Offener Brief an die bayerischen Landtagsabgeordneten: Homöopathie ist keine Antibiotika-Alternative!

Das Bild zeigt die Vorderansicht des Maximilianeums in München auf der Isarhöhe, dem Sitz des Bayerischen Landtags
Maximilianeum München, Sitz des Bayerischen Landtages

Am 24. Oktober berichtete das kritische Portal “MedWatch”, dass dem Bayerischen Landtag ein Antrag der Fraktionen von CSU und Freien Wählern vorliegt, in dem die Beforschung von alternativmedizinischen Methoden, “namentlich der Homöopathie”, zur Verringerung / Vermeidung des Einsatzes von Antibiotika gefordert wird. Der Gesundheitsausschuss des Landtages hat nach unseren Informationen bereits mehrheitlich dem Landtag empfohlen, entsprechend zu beschließen.

Salopp gesagt, hört hier aber nun wirklich der Spaß auf. Uns ist wohl bekannt, dass immer wieder Homöopathie als Antibiotikaalternative propagiert und auch angewandt wird. Vor allem in der Nutztierhaltung ist dies erschreckend weit verbreitet (und wird von der EU-Tierarzneimittelrichtlinie auch noch befördert). Es gab vor etwa einem Jahr sogar den Versuch, über eine Crowdfunding-Plattform Geld für entsprechende “homöopathische Forschung” einzubringen, was glücklicherweise im Ansatz steckenblieb. Nun, inzwischen sind wir weiter: Von der Nutztierhaltung zur Humanmedizin, vom Crowdfunding vergleichsweise bescheidenen Ausmaßes zum Anzapfen öffentlicher, durch Steuereinnahmen refinanzierter Mittel.

Selbstverständlich kann dies nicht unwidersprochen bleiben. In der Erwartung, dass fachliche Argumente in dieser Sache noch eine Chance haben, hat das INH den nachfolgenden Offenen Brief an alle (per Mail erreichbaren) bayerischen Landtagsabgeordneten geschickt:


 

An die Mitglieder
des Bayerischen Landtages

 

04.11.2019

Antrag “Todesfälle durch multiresistente Keime vermeiden IV – Studie zu einem reduzierten Antibiotika-Einsatz”

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

in obigem Antrag schlagen Abgeordnete der CSU und der Freien Wähler vor, dass in einer Studie untersucht werden soll, ob durch Einsatz von Alternativmedizin, namentlich der Homöopathie, der Einsatz von Antibiotika reduziert werden kann.

Hiermit möchten wir Sie davon überzeugen, dass der Antrag abgelehnt werden sollte, da diese Untersuchung angesichts bereits vorliegender Erkenntnisse sinnlos ist und eine Verschwendung von Steuermitteln darstellt.

Wir teilen die Ansicht, dass das Thema der Antibiotikaresistenzen dringender Aufmerksamkeit und wohl auch einer Bereitschaft der öffentlichen Hand bedarf, sich – auch finanziell – zu engagieren. Der Ansatz des oben bezeichneten Antrages scheint uns dafür aber wenig geeignet zu sein. Wir halten es für erforderlich, Ihnen nachstehend die Gründe für diese Einschätzung zu erläutern.

Zur Begründung:

Das Bemühen, den Einsatz von Antibiotika zu reduzieren, ist ein sinnvolles und notwendiges Vorhaben, um die weitere Ausbreitung multiresistenter Keime zu verhindern und damit die Gesundheit der Bürger zu schützen. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO und ihre Teilorganisationen betreiben dazu bereits seit geraumer Zeit Aufklärungskampagnen, so findet z.B. vom 18. bis 24.11.2019 die weltweite „World Antibiotic Awareness Week“ statt [1]. Wissenschaftliche Empfehlungen zur Reduzierung von Antibiotikagaben werden umfangreich kommuniziert. Aber: Der Einsatz von alternativmedizinischen Therapien, insbesondere der Homöopathie, ist dagegen in keinem Fall zielführend.

Wenn eine Therapieentscheidung ansteht, können nur zwei Fälle auftreten:

(1) Es liegt eine bakterielle Infektion vor und der Einsatz von Antibiotika ist angezeigt: Dann wäre die Anwendung von pseudomedizinischen Verfahren, die nicht über einen Placebo-Effekt hinaus wirksam sein können, unterlassene Hilfeleistung zum Schaden des Patienten.

(2) Es liegt keine bakterielle Infektion vor, dann sind keine Antibiotika angezeigt. Die einzig richtige Konsequenz ist, keine Antibiotika zu verordnen, auch nicht als Präventivmaßnahme. Gleiches gilt für harmlose, selbstlimitierende Infektionen, in denen der Einsatz der Homöopathie ebenfalls keinen reellen Vorteil ergibt.

Zum Hintergrund:

Die Ursache von bakteriellen Infektionskrankheiten sind Bakterien, die durch das körpereigene Abwehrsystem bekämpft werden. Kritisch wird dies, wenn diese Abwehr nicht ausreicht, die Erreger einzudämmen oder zu vernichten. In diesem Fall ist eine Antibiotika-Behandlung notwendig, um die Bakterien abzutöten.

Da der Antrag sehr stark auf die Homöopathie abzielt und keine anderen Therapieoptionen erwähnt, konzentrieren wir uns auf diese Therapieform.

Grundsätzlich ist zu bedenken, dass Infektionskrankheiten vor der Entdeckung der modernen Antibiotika die Todesursache Nummer eins waren. Sie waren Ursache für die damals geringe Lebenserwartung, insbesondere durch die hohe Kindersterblichkeit. Penicillin wurde erst 1928 entdeckt, aber erst nach dem 2. Weltkrieg fanden Antibiotika eine weitere Verbreitung in der Alltagsmedizin, und erst danach hat die Sterblichkeit infolge von Infektionen deutlich abgenommen. Ganz offensichtlich war die seit Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts weit verbreitete Homöopathie nicht in der Lage, zu einer Lösung dieses Problems beizutragen. Es drängt sich die Frage auf, was sich an der homöopathischen Lehre weiterentwickelt hätte, dass sie heute bessere Voraussetzungen bieten soll, schließlich sind die Lehren des Gründers Samuel Hahnemann damals wie heute die in der Homöopathie anerkannten Therapiegrundsätze.

Zur Homöopathie:

Die Homöopathie ist ein Therapiekonzept aus dem ausgehenden 18. Jahrhundert, an dem die Fortschritte der medizinischen Erkenntnis weitgehend spurlos vorbeigegangen sind. “Verstimmung der Lebenskraft” und “Miasmen” sind Grundlagen ihrer Krankheitslehre, die trotz der ab der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts erzielten fundamentalen Fortschritte des medizinischen Wissens unverändert beibehalten wurden und in der Wissenschaft schon lange als obsolet gelten. Keime – Viren, Bakterien, auch Parasiten – sind dem homöopathischen Konzept wesensfremd und sind es auch nach Erschließung der infektiologischen Grundlagen stets geblieben.

Im homöopathischen Therapiekonzept genügt eine durch Verdünnen und Schütteln erzeugte geistartige Arzneikraft des passenden Mittels zur Behandlung jeder Krankheit, indem die verstimmte Lebenskraft wieder ins Gleichgewicht gebracht wird. Dies gelingt umso besser, je mehr der eigentliche Wirkstoff durch das Potenzieren aus dem Präparat heraus verdünnt und je öfter am Ende reines Wasser mit reinem Wasser weiter verdünnt wurde. Einzig Miasmen, sogenannte Urübel, die auch von den Vorfahren ererbt sein können, stehen nach der homöopathischen Lehre bei chronischen Erkrankungen einer erfolgreichen Therapie entgegen. Hormone, Vitamine, Enzyme etc. spielen keine Rolle. Selbst einfache Diagnoseverfahren wie Messung der Körpertemperatur, des Pulsschlages oder des Blutdruckes haben keinen Niederschlag in den einschlägigen Repertorien gefunden, nach denen in der klassischen  Homöopathie die passenden Mittel identifiziert werden.

Im Gegensatz zu den Angaben im Antrag ist es trotz vieler klinischer Studien bislang noch nie gelungen, eine Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie bei auch nur einem einzigen Krankheitsbild überzeugend nachzuweisen, schon gar nicht bei Infektionskrankheiten. Dies haben bislang alle systematischen Reviews ergeben, die die vorliegenden Einzelstudien zusammenfassend ausgewertet haben. Es mag einzelne Studien geben, in denen scheinbar ein positiver Effekt aufgetreten ist, aber eine Bewertung der Qualität der jeweiligen Studie ergibt regelmäßig, dass deren Studiendesign unzulänglich war oder den beteiligten Forschern Fehler unterlaufen sind. Alle elf Reviews, darunter auch vier, die im Rahmen eines Projektes des englischen Homeopathy Research Institute durchgeführt wurden, kamen zu dem Schluss, dass die vorliegenden Ergebnisse nicht darauf schließen lassen, dass die Homöopathie über einen Placeboeffekt hinaus wirksam sein könnte[2]. Viele Internationale Wissenschaftsvereinigungen (z.B. die Europäischen Akademien der Wissenschaften[3]) und nationale Körperschaften haben entsprechende Empfehlungen ausgesprochen oder Konsequenzen gezogen, zuletzt in Frankreich, wo ab 2021 keine Homöopathika mehr von den Krankenkassen erstattet werden. Dort wurde zuvor die gesamte Studienlage auf mehreren Ebenen nochmals evaluiert – mit negativem Ergebnis.

Dass es trotz intensiver Bemühungen, oftmals unter Beteiligung von Homöopathen, nicht gelungen ist, einen belastbaren Nachweis für eine therapeutische Wirksamkeit der homöopathischen Mittel zu finden, lässt darauf schließen, dass es die behaupteten spezifischen Effekte der Mittel einfach nicht gibt.

Leider geben die Antragsteller nicht an, auf welche Studien sie sich beziehen. Identifizierbar ist alleine die Studie von Frass et al., die als einzige überhaupt die Wirksamkeit bei der Behandlung von Patienten mit einer schweren Sepsis untersucht[4], ein Krankheitsbild, das man in wenigen Tagen überwunden hat oder daran verstirbt. Es war allerdings nicht so, wie das im Antrag aufgeführte Zitat suggeriert, dass die zusätzliche Gabe von homöopathischen Präparaten den Behandlungserfolg auf der Intensivstation verbessert hätte. Einen signifikanten Unterschied gab es nämlich erst nach sechs Monaten, wo mehr Patienten der mit Placebo behandelten Kontrollgruppe verstorben waren als solche, die tatsächlich Homöopathika erhalten haben. Allerdings macht Frass keine Angaben, woran die Patienten lange, nachdem die Sepsis überwunden war, verstorben sind. Es könnte sich auch um Unfälle gehandelt haben, die zufällig in der Kontrollgruppe häufiger aufgetreten sind, wenn die Patienten dort nicht ohnehin aufgrund ihrer in der Studie dokumentierten schlechteren gesundheitlichen Situation eher verstorben sind. Die Arbeit von Frass ist daher auch aus Gründen, die dem medizinischen Laien einsichtig sind, ohne jede Aussagekraft hinsichtlich einer Wirkung von Homöopathika bei Infektionskrankheiten.

Die im Bereich HNO vorliegenden Studien sind ebenfalls nicht geeignet, eine therapeutische Wirksamkeit bei Infektionen zu belegen. Bei den meisten Studien dieser Art wurden selbstlimitierende Infektionen betrachtet (Infektionen der oberen Atemwege, Mittelohrentzündung, banale Erkältungen), die gewöhnlich von Viren herrühren, gegen die Antibiotika wirkungslos sind. Man schließt dann von der Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse der Homöopathie zu den in diesen Fällen unwirksamen Antibiotika, dass die Wirkungsweise beider Therapien gleich wäre — was in diesen Fällen der beiderseitigen Wirkungslosigkeit ja auch stimmt — und überträgt dies argumentativ auf die Gesamtheit der Indikationen, in denen Antibiotika eingesetzt werden.  Aus dem gemeinsamen Fehlen eines Merkmals kann jedoch nicht auf eine Übereinstimmung bei anderen Merkmalen geschlossen werden: Ein Löwe kann genauso wenig fliegen wie ein Seehund — daraus aber zu schließen, sie könnten dann auch vergleichbar gut schwimmen, ist sicher falsch.

Es sei abschließend darauf hingewiesen, dass Forschung in der Homöopathie angesichts der mangelnden Plausibilität der Grundlagen und Inhalte generell wenig Aussicht auf einen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisgewinn bietet. Es handelt sich vielmehr um Bestätigungsforschung, bei der weniger die vorurteilsfreie Suche nach neuem Wissen im Vordergrund steht, sondern lediglich versucht wird, Belege für das krude Gedankengebäude zu finden, wobei unerwünschte negative Ergebnisse einfach ignoriert werden. Beispielsweise hat die Münchner Kopfschmerzstudie eindrücklich gezeigt, dass es auch bei besten Voraussetzungen nicht gelingt, Kopfschmerz mittels Homöopathie erfolgreich zu behandeln[5]. Hier hatte sogar die mit Placebo “behandelte” Vergleichsgruppe die besseren Ergebnisse erzielt. Wie ein Blick in die vielfältigen Angaben zur Wirksamkeit einzelner homöopathischer Präparate zeigt, ist diesem Ergebnis auch nach über zwanzig Jahren nicht Rechnung getragen worden: Nach wie vor gehören Kopfschmerzen in jeder erdenklichen Ausprägung zum Einsatzgebiet der allermeisten Homöopathika.

Zusammenfassung

Die Homöopathie bietet trotz der vergleichsweise umfangreichen Forschungsergebnisse keinerlei Anlass zu der Annahme, man könnte damit irgendeine Krankheit erfolgreich medikamentös behandeln, Infektionskrankheiten schon gar nicht. Für diese Rückschlüsse liegen genügend Forschungsergebnisse vor, nicht nur zur homöopathischen Therapie selbst, sondern auch zu den Grundlagen von Physiologie und Pharmakologie, die die Grundlagen der Homöopathie völlig absurd erscheinen lassen.

Ein Einsatz der Homöopathie in Fällen, in denen Antibiotika angezeigt sind, ist gefährlich, in allen anderen Fällen, auch als Zusatz zur Antibiotikabehandlung, sinnlos.

Es besteht somit keine Rechtfertigung dafür, Steuermittel für eine weitere Forschungsarbeit aufzuwenden, wenn nicht die bereits vorliegenden Ergebnisse ausgewertet worden sind und sich dabei eine Lücke gezeigt hat, wo Forschungsergebnisse fehlen und ein positives Resultat möglich sein könnte.

