Even science has to broaden its horizons: if it wants to maintain the Galilean provando e riprovando presuppositions, it now needs a good lesson in humility, accepting points of view and working hypotheses different from those codified – also science becomes dogmatic as in the worst examples of obscurantism.
This important novelty is shown in the much debated issue of homeopathy, an alternative medicine that many people use with obvious benefits, but to which dogmatic science continues to oppose, sometimes resorting to methods that are not very orthodox, as we can see in this brief article.
The NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) in Australia has finally released its first report on homeopathy, following an overwhelming response to the “The First Report” campaign signed by more than 75,000 people worldwide.
As expected, the conclusions of the 2012 NHMRC report (The Effectiveness of Homeopathy: an overview review of secondary evidence) are in stark contrast to what was stated in 2015. The first report concludes by saying that there are “encouraging evidence” about the effectiveness of homeopathy in five diseases.
“For over three years, the NHMRC has refused to publish the draft of the 2012 homeopathy report, despite the demands of the ‘Freedom of Information’ and members of the Australian Senate. To see that this document is finally published is a great victory. for transparency and public responsibility for research “- Rachel Roberts, Managing Director of HRI (Homeopathy Research Institute)
The NHMRC CEO, Prof. Anne Kelso, explained his decision to release this document by acknowledging the “considerable interest” for this hidden report.
The NHMRC’s sudden decision to publish the report, despite having declared to the Australian Senate a month ago that it had no plans to release it, comes at a time when the verdict of the Ombudsman is expected regarding the review on the Homeopathy of the same NHMRC.
In September 2018, in fact, the NHMRC had admitted under investigation by the Senate that it had not followed the guidelines or scientific standards recognized in the review of the tests on homeopathy and had applied the same approach also to the reviews of other natural therapies.