Research in Homeopathy
Quadruple - Blind, The Lancet, April 22, 1989, p. 914.4, Complete Text
98.2% met admission criteria.
Recovery rates - 17.1% in the active group & 10.3% in the placebo group
61 % expressed favorable judgments about the active treatment.
Ferley, J.P., A Controlled Evaluation of Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndromes, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1989, 27, pp. 329 - 335.
237 cases received the test drug and 241 were assigned to placebo.
The proportion of cases who recovered within 48 hours of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group (17.1 % against 10.3%)
Reilly, D.T., Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trail of Homeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hay fever as a Model, The Lancet, October 18, 1986, pp. 881 - 886.
The homeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patients and doctor assessed symptom scores. The significance of this response was increased when results were corrected for pollen count and the response was associated with a halving of the need for antihistamines. An initial aggravation of symptoms was noted more often in patients receiving the potency and was followed by an improvement in that group. No evidence emerged to support the idea that placebo action fully explains the clinical responses to homeopathic drugs.
Day, C.E.I., Control of Stillbirths in Pigs Using Homeopathy, International Journal for Veterinary Homeopathy, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 1986, pp. 26-28.
Stillbirth rate was over 20, 8% in the control and 10, 3% in the treated group.
Fisher, P., Effect of Homeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia), British Medical Journal, 1989, 229, pp. 365-6.
The improvement in tenderness was particularly distinct. The improvement experienced by our patients while receiving active treatment was at least as great as that reported for any other that has been assessed double blind.
Kleijnen, J., Clinical Trials of Homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991, 302, 216-23.
The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homeopathy were found.
Gibson, R.G., Homeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-Blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980, 9, pp. 453-459.
There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength in those patients receiving homeopathic remedies, whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo. No side effects were observed with the homeopathic remedies.
Jacobs, J. et al,Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Traila in Nicaragua, Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 5, May 1994, pp. 719-725.
The treatment group had a statistically significant (P,.Oa5) decrease in duration of diarrhea, defined as the number of days until there were less than three unformed stools daily for 2 consecutive days. There was also a significant difference (P,.05) in the number of stools per day between the groups after 72 hours of treatment.
Reilly, D., et. al, Is Evidence for Homeopathy Reproducible?, The Lancet, 1994; 344: pp. 1601-06
A difference in visual analogue score in favor of homeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (P=0.003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homeopathy does more than placebo (P=0.0004).