Aus unserer Sicht wäre es wesentlich effektiver, analog zur Initiative RESIST der Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung Bayern aus dem Jahr 2017 auf eine Reduktion der Verordnung von Antibiotika hinzuwirken (https://www.kbv.de/html/resist.php). Im Übrigen sei darauf hingewiesen, dass zum Thema Antibiotikaresistenzen, deren Vermeidung und Perspektiven für die Zukunft in einem von der WHO koordinierten Netzwerk weltweit geforscht wird – in Deutschland unter Federführung des Deutschen Zentrums für Infektionskrankheiten (dzfi).

Wir halten es für dringend angezeigt, die vorstehenden Hinweise und Erläuterungen im Beratungs- und Entscheidungsprozess zum Empfehlungsbeschluss des Gesundheitsausschusses zu berücksichtigen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Für das Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie

Dr. med. Natalie Grams, Heidelberg
Dr.-Ing. Norbert Aust, Schopfheim
Dr- med. Christian Lübbers, Weilheim


Mitunterzeichner:

Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Michael Bach, Gundelfingen
DDr. Ulrich Berger, Wien/Österreich
Dr. rer. nat. Jochen Blom, Gießen
Dr. Andreas Breß, Tübingen
Prof. Dr. phil. Peter Brugger, Zürich/Schweiz
Udo Endruscheit, Essen
Prof. emeritus Edzard Ernst, Exeter/UK
Prof. Dr. Dittmar Graf, Gießen
B.-Eng. Dirk Graefe, München
Dr. med. Peter Grimm, Regen
Dr. med. Dr. h.c. Rudolf Happle, Freiburg
Dr. med. Oliver Harney, Bietigheim-Bissingen
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hell
Prof. Dr. Dieter B. Herrmann, Berlin
Udo Hilwerling, Paderborn
Elke Hergenröther, Hollfeld
Prof. Dr. med. Jutta Hübner, Jena
Dr. Holm Gero Hümmler, Bad Homburg
Dr. Michael Jachan, St. Pölten/Österreich
Dr. rer. nat. Franz Kass, Willich
Monika Kreusel, Köln
apl. Prof. Dr. med. Dr. med. habil. Dipl. Psych Christoph J. G. Lang, Heroldsbach
Dr. Philippe Leick, Gerlingen
Dr. phil. Martin Mahner, Roßdorf
MUDr. Viliam Masaryk, Gera
Dr. Theodor Much, Wien/Österreich
Dr. Nikil Mukerji, München
Dr. med. Dipl. Psych. Claudia Nowack, Münster
Dipl. Phys. Ute Parsch, München
Dipl. Phys. Hans Pfeufer, Berlin
Kai Rabus, Apotheker, Berlin
Dr.-phil. Jan-Ole Reichardt, Münster
Rainer Rößler, Holste
Dr. Rainer Rosenzweig, Nürnberg
Holger von Rybinski, München
Prof. Dr. Norbert Schmacke, Bremen
Michael Scholz, Kronach
Dipl.-Pharm. Viola Stuppe, München
Dr. med. Tilman Schwilk, Schramberg
Dr. med. Wolfgang Vahle, Paderborn
Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Vollmer, Freiburg
Dr. Rolf Wagels, Barsinghausen
Dr. Barbro Walker, Berlin
Dr. habil. Rainer Wolf, Würzburg
Dipl. Kfm. Christoph Zeitschel, Laatzen


[1]    Weitere Informationen: (Link)

[2]    NN: Systematische Reviews zur Homöopathie – Übersicht. Homöopedia des Informationsnetzwerks Homöopathie (Link)

[3]    EASAC: Homeopathic products and practices (Link)

[4]    M. Frass et al: Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit. In Homeopathy. 2005 Apr;94(2):75-80 (Link)

[5]    Walach H, Haeusler W, Lowes T et al.: ”Classical homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches”, Cephalagia(1997);17:119-126 (Link)


Mehr zu Antibiotika und Homöopathie:

Einwand: Globuli sind eh viel besser als Antibiotika!

Totes Kind in Italien: DZVhÄ sieht „ärztlichen Kunstfehler“

Artikel “Antibiotika” bei der Homöopedia


Bild von Franz Dürschmied auf Pixabay

Open letter to Health Minister Spahn on the continuation of the reimbursement of homeopathy in the SHI

Peanuts with miniature workers figures - allegory to Minister Spahn's decision criticed in the article
Peanuts … ?!?

Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn declared yesterday, 17.09.2019, that he would adhere further to the reimbursability of homeopathy by the statutory health insurance funds. He cited the comparatively marginal costs compared to the total expenditure of the SHI funds, i.e. the sufficiently strained “peanuts” argument, as the reason for this.

There are undoubtedly only bad reasons for Mr. Spahn’s decision, but this is undoubtedly the worst of all. We will see how politicians and other groups react. We, for our part, feel obliged to respond to his decision in the form of an open letter to Mr Spahn:

 

Header of the Open Letter: Logo of the Information Network Homeopathy

 

Information Network Homeopathy
We clarify – you have the choice!

 

18.09.2019

Mr
Federal Minister for Health
Jens Spahn
by e-mail

Dear Federal Minister Spahn,

From your statement of 17.09.19 we have learned that you have decided not to exclude homeopathy from the benefits of statutory health insurance. In our opinion, you are basing your decision on an aspect which is ultimately irrelevant and which has never been or is the subject of scientific criticism of homeopathy.

Of course, we regard every single euro for homeopathy as an unjustified use of contributions from the solidarity community and not as “peanuts”. However, the reasons underlying the demand for an end to reimbursement and ultimately the questioning of the property as medicine of homeopathic products are quite different and far more important. With your decision and its justification, you give room not least to an increasing hostility to science and facts, the effects of which you then try to recapture elsewhere with a compulsory vaccination.

    • It is not understandable for us that homeopathy continues to be supported politically, contrary to the clear scientific situation, which is not affected in any way by the constant interventions of the homeopathic lobby. Homeopathy has no specific medicinal effect and therefore no medical relevance. It is full of internal and external contradictions and thus incompatible with the valid and proven scientific view of the world.
    • As a method that is at best capable of producing a placebo effect and that ascribes its successes to her method itself altough natural disease processes and the body’s self-healing abilities do the work, it must no longer enjoy a public reputation in the interest of patients. This public reputation was wrongly granted to it for decades, resulting in a completely distorted image in the public. By declaring that you will not touch the reimbursability, you are perpetuating this instead of necessarily finally counteracting it. Unfortunately, the effects will not be limited to homeopathy, but will more or less benefit the entire field of “alternative medicine” means and methods.
    • Conveying the impression that homeopathy is effective medicine is not only dishonest towards patients, it is also dangerous. We have no doubt that every day people suffer unnecessary pain, disease progression is prolonged, effective therapies are delayed or in the worst case even prevented – not in every case with a “spectacular” outcome, undoubtedly, but not to be accepted, since avoidable. As a rule, these cases remain in the dark, and their effects are not reflected in homeopathic statistics, but in the case and death statistics of the “orthodox medicine”, which is so poorly estimated. The responsibility of politics for the public good should be remembered here. We are talking about patient protection, Minister!
    • The fact that this also applies to so-called medical homeopathy, which is represented by the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians, can be seen from the lectures which it allows under its direction at its annual medical congresses. Treatment of cancer, AIDS, HPV infections, ADHD and more are the spectacular rule, not the exception.
    • We also don’t want to hide the fact that you counteract the many years of educational work of the scientifically founded homeopathy criticism with your statement per homeopathy reimbursement. Homeopathy propaganda, which we oppose daily with our educational work, regains credibility.
    • Allow us to make a few remarks on the pecuniary aspect without trying to relativize its subordinate importance.
      Perhaps it has not become quite clear to you how contradictory the cost aspect is dealt with. On the one hand, it is said to be a matter of peanuts, but on the other hand, a change in the reimbursement system is exaggerated into an affair of enormous – also economic – significance.
      Moreover, there are fundamental doubts as to whether the amount you mentioned fully covers the costs of homeopathy.
      The amount you mentioned does not include the regular benefits for homeopathic treatment of children and adolescents and, above all, not the expenses for medical remuneration for homeopathic services, both of which, to our knowledge, are not statistically recorded.
      According to Witt/Ostermann’s investigations, patients with an affinity for homeopathy consistently incur higher health insurance costs. The collective of more than 22,000 patients of a large health insurance company alone caused direct additional costs of almost 35 million euros in the first 18 months. This can surely be transferred to other health insurance companies. We leave it up to your imagination how this will look like when the majority of patients with an affinity for homeopathy will reach a higher age with higher risks for chronic illnesses.
      Beyond these concrete points, however, it should also be taken into account that follow-up costs – in the medical as well as in the economic field – are to be expected as a result of therapy delays due to disease patterns developing factually untreated.
      Even if one is inclined to view the argumentation with the allegedly low costs in isolation, it is nevertheless based on at least an incomplete consideration and cannot therefore be valid on its own.

We would like to draw your attention to neighbouring European countries such as England, France and Spain, which are clearly scientifically oriented and unimpressed by the protest and demagogy of the homeopathy lobby. In these countries the responsible authorities proceed according to the clear scientific findings and in the sense of patient protection. From there, some initiatives for an amendment of the EU Medicines Directive are launched in order to end the false attribution of medicinal properties to homeopathy at this level. How should Germany position itself in this discussion?

As an organisation that has played a leading role in the discourse of science-based criticism on homeopathy in Germany since 2016, we feel obliged to make these comments. We regret your decision and cannot follow it. We will continue our criticism and continue to pursue the goal of giving homeopathy the role that is appropriate for it: that of one of the many methods that are well-known, partly popular and will certainly remain available, but which are specifically ineffective and therefore cannot be the subject of legal privileges and health care in a public solidarity system.

Yours sincerely
Information Network Homeopathy – INH


The above Open Letter is an opinion of the Homeopathy Information Network, but it is open for co-signature by all those who share the positions expressed therein.

Who would like to co-sign with name / title and place of residence, can explain this gladly by Mail to info@netzwerk-homoeopathie.info We will only use the data provided for this purpose and will not pass on any further data, such as e-mail addresses, to third parties.

This is the list of the named co-signatories, which is constantly supplemented:

