Homeopathy and Pluralism of Theories in Medicine Arguments Put Forward to Remove Homeopathic Products from Pharmacies Contradict Actual Scientific Evidence and Suggest Deliberate Misinformation

Abstract

Founded in 2000 by renowned physicians and researchers on the initiative of Professor Dr. med. Dr. h.c. Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe, then president of the German Medical Association, the Dialogue Forum Pluralism in Medicine (DPM) aims to overcome the traditional partisan bias between conventional medicine and complementary medicine by way of continued critical and objective dialogue between acknowledged representatives of different theoretical and practical approaches, in favour of an Integrative Medicine. The article describes the initiative in Germany as linking up with the concept of Integrative Medicine which originated from the United States and today is spreading across the world. The DPM strives to assess divergent paradigms in medicine for their potential to complement each other. Current DPM members are established proponents of mainstream medicine, anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, classical naturopathy and Chinese Medicine (TCM). It has become fashionable to belittle homeopathy as being ineffective, using inaccurate statements on the state of research. On behalf of the DPM members as well as numerous medical organisations and renowned physicians and researchers, this article comments on such unjustified claims by means of specific examples. The idea is to establish Integrative Medicine in a spirit of critical but unbiased collaboration between mainstream medicine and selected complementary approaches as a precondition for a fully orchestrated healthcare system that meets the individually varying needs and preferences of the population. In this context, reference is made to a position paper on medical professionalism signed by all DPM members which underlined that conventional and complementary medicine alike are obliged to adhere to scientific standards. Ludwig Fleck and Thomas Kuhn already described tendencies among proponents of specific paradigms to claim privileges for their own paradigm via legislation. However, under Basic Law (German constitution) Article 5 Paragraph 3, the state is generally forbidden to pass judgment on scientific matters in the sense of advocacy of one specific paradigm. It should also be noted that attempts to monopolize a single paradigm favour the emergence of totalitarian thought patterns. In a final vote, the signatories – established medical organisations and numerous physicians and scientists of renown – reject all efforts to pursue totalitarian thought patterns in our healthcare system which are irreconcilable with constitutional law.