Writing in the Guardian, Rachel Roberts adds her backing to homeopathy.

I was such a dedicated scientist that the idea that I would one day become a homeopath would have seemed ludicrous.

I scoffed when a woman told me that homeopathy had succeeded where conventional treatment had failed, but I was intrigued.

I questioned her, interrogated her even, about every detail and was eventually left with the highly uncomfortable conclusion that homeopathy appeared to have worked.

After reading about the subject, I signed up for a three-year, full-time homeopathy training course.

I now know homeopathy works. But I still keep seeing claims that it doesn’t.

But scientific research and randomised trials even suggest it does, though the question of how it works is another matter.

It is puzzling that ultra-high dilutions of substances, with few or no measurable molecules of the original substance left in them, should exert biological effects, but exert biological effects they do.

But more of a puzzle to me now is the blinkered approach of those who continue, despite increasing evidence, to deny what is in front of them.

In February a report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recommended no further NHS funding for homeopathy, despite a deeply flawed hearing where the Society of Homeopaths was refused permission to give oral evidence.

Homeopathy is well-established in the UK, more than 400 GPs use homeopathy in their everyday practice, yet the portrayal of homeopathy as charlatanism and witchcraft continues.

As drugs bills spiral, perhaps it is time to give homeopathy a chance.