1.294 Mitunterzeichner
1.294 Co-signers
Dr. med. Natalie Grams, HeidelbergDr. Ing. Norbert Aust, Schopfheim
Dr. med. Christian Lübbers, WeilheimDr. med. vet. Rolf Wagels, Hannover
Prof. Edzard Ernst, CambridgeAmardeo Sarma, Roßdorf
Bettina Frank, KielDr. Theodor Much, Baden (Österreich)
Udo Endruscheit, EssenSusanne Aust, Schopfheim
Dr. med. Jan Oude-Aost, DresdenStefan Schwarz, München
Prof. Dr. Rudolf Happle, FreiburgDr. Christian Weymayr, Herne
Johannes Köbberling, WuppertalDipl.-Med. Jens-Uwe Köhler, FA für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Erkner
Michael Scholz, KronachStefan Kirsch, Erlangen
Iris Hundertmark, Apothekerin, Weilheim Dr. Markus Seidel, Münster
Dr. Michael Jachan, St. Pölten, ÖsterreichOliver Rautenberg, Bochum
Dr. med. Oliver Harney, Bietingheim-BissingenDrs. Sabine Breiholz, Berlin
Nanea Taylor, PhD, HamburgDr. Benedikt Matenaer, Bocholt
Dipl.-Phys. Hans Pfeufer, BerlinKai Rabus, Berlin
Dr. Holm Gero Hümmler, Bad HomburgHolger von Rybinski, München
Oliver Demmert, DüsseldorfDipl.-Pharm. Viola Stuppe, München
Dr. med. Wolfgang Vahle, PaderbornDr. med. Dipl.-Psych.
Claudia Nowack, Münster
Prof. Dr. Jutta Hübner, JenaChristoph Zeitschel, Laatzen
Dipl.-Biologe Thomas Hülseberg, OytenProf. Dr. med. Harald J. Schneider, München
Prof. Dr. phil. Peter Brugger, Valens (Schweiz)Annika Harrison, Siegburg
Dr. Rainer Rosenzweig, NürnbergMechthild Zimmermann, Essen
Marc Zimmermann, EssenProf. Michael Bach, Freiburg
Michaela Kopitzsch, WarsteinDr. Stephanie Dreyfürst, Frankfurt am Main
Burkhard Rittinghaus, KelsterbachUlrich Maas, Berlin-Zehlendorf
Markus Endruscheit, EssenDr. Franz Kass, Willich
Bettina Meyer-Ried, HünstettenDipl.-Biologin Ariane Ullrich, Zossen
Marc Weisener, BensheimDominik Andree, Altenstadt / WN
Jan Sajfutdinow, LeipzigDr. Petra Nass, München
Arne Meusel, MünchenDipl. Phys. Mauro Venier, Auerbach in der Oberpfalz
Dr. med. Tilman Schwilk, Schramberg
Dittmar Graf, Dortmund
Gudrun Borghardt, MünsterElvis Ilić, Aystetten
Kirsten Evers, HamburgDorothea Koehler, Hamburg
Natalie Bäumler, IsmaningRobert Dettmann, Dortmund
Christoph Schwalb, GundelfingenFrank Unfried, Greifswald
Annika Rupsch, NortorfTorsten Falldorf, Nienburg / Weser
Florian Craß, SinsheimClaudia Teubner, Leipzig
Dr. Cyril Robert Brosch, BerlinJens Friedberger, Golmbach
Patricia B. Morena, GardingSven John, Reinbek
Fabian Link, Halle (Saale)Juraj Halfmann, Karlstadt
David Lehmann, PlüderhausenThomas Schultheis, Dortmund
Dominic Zander, EssenDr. Anne Hauswald, Salzburg (Österreich)
Lisa Freydenberger, Stein bei NürnbergFlorian Wombacher, Nürnberg
Dr. Christine Prager, Berlin (Charité)Udo Hilwerling, Paderborn
Mathias Kluge, RostockManuela Glock, Großrosseln
Tobias Maier, KarlsruheSarah Tipp, Hannover
Thomas Brass, SaarbrückenMarcel Lehmann, Lehre
Jeanine Heise, LeimenAndreas Linnemann, Dortmund
Arne Rabens, WalsrodeDr. Hans Rohnert, München
Martina Dickel, DortmundJulian Krabs, Wuppertal
Sarah Kabisch, Ärztin, HamburgDr. Jens Jäger, Aachen
Florian Makilla, FreisingDietrich Schwarz, Biedenkopf
Korbinian Plock, MünchenLothar Küpper, Kiel
Patricia Hübscher-Mahr, BerlinSabrina Schlupp, Fladungen
Christian Rohdenburg, MünsterSusann Rohdenburg, Münster
Björn Erichsen, HamburgYvonne Krause, München
Dörte Faatz, RatingenMonika Höfig, Ludwigsburg
Jörg Seidel, HamburgAndreas Hönig, Magstadt
Frank Bürkle, FellbachClaudia Koch, Ilmenau
Dr. Stefan Gawrich, WetzlarSören Trotzauer, Chemnitz
Gerd Engelmann, Lutherstadt WittenbergKai Grünler, Plauen
Ralf Layher, Edingen-Neckarhausen Benjamin Reschke, München
Sebastian Reichmann, FintelStephanie Loritz, Saarbrücken
Frank Busch, EssenRobert Scharf, Dresden
Dr. Rachel Cohen, BerlinStefan Georg Murk, Nürnberg
Britt Salewski, KölnMichael Lupp, Eslohe
André Steinhäuser, Barkow Robert Miglo, Böblingen
Mustafa Aydemir, Schwäbisch HallTobias Konhäuser, Lörzweiler
Sebastian von Saldern, BerlinMarcel Juhnke, Hof
Timur Gercek, OberurselUwe Nürnberger, Bürgel
Hendrik Kranert-Rydzy , MichendorfStefan Thaens, Lutherstadt Wittenberg
Mario Löhr, KoblenzIsabel Schneider, Gröbenzell
Lars Eckhoff, LeverkusenRobert Stähling, Haltern am See
Thierry Lubin, TeupitzSven Markus, Nürnberg
Dr. Tobias Fromme, NandlstadtJan Euteneuer, Kiel
Simon Felix Schmidt, PrisdorfDr. Sandra Kampling, Hamburg
Markus Grabicher, Rosengarten-NenndorfJens Herforth, Berlin
Andreas Horneber, IllesheimAxel Nennker, Potsdam
Dirk Hartmann, DeensenWolfgang Becker-Freyseng, München
Rebecca Narr, DüsseldorfNis Wechselberg, Kiel
Dr. Elisabeth Grunwald, GautingKatja Meixner, Hoyerswerda
Matthias Parthesius, HamburgMiriam Erwe, Aachen
Andreas Leutenmayr, BuchloeFerdinand Schultz, Beckdorf
Mirko Ernst, MeckenheimDipl. Psych. Thore Zuber, Fürth im Wald
Christian Dannat-Meinicke, BördelandMatthias Wagner, Hamburg
Sven Löffler, ChemnitzChristina Tessmer, Chemnitz
Tristan Rippel, LeipzigChristian Wilkens, Bremen
Michael Kraft, HerbertingenKai Steger, Rothenburg ob der Tauber
Leona Kater, HerfordNina Grimme, Hannover
Stefanie Piechulek, Bad OeynhausenEike Kappelhoff, Guntersblum
Mario Gedes, Osterholz-ScharmbeckDaniel Kasmeroglu, Berlin
Kai Rottleb, HaßlebenSaskia Thau, Mainz
Max Stärz, DarmstadtPatrick Werner, Mannheim
Daniela Tauber, SchierlingAnne Tietz, Drachhausen
Dr. phil. Daniel Friedrich, LeipzigDavid Kater, Hamburg
Patrick Dubbrow, Bad SchönbornCand. med. Jens-Markus Thomsen
Ralf Zeigermann, WischhafenNadja Eifrig, Plauen
Volker Kraus, DattenbergDaniel Oster, Montabaur
Falko Helfer, LeipzigRingo Paulusch, Berlin
Steffen Laible, LudwigsburgRolf Rosenbaum, Langenfeld (Rhld.)
PD Dr. med. Bastian Grande, Zürich (Schweiz)Dr. Jonathan Meyer, Ulmet
Andreas Steinau, UlmAndré Kazmierczak, Lünen
Till Fischer, GilchingJohanna Roth, Baden-Baden
Dr. Matthias Englmann, FriedbergFranz Tröstl, München
Christian Knitter, Marburg
Wolfgang Keil, Bayreuth
Ralf Pirle, AltenstadtLasse Einig, Hamburg
Nils Treu, MindenJanine Pahl, Oberkrämer
Tobias Lang, BerlinBernhard Kroeker, Nidderau
Sylvia Leinemann, KasselSören Krüger, Heidelberg
Steffen Hatzelmann, EschauTristan Bartsch, Frankfurt am Main
Udo Gath, StolbergDr. rer. medic. Johannes Hüsing, Heidelberg
Michael Küper, LüdenscheidChristian Hawel, Berlin
Mag. rer. nat. Dipl.-Psych. Alexander Lorenz, IlsenburgUwe Wein, Oberwinter
Dana Buchzik, BerlinTheodor Olbing, Grevenbroich
Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Bauer, BerlinNabard Faiz, Marburg
Inga Sauer, DortmundBirgit Richter, Hamburg
Wolfgang Gross, WedelSophia Trott, Frankfurt
Sabine Haupt, HeidelbergNadine Hotze, Sondershausen
Martin C. Hoehne, CuxhavenAnna Sonnenburg, M.Sc. (Toxikologie), Charité, Berlin
Dr. med. Pauline Villwock, EberswaldeStephanie Wieland, Hamburg
Peter Klausner, AschaffenburgNiklas Schreiber, Hamburg
Daniela Keßler, MülheimBenjamin Beeker, Bochum
Markus Lauf, WedelJens Schüler, Berlin
Dr. phil. Marc Fabian Buck, BerlinSeverin Tatarczyk, Bonn
Vera Sauer, WiesbadenThomas Freise, Garbsen
Frank Elsner, BerlinMads Gundesen, Hamburg
Christoph Liedel, BonnSteffen Gruner, Dresden
Alexander Riedmüller, FürthRainer Schönen, Bad Honnef
Martin Knopp, MünchenRené Haine, Oberstadtfeld
Michael Schindler, BassumSandra Nienkemper, Meiningen
Dr. med. Sebastian Schrader, KrefeldAntonia Heidelberger, Langwedel
Axel Bojanowski, HamburgDr. rer. nat. Roland Gromes, Heidelberg
Andreas Decker, FreisingUwe Hunz, Dortmund
Svenja Hunz, DortmundJanusz Ingwersen, HNO-Arzt, Kiel
Martina Große, KannawurfSebastian Platz, Wiesbaden
Patrick Dohle, WuppertalMarcus Kuba, Leonberg
Emil Manthey, Halle (Saale)Adrian Kirchner M.Sc., Großheirath
Claudia Schertel, FürthAlois Becker, Bonn
Elsbeth Tatarczyk-Welte, Bonn
Michael Wilke, Coesfeld
Stefanie Adam, NortorfJenny Günther, Calau
Rabea Schulte, FinnentropManuel Baumeister, Düsseldorf
Thore Brandes, OldenburgMichael Grubinski, Recklinghausen
Mark Lorenz, Berlin-SteglitzNico Harbach, Wettenberg
Jörg Schekies, WäschenbeurenVictor Starrach, Heidelberg
Andreas Brammer, DortmundDr.med.Thomas Kunkel, München
Helga Kittl, HamburgSven Becker, Cadolzburg
Frank Erfurt, PotsdamLars Wismar, Kiel
Matthias Linhuber, MünchenGregor Ottmann, Ottobrunn
Max Paul Juch, ErfurtDaniel Morgenstern, Berlin
Claus von der Decken, OldenburgJoschua Knauf, Saarbrücken
Dr. Stephan Schwarz, UlmFelix Schmäußer, Auengrund
Nadja Thies, HachenburgWiebke Lindheimer, Berlin
Achim Lindheimer, BerlinProf. Dr. Henning Höppe, Augsburg
Dr. Christopher Schnaitmann, Freiburg
Daniel Hamacher, Köln
Dr. Sandra Loohs, Dipl.-Psych., MünchenDipl.-Phys. Florian Enders, Lahnstein
Konstantin Haubner, ForchheimHendrik Amann, Mülheim (Ruhr)
Silke Wolschendorf, HamburgMarina Männle, Heidelberg
Andrea Uhde, BraunschweigCornelia Kurz, Dresden
Tobias Fischer, EssenEdwin Kobert, Melsungen
Karin Paprotta, SulzbachDr. med. Markus Stephan, Denzlingen
Dr. Wolfgang Deisser, DillingenIngrid Wesseler, Daun
Dr. Ilia Louban, HeidelbergAlexander Ulbricht, Rosenheim
Dr. rer. nat. Thomas Grehl, Münster Dr. Katrin Streubel, Marburg
Uwe Henkel, HilpoltsteinTatjana Hoenich, Oberhausen
Jona Krämer, HeidelbergInes Fischer, Feucht
Claudia Latz-Erken, NiederzierJohannes Handschick, Hamburg
Dr. med. Dr. rer. nat. Jochen Förster, EschweilerHeike Jessen, Flensburg
Eric Portugall, WiesbadenLuca Böhl, Remscheid
Simon Lorrek, Neuss-NorfSimon Zaffalon, Merchweiler
Lore Reß, WöllstadtBirgit Wehrheim, Braunschweig
Torben Michaelsen, BretstedtJohannes Merz, Dreisen
Tonio Koppe, BerlinFrauke von Welck, Bonn
Katharina Schönfeld, HannoverLennart Schönfeld, Hannover
Amadeus Brümmer, HamburgKatharina Jermolov, Wiesbaden
Nicole Weyandt, EssenJulian Erdmann, Berlin
Eugen Schmid, Zürich (Schweiz)Dr. Alexander Peltzer, Tübingen
Sebastian Becker, Bad OeynhausenChristiane Reiter, Witten
Thomas Kuntke, MeißenClaudia Kranenburg, Rhede
Dr. med. Felix L. Strübing, MünchenAlexander Afrim, Kassel
Stefan Friedrichsen, BremenMichael Nagel, Leinfelden-Echterdingen
Damian von Prondzinski, MünsterRonny Schmaler, Dresden
Dr. Sigrid Mulas, KölnSteffen Roßkamp, Langeln
Sinaida Thiel, OberurselDirk Wittmer, Remseck
Richard Hauch, HamburgBernhard Scholz, Senftenberg
Christian Horst, HamburgFelix Bauer, Würzburg
Frederik Sakuth, HamburgSebastian Offermanns, Hannover
Dr. Marc Hanefeld, BremervördeDietmar Schorzmann, Wetter
Wolfgang Reinöhl, BerlinJuliane Otte, Leipzig
Susan Drobe, HamburgManfred Koren, Koblenz
Dr. med. Sebastian Springer, FreiburgJanina Pitsch, Offenbach
Marc Dathan, FellbachHans Keller, Böhmfeld
Carmen Treulieb, Frankfurt am MainUdo Janzen, Krefeld
Matthias Alexander Spies, SaarlouisStephan Hobusch, Berlin
Sabrina König, Bad SalzuflenMarco Bahrs, Hamburg
Christian Sturm, BerlinMichael Bleeker, Emden
Moesha-Jane Eckert, KasselMoritz Wehrle, Wallisellen (Schweiz)
Dorthe Kaufmann, Rendsburg Ingo Krause, Mainz
Heidi Opitz-Bleeker, EmdenMariana Jahrow, Berlin
Charlotte Arndt, WildeshausenHarald Bartels, Sulingen
Hannes Wienke, WismarJens Hüsers, Papenburg
Anja Korb-Sura, LahnsteinDaniel Becker, Bornheim
Volker Benedikt, Villingen-SchwenningenEva-Marie Ehrke, Kiel
Alexander Poblotzki, FÄ Ortho- & Unfallchirurgie, Gera
Ann-Kathrin Williams, Erlangen
Dr. Jutta Zerres, LandshutBente Rosebrock, Buxtehude
Thomas Ehlicker, AugsburgChristoph Peppler, Dortmund
Dirk Armbrust, HamburgFrank Weber, Krefeld
Axel Lauer, BerlinDr. Hannes Müller, Haltern am See
Robert Wolter, WuppertalAndreas Böttcher, Östringen
Christian Vollrath, RavensburgStefan Bogdanski, Hauenstein
Benjamin Hensen, EinigAnna Karima Köhler, Hamburg
Timo Westphal, HamburgIris Zerger, Hainfeld
Charlie Periane, Garmisch-PartenkirchenRolf Eustergerling, Gütersloh
Christoph Heinrich, BaiersbronnDr. med. Jürgen Hinrichs, Hiddenhausen
Torsten Rossa, MainzSven Kretschmann, Berlin
Sascha Kluwe, Groß GrönauDarius Sanders, Dinslaken
Dr. med. dent. Claudia Bär, MüllheimDr. Sebastian Wucher, Laudenbach
Virginia Rademacher, AachenHeike Wechsung, Hütten
Dr. Dominik Pengel, OsnabrückBjörn Wolter, Georgsmarienhütte
Ralph Stark, BonnElmar Kirchhoff, Bielefeld
Dr. Hannes Michalek, PotsdamDirk Bodensiek, Lienen
Michael Maffei, MainzRené Fontaine, Göttingen
Jutta Radke, Langen (Hessen)Nico Weber, Radolfzell
Barbara Grün, FuldaPhilip Linnartz, Eschweiler
Annette Jost, Bad VilbelSibylle Luise Binder, Stuttgart
Dr. Renate Budde, WillichDr. Markus Mund, Heidelberg
Maik Bednarz, Südlohn-OedingMartina Müller, Zell am Main
