English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

David M Shaw recently published a critique of our Health Technology Assessment (HTA) on homoeopathy in this journal [1], which calls for a response. We expected a scientific debate to ensue on our chosen research methods and were surprised to be confronted with a biased mixture of false or incomplete citations, wrong matches and, as a consequence, incorrect conclusions that reveal a lack of familiarity and experience with both homoeopathy and the Swiss setting. We will refute the allegations and rectify misunderstandings, in the order of appearance in Shaw’s text. Because of numerous repetitions in Shaw’s text we have subsumed some of the allegations thematically:

schweizerische medizinische wochenschrift

Familiarity, objectivity – and misconduct: Counterstatement to Shaw DM. The Swiss Report on homoeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13594