Research in Homeopathy : An update
Robert Medhurst | BNat ND DNutr DRM DBM DHom
In 2010 , the UK Parliament ' s Science and Technology Committee , a group which consisted of a farmer , a professor of chemistry , an analytical chemist , a chemical plant operator , an IT expert , an immunologist , and two people with connections to a group called Sense About Science , declared that homeopathy " does not work beyond the placebo effect ". 1 Sense About Science is a UK-based organisation that publicly states that " homeopathy has repeatedly been found to be no better than the placebo controls in clinical trials ". 2 Inspired by this outcome , in 2015 the Australian government ' s National Health and Medical Research Council , an organisation with no expertise in homeopathy , stated that , " there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective ". 3 As at March 2018 , the advice from the US Food and Drug Administration implied that homeopathic products " may harm consumers who choose to treat serious diseases or conditions with such products , and consumers may be forgoing treatment with a medical product that has been scientifically proven to be safe and effective ". 4
While it may be interesting to speculate on why these organisations can ' t appear to find any good evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy , nonetheless , it does exist , it ' s easy to find , and it ' s abundant . Following are extracts from notable studies that have been published recently in peer-reviewed journals .
Human Research
1 . Pannek J , et al . Usefulness of classical homeopathy for the prophylaxis of recurrent urinary tract infections in individuals with chronic neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction . J Spinal Cord Med . 2019 ; 42 ( 4 ): 453-9 . This prospective study looked at the effects of constitutional homeopathy for the prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections ( UTI ) in patients with spinal cord injury ( SCI ) in Switzerland . Participants with ≥3 UTI / year were treated either with a standardised prophylaxis alone or in combination with homeopathy . The number of UTI ’ s , general and specific quality of life ( QoL ), and satisfaction with homeopathic treatment were assessed prospectively for 1 year . A total of 35 people were enrolled in the study , with 10 allocated to a control group and 25 receiving adjunctive homeopathic treatment . The median number of self-reported UTI ’ s in the homeopathy group decreased significantly , whereas it remained unchanged in the control group . The domain incontinence impact of the QoL improved significantly , whereas the general QoL did not change . The satisfaction with homeopathic care was high .
2 . Banerjee K , et al . Homeopathy for allergic rhinitis : A systematic review . J Alt and Compl Med , 2017 ; 23 ( 6 ): 426- 44 . The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis ( AR ). Randomized controlled trials evaluating all forms of homeopathic treatment for AR were included in a systematic review ( SR ) of studies published up to and including December 2015 . Two authors independently screened potential studies , extracted data , and assessed risk of bias . Primary outcomes included symptom improvement and total qualityof-life score . Treatment effect size was quantified as mean difference ( continuous data ), or by risk ratio ( RR ) and odds ratio ( dichotomous data ), with 95 % confidence intervals . A meta-analysis was performed after assessing heterogeneity and risk of bias . Eleven studies were eligible for SR . All trials were placebo-controlled except one ; six trials used the treatment approach known as isopathy , but they were unsuitable for meta-analysis due to problems of heterogeneity and data extraction . The overall standard of methods and reporting was poor : A total of 8 / 11 trials were assessed as ‘‘ high risk of bias ’’, and only one trial on isopathy for seasonal AR possessed reliable evidence . Three trials of variable quality ( all using Galphimia glauca for seasonal AR ) were included in the meta-analysis : nasal symptom relief at 2 and 4 weeks favoured homeopathy compared with placebo ; ocular symptom relief at 2 and 4 weeks also favoured homeopathy . The single trial with reliable evidence had a small positive treatment effect without statistical significance . A homeopathic and a conventional nasal spray produced equivalent improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms . The authors urged caution in the interpretation of these results but said that the use of either Galphimia glauca or a homeopathic nasal spray may have small beneficial effects on the nasal and ocular symptoms of AR .
160 | vol30 | no3 | JATMS