medicine have been done is correct.' This is not because homoeopathic practitioners fight shy of comparisons, however, but, I believe, because of two other factors. The first factor is money. Well run trials cost money, and this usually comes from drug firms, which have a vested interest in the outcome of trials comparing different treatments. Homoeopathic remedies are cheap and successful (from a market point of view). Huge amounts of money are not at stake, and there is no incentive for homoeopathic manufacturers to invest large sums in clinical trials. The stimulus and finance for such trials would therefore have to come from elsewhereperhaps from a hospital trust with an interest in reducing its costs or from an academic department? The other factor is more complicated. Homoeopathic treatment is, in the main, not based on disease but on a patient's symptoms (so that different remedies may be appropriate for the same disease in different people). Matched cohorts and controls are therefore a problem and trial design has to be different from the conventional kind. This concept has to be understood and worked through. I use homoeopathic remedies routinely as part of my general practice and would be happy to take part in a properly run trial. ANDREW MANASSE
Woodhouse,I Sheffield S13 7LY 1 Winter R. Homoeopathy: medicine or magic? BMJ 1991;302: 120. (12 January.)
Congenital rubella in the Asian community SIR,-Dr E Miller and colleagues report a continued difference in susceptibility to rubella between pregnant Asian and non-Asian women and note the disproportionately high number of Asian babies with congenital rubella.' It has been suggested that immigration to Britain after the age at which rubella vaccination is offered at school probably accounts for these differences. I would like to confirm this assertion. In 1987 a small scale adult rubella campaign was conducted at three adult education centres in the London Borough of Ealing. This was organised by Ealing Health Authority in association with Sense (the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association). Each centre was chosen because of the large number of young women from the Asian community attending courses there. The campaign consisted of poster and video displays, the distribution of special information leaflets, and talks-some in Hindi-given to small groups of students. Following these events special blood taking sessions were held in the colleges, and a short questionnaire was completed by those participating. This detailed age, country of birth, ethnic grouping, place of schooling between the ages of 11 and 14, and history of immunisation. Rubella antibodies were detected with the Rubazyme test, and a result ¢ 15 IU was regarded as positive. The women were informed of their immune state and special immunisation sessions were arranged for those who were seronegative. A total of 428 women were screened, of whom 317 identified themselves as Asian by ethnic grouping. Most women (364) were aged under 25 and of these 274 were aged 16-19. Thirty five women were found to be susceptible to rubella; this represented 19 of the 111 (17%) who had not been at school in the United Kingdom between the ages of 11 and 14, compared with 16 of the 317 (5%)'who had been. This result is highly significant (x2=14 38, p
Woodhouse,I Sheffield S13 7LY 1 Winter R. Homoeopathy: medicine or magic? BMJ 1991;302: 120. (12 January.)
Congenital rubella in the Asian community SIR,-Dr E Miller and colleagues report a continued difference in susceptibility to rubella between pregnant Asian and non-Asian women and note the disproportionately high number of Asian babies with congenital rubella.' It has been suggested that immigration to Britain after the age at which rubella vaccination is offered at school probably accounts for these differences. I would like to confirm this assertion. In 1987 a small scale adult rubella campaign was conducted at three adult education centres in the London Borough of Ealing. This was organised by Ealing Health Authority in association with Sense (the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association). Each centre was chosen because of the large number of young women from the Asian community attending courses there. The campaign consisted of poster and video displays, the distribution of special information leaflets, and talks-some in Hindi-given to small groups of students. Following these events special blood taking sessions were held in the colleges, and a short questionnaire was completed by those participating. This detailed age, country of birth, ethnic grouping, place of schooling between the ages of 11 and 14, and history of immunisation. Rubella antibodies were detected with the Rubazyme test, and a result ¢ 15 IU was regarded as positive. The women were informed of their immune state and special immunisation sessions were arranged for those who were seronegative. A total of 428 women were screened, of whom 317 identified themselves as Asian by ethnic grouping. Most women (364) were aged under 25 and of these 274 were aged 16-19. Thirty five women were found to be susceptible to rubella; this represented 19 of the 111 (17%) who had not been at school in the United Kingdom between the ages of 11 and 14, compared with 16 of the 317 (5%)'who had been. This result is highly significant (x2=14 38, p
