''Homeopathy cannot be regarded as medicine because it cannot prove specific efficacy beyond context effects, such as the placebo effect. Nevertheless, it is established and even privileged in Germany by pharmaceutical law, and, unlike normal pharmaceutical products, it does not have to demonstrate efficacy for market access. This privileged treatment is mainly the result of intensive lobbying. This situation has contributed significantly to the “social reputation” of homeopathy, the “appearance of credibility”. In the meantime, a paralyzing status quo has emerged. On the one hand, public confidence in homeopathy is largely based on this statutory privileged status; on the other hand, it is precisely this public confidence that prevents political decisions to remove homeopathy from the public health system. It is regrettable that, so far, German health policy has not followed the development of other European countries where homeopathy either is no longer supported by public health systems or who consider removing it from public health reimbursement schemes. Are on their way there. After all, there is substantial evidence and statements by scientific boards that show homeopathy's claims are not based on evidence. This is where the efforts of critics come in, as the situation can only change by providing the public and politicians with reliable information and facts. We critics are also concerned that the popularity of homeopathy promotes a latent or open hostility to science. Criticism of homeopathic as well as pseudo‐medicine in general thus helps to differentiate between facts and opinion, and, above all, to make clear that science is not an ideology, but a proven and reliable method for the acquisition of knowledge.''