Thomas Jansen, TönisvorstPatrik Sigwart, Bad Vilbel
Yvette Blüher, Berlin Susanne Busch, Oldenburg (NS)
Margret Lippik-Winkler, EssenSascha Patrick Huck, Schenefeld
Daniela Fois, HamburgOle Diepen, Lachendorf
Frithjof Schmeer, LüneburgDr. Cinthia Briseño, München
Alexander Neu, HamminkelnKathrin Unverdorben, Passau
Lilli Fischer, ErfurtMUDr. Viliam Masaryk, Gera
Bernhard Varnskühler, Wilhelmshaven Manuel Forstner, Sulz am Neckar
Dr. Hermann Kruppert, TrierSimon Schmelcher, Langenau
Margrit Caspers, RommerskirchenCarsten Caspers, Rommerskirchen
Enrico Helbig, TaunussteinDr.-Ing. Daniel Herrscher, Gröbenzell
Britta Stöcker, Fachärztin für Kinderheilkunde und Jugendmedizin, Bonn Josef Gangkofer, Freising
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Krohs, MünsterBrigitte Offermann, Aachen
Lars Theiß, Hamburg M.Sc. Mario Stief, Trier
Zlata Jäger, NeuhofenErik Bunert, Langenhagen
Carsten Kock, HamburgRalf Hillebrand, Paderborn
Franz-Josef Diehl, SchifferstadtJessica Kenner, Schondra/Schildeck
Dr. rer. nat. Sebastian Boegel, MainzSamantha-Emily Wolf, Bochum
Dr. med. Jan Krycki, MünsterMatthias Weghofer, Landshut
Oliver Schleelein, KulmbachDr. Jens Knauer, Greifswald
Dirk Lein, HamburgMarc Frantz, Sulzbach (Saar)
David Junge, GöttingenDr. Dorothea Kaufmann, Heidelberg
Stefan Otto, KarlsruheMartin Böck, Ingolstadt
Dr. rer. nat. Christian Soltenborn, PaderbornMonika Kreusel, Köln
Sabine Müller, Klein-Winternheim Dr. Anna Fink, Köln
Sascha Schulz, NörvenichGiulia Mryka, Wuppertal
Klaus Helmschmied, DuisburgNadine Fehr, Böblingen
Lukas Rentsch, TeterowAnnika-Kathrin Sprenger, Dortmund
Stefan Lebisch, RegensburgSebastian Braun, Schwabach
Norbert Müller, BonnDr. med. Claudia Aschenbrenner, Velden/Mittelfranken
Christian Keßen, HertenDr. Michael Geißer, Mannheim
Christian Specht, HagenAlexander Bauer, Mannheim
Anja Hennrich, Kirchheim unter Teck
Sven Ruffing, Blieskastel
Sascha Bartelt, Essen Anke De Masi, Berlin
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Stefan Dewald, MannheimHildegard Knauf, Contwig
Johannes Knauf, ContwigDirk Winkler, Bönningheim
Henrik Zawischa, HamburgDr. rer. nat. Ingo Paulsen, Solingen
Mia Paulsen, SolingenJan Nordus, Norderstedt
Christiane Havlitschek, LörrachSibylle Kaduk, Berlin
Katharina Bröhl, Ärztin, SchwerinGero Geißlreiter, Northeim
Peter Sinnemann, WiesbadenThomas Fuchs, Frankfurt am Main
Mirko Bilz, GeraBernhard M. Frank, Zahnarzt, Schleswig
Adolf Markl, ForchheimLutz Bommel, Bad Liebenwerda
Lilian Wach, Wien (Österreich)Andreas Neuthe, Spremberg
Kathrin Kinast, RosenheimDr. rer. nat. Simon Strietholt, Essen
Stefanie Bergmeir-Hupfer, Neumarkt/OPf.Christian Roebers, Bielefeld
Ruben van Treeck, Berlin Dr. Oliver Fröhlich, Bülstedt
Dr. Stephan Arlinghaus, OberkochenClaudia Kamp, Münster
David Männle, HeidelbergSabine Mauer, Halsenbach
Dorothee Van den Hoogen-Zoerner, BüchlbergKatharina Hören, Hagen
David Schipp, Tierarzt, MünchenEva Draengler, Zerf
Marc Freudenberg, Puchheim Stefanie Hild, Waldbröl
Nils Lütke-Steinhorst, KölnRichard Havelka, Mariaposching
Benedikt Müller, PirnaKonstantin Heuchert, Mörfelden-Walldorf
Daniel Herborn, NetphenKnut Wiesel, Wedel
Claudia Schirra, Schönenberg-Kübelberg
Simone Krüger, Berlin
Björn Schmitt, Höchstadt a.d. AischPhilip Schunke, Berlin
Claudia Weber, KarlsruheStephanie Platzer, Jena
apl. Prof. Dr. med. Dipl.-Psych. Christoph Lang, HeroldsbachDr. med. David Schneider, Karlsruhe
Michael Schulz, ErlangenCornelia Beeking, Münster
Andreas Schmeidl, Frankfurt am MainChristine Fuchs, Viernheim
Alexander Graf-Brill, St. IngbertDr. Florian Pfaff, Krems (Österreich)
Astrid Holzamer, BonnDirk Kropp, Bochum
Franziska Ruppert, RegensburgDominik Rapp, Wolpertswende
Prof. Dr. Laura Seelkopf, MünchenMarco Schwan, Harthausen
Robert Wisetrit, BerlinJens Juffa, Bleichenrode
Dr. Ulrich Ernst Hackler, BottropProf. Dr. Timo Niedermayer, Halle (Saale)
Harald Milz, NeufahrnMaximilian Wiesner, München
Bettina Hutt, DuisburgEva Peters, Waldshut-Tiengen
Ralf Radke, Langen (Hessen)Sascha Hill, Hanau
Jorge Leão da Silva, BremenMarie-Caroline Schulte, Friedberg (Hessen)
Bettina Knülle, Frankfurt am MainTorsten Pohl, Fahrenzhausen
Dr. Pawel Romanczuk, BerlinMarija Tojagic, Hamburg
Markus Rabe, HasteMichael Kuhlmann, Eichwalde
Dr. Claudia Sturm, GiengenHardy Koch, Hamburg
Dr. Lena Lehmann, LeipzigAndre Veltens, Düsseldorf
Andreas Kebschull, WormsChristoph Mahlke, Wittingen
Albert Baumhauer, MeckenheimAnja Rödiger, Leipzig
Dr. Karl-A. Rinast, Ober-RamstadtMarcus Bothe, Braunschweig
Dr. David Langenberger, AugsburgTill Hofmann, Aachen
Elke Marion Utecht, Swisttal-OdendorfDr. Oliver Krüger, Berlin
Eva-Maria Richter, Zwickau Tim Wingler, Rodgau
Dipl.-Phys. Thorsten Kulak, ScharbeutzDr. Carsten Sommerfeld, Lindow
Jens Brugger, Efringen-Kirchen
Dr. med. Verena Schmidt, München
Sebastian van der Voort, WülfrathFlorian Wunderlich, Markneukirchen
Malte Koch, KleveCornelia Zeumer, Lampertheim
Ursina Zwicky Schmid, Courtelary (Schweiz)
Konrad Schiemert, Ostfildern
Marina Blumberg, AdelsenUlrich Bock, Soltau
Maja Menzenhauer, Wetter/RuhrJonas Mikulsky, Hamburg
Dr.med.vet. Caroline Blobel, Berlin-ZehlendorfKlaus Ullmann, Hamburg
Freimut Mertes, QuierschiedDr. Jochen Blom, Gießen
Martin Heller, HamburgDr. Moritz Bubeck, Ludwigsburg
Michael Schwarz, MünchenMirja Kleinschmidt, Norderstedt
Prof. Dr. Oliver Bendel, Zürich (Schweiz)Bernd Rehmke, Karlsbad
Yvonne Fritz, MeiningenDr. Ingeborg Wirries, Ronnenberg
Gerhard Baierlein, NeuendettelsauMike Opitz, Halle (Saale)
Dr. Udo Feldkamp, DuisburgM.Sc. Psych. Benjamin Lemme, Berlin
Manuel Clunie, DüsseldorfFlorian Böttinger, Böblingen
Ute Eppinger, KarlsruheDr. Claus Schertel, Freising
Isabel Schygulla, BerlinPatrick Siebold, Stuttgart
Christa Nesselrath, MeerbuschDr. Christopher Tamm, Ulm
Hagen Tillger, MünchenIngo Eitelbach, Lübeck
Prof. Dr. Matthias Teßmann, NürnbergCédric Jockel, Neu-Anspach
Dipl.-Ing. Sebastian Roth, DarmstadtChristina Nürnberger, Essen
Tom Fuhrken, RastedeJan Scharwächter, Leverkusen
Dipl.-Chem. Kerstin Dönecke, MönchengladbachRebecca Maisolle, Minden
Nicole Pflugrad, BerlinJens Rehaag, Horstmar
Ulrich Erkelenz, ViersenPatrick Olender, Solingen
Dr. med. Alexander Shimabukuro-Vornhagen, KölnDipl.-Phys. Rainer Thüne, Dortmund
Michael Ganß, BerlinMarianne Mauch, Ladenburg
Ulrike Maessing, Lahnstein
Christian Gall-Rödel, Heidelberg
Marie Alex, BerlinNina Klapetke, Hamburg
Sophia Schlette, BerlinSarah Kaufmann, Leipzig
Janine Hintze, BerlinUte Obernberger, Cloppenburg
Maria Fründ, DresdenVincent Weber, Berlin
Thomas Unglaub, AschaffenburgAlexandra Feißt, Hohberg
Daniela Wehlmann, BerlinClemens Radl, München
Arnim Sommer, DuisburgGregor Schwanke, Leipzig
Dr. rer. nat. Alisa Brockhoff, MünchenPhilipp Reichmuth, Bochum
Jörg Stemmer, BielefeldDr.med. Michaela Wangler, Dortmund
Sebastian Hilden, DüsseldorfFelicitas Klings, Wiesbaden
Ingo Schmidt, EssenBarend Wolf, Rüsselsheim
Daniel Mählitz, HamburgRainer Franke, Walsrode
Jürgen Ripperger, Nörten-Hardenberg
Dirk Schelhasse, Frankfurt am Main
Harald Strasser, Friedrichshafen
Franz Schmale, Rheine
Frank Runge, KölnSascha Küster, Pulheim
Barbara Buchberger, BerlinHolger Schmidt, Ratingen
Maria Müller, BerlinMike Walter, Radeberg
Claudia Hill, BerlinUwe Kuhlmann, Reinfelden
Dr. Sandra Büchsel, MarburgAndreas Reiser, Mönchberg
Sibylla Brückner, SchwandorfIris Jakobs, Kevelaer
Christina Schüttler, ErlangenAlexander Küffmeier, Würselen
Peter Schmid, HeilbronnSteffi Koch, Hude
Stefan Kühling, KölnRuth Sieber, Elsdorf
Roman Karlstetter, MünchenMoritz Franckenstein, Minden
Bernhard Prosig, SchwabhausenClaudia Thoß, Leipzig
Thomas Jansen, WassenbergKarl-Heinz Clos, Endlichhofen
Julius Henning, StahnsdorfAndreas Lehmann, Hainburg
Dr. med. Dieter Isert, EschbornMandy Neumann, Köln
Ingrid Piegendorfer, LandshutSvenja Ortmann, Köln
Agnieszka Kanning-Wisniewska ,HannoverAndré Pix, Lindau
Lühke Lühken, RekenBernhard Thielke, Gronau
Dr. med. Elisabeth Arnold, Klein-WinternheimMaximilian Berger, Stuttgart
Ronald Pfitzer, MurrhardtMelanie Künzel, Plauen
Hans-Joachim Fleck-Bröse, Kressbronn a. B.Chris Mühlnikel, Stadtroda
Marcel Heß, RoßdorfSusanne Zimmer, Hamburg
Wolfgang Graff, AltenglanClaudia Hoffmann, Köln
Jochen Drechsler, HeigenbrückenDr. Tobias Schafmeier, München
Siegfried Stier, BraunschweigDr. Martin Christiansen, Hollenstedt
Jens Thaele, KölnRobin Tautkus, Jena
Tanja Bergauer, MannheimAndreas Bergauer, Mannheim
Ulrich Höxer, Nürnberg Michael Neumann, Ansbach
Antje Ebel, NeubrandenburgReinhard J. Wagner, Ilmenau
Philip Nellessen, KölnBettina Banse, Köln
Adalbert Sedlmeier, ZusmarshausenWerner Kübler, Falkensee
Thomas Nittel, BirkenfeldJan Jungfleisch, Frankfurt am Main
Dr. med Armin Philipp , Marbach am NeckarPatrick Larscheid, LtdMedDir, Berlin
Alexander Völkl, WaldsassenDr. Gerhard Czermak, Friedberg
Dominik Gritschmeier, Nürnberg Kurt Stützer, München
Arash Biroodian, Halle (Saale)Julia Westermann, Essen
Ludwig Wieprecht, EllerhoopBjörn Banisch, Berlin
Leonard Niesik, SiegenPartei der Humanisten, Landesverband NRW
Ernst-Günther Krause, UnterschleißheimMatthias Schönfeld, Berlin
Frans Joris Fabri, KißleggPeter Lehmann, Morsbach
Jörg Hannig, OlchingRobin Schünemann, Leverkusen
Prof. Dr. Jeanette Erdmann, Lübeck Dipl.-Phys. Claudia Faber, Berlin
Michael Faber, Arzt, BerlinBernd Kockrick, Braunschweig
Dr. med. Klaus Reimert, KorschenbroichOliver Dolp, Schwalmstadt
Cornelia Wagner, UlmKatharina Kühn, Vaihingen an der Enz
Matthias Schillig, SondershausenDr. Joerg A. Runge , Bottrop
Fabian Westhauser, StuttgartProf. Arndt Bröder, Heidelberg
Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Rauschen, JülichAnna Christina Koschik, Schwerte
Dr med Julia Stenzel, Rheine Werner Koch, Aidlingen
Sonja Tauber, HamburgMichael Hagen, Rastatt
Patrick Kehler, GroßenwieheWerner Haas, Pirmasens
Dr. phil. Peter Löffelad, SpraitbachDr. rer. nat. Patrick Kursawe, Wetter (Ruhr)
Peter Flemming, Bad TölzMarkus Wunschik, Frechen
Gisela Schröder, HamburgDipl.Ing.(FH) Hermann Krah, Ilvesheim
Dr. Daniel Wallner, Leonberg
Andreas Koch, Stuttgart
Marius Sprenger, BerlinElke Hergenröther, Hollfeld
Susanne Meyer, Medizinaloberrätin, Stuttgart
Hans Trutnau, Eltville
Uwe Wüstenhagen, AhrensburgBenedikt Kühl, Wuppertal
Natalia Torow, AachenBastian Hanl, Aachen
Vivian Manie Baumert , Werther (Westf.)Dr. med. Markus Löffler, Tübingen
Dr. Ralph Deubner, MannheimArno Vetter-Diez, Dahlem
Ralph Kusche, Marburg Benjamin Wagner, Tübingen
Dr.med Martin Felmy, GelnhausenEric Regn, Hennef
Andre Lange, HamburgMax Christopher Lindemann, M.Sc., Vaals (Niederlande)
Dr. Rolf Schröder, HamburgMarcus Starke, Igensdorf
Moritz Möhler, Homburg/Saar Dr. rer. nat. Martina Adamek, Tübingen
Alice Matenaers, Tierärztin, Prötzel
Dr. rer. nat. Markus Drumm, Schöneck
Gerd Schäfer, OberhausenDr. Karl-Ulrich Störkel, Frankfurt am Main
Matthias Wenzel, 5000 Aarau (Schweiz)Dr. med. Christoph Hucklenbruch, Bad Honnef
Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Vollmer, FreiburgJens Brunken, Edewecht
Alexander Laser, OsnabrückKristina Becker, Frankfurt am Main
Heike Rings, OberstdorfElena Ramminger, Leipzig
Burkhard Wepner, Köln / EngelskirchenPeter Linke, Kyritz
Christian Lübbecke, BeckumKarl Amort, Neuendettelsau
Dr. med. Dieter Mayer, NeuwiedDr. med. Ingrid Mayer, Neuwied
Matthias Urlichs, NürnbergDr. Joachim Kleinmann, Hirschhorn (Neckar)
Dipl.-Phys. Erik Schulze, DresdenStefan Richter, Senden
Wolf van de Sand, DuisburgMaria Martell, Dallgow-Döberitz
Udo Lang, Bad MünstereifelUwe Kaden, Brackenheim
Elena Kauf, BielefeldDustin Fürst, Berlin
Ulrich Schoppe, MönchengladbachStephanie Baer, Mönchengladbach
Stefan Jauerneck, Pfullingen Dr. Oliver Stern, Hamburg
Dr. Harald Neidhardt, TübingenElias Knof, Erfurt
Dr. med. Matthias Wirmer, Arzt für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, PaderbornEric Clausnitzer, Chemnitz
Bernhard Wiethüchter, BielefeldDr. med. Oliver Dierssen, Gehrden
Elisabeth Zajac, Apothekerin, Hamburg
Dipl.-Kfm. Univ. Carsten Bergner, Ansbach
Anne Steibl, Cremlingen Andreas Hilliges, Berlin
Annemarie Seyfarth, ErfurtNorbert Müller, Bonn
Andre Anhuth, StralsundThomas Neumann, Dortmund
Dirk Ladewig, RendsburgDr. Roland Pardon, Erding
Dr. Ronald Wichern, LübeckProf. Dr. med. Günter Ollenschläger, Bergisch Gladbach
Dr. med. Mischa Eichmann, Göttingen
