The Clinical Evidence for Homeopathy

Before discussing the recent well-controlled and double-blind clinical trials, it is important to make reference to homeopathy’s history in order to provide additional evidence for the clinical efficacy of homeopathic nanopharmacology.

Homeopathy first developed a significant popularity in Europe and the United States primarily because of the astounding successes it experienced in treating people suffering from the various infectious disease epidemics in the 19^th century.  The death rates in the homeopathic hospitals from cholera, scarlet fever, typhoid, yellow fever, pneumonia, and others was typically one-half to even one-eighth of conventional medical hospitals (Bradford, 1900; Coulter, 1973).  Similar good results were also observed in mental institutions and prisons under the care of homeopathic physicians compared to those under the care of conventional doctors.  These consistent and significant results could not be attributed to a placebo effect.  In other words, there is clear empirical evidence that homeopathic medicines were highly effective in treating various infectious diseases and in psychiatric disorders.

Unfortunately, conventional physicians and scientists have continually provided misinformation about the status of scientific evidence about homeopathic medicine.  They have frequently and incorrectly asserted that there is no research to prove that homeopathic medicines work, and they further have asserted that there is no way that the extremely small doses can have any effect whatsoever.

This type of statement simply reflects ignorance of the scientific literature.  It is remarkable to note that some of the earliest placebo-controlled and double-blinded studies ever performed were actually conducted by homeopathic physicians.  For a detailed history of the 19^th century and early 20^th century studies, see The Trials of Homeopathy by Dr. Michael Emmans Dean.  For those people who want an excellent summary of this history, it is a part of a special e-book, Homeopathic Family Medicine (anyone interested in a comprehensive, historical, and up-to-date review of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines would benefit from obtaining and subscribing to this e-book).  Another source of modern basic science and clinical research on homeopathic medicine is the Samueli Institute.

A short summary of some of the modern placebo-controlled and double-blind studies is reported below.

An independent group of physicians and scientists evaluated homeopathic clinical research prior to October, 1995 (Linde, 1997).  They reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which met their pre-defined criteria for their meta-analysis.  They found that on average patients given a homeopathic medicine were 2.45 times more likely to have experienced a clinically beneficial effect.  When reviewing only the highest quality studies and when adjusting for publication bias, the researchers found that subjects given a homeopathic medicine were still 1.86 times more likely to experience improved health as compared with those given a placebo.  The researchers have also noted that it is extremely common in conventional medical research for more rigorous trials to yield less positive results than less rigorous trials.

The most important question that good scientists pose about any clinical research is:  have there been replications of clinical studies by independent researchers?  When at least three independent researchers verify the efficacy of a treatment, it is considered to be a valid and effective treatment.

Four separate bodies of researchers have conducted clinical trials in the use of a homeopathic medicine (Oscillococcinum 200C) in the treatment of influenza-like syndromes (Ferley, 1989; Casanova, 1992; Papp, 1998).  Each of these trials was relatively large in the number of subjects (487, 300, 100, and 372), and all were multi-centered placebo-controlled and double-blinded (two of the three trials were also randomized).  Each of these trials showed statistically significant results.

One other body of research in the use of Galphimia glauca in the treatment of hay fever was replicated successfully seven times, but this research was conducted by the same group of researchers (Wiesenauer, Ludtke, 1996), and thus far, this work has not been conducted by any other researchers.

A body of clinical research in homeopathy that has been consistently recognized as some of the highest quality scientific research has been conducted by a group of researchers at the University of Glasgow and Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital.  They conducted four studies on people suffering from various respiratory allergies (hay fever, asthma, and perennial allergic rhinitis) (Taylor, Reilly, Llewellyn-Jones, et al, 2000).  In total, they treated 253 patients and found a 28% improvement in visual analogue scores in those given a homeopathic medicine, as compared with a 3% improvement in patients given a placebo (P=.0007)(The “P” refers to the “probability” of these results occurring simply by chance, and thus, the lower the number, the greater the likelihood that the treatment used is effective.  When “P” equals .05, this means that there are 5 chances out of 100 that the effective of a specific treatment happened by chance, and scientists today consider this 5% chance as adequate evidence of a treatment’s effectiveness.  In this study, however, there was an extremely high likelihood that the treatment was effective because there were only seven chances out of 10,000 (!) that this result happened by chance.  Another way of saying this is that there was a 99.93% confidence level that this treatment was effective.)

In the hay fever study, homeopathic doses of various hayfever-inducing flowers were prescribed, and in the other studies, the researchers conducted conventional allergy testing to assess to which substance each person was most allergic.  The researchers then prescribed the 30C (100^-30) of this allergic substance (House dust mite 30C was the most commonly prescribed homeopathic medicine).

The researchers called this type of prescribing “homeopathic immunotherapy,” and they concluded from their research that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled clinical trials do not.

