In an interview with Pharma Relations, Mathias Hevert, Managing Director of Hevert Arzneimittel, accused the “skeptics” of taking a “clearly biased stance towards homeopathy”, of neither wanting to inform nor being willing to discuss.
We do not know who the “skeptics” are supposed to be here. We regret, however, that Mr. Hevert obviously did not inform himself in any way about the aims and contents of the INH – for example on this page – and instead makes such statements.
Mr. Hevert has today received the INH letter published below with reference to these statements:
Mr. Mathias Hevert
Management Hevert Arzneimittel
by e-mail email@example.com
July 2, 2019
July 2, 2019.
Your interview on Pharma-Relations
Dear Mr. Hevert,
With this letter we refer to your interview, which was published on 01.07.2019 on Pharma-Relations (Link). In particular, we’d like to address the accusation having a “clearly biased attitude towards homeopathy” and the claim that we wouldn’t be open to discussion. You, on the other hand, would welcome a scientifically based and fact-oriented discussion at any time.
We would like to convince you that our attitude is not based on an unreflected bias, but is rather the result of a long and intense occupation of the doctrine of homeopathy. We have looked at homeopathy from different angles and come to the same conclusion in different ways: from our point of view homeopathy does not work beyond placebo. Homeopathic preparations are in higher as well as in lower potency unsuitable to bring about specific effects, especially not those which are supposed to unfold according to the homeopahtic doctrine. There is no scientifically valid evidence for an effect beyond placebo.
On the other hand, we as skeptics are of course open to your arguments as to why our point of view should be wrong. With the exception of Prof. Frass, formerly of Med-Uni Vienna, our previous offers for a discussion with representatives of homeopathy have not yet been taken up. We are therefore pleased that you welcome a scientifically sound and fact-based discussion at any time, and would like to enter into a corresponding dialogue with you. After all, we consider the same facts, but come to different conclusions, which at least in principle could be dispelled in a discussion.
One could imagine different procedures, from a moderated discussion in a smaller circle to a public panel discussion. Perhaps a moderator of a TV talk show could also be inspired by this topic. Of course, we assume that as a business economist you will be supported by experts from inside or outside your company or association.
As minimum result it could result from this discussion that you would learn more and better know about the motives and arguments of the skeptics, the GWUP and the INH and wouldn’t have to make further wrong statements about the relevant persons from ignorance.
We look forward to your answer with interest.
Dr. – Ing. Norbert Aust – Dr. med. Christian Luebbers
We are curious.