Lars Henning, Gynäkologe, Västerås/ Schweden
Gisa Bodenstein, BerlinAndré Hahnwald, Riesa
Ingo Kemler, RosendahlDr.med.Heinrich Binsfeld, FA für Anästhesiologie, Innere Medizin, Drensteinfurt
Clementine Voss, Britz Kr. BarnimDr. Susanne Dietz, Bad Münstereifel
Thomas Henninger, OchsenhausenDr. med. Ursula Seelkopf, Würzburg
Dr. Adrian Kaminski, Physiker/Astronom, Heidelberg
Petra Rudolf, Heidelberg
Franziska Johannes, LeipzigChristian Harms, Elmsbüttel
André Hupfer, WürzburgMaria Chiara Bosello, München
Thomas Schütz, AhausDr. rer. nat. Klaus Erler, Weilheim
Manuel Werner, AalenAgnes Liebel, Nürnberg
Kathrin Roth, München Bernhard Kunz, Buchdorf
Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Stange-Grüneberg, Mosbach / BadenAndrea Gasde, Bassum
Christiane Wilken, MünsterDr. med Susanne Hoffmann, Prüm
Carsten Hohmeier, Berlin-KreuzbergDipl. Biol. Dino Renvert, Mainz
Dr. rer. nat. Holger Hertwig, BremenDr. Axel Schubert, Dipl.-Psych., Ostfildern
Dr.-Ing. Daniel A. Tietze, WeiterstadtClaudia Wend, Oerlinghausen
Andreas Steffens, BergDr. rer. nat. Anne Angsmann, Schwanewede
Dirk Reske, DresdenSusanne Collins, Lauf a.d. Pegnitz
Susann Trommler, HamburgDr. Bernd Berschick, Willich
Kai Gebhardt, WangeroogeDr. Johanna Jauernig, Seefeld-Hechendorf
Dr. med. Peter Gnändiger, RitterhudeMartin Schaumburg, Hamburg
Dr. Hermann Müller-Weinhardt, ScheesselSontka Romaneessen, Neustadt an der Weinstraße
Dr. med. dent. Uwe Teichert, SchauensteinSina Wilke, Wees
Stephan Kaiser, Nürnberg Dr rer. nat. Michael Marks, Bonn
Hermann Gottschalk, PinzbergEnrico Ferrari, Gärtringen
Dr. med. Jens Hennicke, BerlinRainer Plaumann, Darmstadt
Stefan Reif, HeidelbergMarkus Georg Grimm, Dachau
Klaus Schräder, FürstenfeldbruckDaniel Dobbelstein, Kerpen
Claudia Bach, ManchingPatrick Carius, Saarbrücken
Dr. med. Rüdiger Mende, CoburgNathalie Lüddecke, Reutlingen
Patrick Kurrat, Hannover
Dr. Judith Jeske, Wuppertal
Joachim Schätzle, WindenVeronika Simon, Baden-Baden
Dr. med. Peter Simon, Baden-BadenMadeleine Renz, Berglen
Dr. rer. nat. Andreas Winter, BerlinAngelika Schille, St. Ingbert
Markus Wollny, FürthDr Viktoria Beumler MRCVS, Witham, United Kingdom
Dipl. Phys Gregor Bransky, AachenBernd Rott, Münster
Julia Titze, Ärztin, Dachau
Kirsten Jetzkus, Aachen
Prof. Dr. med. Markus Jungehülsing, PotsdamEvelyn Münster, Hersbruck
Jens Rettberg, RemscheidKatharina Engel, Hamburg
Matthias Straub, WettingenBirgit Koch, Oberstaufen
Karina Fründt, GlindePetra Schütz, Ahaus
Anne Schulz, HemerGerhard Janz, Meerbusch
Dr. med. Angela Freydag, HamburgStefan Rusche, Wentorf
Lisa Hackenberg-Brechtel, Langenau
Peter Schmied, Remscheid
Patrizia Boi, BerlinAnja Winzheim, Grevenbroich
André Mondri, WuppertalDoris Schäfer, Wettenberg
Volker v. Schütz, EssenThorsten Reinbold, Oldenburg
Arik Platzek, Berlin Dipl.-Inf. Steffen Moser, Ulm
Anne Güntert, EssenDipl.-Inform. Anselm Lingnau, Mainz
Michael Hass, WentorfHenry Langner M.Sc., Berlin
Christiane Attig, LeipzigLeif Eric Scriba, Butzbach
Prof. Dr. Dieter B. Herrmann, BerlinHajo Thelen, Münster
Felix Kriszun, BerlinJulia Hericks, Landau
Dr. oec. Frank Köhne, MünsterDr.-Ing. Hendryk Rudolph, Berlin
Dr. Dominic Eberle, LeipzigDipl.-Phys. Martin Hülk, Ammersbek
Gregor Fiedler
Ho-Chi-Minh-Stadt (Vietnam)
Malte Schulze, Wolfsburg
Franziska Brötsch, KumhausenJürgen Schlegel, Lahntal
Jörg Stingl, BayreuthChristine Konin, Köln
Stefan Wiermann, LangenlonsheimOrtrun Berends, FÄ für Allgemeinmedizin, Schöneck
Elisabeth Gallus, Bad Neuenahr-AhrweilerMike Zimmermann, Berllin
Michael Messingschlager, BambergDr. med. Carla Schoenmakers,
FÄ für Innere Medizin, Schriesheim
Natascha Schlicksupp, Kirchheimbolanden
Prof. Dr. Jacqueline Franke, Berlin
Thorsten Thormählen, EutinSvenja Eckert,
Dipl.-Psych., Marburg
Dr. Istemi Kuzu, Akad. Oberrat,
Dipl. Chem., Marburg
Nikola Petri, Bocholt
Dieter Lang-Zörner, Dipl. SozPäd., Dorn-Dürkheim
Petra Hund, Berlin
Gabriele Theessen, HinteDaniela Thumann, Frankenthal
Maraike Gertje, SustrumLisa Ezell, Leipzig
Dr. Yann Ducommun, München
Felix Bölter, Bernau
Desirée Weber, SoestNadja Seebacher,
Spittal an der Drau / Österreich
Marie-Ann Nimtz, Hamburg Dorothea Schmans, Berlin
Sirje Drewes, Bad DoberanAaron Klewer, Pfinztal
Dr. Edgar Müller-Gensert, Remchingen
Chiara Coenen, München
Dr. Stephanie Hallinger, RegensburgBenjamin Reiter, Nürnberg
Brigitte Bergmann, DresdenTeresia Kuhr, Paderborn
Nicole Wittmann, Garching
Niki Huwyler, Sargans (Schweiz)
Sven Schneider, Düsseldorf Silke Rost, Dresden
Michael von Lipinsky, Rastatt
Swen Thümmler, Enger
Holger Kipp, Löwenberger LandHendrik Ritter, Panketal
Hermann Heinz Oppermann, WuppertalMonika Mänz-Coenen, Homburg
Silke Anna Haberkorn, LeipzigDipl.-Inform. Sabine Kemper, Unna
Herwig Santner, Mallersdorf-Pfaffenberg
Amely Schmidt, Berlin
Dipl.-Stomat. Sylvia Stang, DarmstadtFriedrich Köpp, Basel (Schweiz)
Sabine Detzen-Hockwin, FriedrichshafenDr. rer.nat. Gerd Krisam, Rangendingen
Dipl.-Biol. Carolin Schmitz, MönchengladbachSven Pietzko, Dortmund
Yvonne Kurtz-Heuer, GeestlandAndreas Herrle, FA für Allgemeinmedizin, Pürgen
Dipl.-Phys. Philipp Hummel, Berlin
Stefan Herbert Fritz, Meiningen
Dr. Jens Radermacher, Neunkirchen/SaarJürgen Michl, Leinfelden-Echterdingen
Dr. Thilo Brinkmann, Homberg (Efze)Andreas Pfeil, Karlsruhe
Dr. Alexander Schneider, MünchenDr. Axel Gerik, München
Dr. Janina Deyng, KölnAndré Paul, Dortmund
Julian von Heyl, Frechen
Dr. med. Janina Wienert, Karlsruhe
Deborah Witschel, OberbarnimRainer Kienzle, München
Stephan Obrowski, BerlinChristoph Estermann, Augsburg
Stephan Fischer, WuppertalAnna Christina Naß, Dipl.-Inf.(FH), Karlsruhe
Susanne Döhler, DresdenFriederike Behning, Hamburg
Philipp Mentrup, Würzburg
Synnöve Lemke, Greifswald
Susanne Rau, LeipzigImmaculada Acosta de Cozar, Saarbrücken
Dr. med. Julia Folz-Antoniadis, SaarbrückenKathrin Bocks, Jülich
Dr. med. Anahita Graf, Uhldingen- Mühlhofen
Larissa Pusch, Berlin
Branko Srot, WiesbadenSebastian Gassner, Hamburg
Dr. Bernhard Fluche,
Potsdam
Jenny Schulmerich, Mainz
Gisela Schulmerich, BüchenbeurenKatharina Eisele, Griesheim
Nico Westphal, GöttingenDipl.-Phys. Olaf Brökmann, Uetersen
Sabine Böcker, VisbekDr. med. Gerhard Markus, Paderborn
Asco Beyer, BruckmühlMichael Brocks, Ahaus
Friedhelm Wald, WeselFalk Ulke, Ilmenau
Dr. Susan Binder, BerlinSteffen Veen, Essen
Frederic Brosseron, BonnHelena Hebing-Jähnichen, Kalkar
Rosaria Wöhrl, GelsenkirchenJörg Schuldt, Stralsund
Matthias Vollmer, GöttingenDr. Christian Reiser, Bamberg
Frauke Timm, HamburgFrank Kollender, Hamburg
Dipl.-Ing. Anneliese Medem, Offenbach
Hansjörg Albrecht, Burgthann
Georg Hilscher, AugsburgHelmut Schrötter, Germering
Dr. rer. nat. Jutta Fuhlrott, EssenSimone Gleinser, Biberach an der Riss
Petra Schrag, Amstetten-HofstettDr. med. Marion Welbers, Dortmund
Walter Linz, IllingenAntje Schäfer, Rötha
Peter Ofenbäck, DortmundBarbara Regenhardt, Oberasbach
Dipl.-Ing. Björn Karlson, Kümmersbruck
Dr. Claudia Nelkenbrecher, Schwabach
Matthias Gräter, NürnbergPriv.-Doz. Dr. Ralph Puchta, Nürnberg
Thomas Rakow, BerlinStella Stegmüller, Karlsruhe
Jan Stegmüller, KarlsruheRainer Roessler, Osterholz-Scharmbeck
Prof. Dr. Tina Salomon, Bremen Thomas Blommel, Ahaus
Pontus Böckman,
President of the Swedish Skeptics, Malmö
Dr. Nikil Mukerji, München
Uwe Ulmer, LeingartenJan Steinhauser, Bundesvorsitzender Partei der Humanisten, Hamburg
Dominic Ressel, Generalsekretär Partei der Humanisten, LeipzigReinhard Loffl, Schatzmeister Partei der Humanisten, Offenburg
Philine Brosch, stellv. Bundesvorsitzende Partei der Humanisten, HamburgJessica Dittmar, Vorstandsmitglied Partei der Humanisten, Berlin
Alexander Mucha, Vorstandsmitglied Partei der Humanisten, HannoverAxel Börold, stellv. Generalsekretär Partei der Humanisten, Bremen
Robin Thiedmann, Vorstandsmitglied Partei der Humanisten, MainzChristoph Tietz, Vorstandsmitglied Partei der Humanisten, Dresden
Dennis Kropp, stellv. Schatzmeister Partei der Humanisten, Aumühle Dr. med. dent. Michael Holtermann,
Weeze
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hell, RonnenbergDr. Pascal Pein, Geesthacht
Dr. med. Martin Zeitz, DüsseldorfStefanie Vilsmaier, Darmstadt
Elke Heinrichs, ViersenDr.-Ing. Sven Lütkemeier, Paderborn
Carolin Meinert, MindenJulia Kreitz, Landesvorsitzende Partei der Humanisten Bremen, Bremen
Kathrin Böcker, KölnKevin Tanck, Köln
Robert Rieger, NürnbergSergej Höschele, Stutensee
Margot Neuser, MainzRichard Gebauer, Karlsruhe
Gerhard Thummerer, Coswig (Anhalt)
Franz-Christian Schlangen, Karlsbad / Baden
Lutz Schindler, BerlinDaniel Wiens, Oelde
Jonas Döll, MarburgKevin Wirths, Langerwehe
Dr. Sönke Ahrens, HamburgMarkus Furtner, Friedberg
HansJoachim Taschner, BobingenSven Haiber, Graben-Neudorf
Sebastian Wachtarz, MainzHelmuth Klostermann, Dortmund
Maren Stuckenbrock, HannoverMichael Kirchhof, Dortmund
Marco Neitzel, Bad UrachHorst Knicker, Bad Kreuznach
Andreas Blaschke, NürnbergHenrik Stein, Tübingen
Elena Dornekott, Münster Sonja Mohr, Wuppertal
Alexander Unverhau, BüddenstedtDipl.-Phys. Johannes Hölzl, Nürnberg
Leander Brinkmeier, Dietzenbach, OffenbachSarah Jalandt, Lübeck
Martin Hombach, GelsenkirchenNick Günther, Burgdorf
Manuel Heinrich, KallstadtJoris Wegner, Stadland
Dipl. Ing. Etienne Kaercher, Neuenstadt am KocherJari Radler, Oldenburg
Christine Daul. FÄ für Allgemeinmedizin, Baden-Baden
Meike Speetzen, Esens
Heiko Lotz geb. Drebold, AmelinghausenDr. Wolfgang Retelsdorf, Hildesheim
Jan Mandrysch, LeipzigUte Schlenger, Nieder-Olm
Blörn Luig, MünsterAlexander Horstkötter, Beckum
Stefanie Weig, HagelstadtKai Dieter Grotheer, Velbert
Dennis Book, LorupTobias Dudziak, Unna
Anja Teitge, BerlinDipl.-Phys. Dirk Strangfeld, Gelsenkirchen
Katrin Wiesemann, DüsseldorfKenneth May, Leipzig
Daniel Friske, AachenSimon Guidemann, Heidelberg
Julian Jansen, SchwalmtalKevin Phelan, München
Elisa Kreibich, HeidelbergSven Hermeling, München
Dr. rer. nat. Rudi Christian Tappert, HoyerswerdaProf. Dr. Tatjana Jesch, Freiburg im Breisgau
Sascha Radke, DürenNarek Avetisyan, B.A., Weimar
Iven Böhme, ChemnitzTim Feuchter, Rinteln
Frank Grossmann, DresdenRolf Lauer, Winterbach
Katja Palitzsch, Stein-WingertLukas Baus, Bonn
Tim Wiehe, OsnabrückPetra Wenzel, Duisburg
Cand. med. Norman Roscher, WeinheimLena-Franziska Nagel, Berlin
Dr. Tobias Rommel, MünchenDr. med. Felix Pszola, Gießen
Dr. rer. nat Mike Fabian, NürnbergSimon Wameling, Reken
Oliver R. Lattmann, Riedt (Schweiz)Dipl.-Ing. Carl-Otto Danz, Weimar
Josef Steinen, AachenFriedemann Binder, Plön
Gerhard Neugebauer, FürthGabriela Morais de Souza, Hamburg
Dr. med. Christian Brunner, WadernMicha Manuel Vehlow, Much
Oliver Donner, HamburgJoachim Dobermann, Franzburg
Mario Beck, WeimarDaniel Marques Rodrigues, Göttingen
Lennart Wilde, AachenTanju Kuruoglu, Bergheim
Dr. Katharina Hunger, FrankfurtAngela Crede, Wagenfeld
Roger Zenker, FreisingLukas Berchner, Dortmund
Margret Neugebauer, Aachen Dr. Burkhard Heitmann, Duisburg
Jonas Schopf, EschenbachDr. med. Sylvia Meske, Freiburg
Caj Torben Petermann, OldenburgMichael Dietrich, Stiefenhofen
Marco Bergmann, CoppenbrüggeReiner William Nix, Pulheim
Daniel Friske, AachenPatrick Schmitz, Heinsberg
Dr. Jörg Sallath, TauberbischofsheimSabine Dethleffsen, Glücksburg
Tizian Cochran, BitburgAlexander Laveaux, Hannover
Sebastian Thormeyer. BerlinMichael Cremer, Much
Peter Titus, HeilbronnPatrick Herrmann, Bad Wildungen
Ulrich Dehe, MainzThorsten Niedballa, Oberhausen
Dr. Rainer Kardatzki, AltenmarktAlexander Dippel, Berlin
Swen Breidenbach, KölnFabio Schmeil, Flensburg
Hildegard Brenner, HanauHenri Michael, Laubach
Dr. Theis Stüven, WiesbadenDr. Alexander Kaszubiak, Berlin
Tobias Schuster, SchwabbruckGerhard Maier, Reute
Jessica Dittmar, BerlinDr. med. Lothar M. Kirsch, Meerbusch-Lank
Alexander Foß, Besançon / FrankreichJens Jabusch, Berlin
Jörg Neumann, HeilbronnKatharina Trykowski, Bochum
Georg Hille, BerlinClaudia Schlösser, Bonn
Dr. rer. nat. Jörg Gotthardt Fischer, Niewitz/SpreewaldDr.-Ing. Detlev Struck, Berlin
David Borst, HüttlingenMoritz K. Hagemann, Wiesbaden
Tanja Kokel, StralsundIlja Ruhl, Berlin
Prof. Dr. med. Michael Freitag, OldenburgHermann Kleist, Otterndorf
Dr. med Charlotte Heyl, HamburgMike Bereuter, Felixsee
Arndt Reich, WuppertalDipl.-Psych. Maximilian Sellmeier, Regensburg
Prof. Dr. Matthias Amen, SprengeKai Juse, Rödermark

