Evidence
Most people would agree that evidence that is reliable needs to be based upon science. Good science is based upon unprejudiced observation, upon seeing things as they are rather than as they are supposed to be or as we would like them to be.
Most of the critics of homoeopathy approach it from the premise that ‘it cannot work’ and so therefore it is no surprise that their conclusion is that ‘it does not work’. This is prejudiced observation and not good science.
"Unprejudiced observation is a cornerstone of homoeopathic practice and after thirty years of practising this medical art, I consider myself to be a truer scientist now than when I worked as a medical microbiologist". - Mo
Sound evidence exists that supports the effectiveness homoeopathy.
Examples include:
1. In September 2005 the Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital published the results of a survey carried out by three of its doctors. Over a six year period, 6544 consecutive patients, all with long-standing chronic diseases such as asthma, migraine, IBS, arthritis, depression and chronic fatigue syndrome, were treated homoeopathically. Seventy percent of patients reported significant improvement in their condition and 51% felt much better. The media were informed of this but were not interested. (Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 11(5): 793-8).
2. In February 2010 the International Journal of Oncology reported on a study carried out by the highly respected MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston, Texas. Homoeopathic medicines, in different potencies, were applied to breast cancer cells and were found to cause significant death rates in the cancer cells and yet no measurable harm to normal breast cells. This was a laboratory experiment on cell lines, using automated equipment and including proper controls so there was no possibility of a placebo effect. (International Journal of Oncology 36:395-403, 2010).
3. By the end of 2019, 221 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 115 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, 129 were placebo-controlled on 77 medical conditions and were therefore eligible for detailed review.
• 45% were positive, finding that homeopathy was effective;
• 4% were negative, finding that homeopathy was ineffective;
• 51% were inconclusive. (1)
In addition, there have been six meta-analyses of homeopathy (large scale overviews of all previous research).
One was negative; concluding that homeopathy had no effect beyond placebo.
Five were positive; suggesting that there was some evidence of an effect beyond placebo, but that more high quality research would be needed to reach definitive conclusions. The sixth, most recent and most comprehensive of these by Mathie et al (2), published in 2014, found that homeopathic medicines, when prescribed during individualised treatment, are 1.5-2.0 times more likely to have a beneficial effect than placebo.
With regards to the effectiveness of conventional medicine things are not as we have been led to believe. Every six months the British Medical Journal (BMJ) publishes the scientific clinical evidence for treatments currently available on the NHS. This study found that of 3,000 commonly used NHS treatments 50% are of unknown effectiveness and only 11% are proven to be beneficial (3)
1. Faculty of Homeopathy, 2019. Research. Available from: https://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research
2. Homeopathy Research Institute,2015. Clinical trials overview. Available from: www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/essentialevidence/clinical-trialsoverview/
3. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2015. What conclusions has Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn’t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? Available from: https://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisations.html
Apart from the fact that a range of differing types of evidence exist to support homoeopathy as an effective therapy, millions of people all around the world have been using it to get well for over two hundred years. These people are not stupid or easily fooled and most of them have tried everything that orthodox medicine has to offer before deciding to suspend their scepticism and make their own experience. In addition, hundreds of thousands of doctors from all around the world have integrated homoeopathy into their practices. They didn’t suddenly lose their intelligence, they were just honest enough to see that orthodox medicine cannot help in all cases, and reasonable enough to suspend their own scepticism and make their own experience.
If you are interested in finding out more about the evidence base for homoeopathy you might like to visit the Homeopathy Research Institute: www.hri-research.org
Most of the critics of homoeopathy approach it from the premise that ‘it cannot work’ and so therefore it is no surprise that their conclusion is that ‘it does not work’. This is prejudiced observation and not good science.
"Unprejudiced observation is a cornerstone of homoeopathic practice and after thirty years of practising this medical art, I consider myself to be a truer scientist now than when I worked as a medical microbiologist". - Mo
Sound evidence exists that supports the effectiveness homoeopathy.
Examples include:
1. In September 2005 the Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital published the results of a survey carried out by three of its doctors. Over a six year period, 6544 consecutive patients, all with long-standing chronic diseases such as asthma, migraine, IBS, arthritis, depression and chronic fatigue syndrome, were treated homoeopathically. Seventy percent of patients reported significant improvement in their condition and 51% felt much better. The media were informed of this but were not interested. (Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 11(5): 793-8).
2. In February 2010 the International Journal of Oncology reported on a study carried out by the highly respected MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston, Texas. Homoeopathic medicines, in different potencies, were applied to breast cancer cells and were found to cause significant death rates in the cancer cells and yet no measurable harm to normal breast cells. This was a laboratory experiment on cell lines, using automated equipment and including proper controls so there was no possibility of a placebo effect. (International Journal of Oncology 36:395-403, 2010).
3. By the end of 2019, 221 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 115 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, 129 were placebo-controlled on 77 medical conditions and were therefore eligible for detailed review.
• 45% were positive, finding that homeopathy was effective;
• 4% were negative, finding that homeopathy was ineffective;
• 51% were inconclusive. (1)
In addition, there have been six meta-analyses of homeopathy (large scale overviews of all previous research).
One was negative; concluding that homeopathy had no effect beyond placebo.
Five were positive; suggesting that there was some evidence of an effect beyond placebo, but that more high quality research would be needed to reach definitive conclusions. The sixth, most recent and most comprehensive of these by Mathie et al (2), published in 2014, found that homeopathic medicines, when prescribed during individualised treatment, are 1.5-2.0 times more likely to have a beneficial effect than placebo.
With regards to the effectiveness of conventional medicine things are not as we have been led to believe. Every six months the British Medical Journal (BMJ) publishes the scientific clinical evidence for treatments currently available on the NHS. This study found that of 3,000 commonly used NHS treatments 50% are of unknown effectiveness and only 11% are proven to be beneficial (3)
1. Faculty of Homeopathy, 2019. Research. Available from: https://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research
2. Homeopathy Research Institute,2015. Clinical trials overview. Available from: www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/essentialevidence/clinical-trialsoverview/
3. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2015. What conclusions has Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn’t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? Available from: https://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisations.html
Apart from the fact that a range of differing types of evidence exist to support homoeopathy as an effective therapy, millions of people all around the world have been using it to get well for over two hundred years. These people are not stupid or easily fooled and most of them have tried everything that orthodox medicine has to offer before deciding to suspend their scepticism and make their own experience. In addition, hundreds of thousands of doctors from all around the world have integrated homoeopathy into their practices. They didn’t suddenly lose their intelligence, they were just honest enough to see that orthodox medicine cannot help in all cases, and reasonable enough to suspend their own scepticism and make their own experience.
If you are interested in finding out more about the evidence base for homoeopathy you might like to visit the Homeopathy Research Institute: www.hri-research.org
‘I know homoeopathy works when it doesn’t. By that I mean that not every single medicine has helped me, but most of them have.’ IP
