"After a five-year trial, the Swiss Government recently withdrew health insurance coverage for homeopathy and four other complementary treatments because they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria.
A few months ago, the West Kent local authority in the UK decided to stop British National Health Insurance (NHS) funding for the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital because there was "not enough evidence of clinical effectiveness".
NHS funding for the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital has also been cut.
Over the last 10 years there have been numerous reviews on the efficacy of homeopathy in international medical journals. The general conclusion is that the benefits of homeopathic medications are no more than that of placebos. In other words, any beneficial effects are explained by the psychological impact of the practitioner-patient relationship with no added value contributed by homeopathic pills.
This finding should come as no surprise because the very premise of homeopathy is absurd.
So if the very premise of homeopathy is nonsensical and there is no evidence of efficacy beyond a placebo effect, why is homeopathy accorded recognition by health authorities?
In an era of "evidence-based medicine" and limited resources, why do we have government-subsidized schools of homeopathy at our health science faculties? Is it not time to drop the politically correct approach of being gentle on homeopathy and instead expose it for what it is?"
- Dr. Mark Colvin, calling for the elimination of homeopathy in South Africa (as it's being eliminated in other countries) writing in All Africa.com