Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am concerned at the carelessness of, and the bias expressed by, the
captioning
of this article. The body of the article clearly says that there is
'insufficient
evicence', while the caption says 'no evidence'.
Those who only scan captions are likely to be mislead regarding the
possible
value of homeopathy in pain management and improved quality of life it
seems
to provde for some cancer patients. If the common falacious accusation of
unnecessary delay in effective treatment is excluded, then homeopathics
are, at
worst, useless; but they are also harmless.
In a patient-centric world, if the patient may derive some benefit
from an
otherwise harmless treatment, why not try it?
Competing interests:
I teach seminars for profit
involving the use of homeopathics.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
05 February 2006
Malcolm C Rutledge
Medical Practioner
Sunnybank Hills, Queensland, Australia 4109Evidence for
Evidence for Homeopathy
I am concerned at the carelessness of, and the bias expressed by, the
captioning
of this article. The body of the article clearly says that there is
'insufficient
evicence', while the caption says 'no evidence'.
Those who only scan captions are likely to be mislead regarding the
possible
value of homeopathy in pain management and improved quality of life it
seems
to provde for some cancer patients. If the common falacious accusation of
unnecessary delay in effective treatment is excluded, then homeopathics
are, at
worst, useless; but they are also harmless.
In a patient-centric world, if the patient may derive some benefit
from an
otherwise harmless treatment, why not try it?
Competing interests:
I teach seminars for profit
involving the use of homeopathics.
Competing interests: No competing interests