StatLove - sorry for the delay but your question did deserve more consideration that would have been possible last night, I tried to answer in 10 lines or less, however it is a rather controversial report of 275 pages!!
In response to the S&T committee report Cristal Sumner, chief executive of the Faculty of Homeopathy that represents medical homeopaths, many of whom work in the NHS, said:
"One should keep in mind the Science and Technology report is from only four MPs, one of whom dissented. It seems a dysfunctional way to govern if the suggestions from three MPS can possibly determine the health and welfare of thousands of patients, after a cursory review, which consisted of a few hours of oral testimony and a few dozen 3,000 word written submissions."
Shortly after the report was issued, an Early Day Motion (EDM 908) was tabled in parliament expressing MP's concern about the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee report and was signed by 70 MP's.
The Health Minister at the time, the Rt Hon Mike O'Brien QC MP, may well have said, that there was no credible evidence that Homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect, he also told the committee that cutting the NHS spend on homeopathy is not justified and that a body of reputable people, including doctors, believe in it and that cutting the funding would be "illiberal" and "a denial of personal choice". He also said there were a range of opinions amongst clinicians and scientists which could not be ignored and he told the committee that there was "justification for more research" in homeopathy.
On the nine witnesses called on the first day, only three could be said to represent Homeopathy and only one was a practicing Homeopath. The witnesses included three members of Sense about science who are a lobby group that is aggresively pro-GM, pro-nuclear power, anti complementary therapies, who deny the toxicity of many banned chemicals, and are funded by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries.
In summarising that there is no evidence for homeopathy, the committee inexplicably overlooked the fact that, by the end of 2009, there were 74 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy published in peer-reviewed journals which describe statistically significant results, from which firm conclusions can be drawn. Of these RCTs comparing homeopathy either with placebo or established conventional treatments, 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative
The S&TC refused refused to allow any oral evidence from any patient representatives, a Primary Care Trust currently commissioning homeopathy, or the Society of Homeopaths, the largest organisation representing professional homeopaths in Europe with over 1450 members on its register.
The report was unable to say how much money was spent annually on Homeopathy but that it was likely to be between the Guardian estimate of £12 million and the Society of Homeopaths estimate of £4 million. This represents less than 0.01% of the total Health Spending in the UK.
The Society of Homeopaths agress that the quality and quantity of research is below the level that would be desireable. The mail reason for this lack of funding. I did not have time to put this in as much context as I would have liked but the annual profit of the biggest Homoopathy producer is 0.05% of one of the Pharmaceutical Giants. The entire annual profit of the Homeopathy producer would pay for one large clinical trial.