Ample evidence exists of homeopathy’s effectiveness in treating many common non-life threatening illnesses, as well as epidemics, with hundreds of years of documented clinical experience and scientific research. The science behind homeopathy’s mode of action is still being understood,[1] leading some critics without clinical or scientific experience in the field or knowledge of the published science to argue evidence is lacking.[2] But, if homeopathy is ineffective, so is conventional pharmaceutical medicine, if the same standards are applied.[3] A 2014 review of scientific literature found that homeopathy and current conventional pharmaceuticals share similar levels of effectiveness.[4]
Homeopathy’s clinical effectiveness is exemplified by its use in epidemics. One study, by Dr. André Saine evaluated 10,000 references to homeopathy in US and European epidemics (cholera, smallpox, influenza, diphtheria, typhoid fever, yellow fever and pneumonia) since 1799. The results showed “extremely low mortality” from homeopathy.[5] For example, excluding the 1918 influenza pandemic, of the 146,237 documented patients receiving conventional care for pneumonia, 24.4% died.[6] By contrast, for the same period, of the 25,216 patients treated homeopathically, only 3.4% died.[7] During the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, 30% of pregnant women treated with conventional medical care died compared to 0.7% of pregnant women treated with homeopathy.[8] Other epidemics showed similar results.[9] In the US, this outcome was possible because doctors trained in homeopathy in medical school used it to treat people. After that time, penicillin came into vogue, relegating homeopathy to outdated “grandpa-medicine” status, eventually falling from the medical school curriculum. As a result, most of our conventionally trained health care providers today lack knowledge of this proven tool in the fight to save lives.
More recently, independent studies have confirmed homeopathy’s effectiveness. In Switzerland, which consistently ranks in the top five healthiest countries in the world (the US is 35th)[11] the government analyzed “all available [published] systematic reviews”[12] and found 90% showed homeopathy to be effective.[13] A 2008 survey of 3,172 Swiss adults found: “Overall patient satisfaction was significantly higher in homeopathic than in conventional care. Homeopathic treatments were perceived as a low-risk therapy with two to three times fewer side effects than conventional care.”[14] Of 640 Swiss pediatricians surveyed in 2019, more than half use complementary medicines, including homeopathy, for themselves and their families.[15] In France, 60% of citizens are in favor of homeopathic medicine.[16] And, it is included in the national health systems of many countries.[17] The consensus of people using homeopathy is that it is effective despite critics telling them it is not.[18]
There is more than “a little” evidence showing homeopathy’s effectiveness.[19] In determining effectiveness, the World Health Organization (WHO) treats “traditional medicines,” like homeopathy, differently than modern pharmaceuticals. [20] The WHO does not require extensive scientific laboratory testing before traditional medicines are labeled effective because effectiveness has been established based on successful multi-generational clinical use. By contrast, modern pharmaceuticals do not have the benefit of time to prove safety and effectiveness, thus, must undergo extensive testing. Scientific evidence is only required to substantiate claims of effectiveness when traditional “[s]ubstances … have been altered significantly in their constituent profile from the classical traditional medicine.…”[21] In the case of homeopathy, effectiveness is based on its documented history as a traditional medicine in use for over 200 years, as well as a wealth of scientific evidence, a sampling of which can be found in our Research section. Further, because the Food and Drug Administration requires homeopathic medicines to be manufactured in the US according to the specific guidelines of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), their “constituent profile” remains uniform and, thus, not subject to continued testing to prove effectiveness.
It should be noted that some scientific homeopathy experiments failed to show effectiveness. A significant reason is because testing protocols often don’t follow homeopathic prescribing principles. Unlike current conventional practices, this means 10 people with colds could receive 10 different remedies based on the individualized totality of symptoms. For example, a person with a clear runny nose, mild fever, restlessness, chilly and thirsty for sips would receive a different remedy than a person who has thick nasal discharge, thirstlessness, and craves open air. Experiments designed to treat all subjects the same without consideration for individual variations in symptoms might be appropriate for conventional medicine studies but have predictably poor results when it comes to homeopathy.
