Author's reply

This study is based on my own practice in a deprived area of south-east London. It makes no pretence to be highly scientific, definitive or generalisable. All this is clearly acknowledged in the original publication. The biggest weakness of this study is that I was not able to calculate and include the cost of my time.

The assertion that economising on conventional drug costs could have lead to greater savings is naı̈ve and non-evidence based. Patient number 2 had received appropriate lifestyle counselling. The evidence on hypertension and hyperlipidaemia is clear: lifestyle interventions have a limited impact and when they fail, drug interventions are indicated and associated with benefits in morbidity and mortality.

My conclusions are congruent with two recently published, high-quality, controlled studies of the impact of homeopathy in primary care. Both included about 500 patients and were based on the practice of GPs with accreditation in homeopathy, like myself, in conditions commonly encountered in general practice. They were conducted in Germany and France. These studies had essentially the same result: adding homeopathy to routine GP care is associated with better outcome for the same cost.[ ^1,2 ]

• References

• 1 Trichard M, Chaufferin G. Cost-effectiveness study of treatment of recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis in 18 month to 4 year old children by homeopathic General Practitioners. Conference Proceedings: Improving the Success of Homeopathy 4: Bridging the Credibility Gap. London: Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, 2003. pp 43–49.
• 2 Becker-Witt C, Keil T, Rolls S et al. Effectiveness and costs of homeopathy compared to conventional medicine—a prospective multicenter cohort study. Conference Proceedings: Improving the Success of Homeopathy 4: Bridging the Credibility Gap. London: Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, 2003. pp 57–60.