Could homeopathy eat further into the NHS budget? (Image: Richard Gardner/Rex Features)

The fortunes of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) are about to be transformed with the help of the magical waters of homeopathic medicine. Top marks to The Telegraph’s science writer Tom Chivers for quickly picking up on talk that the UK’s new health minister, Jeremy Hunt – who replaced Andrew Lansley yesterday in a government reshuffle – thinks that homeopathy works, and should be provided at public expense by the NHS.

Since news of his appointment emerged, senior scientists have spoken up. John Krebs, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford, said: “There is overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is not effective. It would be a real blow for those who want medicine to be science-based if the secretary of state were to promote homeopathy because of his personal beliefs.”

Edzard Ernst, former director of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, UK, added: “To praise the positive contribution of homeopathy to the NHS does not bode well for the new person in charge of UK healthcare. One can only hope that with the reality of the new job, there will be a more rational insight in the actual evidence on this topic.”


How did Hunt’s views on homeopathy emerge? Firstly, he signed a parliamentary document called an Early Day Motion back in 2007, supporting the provision of homeopathic medicine by the NHS. Such motions are used routinely as barometers of parliamentary interest in issues – in this case, spending public money on treating people with aqueous solutions so diluted that they no longer contain a trace of the supposedly active ingredients they began with.

By signing the motion, along with 205 other MPs, Hunt agreed that parliament “welcomes the positive contribution made to the health of the nation by the NHS homeopathic hospitals”, and “calls on the government [then Labour] to support these valuable national assets”.

Not for turning

At the time, one of Hunt’s constituents, Sean Ellis, took issue with his support for homeopathy. He expressed his disappointment in a letter to Hunt, explaining that there’s little or no evidence it works, and that spending money on it drains resources from treatments that do work.

Here’s what Hunt wrote back. “I understand that it is your view that homeopathy is not effective, and therefore that people should not be encouraged to use it as a treatment. However, I am afraid that I have to disagree with you on this issue.” So, he clearly thinks homeopathy works. He finished with: “I realise my answer will be a disappointing one for you, but I hope that the letter helps to clarify my view.”

Well, minister, I think we’re magic-crystal clear on that now. I can see the logic in backing it. Think of the savings if all those expensive proven treatments and drugs are phased out, and patients are offered cheap little vials of water instead.

Not only will the health of the nation rally overnight, the government will also make massive savings by closing down most of the existing NHS. Except that critics might argue the government plans to do that anyway by handing control of NHS budgets from independent, not-for-profit trusts to for-profit consortia of family doctors. At least we’ll have a thriving homeopathic sector that will be the envy of the world. One way to improve liquidity, I guess.

I never thought I’d find myself saying this, given the contempt with which his proposed NHS reforms were viewed by many healthcare professionals, from doctors and nurses to support staff – but come back Andrew Lansley. All is forgiven.

Andy Coghlan is a reporter for New Scientist.