Furthermore, conclusions in scientific homeopathy experiments are limited to the unique parameters of that test, not homeopathy as a whole. That is, if a diabetic takes Tylenol but his diabetes remains, it does not mean that Tylenol is ineffective. It means only that for the symptoms, potency and frequency tested, Tylenol did not help. When homeopathic Arnica was tested for post-operative bruising in hand surgery it was not effective given in the 30C potency three times a day.[22] But when the parameters were changed and three doses of Arnica in a higher potency were given the day of surgery, followed by three days of Arnica 30C, patients had significantly less bruising than the placebo group.[23] Models that test homeopathy based on how common pharmaceuticals are prescribed and without consideration of homeopathic principles, add nothing helpful to the knowledge base about how homeopathic medicine can and should be used.
Clinical and scientific evidence has established that homeopathy can be a safe and effective method for treating some illness or injuries when basic homeopathic principles are followed. However, it should never be used as the sole means of treating life threatening conditions.
References
[1] See generally, our Research section for a list of hundreds of published scientific articles discussing positive homeopathy outcomes and the science of homeopathy.
[2] With no apparent input from physicians with expertise in homeopathy or a review of the literature, the US government’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health states that there is “little evidence to support homeopathy….” In fact, there are at least 1233 clinical trials of homeopathy found in the Karl and Veronica Carstens Foundation Library. Additionally, three systematic analysis/meta analysis reached positive conclusions that homeopathy is effective: Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. Brit Med J. 1991;302:316-323; Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects-a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials? Lancet. 1997:350(9081):834-43; and Fisher P, Berman B, Davidson J, et al. Meta-analysis of homeopathy. Lancet. 2005;366:2083-84.
[3] Merriam-Webster. Dictionary. “Allopathy: a system of medical practice that aims to combat disease by use of remedies (drug or surgery) producing effects different from or incompatible with those produced by the disease being treated.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/allopathy. Allopathy is the opposite of homeopathy which treats a disease with minute doses of a remedy that would produce the same symptoms if taken in larger amounts in a healthy person. Id. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeopathy#medicalDictionary
[4] Faculty of Homeopathy.org, Research. Retrieved on 2-28-2019 from https://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/ (189 peer reviewed papers on 100 medical conditions found that 41% were positive in favor of homeopathy’s effectiveness, 5% were negative, and 54% were inconclusive; Of 1016 studies of conventional medicine 49% were favorable to pharmaceutical’s effectiveness, 7% were negative and 44% were inconclusive.)
[5] Saine A. Debate: Homeopathy: the art and science of therapeutics par excellence. The Canadian Academy of Homeopathy. Retrieved on 3-3-2019 from https://homeopathy.ca/debates_2013-03-22_SummaryResponseFromAndreSaine.shtml
[6] One critic argued that the high death rate was due to practices such as bloodletting in the cholera epidemic of 1854 in London. The literature examined contains no references to bloodletting as a means for treating cholera. Saine., supra.
[7] Saine A., supra.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.; Bracho G, Varela E, Fernandez R, et al. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. Homeopathy. 2010 Jul; 99(3): 156-66; Mahesh S, Mahesh M, Vithoulkas G. Could Homeopathy Become An Alternative Therapy in Dengue Fever? An example of 10 Case Studies. J Med Life. 2018 Jan-Mar; 11(1): 75-82; Wadhwani G. Homeopathic drug therapy. Homeopathy in chikungunya Fever and Post-Chikungunya Chronic Arthritis: an observational study. Homeopathy. 2013 Jul; 102(3): 193-8; Bell IR,Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, et al. Advances in Integrative Nanomedicine for Improving Infectious Disease Treatment in Public Health. Eur J Integr Med. 2013 Apr 1; 5(2): 126—40; Cairo J, ElliotB, Barnouin J, et al. Homeopathy in Cuban epidemic neuropathy: an open clinical trial. Br homeopath J. 2001 Jul; 90(3): 154-7; Leary B. The homeopathic management of cholera in the nineteenth century with special reference to the epidemic in London, 1854. Med Ges Gesch. 1997; 16: 125-44.
