Sir, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, in their letter “Dangers of alternative therapies” (April 17), have rehashed their well-known personal views to promote their forthcoming book Trick or Treatment. Their claims about the dangers of complementary medicine are exaggerated, especially in comparison with the number of patients who are admitted to hospital each year suffering from problems caused by conventional medicine.

Most of the safety issues surrounding complementary medicine can easily be addressed by better regulation and greater integration of well-established therapies such as homoeopathy into the health service. The UK’s five NHS homoeopathic hospitals are a shining example of how this can be achieved; their practitioners are all conventionally trained doctors and nurses who have taken additional training in complementary therapies. They are regulated in the same way as any other NHS medical staff and their patients have access to the most appropriate treatment for their needs, conventional or complementary.

These NHS services consistently report excellent results from patients, the majority of whom have conditions that haven’t responded to conventional medicine. In 2005 Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital published the largest outcome study of homoeopathic treatment. This reported that 70 per cent of 6,500 follow-up patients experienced improvement in their health. Eczema, asthma, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis, depression and chronic fatigue syndrome — difficult chronic problems suffered by many people — all improved. And, contrary to what critics such as Ernst and Singh claim, this service and the other homoeopathic hospitals cost the NHS very little indeed.

John Cook

Chairman, British Homoeopathic Association

Sir, Edzard Ernst claims to have evaluated the evidence rigorously and fairly in order to reach his conclusions. In science, however, his methods and conclusions need to be tested by peer review before validation, something this book is not subject to.

It is therefore no more than personal opinion and should be judged as so.

Richard Hollis

London EC2

Sir, Professor Ernst is clearly on a mission — one badly misguided.

He chooses to ignore that millions of animals have responded successfully to many alternative remedies. For 14 years my cows and their offspring did so.

Rather than advise others what to do, may I suggest that the professor leaves those of us who are content with what we know works to practise it quietly?

Oliver Dowding

Wincanton, Somerset

Sir, Much of the so-called scientific research into complementary medicine uses inappropriate protocols. These protocols may be fine for substance-based therapies, but are often inappropriate for holistic therapies, which usually have a significant spiritual basis and are very often a function more of the intuition and spiritual focus of the therapist than the particular mechanics of the therapy. Much of the effectiveness of these therapies is shown in so-called “anecdotal evidence” and thus not taken seriously. In my personal experience, homoeopathy, chiropractic and spiritual healing are very effective.

Roy Procter

Keinton Mandeville, Somerset

Sir, Your statement (report, April 17) that The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health received £900,000 from the Department of Health to produce a guide to complementary therapies is inaccurate; in fact we received £37,000.

We consulted widely with the medical establishment before publishing the guide, and indeed it was widely welcomed and applauded. The British Medical Association, for example, welcomed the guide as “a valuable source of information for patients trying to negotiate the maze of complementary therapies and practitioners”.

The guide is now published online, so we would urge people to visit our website, www.fih.org.uk, and judge for themselves.

Kim Lavely

Chief Executive, The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health

Explore Letters

• Feedback