symptoms, unless the same standard of
evidence of efficacy used to assess conventional medicines has been met. (Paragraph
141)
The role of pharmacies
30. We consider that the way to deal with the sale of homeopathic products is to remove
any medical claim and any implied endorsement of efficacy by the MHRA—other
than where its evidential standards used to assess conventional medicines have been
met—and for the labelling to make it explicit that there is no scientific evidence that
homeopathic products work beyond the placebo effect. (Paragraph 146)
31. Although it goes wider than the scope of this Evidence Check inquiry we must put
on record our concern about the length of time the RPSGB appears to be taking to
investigate and reach conclusions on cases where it has been alleged that its
guidelines on the sale of homeopathic products have been breached. We recommend
that the Government enquires into whether the RPSGB, and from the 2010
handover, the General Pharmaceutical Council, is doing an adequate job in respect
of the time taken to pursue complaints. (Paragraph 151)
Conclusions on the licensing regimes
32.
It is unacceptable for the MHRA to license placebo products—in this case sugar
pills—conferring upon them some of the status of medicines. Even if medical claims
on labels are prohibited, the MHRA’s licensing itself lends direct credibility to a
product. Licensing paves the way for retail in pharmacies and consequently the
patient’s view of the credibility of homeopathy may be further enhanced. We
conclude that it is time to break this chain and, as the licensing regimes operated by
the MHRA fail the Evidence Check, the MHRA should withdraw its discrete
licensing schemes for homeopathic products. (Paragraph 152)Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy
47
Overall conclusion
33.
By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products
which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of
endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient
trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo
treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS
and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products. (Paragraph 157)48
Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy[*/quote*]
Das ist ein vernichtendes Urteil. [*quote*]
To maintain patient
trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo
treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS
and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products.[*/quote*]
Das ist ein vernichtendes Urteil. Warum verweist Alexander Tournier trotzdem darauf? Weil er dann immer sagen kann, daß er darauf verwiesen hätte! Wobei er verschweigt, auf welch hinterhältige Weise er in mehrfacher Hinsicht über den Inhalt gelogen und gefälscht hat.
Diese Scientology-Methode ist kein Einzelfall. Auch andere Quellen werden auf diese Weise verfälscht.
Ein Beispiel aus den gleichen Seiten, diesmal betreffend
https://www.hri-research.org/resources/essentialevidence/use-of-homeopathy-across-the-world/[*quote*]
US
According to the National Institutes of Health, over 6 million people in the United States use homeopathy, mainly for self-care of specific health conditions.
Of those who use homeopathy, ~1 million are children and over 5 million are adults.
9, 10[*/quote*]
und
https://www.hri-research.org/de/quellen/wichtiges-forschungsmaterial/der-einsatz-der-homoeopathie-weltweit/[*quote*]
USA
Laut Angaben der National Institutes of Health (NIH) greifen mehr als sechs Millionen Menschen in den USA auf Homöopathie zurück, und zwar in erster Linie für die Eigenbehandlung bestimmter Erkrankungen.
Ca. 1 Million Kindern und mehr als 5 Millionen Erwachsene nehmen homöopathische Präparate ein.
10, 11[*/quote*]
Einmal gibt er als Quellen die Nummern
9, 10 an und einmal .
10, 11. Aber es gibt gar keine Quelle 11. Es handelt sich um
[*quote*]
9. Black LI, et al. Use of Complementary Health Approaches Among Children Aged 4–17 Years in the United States: National Health Interview Survey, 2007–2012. National Health Statistics Reports, 2015; 78: February
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr078.pdf10 Clarke TC, et al. Trends in the Use of Complementary Health Approaches Among Adults: United States, 2002–2012. National Health Statistics Reports, 2015; 79: February
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr079.pdf[*/quote*]
Alexander Tournier behauptet:
[*quote*]
USA
Laut Angaben der National Institutes of Health (NIH) greifen mehr als sechs Millionen Menschen in den USA auf Homöopathie zurück, und zwar in erster Linie für die Eigenbehandlung bestimmter Erkrankungen.
Ca. 1 Million Kindern und mehr als 5 Millionen Erwachsene nehmen homöopathische Präparate ein.10, 11
[*/quote*]
Auf Seite 7 von
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr078.pdfheißt es jedoch:
[*quote*]
Of those children who had received
homeopathic treatments, only a small
proportion had seen a practitioner of
homeopathy, suggesting that most use is
self-care. This self-care use of
homeopathy treatments is also reflected
in industry sales data that show steady
growth in the sales of homeopathic
products over the last 10 years, with
about 80% of sales occurring at retailers
such as big box stores, grocery stores,
and drug stores (21). To the best of the
authors’ knowledge, there are no data
assessing whether self-care with
homeopathic products is equivalent to
care from a trained homeopath.
However, the Food and Drug
Administration’s oversight of over-the
counter homeopathic products is far less
stringent than for pharmaceuticals, and
serious adverse events with the use of
homeopathic over-the-counter remedies
have been reported (22).
[*/quote*]
Quelle 22 ist
[*quote*]
22. Kuehn BM. Despite health claims by
manufacturers, little oversight for
homeopathic products. JAMA
302(15):1631–2. 2009.
[*/quote*]
Fazit: Die Aufsicht durch die Behörden ist schlampig und es kam zu schweren Schäden. Das schreibt Alexander Tournier natürlich nicht. Das verschweigt er. Aber immerhin, er hat eine hochoffzielle Quelle angegeben, wenn das nichts ist.
Ja, es ist mehr als nichts. Es ist schon wieder Betrug durch Unterschlagen wesentlicher Tatsachen.
Und dann ist da noch der Betrug, wo er aus einem Mittel für "Grippe-ähnliche Syptome" ein Mittel gegen Grippe macht, siehe den Beweis durch Julian:
Alexander Tournier, ein notorischer Lügner und Fälscher
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=9954.msg23822#msg23822Die britische Justiz sollte seinen Laden wegen Fälschung und Betrug zwangsweise schließen.