Three studies of children with diarrhea were also conducted and published in peer-review scientific journals (Jacobs, Jonas, Jimenez-Perez, Crothers, 2003).  A meta-analysis of the 242 children who were involved in these three studies showed that the children who were prescribed a homeopathic medicine experienced a highly significant reduction in the duration of diarrhea, as compared with the children who were given a placebo (P=0.008)(this means that there was a 99.2% chance that this treatment was effective).  The World Health Organization has deemed that childhood diarrhea is the most serious public health problem today because several million children die each year as a result of dehydration from diarrhea.  The fact that homeopathy is not included in the standard of care for diarrhea in children could be considered malpractice.

One other study is worth mentioning.  This study was on 53 patients with fibromyalgia, which is a newly recognized syndrome that includes musculoskeletal symptoms, fatigue, and insomnia (Bell, Lewis, Brooks, et al, 2004).  Participantsgiven individually chosen homeopathic treatment showed significantly greater improvementsin tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life,global health and a trend toward less depression compared withthose on placebo. “Helpfulness from treatment” in homeopathic patients as compared to those given a placebo was very significant (P=.004)(this means that there was a 99.6% level of confidence that this treatment was effective).  What is also extremely interesting about this study was that the researchers found that people on homeopathic treatment also experienced changes in EEG readings.  Not only did subjects who were given a homeopathic medicine experience improved health, they were shown to experience different changes in the brain wave activity.  This evidence of clinical benefits and objective physiological action from homeopathic medicines in people with chronic symptoms constitutes very strong evidence that these nanodoses can have observable effects.

The above body of evidence should be adequate for verifying that homeopathic medicines can have therapeutic benefits, but there is even evidence that these nanodoses can have significant biological activity.  One important study was led by a professor of chemistry who was formerly a skeptic of homeopathy (Dr. Madeleine Ennis) but who now recognizes that these medicines have significant effects (Belon, Cumps, Ennis, et al., 2004).  Four independent laboratories, each associated with a university, conducted a series of 3,674 experiments using dilutions of histamine beyond Avogadro’s number, by which we mean the dose in which there should be in all probability no remaining molecules of the original substance remaining (the 15th through 19th centesimal dilution, that is 100 ^-15 to 100 ^-19).  The researchers found inhibitory effects of histamine dilutions on a type of white blood cell called basophils.  The overall effects were substantially significant (p<0.0001)(which means that there was a 99.99% level of confidence that these nanodoses had biological activity).  The test solutions were made in independent laboratories, the participants were blinded to the content of the test solutions, and the data analysis was performed by a biostatistician who was not involved in any other part of the trial.

And still further, the website of the New Scientist, one of the world’s most respected popular science magazines, includes articles it has published on homeopathy, with numerous positive studies and comments from world renowned physicists, chemists, physicians, biologists, and other scientists.

For example, Nobel Laureate and physicist Brian D. Josephson (1997) of the University of Cambridge wrote to the New Scientist:

“Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account. A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Yolene Thomas and by others to be well established experimentally, known as the ‘memory of water’. If valid, this would be of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss them out of hand.”

Possible Explanations for Nano-Doses

Precisely how homeopathic medicines work remains a mystery according to present scientific thinking.  And yet, despite the paradox of homeopathic medicines, nature and new technologies are replete with striking examples of the powerful effects from extremely small doses.

It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles in distance.  It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to survive and to propagate their species. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival.

It is therefore not surprising that renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications.  Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave.  However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long!

If one considers that the human body is 70-80% water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanodoses.  Like the above mentioned extremely low frequency radio waves, it may be necessary to use extremely low (and activated) doses as used in homeopathic medicines, in order for a person to receive the medicinal effect.

It is important to understand that nanopharmacological doses will not have any effect unless the person is hypersensitive to the specific medicinal substance.  Hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person.  Because the system of homeopathy bases its selection of the medicine on its ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, homeopathy’s “principle of similars” is simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that modern physiologists and pathologists recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body but that symptoms are instead representative of the body’s efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress.

Using a nanodose that is able to penetrate deeply into the body and that is specifically chosen for its ability to mimic the symptoms that the sick person is experiencing helps to initiate a profound healing process.  It is also important to highlight the fact that a homeopathic medicine is not simply chosen for its ability to cause a similar disease that a person has but for its ability to cause a similar syndrome of symptoms of disease, of which the specific localized disease is a part.  By understanding that the human body is a complex organism that creates a wide variety of physical and psychological symptoms, homeopaths acknowledge biological complexity and have a system of treatment to deal with it.

Although no one knows precisely how homeopathic medicines initiate the healing process, there is over 200 years of experience by hundreds of thousands of clinicians and tens of millions of patients that these medicines they have powerful effects.  One cannot help but sense and anticipate the veritable treasure-trove of knowledge that further research in homeopathy and nanopharmacology will bring in this new millennium.

Quantum Medicine

Quantum physics did not disprove Newtonian physics; it simply extended our understanding of extremely small and extremely large systems.  Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove conventional pharmacology; instead, it extends our understanding of extremely small doses of medicinal agents.

The founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, MD, rewrote and updated his seminal work on the subject five times in his lifetime, each time refining his observations.  Homeopaths continue to refine this system of nanopharmacology.  While there is not always agreement on the best ways to select the correct remedy or the best nanopharmacological dose to use, the system of homeopathic medicine provides a solid foundation from which clinicians and researchers exploring nanopharmacologies can and should explore.

Samuel Hahnemann is buried in Pere Larchese, the most famous cemetery in Paris, and his tombstone bears the Latin words, “Aude sapere” which means:  dare to know, to taste, and to understand.  Such is the challenge that homeopathy and nanopharmacology present to us.

Resources to Learning about Homeopathy

If homeopathy makes sense to you or if you simply want to learn more about it, you can access an excellent summary of what are the best books for learning different aspects of it by clicking anyone of the subjects below:

Learning Homeopathy

The 1^st Steps…

·   Introductory (learn what homeopathy is)
·   Family Medicine (learn how to use homeopathic medicines for common acute ailments in everyone)
·   Specialized Self-Care (learn how to use homeopathic medicines in specialized situations)
·   Children’s Health Care (learn how to use homeopathic medicines to treat infants and children—this subject is extremely important!)

Homeopathic Thinking

·   Philosophy
·   Methodology

The Next Steps…

·   History
·   Research
·   Constitutional Types
·   Materia Medica
·   Repertories
·   Clinical Guidebooks
·   New and Cutting Edge
·   Software
·   Audiotapes
·   Schools and Distance Learning Courses
·   Study Groups
·   Beyond Books and Study Groups

References:

Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5.

Belon P, Cumps J,  Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J,  Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflamm Res 2004; 53:181-8.

Bradford, TL, The Logic of Figures or Comparative Re­sults of Homoeopathic and Others Treatments, Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1900.

Casanova, P, Gerard, R. Bilan de 3 annees d’etudes randomisees multicentriques oscillococcinum/placebo. oscillococcinum rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan: Laboratiores Boiron, 1992.

Casanova, P,  Multi-centric study involving 100 patients, Centre de Recheerche et de Documentation Technique, University of Marseilles, France, 1983

Connelly, B, How Homeopathy Works, Simillimum, March, 2002, 33-53.

Coulter, HL, Divided Legacy:  The Conflict Between Homoeopathy and the American Medical Association, Berkeley:  North Atlantic, 1973, 302.

Coulter, HL, Divided Legacy: The Patterns Emerge—Hippocrates to Paracelsus, Berkeley:  North Atlantic, 1975.

Eskinazi, D, Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations?, Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7.

Ferley, JP et al., A Controlled Evaluation of a Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March, 1989,27:329-35.

Goodman, L. and A. Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Fifth edition. New York: Macmillan, 2001.

Jacobs, J,  Jonas, WB, Jimenez-Perez, B, Crothers, D. Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34.

Josephson, Brian, Molecule Memories, New Scientist, November 1, 1997, 66.

Linde, K, Clausius, N, Ramirez, G, et al., Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects?  A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials, Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.

Oberbaum, M, and Cambar, J, Hormesis: Dose Dependent Reverse Effects of Low and Very Low Doses, in P.C. Endler and J. Schulte (eds.), Ultra High Dilutions, Dordrecht:  Kluwer Academic, 1994.

Papp, R, Schuback, G, Beck, E, et al., Oscilloccinum in Patients with Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Evaluation, British Homeopathic Journal, 87(April, 1998):69-76.

Stebbing, A, Hormesis: The Stimulation of Growth by Low Levels of Inhibitors, Science of the Total Environment, 1982, 22: 213-34.

Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476.

Ullman, D., Homeopathic Family Medicine (an ebook).

Von Behring, EA, Modern Phthisia-Genetic and Phthisia-Therapeutic Problems in Historical Illumination, New York, 1906.

Wiesenauer, M, Ludtke, R. A Meta-analysis of the Homeopathic Treatment of Pollinosis with Galphimia glauca, Forsch Komplementarmed., 3(1996):230-234.

Dana Ullman, M.P.H. is “homeopathic.com” and is America’s leading homeopathic educator.  He has authored eight books, including Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD, Tarcher/Putnam, 2004), The Consumer’s Guide to Homeopathy (Tarcher/Putnam, 1996), Homeopathy A-Z (Hay House, 1999), and Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century(North Atlantic, 1991)which includes a foreword by Dr. R.W. Davey, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

He has also authored an e-book, Homeopathic Family Medicine, which provides useful clinical information for the homeopathic treatment of over 100 common conditions, plus it provides comprehensive and up-to-date information on clinical research in homeopathy.  He has also served in an advisory and/or teaching capacity at alternative medicine institutes at Harvard, Columbia, and University of Arizona schools of medicine.

Dana Ullman is the owner of Homeopathic Educational Services, America’s leading resource for homeopathic books, tapes, medicines, software, and distance learning courses.  Besides access to purchasing high quality information and products, this website has more than 100 free articles on homeopathy.  He has also developed “Natural Treatment Protocols” for severe common ailments, along with detailed instructions on how to optimize the healing potential from these natural medicines.