|
Conditions with overall positive evidence for homeopathy Listed below are 48 medical conditions in which positive conclusions for homeopathy may be derived from systematic reviews and/or randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Replicated Research: Allergic asthma [19, 20] Non-replicated research: singleton RCTs: Aphthous ulcer [79] [ ] A full list of references for the trials of all these conditions is available at The Faculty of Homeopathy, in the research section, available at http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/randomised-controlled-trials-in-homeopathy Cited January 2014. *** Laboratory experiments show homeopathic medicines kill breast cancer cells but not healthy breast tissue. Frenkel M. et al. Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells. Int J Oncol, 2010; 36: 395-403 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20043074
This evidence can be viewed in more detail at the British Homeopathic Association, http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/evidence/conditions-with-overall-positive-evidence-for-homeopathy/ cited January 2014. For more complete details of research in homeopathy, visit the research section of the Faculty of Homeopathy website, which also identifies groups of RCTs that were negative or non-conclusive.
Bristol patient outcome study One of the most comprehensive patient outcome surveys was an analysis of over 23,000 outpatient consultations at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital from November 1997 to October 2003. This represented over 6,500 individual patients whose outcome was recorded at follow-up. More than 70% of these follow-up patients recorded clinical improvement following homeopathic treatment.
This table is taken from the website of the British Homeopathic Association, at http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/evidence/bristol-patient-outcome-study/ cited January 2014.
Clinical trials in homeopathy In recent years there has been pressure on homeopathy to conduct rigorous research. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT’s) are considered the ‘gold standard’ of research methods for determining whether a treatment is effective or not. In these trials, the effects of two or more treatments are compared under highly controlled conditions. Usually, remedies are compared to placebo and the trial evaluates changes to one specific illness or condition, e.g. ear infection Up to the end of 2011, 156 randomised controlled trials had been conducted in homeopathy and been reported in 164 full papers in peer-reviewed journals. This represents research in 89 different medical conditions.
Trial results:
These results indicate that homeopathic remedies compare favourably in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine
Research studies comparing homeopathic treatment and conventional care have generated some interesting results. Treatment by a homeopath is more effective than conventional treatment for acute ear infections in children:This study published in the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics concluded that homeopathy should be the first line treatment for acute ear infections in children. The group of 103 children who received individualised homeopathic treatment had faster pain relief during the initial infection and fewer ear infections over the following year, compared with the children who received conventional treatment. (Friese K-H, et al. Homeopathic treatment of otitis media in children: comparisons with conventional therapy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 1997; 35: 296-301. ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9247843 ) Homeopathic medicines are superior to a standard pain killer for relieving pain in osteoarthritis: In this double-blind* trial 65 sufferers of Osteoarthritis (OA) were split into 2 groups were given either a homoeopathic medicine or Acetaminophen, a commonly prescribed drug for pain relief in OA. Researchers found that homoeopathy provided a level of pain relief that was superior to Acetaminophen, and produced no adverse reactions. To minimise bias, neither the researchers nor the participants knew what treatment each person was given (Shealy C.N., Thomlinson P.R., Cox R.H., and Bormeyer V. Osteoarthritis Pain: A Comparison of Homoeopathy and Acetaminophen. American Journal of Pain Management, 1998; 8 (3): 89-91. ) Treatment by a homeopath is just as effective as fluoxetine (Prozac) for acute moderate-severe depression: This double-blind* randomised controlled trial carried out in Brazil involved 91 patients – half received fluoxetine and half received individualised treatment by a homeopath. To minimise bias, neither the researchers nor the participants knew what treatment each person was given. The trial showed homeopathic medicines to be as effective in relieving depression as fluoxetine. Furthermore, the fluoxetine caused troublesome side-effects, where the homeopathic medicines did not. (Adler UC, et al. Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial. eCAM, 2009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19687192 )
Data courtesy of the society of Homeopaths, available at www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-base-for-homeopathy-2/evidence-base-for-homeopathy/#link_evidence Cited January 2012
Pragmatic trials in homeopathyWhile RCT’s may be the best way to evaluate pharmaceutical drugs, there are better ways to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. Pragmatic Trials are better suited to homeopathy because they are a better reflection of what happens in practice. In RCT’s the same treatment is given to all the people in the trial, all of whom have the same illness. But in homeopathy, remedies are chosen according to several symptoms, as well as the individual way that people express their symptoms. For example, 3 women with PMT could be given 3 different remedies because although they all have breast tenderness, bloating, headaches and constipation before their periods, their moods are very different – one woman is irritable, one is tearful and the other wants to be left alone. In pragmatic trials, individualised remedies can be given to the people in the trial, which is what would happen in practice.
Positive evidence for further conditions: Some of the evidence for Homeopathic treatment of particular conditions is available below. This list is not exhaustive. Data courtesy of the Faculty of Homeopathy www.facultyofhomeopathy.org
Further information on research into homeopathy is available on the research page of the Society of Homeopaths website: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-base-for-homeopathy-2/
Patent laws and clinical trials Homeopathy has a long-established history of over 200 years, and those who have consulted homeopaths have seen its benefits. Homeopathic remedies cannot be patented because the use of natural substances for medicine is not a new application. Indeed plants have been used as healing substances since time immemorial. For this reason, homeopathic remedies never entered the big pharma profit war, and they have never enjoyed the advertising and marketing budgets that pharmaceutical giants have been able to give their own products. New natural substances are constantly being added to the Materia Medica of homeopathic remedies, but they – like the original remedies – cannot be patented, and they remain exactly as nature made them. Nowadays, the harmful side-effects of many pharmaceutical drugs have become evident. This is why there has been an increased demand for gentle treatments such as homeopathy.
|