 


Picture  credits:  S. Hermann & F. Richter on Pixabay

The INH to MEPs on homeopathy in the EU Medicines Directive

In the meantime, the Spanish government has initiated a wide outreach against pseudomedicine. For example, it no longer wants to accept the medicinal status of homeopathy, wants to ban homeopathy from pharmacies and has already “discontinued” the first batch of homoeopathics which could not present a valid proof of efficacy upon request. England is currently performing a complete “blacklisting”, i.e. a process that means the end of any registration for homeopathic medication with a drug authority.

The EU Medicines Directive does not regulate in detail how exactly the member states deal with homeopathy in health care. However, it does fix two key points: It includes homeopathy in its definition of a medical drug and obliges the states to regulate a simplified registration procedure for homeopathy instead of the usual drug approval. If one seriously wants to dispute the status of homeopathic medicinal products (and thus their privileges), one cannot completely ignore EU law.

Spain knows that. At various levels (including that of the government), there are efforts to achieve a revision of the EU directive on medicinal products in the field of homeopathy. These efforts need support. The INH has therefore addressed the following letter to German MEPs, which is initially intended to provide basic information on the facts of the case and support Spain’s position in the expected discussion. This seems all the more necessary as the European homeopathic manufacturers and associations have for a long time maintained a lobby organisation directly in Brussels, which apparently has quite good material and personnel resources and whose task is to exert direct influence “on the spot”. We do not have such resources, but we do have the facts. And who knows – perhaps one or the other national government will even join Spain and become active in the EU?

______________

Mr. Mrs. …
MEP

by e-mail                                            7 August 2019

Homeopathy in the EU Medicines Directive

Dear Madam / Sir,

The European Medicines Directive (Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use,  Official Journal of the European Community L 311, 28.11.2001) classifies homeopathic preparations as medicinal products and requires national governments to establish a simplified registration procedure outside the otherwise prescribed rules for marketing authorisation for pharmaceutical remedies.

However, the consensus of the worldwide scientific community has long since classified homeopathy as a specifically ineffective sham therapy, the spread and “popularity” of which have completely different bases than those of medical relevance (evidence). In many countries, this insight is now gaining acceptance. It will be in the well-understood interest of the public’s health to take consequences of this. The misguiding of the public that homeopathy is a form of therapy expressly recognised by the legislator and therefore endowed with the credit of efficacy and harmlessness may not be continued.

In this respect, the Kingdom of Spain is already campaigning for an amendment to European pharmaceutical law, which not only grants homeopathic preparations the status of medicinal products by definition, but also grants them the additional privilege of registration (see also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-004948-ASW_EN.html). This special legal framework has no objective justification, as the EASAC – as official advisor to the EU institutions – clearly stated in its statement of 20.09.2017 (https://easac.eu/publications/details/homeopathic-products-and-practices/).

In the interest of a science-based, honest and patient-oriented health policy, also on behalf of the German Consumer Association e.V. and its regional associations, we ask you to support a revision of the Medicines Directive in the sense described, in order to clear the way for appropriate national regulations under Community law.

You can inform yourself about the scientific status of homeopathy on the (multilingual) website of our association: www.network-homeopathy.info .

Yours sincerely

For the  Information Network Homeopathy

Dr. Natalie Grams – Dr. Ing. Norbert Aust – Dr. Christian Lübbers


 

Open letter to Karin Maag, Member of the Bundestag – Reimbursement of Homeopathy

Mrs. Karin Maag, member of the Health Committee of the German Bundestag, has recently spoken out on several occasions against the reimbursement of homeopathy by the statutory health insurance funds. She did use a number of arguments which, in the opinion of the INH, require clarification. For this reason, Mrs Maag has received the following Open Letter from the Homeopathy Information Network:

______________

Mrs.
Karin Maag MdB
Place of the Republic 1
11011 Berlin

 

Mail to: karin.maag@bundestag.de                                                                 29.07.2019
Informational to: Federal Minister of Health, Mr Jens Spahn

Homeopathy and statutory health insurance

Dear Mrs Maag,

We have learned from the press reporting that in the discussion about the reimbursement of homeopathy by statutory health insurers you have clearly positioned yourself against plans to abolish it. At the same time, however, we can also see from this reporting that you are apparently not sufficiently informed about the aims and arguments of the scientifically based critique of homeopathy and that you also argue in part outside the context of the problem.

We would therefore like to make a few comments on this.

We, the Information Network Homeopathy, raise awareness since 2016 that homeopathy is a sham therapy that has neither ever been able to provide valid proof of efficacy nor to eliminate the incompatibility of its basic assumptions with scientifically proven principles. There is a broad consensus on this in the scientific world. We refer exemplarily to the clear judgement of the EASAC, the advisory board of the Association of European Academies of Science, which was published in 2017.

Against this background, we also see the discussion on the reimbursability of homeopathy by statutory health insurance funds. And against this background we also contradict the thesis that there must be a coexistence of homeopathy and science. Either one recognises the relevance of the scientific evaluation of homeopathy – then the consequences are obvious. Or one doesn’t – then one speaks out in favour of equating facts and opinions.

The core problem lies in the fact that the current reimbursability strengthens the public reputation of homeopathy, which is scientifically and, in our opinion, also unacceptable from the point of view of health policy. It lends additional credibility to the already widespread misconception among the population that homeopathy is a well-established form of therapy, which at any rate must be regarded as equivalent to scientific medicine.

Part of this misconception is that homeopathy is wholly or partly identical with naturopathy. But nothing could be more wrong than an equation of homeopathy and naturopathy. Nothing is “natural” in the esoteric assumption that there is a “principle of similarity” in nature that is related to human interests. There is nothing “natural” about the postulate that through dilution and ritual shaking, a “spiritual medicinal power”, today called “vibrations” or “energy”, will not only pass into the solvent, but will also become essentially “stronger”. There is no doubt that the public has not yet been sufficiently informed about all this.

A solidarity community such as the statutory health insurance needs an intersubjectively defined framework whose criterion is the general advantage. This framework is guaranteed by evidence-based medicine, which requires proof of efficacy of means and methods based on recognised scientific methodology. Homeopathy cannot satisfy this requirement; it is marketed under “medicinal product” only because the Medicines Act exempts it from this requirement.

We are fully aware that, as you are quoted, “many people feel better off taking homeopathic medicines”. The explanations for this have been known for a long time, but they have nothing to do with the specific medical effectiveness of homeopathy. These are contextual effects of various kinds that occur with any kind of treatment, often even with pure attention.

We even see in this one of the central dangers of the application of homeopathy. Anyone who has had “good experiences” with homeopathy with minor health disorders, or perhaps only with mood disorders, runs the risk of relying on it even in the case of more serious illnesses. The patient “conditions” himself to the medically ineffective homeopathy. The associated potential danger is obvious; the more homeopathy is erroneously perceived as a “gentle and side-effect-free” alternative to normal medicine, the less the risks will be perceived.

On the question of reimbursability in the statuary health solidarity system, the cost aspect plays a completely subordinate role, if at all. It is not a question of whether the expenses for homeopathy are “peanuts” or not, not of whether the system can “afford it”. It’s about drawing clear border lines in the matter.

Medicine is what has been proven to work beyond contextual effects. This defines the boundary between necessary, appropriate and economic care – the object of health insurance according to the social law – and what belongs to the realm of subjective, personal well-being. Which everyone may use for themselves on their own responsibility and at their own expense. We therefore consider it a reversal of the facts to refer insured persons who rightly reject homeopathy as a medical method to health insurers who do not offer their reimbursement.

It is therefore in the interests of the solidarity community that the health insurance reimbursement, which suggests a medical significance of homeopathy, should not be continued. It would be even more desirable if homeopathy were to be deprived of its special status in pharmaceutical law, which exempts it from scientifically based proof of efficacy. It is by no means a question of banning homeopathy. For everyone who wants to use it – informed! – it remains available.

We are therefore convinced that the well-understood patient interest requires a correction of the decision per reimbursement. Of course, regardless of the clear facts, this is also a political matter of balancing rights and interests. We have no doubt, however, that the arguments put forward against reimbursement of homeopathy are so far-reaching and in the public interest that they cannot be outweighed by other particular interests.

For discussions and further information, we are at your disposal at any time in any form you like.

Yours sincerely

For the Homeopathy Information Network

Dr. Natalie Grams.
Dr. Ing. Norbert Aust
Dr. Christian Lübbers

Hello! We’re from INH and want to talk about homeopathy with you!

Picture with the INH speakers, from left: Dr. Christian Luebbers, Dr. Natalie Grams, Dr.Ing. Norbert AustIn an interview with Pharma Relations, Mathias Hevert, Managing Director of Hevert Arzneimittel, accused the “skeptics” of taking a “clearly biased stance towards homeopathy”, also of neither wanting to inform nor being willing to discuss.

Although we don’t know who Mr. Hevert here means by “the skeptics”: at least he obviously hasn’t informed himself in any way about the aims and contents of the INH (for example on this page). Instead of this he puts forward such astonishing 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 info@hevert.de

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.

