Homeopathy: the controversies, the evidence, and who and what conditions can benefit

These days, homeopathy is coming under mounting criticism for supposedly lacking any scientific evidence. Indeed, a group calling itself the Nightingale Collaboration has set its sights on anyone claiming homeopathy has any therapetic benefits because of its putative 'implausibility'. This willful attitude of closed-mindedness (that incidentally, would see the public robbed of its right to receive homeopathic treatment free on the NHS), ignores the fact that by end of 2009, 142 trials of homeopathy had been published in peer-reviewed journals. In terms of statistically significant results, 74 of these trials were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive (patients given a homeopathic medicine improved significantly more than the comparison group given either an inactive placebo or established conventional treatment), and 11 were negative (i.e., no significant difference was seen between the action of the homeopathic medicine and the comparison group) [ref 1].

In addition, the Nightingale Collaboration ignores on-going research published by the British Medical Journal which demonstrates that out of 2500 conventional medical procedures tested recently, only 11% proved beneficial, while more than half (51%) turned out to be of unknown effectiveness [ref 2].
Then a House of Commons Select Committee reported that in 2006 alone, a staggering 2.68 million people i.e., 4.5% of the UK population) were harmed by the effects, side-effects, and errors of conventional medical practice [ref 3]. In the USA, the situation is even worse: its healthcare system is the third leading cause of mortality in the US after heart disease and cancer….more deaths than through firearms [ref 4]. In contrast studies of homeopathy show a very good safety record with little
risk of harm from the remedies [ref 5]. Also, the often-repeated claim by sceptics [ref 6] that homeopathy is dangerous because patients seek its help rather than conventional healthcare is simply not backed up by the evidence. In practice, it has been shown to be rare indeed for a patient to use homeopathy as their primary form of care, and the majority of patients that seek homeopathic treatment have tried conventional approaches first [ref 7]. In addition it is not uncommon for a homeopath to refer a patient back to their GP. The in-depth method of consultation by a homeopath can reveal signs and symptoms that the GP may not have had time to uncover and hence treatment can act as an extra safety net rather than a potential risk. Yet there are howls of media protest and a stampede to judge homeopathy and CAM 'dangerous' and 'deadly' on the few occasions single cases of errors in CAM practice are reported in the media.

Clearly, if there is no evidence for homeopathy, as the Nightingale Collaboration claims, conventional medicine also has an on-going problem with a lack of rigorous scientific evidence for many of its procedures....a case rather of the pot calling the kettle black! I have been informed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that I am not allowed to say on my website that "....homoeopathy is claimed to have helped and given lasting benefit to many people with a wide variety of conditions...." However, there is mounting evidence from clinical trials to suggest that homoeopathy can indeed provide benefit for a wide variety of conditions, so I have presented that evidence and the conditions below:

In my experience, treatment times can vary according to the illness and whether it is chronic or acute. Thus, I have observed that acute conditions, such as childhood fevers, may benefit from homoeopathic intervention in as little as a few hours and sometimes quicker. Helping chronic conditions, on the other hand, may take longer although, again in my experience, positive benefits may well be felt within days.

References
1. See Mathie R. The research evidence base for homeopathy. British Homeopathic Association.
summation

2. See, BMJ Clinical Evidence web-site. Online document at: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp.

3. Leigh E. A safer place for patients: Learning to improve patient safety. 51st report of session 2005-06 report, together with formal minutes, oral, and written evidence. House of Commons papers 831 2005-06, TSO (The Stationery Office). July 6, 2006.

4. See, http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm.

5. Kirby BJ. Safety of homeopathic products. J Royal Soc Med 2002; 95: 221-222.

6. Markman M, Safety Issues in Using Complementary and Alternative Medicine JCO 2002; 20: 39-41.

7. D.S. Spence, E.A. Thompson, S.J. Barron. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year,
university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Comp Med 2005; 11: 793-798.

What is homeopathy? »

What is treatment like? »

What is likely to occur? »