The Reviews · Section 4 of 5
Six named reviews, each read on its own terms: what it examined, what its authors concluded, and when it was published.
Start here
The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's 2015 systematic review — its scope (176 studies, 68 health conditions), its methodology, its conclusions as stated in the published document, and the earlier 2012 draft and its handling.
Read it
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's 2010 Evidence Check inquiry — the oral evidence sessions, the witnesses named, the committee's published conclusions, and the government's formal response.
The ReviewsThe 2006 Swiss Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin report — what it examined, what the Swiss government commission found, and the documented dispute over whether the final published version reflected what the review authors submitted.
The ReviewsAijing Shang et al.'s 2005 Lancet meta-analysis — the 110 homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional trials examined, the 'high quality' subset that drove the conclusions, and the published correspondence that disputed the trial selection.
The ReviewsKlaus Linde et al.'s 1997 Lancet meta-analysis, its conclusions, and the 1999 reanalysis by the same lead author that revised them — both attributed, both dated, the revision presented without editorial comment.
The ReviewsJacques Benveniste's 1988 Nature paper on high-dilution effects on basophil degranulation — the paper itself, the editorial note Nature attached, and the supervised replication reported in the same journal that failed to confirm the findings.
The Reviews