Open letter of the INH to the German Federal Minister of Health on the “internal consensus” of the German medical law

Yesterday, on 13.06.2019, German TV satirist Jan Böhmermann so satirically as accurately analysed homeopathy in his programme “Neo Magazin Royale” and thus articulated in his special way the – in our opinion –  widespreaded displeasure about the role of the sham method homeopathy in public health care.

We regard the time as appropriate to turn now with our core concern to the Federal Minister for health. Today he received the following open letter from the INH:


 

Information Network Homeopathy
We explain – you have the choice

 

14 June 2019

Mr
Federal Minister for Health
Jens Spahn
by e-mail

Dear Federal Minister Spahn,

As Information Network Homeopathy, we have been contributing to the public education about the background of homeopathy since 2016 and have also focused on the so-called “internal consensus” of the German Medicines Act.

Yesterday evening, we were able to experience on German television how homeopathy became the subject of prominent satire. For more than 20 minutes Jan Böhmermann burned down a fireworks on homeopathy in his “Neo Magazin Royale”, which – like all good satire – presented nothing but the facts. We regard this as a clear sign that the public reputation of homeopathy, not least supported for decades by the internal consensus, is eroding massively. More and more people see the fact that homeopathy is spent on an effective medical method as an unreasonable anachronism, as science-medical as well as intellectual impertinences.

The construction of the so-called internal consensus in Paragraph 38 of the AMG represents nothing less than the partial reversal of the meaning of the AMG into its complete opposite: Instead of applying intersubjective scientific standards to everything that “pharmaceuticals” want to be, it creates an incomprehensible protective space for remedies of “special therapeutic directions” – a “black hole” in pharmaceutical law – by expressly dispensing with evidence of efficacy.

The lack of intersubjectivity in it is obvious: no one can comprehend the healing promises of homeopathy (or anthroposophy) according to objective standards. After more than 200 years, it remains with claims that could never be verified in any way according to intersubjective criteria. This is the undeniable state of the art of science, which the legal situation nonsensically contradicts – and this contradictions serve the interested circles as a false justification for their untenable positions.

It is time that the legislator no longer provides an apparent legitimation for this and revises the internal consensus of the AMG. In the right understanding, there is only one medicine: the one that works. The one that can scientifically answer the question “Where is the proof?”. In addition, there is no need and no place for somewhat “alternative”, “complementary” or “integrative” in medicine. The dividing line between medicine and non-medicine is the proven effectiveness according to scientific standards. Homeopathy has remained beyond this boundary for over 200 years and cannot invoke more than a legal fiction.

We have no doubt about your personal attitude to the problem and are convinced that our concern is in good hands with you, given the energy you have shown in your office so far. In view of the circumstances described and current developments, give up the political restraint that has so far left the internal consensus untouched! Take the initiative to put an end to the unspeakable anachronism of the internal consensus and to subject to the same rules all remedies that strive access to the market as a pharmaceutical. A factually untenable legal fiction should no longer be the basis for errors and misinformation about homeopathy and should no longer serve to discredit the state of science and those who publicly represent it. Particular interests casted in legal structures should be a thing of the past, especially if they contradict the facts.

We are at your disposal at any time with our expertise in any form you like.

Respectfully

For the Homeopathy Information Network

Dr. med. Natalie Grams (Head / Spokeswoman)
Dr. med. Christian W. Lübbers (Spokesman)
Dr. Ing. Norbert Aust (Spokesman)


 

Open letter to the Prime Minister of Mecklenburg-Western Pomeriana on her patronage of the Homeopathic Medical Congress 2019

The picture shows the Chancelly of state and the Castle (residence of county parliament), Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomeraina
Chancelly of state and Castle (residence of county parliament), Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomeraina

This year’s Homeopathic Medical Congress of the Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians will take place in Stralsund from 29 May to 1 June 2019. As usual with such meetings, the DZVhÄ assured itself also this time again of the support in the policy, by offering  the patronage over the meeting to the Prime Minister of the country Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Of course there is also a well-meaning greeting connected with it.
In (bad) tradition, the Prime Minister followed this wish. The greeting was published on the website of the medical congress.

The INH feels compelled to send the following open letter to Prime Minister Mrs. Schwesig:


To the

Minister President of the State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Mrs. Manuela Schwesig
– State Chancellery –
Schloßstr. 2-4
19053 Schwerin

Dear Prime Minister,

From various sources we could see that you have taken over the patronage of the Homeopathic Medical Congress of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians taking place in May 2019 in Stralsund. We are also familiar with your greeting to the Congress.

We have a critial view on both the assumption of patronage and the greeting to the congress. Allow us to explain the reasons for this below. We consider it important to make representatives of politics familiar with our concern, an enlightened approach to the subject of homeopathy, and to explain our motives.

Since 2016, we, the Information Network Homeopathy, its members and supporters, have been explaining that homeopathy is a sham therapy that has neither ever been able to provide valid proof of its effectiveness nor to eliminate the incompatibility of its basic assumptions with scientifically proven principles. There is a consensus on this among almost the entire world’s scientific community. To illustrate this, we refer as one voice among many to the 2017 judgement on homeopathy by EASAC, the Advisory Council of the Association of European Academies of Science:

Scientific mechanisms of action—where we conclude that the claims for
homeopathy are implausible and inconsistent with established scientific concepts.
Clinical efficacy—we acknowledge that a placebo effect may appear in individual patients but we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect. ”

As a consequence, in more and more countries homeopathy no longer finds a place within scientifically based medicine and public health systems. In this connection, reference is made to the end of the prescribability of homeopathic remedies in England, which is now followed by the inclusion of homeopathic remedies in the blacklist of the British Ministry of Health, so that they can no longer be registered as medicines.

In particular, we draw attention to current developments in France and Spain. In both countries, the professional associations and scientific academies of both medicine and pharmacy have clearly distanced themselves from homeopathy and demanded that it no longer be given a place in the public health system. In Spain, the current government has already taken concrete measures to remove homeopathy from therapeutic practice. In France the political decision on this is currently pending, the recommendations of the chambers and the academies of science leave nothing to be desired in terms of clarity: homeopathy is medically worthless to potentially harmful.

In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration, in consultation with the FTC, is in the process of creating an increasingly stringent regulatory framework for homeopathic medicines. Consumer protection organisations are currently suing distributors of homeopathic medicines for fraud. In Australia, the possibility of covering homeopathy through private supplementary insurance was even abolished by law in 2017. In Austria, the compulsory elective subject homeopathy at the MedUni Vienna was recently cancelled without replacement, the “Homeopathic Emergency Outpatient Clinic” was closed and the accumulated research work in these areas was rejected by the Scientific Council of the MedUni as “unscientific”.

Many other political and scientific organizations in other countries have also positioned themselves against homeopathy as part of medicine and health care.

The extraordinarily effective homeopathic lobby in Germany has apparently succeeded in keeping such developments at bay. The danger of isolation of German health policy in the circle of EU partner countries in particular can no longer be dismissed here.

The efforts of the relevant lobby to present homeopathy as a proven form of therapy essentially equivalent to scientific medicine are manifold and extensive. This alone does not change the facts, the broad scientific consensus that considers homeopathy only as a relic of medical history and not as a justified part of modern health care.

Here now the circle closes for the occasion of this writing. The Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians is one of the pillars of homeopathic advocacy in Germany. He is very interested in public reputation. Of course, in view of the massively dwindling importance of the pre-scientific homeopathic method in Europe and worldwide, it is of great importance to obtain the patronage of high-ranking political representatives for the homeopathic congresses, for example.

However, this only strengthens the public reputation of homeopathy, which is scientifically and, in our opinion, unacceptable from the point of view of health policy, and leads to a consolidation of the already all too widespread assumption among the population that homeopathy is a recognised form of therapy, which should at any rate be regarded as equivalent to scientific medicine.

That is why the core concern of the homeopathy information network is that homeopathy should no longer be given public credibility or a place in the public health system – especially with regard to the good treatment of children to which you referred. We do not consider the current situation to be scientifically or ethically justifiable. A “therapy” that does not have more to show than the contextual effects (especially placebo) that occur with any kind of attention – even non-medical – cannot be justified as a medical therapy. It should also not be allowed to hide the fact that homeopathy is incorrectly offered and advertised by its representatives as specifically effective drug therapy.

Medicine today defines itself as that which can prove specific effects beyond the “background noise” of the always present placebo effect. Contrary to the perpetuated claims of the homeopathic interest groups and their self-referring events such as the “Homeopathic Medical Congress”, homeopathy cannot do this – and is therefore not a factor for the goal of a generally more human approach to patients in medicine, which we consider to be very desirable.

We would be pleased if we had opened a perhaps not so familiar view on the topic of homeopathy for you. The fact is that the general perception of homeopathy is currently characterised by decades of unchallenged influence by interested circles. Homeopathic criticism is as old as the method itself. However, it was not until 2016 that the Homeopathy Information Network was established as the first independent association of interests, whose members pursue the common goal of educating the general public about homeopathy on the basis of scientific facts.

It is clear to us that as a high state representative you must do justice to a broad pluralistic spectrum of social groups. We, the undersigned, would, however, ask you to refrain in the future from giving additional nourishment to the false and inappropriate public image of homeopathy through – undoubtedly well-meaning – commitment.

Scientifically founded as well as generally understandable sources of information for the classification of homeopathy as a disproved method from pre-scientific times are extensively available. We would also like to draw your attention to the information provided on the website of the Homeopathy Information Network. If you wish, representatives of the information network would also be happy to meet you in person.

Yours sincerely

For the Homeopathy Information Network

Dr. Natalie Grams.
Dr. Norbert Aust
Dr. Christian W. Lübbers


Picture credits: Private / own picture

Open Letter by the GWUP Science Board and the INH to Melanie Huml, Secretary of State for Health, Bavaria

On 13 December 2018, the CSU parliamentary group in the Bavarian state parliament published a press release entitled “Naturopathy should be more firmly anchored at Bavarian universities”. This corresponded both with a similar parliamentary motion from the middle of the year and without doubt with the decision of the state government of Baden-Württemberg to establish a chair for “Naturopathy and Integrative Medicine” in Tübingen.

The press release makes it clear that it was much more about homeopathy than about naturopathy – the well-known misinterpretation of both terms was the basis for the whole meeting. Two representatives of homeopathy – the chairwoman of the Hahnemann Society and a clinical pratician from an institution of the LMU Munich who was co-financed by the Foundation for Nature and Medicine (formerly Carstens Foundation) – had spoken to the parliamentary group and apparently found an open ear for their lobbying for homeopathy (“so popular with people”). The Bavarian Minister of State for Health, Mrs. Melanie Huml, was also present.

This procedure caused the science advice of the GWUP and the INH to send the Minister of State and the parliamentary groups in the Bavarian federal state parliament the following open letter:

Mrs. Minister of State
Melanie Huml
Bavarian State Ministry of Health and Care
Haidenauplatz 1
81667 Munich, Germany


E-mail: poststelle@stmgp.bayern.de

(For information to the health policy spokespersons of all fractions and as an open letter on www.netzwerk-homoeopathie.info)

Homoeopathy in Health Care and Universities – CSU Group Press Release 13.12.2018

Dear Mrs. Minister of State,

From the above-mentioned press release of the CSU parliamentary group in the Bavarian state parliament we can see that there – in your presence – representatives of the pseudomethode “homoeopathy” have made representations in order to take representatives of Bavarian state politics for a promotion of their method with the aim of a stronger anchoring in health and higher education policy.

We, the science advice of the society for the scientific investigation of Parawissenschaften (GWUP), hold the goal direction conceived there into the eye both health and universitypolitically for missed.

The Hom?opathie is after world-wide scientific consensus a sham therapy, which could furnish neither ever a valid proof of efficacy, nor the incompatibility of its basic assumptions with scientifically in the best way occupied bases clear out. It is therefore our concern that homeopathy should no longer be given public credibility or a place in the public health system and that it should only be given a place in the medical-historical part of the curricula at universities.

A “therapy” that does not have more to show than the contextual effects (especially placebo) that occur with any kind of attention – even non-medical – cannot be justified as a medical therapy. It should also not be allowed to hide the fact that homeopathy is incorrectly offered and advertised by its representatives as specifically effective drug therapy.

To illustrate this internationally widely recognised position, we refer to the 2017 decision on homeopathy by EASAC, the advisory board of the Association of European Academies of Science:

“(We conclude from our research) that the claims on homeopathy are implausible and contrary to established scientific principles.
We acknowledge that a placebo effect may occur in individual patients, but we agree with earlier detailed studies and conclude that there are no known diseases for which there is robust and replicable evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond this placebo effect.

The international study situation is clear. In the meantime, ten systematic reviews, including those of homeopathy representatives, have shown that there is no evidence for any single indication of homeopathy. How could it be any different for a method that partly violates natural laws?

Even false arguments such as those repeatedly put forward in favour of homeopathy cannot change this. Neither is a “popularity” of homeopathy in the population a justification for unscientific and specifically ineffective methods in health care and university curricula, nor can the method be attributed to naturopathy. The latter is a downright “urban legend” that has been propagated by interested parties for decades.

This is probably the most deeply rooted error about homeopathy in the public. Homoeopathy is a conceivably “artificial” thought construct, which is based among other things on the esoteric ideas of the effect of “spiritual forces”. It thus contradicts the basic idea of naturopathy, which assumes a real effect of natural entities (light, air, sun, herbal extracts…).

We therefore feel compelled to raise our voices against any influence that could strengthen the position of homeopathy in public and political perception due to such misinformation, as the establishment of a chair would undoubtedly be. Rather, we are of the opinion that both a sustainable health system and the future higher education of physicians are dependent on the principles of evidence-based medicine and not to promote unscientific methods. Anything else would be a step backwards, a waste of resources and the opposite of a health policy that sees itself as modern.

Medicine is pragmatic and open to new findings, like any good science. This leads to – and has always led to – that methods, regardless of their origin or age, are included in the canon of medicine if they can prove a specific effectiveness according to scientific criteria. If they cannot do this, they are not entitled to the predicate “medicine” even with the attributes “alternative”, “complementary” or “integrative”. Furthermore, it should be warned against equating “naturopathy” with these terms.

In this context, the experience at the Medical University of Vienna, which had introduced homeopathy as a subject in order to teach a critical approach to the method, seems important to us. This has not proved successful, but has even turned into the opposite. The appearance of representatives of homeopathy as lecturers (and allegedly “experts”) led to the fact that in teaching the concrete application of the method instead of the scientific-critical view came to the fore. From our point of view a critical examination of the teachings of “alternative medicine” would be quite sufficient if one shows in the basic subjects to what extent such doctrines of salvation contradict the critical-rational scientific view inherent in the higher education system.

We point out that the MedUni Vienna recently drew the consequences from this and cancelled the homoeopathy lectures. University Rector Markus Meier distanced himself in this context from unscientific procedures and charlatanry. This is just one example – there is an increasingly critical approach to homeopathy internationally on a broad front, also and above all in EU partner countries.

From this point of view, in our opinion, the idea should also be seen that a chair is explicitly required for “integrative” or “complementary” medicine, as articulated in the motion for a resolution to the Bavarian Parliament of 10.07.2018 (Bill to Bavarian parliament 17/23310).

We would like to sensitize you as the minister of the Free State of Bavaria responsible for health policy to this topic. The intensified – in particular political – activities of the homoeopathic lobby, which obviously go back to the increasing, justified criticism of the homeopathic method, causes us concern. In our view, it would be fatal to hold on to, or even further strengthen, the pseudo-method of homeopathy, both in terms of good general health care and in terms of strengthening the population’s competence in health issues, which undoubtedly need to a great extent.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours sincerely,
the Science Council of the Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parasciences and the Information Network Homeopathy

Dr.-Ing. Norbert Aust
Prof. Dr. Michael Bach
Lydia Benecke
Prof. Dr. Dr. Ulrich Berger
Prof. Dr. Peter Brugger
Udo Endruscheit
Prof. Dr. Edzard Ernst
Thomas Fraps
Prof. Dr. Dittmar Graf
Dr. Natalie Grams.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hell
Prof. Dr. Dieter B. Herrmann
Prof. Dr. Johannes Köbberling
Prof. Dr. Martin Lambeck
Dr. Nikil Mukerji
Dr. Rainer Rosenzweig
Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Vollmer
Prof. Dr. Barbro Walker
Dr. Christian Weymayr
Dr. habil. Rainer Wolf

Open letter of the INH to the Siemens health insurance company (SBK)

In the context of the discussion on the reimbursement of homeopathy by statutory health insurance funds, the CEO of SBK drew attention to himself on Twitter with the “argument” that the small amount spent on homeopathy in his company was ultimately irrelevant “from an insurance point of view”. After this position had been contradicted on Twitter, SBK published a “Background Information: Homeopathy at the SBK” on its website and explicitly referred to this as part of the debate.

The Information Network Homeopathy feels compelled to comment on this publication with an open letter to SBK, which is given below:

 

To the
Siemens Company Health Insurance Fund (SBK)

By e-mail (info@sbk.org)

09.01.2018

Open letter of the information network Homöopathie on the publication of the SBK “Background information: Homeopathy at the Siemens company health insurance fund”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

your institution is one of the many health insurance companies that reimburse the costs of homeopathic treatment, which has been under discussion for some time. On Twitter, your CEO drew additional attention by putting forward the “peanuts” argument, i.e. the opinion that the low expenditure on homeopathy was not a significant part of the total expenditure anyway. This has already been contradicted on Twitter to the extent that this is not the only, not even a priority aspect in the demand that homeopathy no longer be reimbursed by health insurance funds.

Thereafter, you have clarified your point of view on homeopathic reimbursement (https://www.sbk.org/themen-standpunkte/hintergrundinformation-homoeopathie/ ), for which we would like to thank you first of all, because this enables a discourse. In the following we therefore deal with what you state in your clarification and orient ourselves on the headings of the various points as used in your publication:

1. To what extent does the Siemens Company Health Insurance Fund (SBK) cover treatment by homeopaths?

At this point, you inform us that you offer a separate optional tariff for homeopathic services (“pharmaceutical tariff”), which is actuarially self-supporting (i.e. the area of statutory services “for all” is not affected).

However, this information is incomplete.

According to the information on the SBK website, this only applies to the drug part, i.e. the globules; the medical treatment part of homeopathy is covered by a selective contract with the management company of the Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians as part of the statutory benefits, as is the case also with other health insurance funds, and thus also affects all insured persons who have no “interest” in homeopathy.

Even in the case that homeopathy would be a complete part of an optional tariff offer: The health insurance funds, especially the statutory ones, are important players in the health care system. We can certainly see that the legislator – unlike in the vast majority of industrialised countries – has not (yet) consistently implemented the orientation of public health towards evidence-based medicines and methods. Unfortunately, indeed. However, it cannot then be the task of the health insurance funds to undermine the confidence of their policyholders in rational medicine by offering a “vendor’s tray” of unscientific and ineffective methods, not even within the framework of a “voluntary tariff”, and thereby make a not insignificant contribution to the irrationality and hostility towards science that unfortunately prevails anyway. Apart from the fact that such offers, understood correctly, should actually be an ethical problem for health insurance companies.

One should bear in mind that the offer of unscientific methods with the authority of a statutory health insurance directly threatens the necessary further development of the health system in terms of performance, effectiveness and sustainability. Homeopathy is the “entry point” for the acceptance of further pseudomedical methods and often correlates with things like vaccination “skepticism” (perhaps less in the medical profession, but basically very well). Thus homeopathy is the dividing line beyond which there is a danger of further attention by patients to more dangerous pseudomedical methods. The responsibility of the statutory health insurance funds here is considerable. They should send a clear signal against such tendencies.

2. To what extent has the effectiveness of homeopathy been proven and what is SBK’s opinion of studies which consider homeopathic treatment to be free of effects?

“It is true that there are no scientific studies which clearly prove the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products, but this does not mean that they couldn’t be effective.” This sentence in your publication opens the door to any arbitrariness and has nothing to do with a scientific-rational view on the problem. As the INH has just stated in its article “Scientists claim that homeopathy is impossible“, the “reverse conclusion” quoted by you is an absolute empty statement – simply because the ineffectiveness (impossibility) of something can in principle not be proved. Homoeopathy, however, has the scientifically conceivably highest improbability against itself that it could ever succeed in proving its effectiveness, let alone in explaining a mechanism of action that is compatible with the state of scientific knowledge. It is highly implausible, contradicts everyday experiences and is also incompatible with natural laws. Any explanatory model of homeopathy would require a massive revision of the valid and proven scientific view of the world. One cannot therefore – especially not as a health insurance company that should position itself credibly and seriously towards its policyholders – retreat to the Hamlet argument of “There is between heaven and earth…”.

In response, it should be sufficient to quote once again the summary of EASAC, the Advisory Board of the European Academies of Science:

“[We conclude]  that the claims for homeopathy are implausible and inconsistent with established scientific concepts.
We acknowledge that a placebo effect may appear in individual
patients but we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.”

We conclude from our research that the claims about homeopathy are implausible and contrary to established scientific principles.
We recognize that individual patients may have a placebo effect, but we agree with previous detailed studies and conclude that there is no known disease for which there is robust and replicable evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond this placebo effect.”

This is the valid statement of the scientific world on homeopathy. The position you have formulated is thus untenable according to generally valid rational standards.

3. Why is it not a problem for the SBK to pay for an unprovable form of treatment (= homeopathy), while this is not possible with glasses, for example?

In fact, the statutory health insurance funds are not allowed under German social insurance law to replace homeopathy reimbursements with benefits for spectacles and higher grants for dental prostheses. This is well known to the Homeopathy Information Network and has been explained in detail in an article on its website. Nevertheless, we understand that this is often mentioned as a wish by policyholders who reject homeopathy.

Here, too, we encounter a fundamental misunderstanding in your argumentation when you refer to the possibility granted by law to include homeopathy in the catalogue of statuory benefits. As also mentioned in the article from the INH website quoted above, no health insurance company is forced to do so. You yourself write that reimbursement of the special therapeutic directions is “not excluded” – but that brings your consideration to an end. However, the Federal Social Court has already decided several times that the same criteria of “necessity, economic efficiency and expediency” must be applied to the means of special therapeutic directions (homeopathy, anthroposophy, phytotherapy) as to all other drugs. A relevant social-legal commentary states in agreement: “An advantage of drugs of the special therapy directions with the consequence that quality and effectiveness of the achievements do not correspond to the generally recognized conditions of the medical realizations … contradicts … the legal defaults”.

Already in point 2 it was stated that homeopathy, according to worldwide scientific judgement, contradicts established scientific principles and that there is no reliable and reproducible evidence of specific efficacy for any disease. Such a method can never meet the social security reimbursement requirements of “necessity, cost-effectiveness and expediency” – in our opinion, any health insurance fund that reimburses homeopathy by way of statutory benefits is moving on very thin ice under the current legal situation. In this context, we see interest in the fact that you describe homeopathy as an “unprovable form of treatment” in your statement.

One more word on the objection that even in the field of “normal” medicine, ineffective drugs and methods are paid for: A health insurance company shouldn’t do that either. However, the legal situation here is different: every statutory health insurance fund is for “normal” pharmaceutical drugs and therapeutic methods bound by the approval decisions of the Federal Joint Committee for Drugs and Medicines: What the Federal Joint Committee allows in this area is by law standard benefit of the statutory health insurance funds. It is inconclusive and unreasonable to play this fact off against the reimbursement of homeopathy, for which or against which each statuary insurance fund can decide for itself.

4. What are the annual costs of homeopathic treatments for the contributor?

Here we come to the initial argument, which has led users on Twitter to criticize the statement made by your CEO in this regard. It should suffice to point out that the exclusion of homeopathy from the British public health system was associated with the explicit statement of the NHS (National Health Service) that it was not – not even secondary – a matter of cost savings, but rather of “lack of clinical efficacy” and the resulting “low cost-effectiveness”, i.e. the non-existent cost-benefit ratio. Because: Nothing is always too expensive. From the statements of the other government agencies that removed homeopathy from their health systems in 2017 (Australia and Russia), we also couldn’t find that costs played a role, let alone a decisive one. The same shall apply to the statement of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Academies of Sciences (EASAC) quoted above. Once more, it is about honesty and probity towards patients, credibility and the best possible care within the healthcare system. The statutory health insurance funds should play a pioneering role in this and not focus on the “wishes” of the insured, but on objectifiable standards. Nihil nocere – above all, do not harm, this old Hippocratic principle also applies here. And damage is – as explained – produced in many ways when statutory health insurers handle homeopathy with their authority as a proven effective method.

5. Why does the SBK not rather reduce the additional contribution (above regular taxes) for policyholders instead of further paying for homeopathic treatments?

The comments made under point 4 make it unnecessary to comment on this matter. Of course, we do not wish to endorse the ‘peanuts’ argument that EUR 1.1 million would not ultimately be important. Every euro of contributions from insured people must be used with due care in the interests of honesty towards the members. For example, the money would be very well spent on voluntary therapies for very rare diseases or similar cases. But this doesn’t affect our core concern.

Concluding remark

In principle, we oppose a strategy of health insurance companies to drive on a “competition” that has gone out of control with a “magic shop” full of things that are ineffective, but are “desired” by a certain clientele. The original idea of health policy, to initiate competition within the statuary insurance system via rationalisation effects and the level of contributions, has – as the merger of many health insurance funds makes clear – certainly had its results. However, we consider it fundamentally wrong to extend this to “competition for benefits” as a means of “catching customers”. We also consider it completely out of the question that ineffective and potentially dangerous methods such as homeopathy should be used for this purpose.

Yours sincerely

Information Network Homeopathy

Dr. Natalie Grams.
Dr. Norbert Aust
Dr. Christian Lübbers
Udo Endruscheit


 

Open letter of the INH to the interview with Dr. Tournier (HRI) on “Homöopathie online”.

Homeopathy online, the online portal of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians, titled on 27 September 2017 : “Interview: How a positive homeopathy study turned into a negative one”. Under this heading, an interview is published with the head of the British Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI), Dr. Alexander Tournier, on the mistakes and deficiencies allegedly contained in the major homeopathy review of the Australian health authority NHMRC of 2015.
The INH has thereon addressed the following Open Letter to the Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians:

 

To the
German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians (DZVhÄ)
by email

05.10.2017

Homeopathy-Online, 27 September 2017:
Interview: “How a positive study turned into a negative study” (in German)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is understandable that after the publication of the assessment of homeopathy by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) – the umbrella organisation of the European Academies of Science – you are in a somewhat precarious position. It is understandable that you are trying to refute the results. We are surprised, however, that you have not found a better solution than to once again address the criticisms of the large-scale review published on behalf of the Australian Ministry of Health in 2015.

In her interview published on Homöopathie-Online, Dr. Tournier merely repeats the previously known arguments against this study, without, however, being able to present evidence for the previously unproven allegations or to offer new points of view for the arguments that have long since been refuted. Tournier makes the most massive accusation that can be made against scientists, namely to have falsified the results, i.e. to have deliberately published false results, only in order to – yes, why actually? In view of this serious accusation, however, this provides remarkably little substance:

    • The alleged 200-page report on the points of criticism is not being presented.
    • There is no evidence of the existence of a previous valid study which was rejected because of its alleged positive result.
    • The NHMRC states quite correctly that the literature search and the public submissions together resulted in over 1800 text passages, 225 of which met the inclusion criteria. This is a common procedure, even required in the CONSORT Statement for transparency of reporting. Mr. Tournier does not seem to know this.
    • Studies with less than 150 participants were also admitted, which were evaluated with the GRADE procedure recommended by the WHO. Obviously Mr Tournier did not read the work correctly or completely, so he missed that.
    • The quality requirements are in line with the usual guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration for “Reliable evidence” in evidence-based medicine.
    • None of this contradicts a scientific standard, as Mr Tournier claims.
    • Prof. Peter Brooks was not the chairman of the working group, as Mr. Tournier could easily conclude by reading the relevant sections of the summaries.

Details can be found on our information page on the web.

At this point, we would like to raise the question of whether a complaint has actually been lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. We would question whether this is the right place to remove a scientific disagreement, it is more of a complaints body where Australian citizens can defend theirselves against unjustified acts of the government. Nevertheless, we are looking forward to the results of this complaint.

The ombusdman usually works rather quickly – over 80% of cases are dealt with in less than three months – so there should be an answer by now. We note that the Australian Homeopathy Associations do not comment on this. and also the authors of the study have not yet been involved in the procedure, which leads us to the above question.

Finally, we would like to point out that the results of the NHMRC point in exactly the same direction as the other seven systematic reviews on homeopathy published since 1991, including the work published in 2017 by R.T. Mathie, a staff member of the Homeopathy Research Institute, and therefore staff member of Mr. Tournier:

There is no strong evidence that the effectiveness of homeopathy in any clinical picture goes beyond placebo!

In this respect, the discussion about the methodology of the study seems somewhat academic: even if the alleged discrepancies were actually present, they do not seem to have had much influence on the result.

Many greetings
Information Network Homeopathy
Natalie Grams
Norbert Aust
Udo Endruscheit

Top