[12] Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P. (eds). Homeopathy in Healthcare – Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 2011: 206. http://www.homeovet.cl/Libros/Homepathy%20in%20Healthcare%20Effectiveness,%20Appropriateness,%20Safety,%20Costs.pdf
[13] Id., at p. 207.
[14] Marian F, Joost K, Saini K, et al. Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: An observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008; 8: 52.
[15] Benedikt H, von Schoen-Angerer T, Oswald O, et al. Swiss paediatrician survey on complementary medicine. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2019; 149: 20091.
[16] Poitevin B, Integrating Homoeopathy in health systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1999; 77(2): 161.
[17] Switzerland, Brazil, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Chile, to name a few.
[18] A 2012 study by the Australian Government concluded there was “encouraging evidence” of homeopathy’s effectiveness for five medical conditions (fibromyalgia, otitis media, post-operative ileus, upper respiratory tract infection, side effects of cancer treatment -radiation therapy/stomatitis). However, this report was suppressed and not published until August 2019 after worldwide public outcry. https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/the-australian-report-on-homeopathy/; https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1478/rapid-responses Meanwhile, the government undertook another study that was published in 2015. That study “did not conclude that homeopathy was ineffective” but it was widely interpreted by the media as such. (See, Ann Kelso NHRMC CEO Statement, 20 Aug 2019) The 2015 study was part of the public outcry due to a number of irregularities not the least of which was the person overseeing the project failed to disclose that he belonged to an anti-homeopathy lobbying group.
[19] See our Research section. As well, a 2014 study of peer reviewed articles found positive results in the following: allergic skin reaction; arsenic toxicity; brain injury,; bronchitis; allergies and upper respiratory tract infections; childhood diarrhea; chronic fatigue syndrome; female infertility; fibromyalgia; influenza; insomnia; menopausal syndrome; otitis media; post-operative ileum; post-postpartum bleeding; postpartum lactation; premenstrual syndrome; psoriasis; radio dermatitis; rheumatic diseases; seasonal allergic rhinitis; sepsis; sinusitis; vertigo. This list does not preclude homeopathy’s effectiveness in other areas not included in this study. Mathie RT, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 2014; 3:142 and https://facultyofhomeopathy.org/randomised-controlled-trials/
[20] Other traditional therapies include Traditional Chinese Medicine, traditional Ayurvedic medicine, traditional western herbal medicine, aromatherapy and other indigenous medicines. WHO states that “[e]vidence of traditional use may be used to support claims for therapeutic goods… [H]omeopathic medicines represent[] a special case where the manufacturing process is a major component of the … therapy. Providing that [it] is prepared according to principles described in [the] homeopathic pharmacopoeia and satisfies safety requirements, claims may be assessed on an ‘evidence of traditional use’ basis. Evidence of traditional use includes independent written histories of use in traditional or contemporary homeopathic literature, multigenerational use, homeopathic proving, records of clinical use and records of the set of symptoms provoked by a ‘crude’ substance. Claims made in relation to homeopathic products must be consistent with the homeopathic picture of the remedy ….” World Health Organization, Geneva. General Guidelines for Methodologies on Research and Evaluation of Traditional Medicine. 2000, pp. 41-42.
[21] Id. at p. 42.
[22] Stevenson C, Devaraj V, Fountain-Barber A, et al. Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain and bruising: randomized placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery. J R Soc Med. 2003 Feb; 96(2): 60-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539394/
[23] Chaiet S, Marcus B. Perioperative Arnica montana for Reduction of Ecchymoses in Rhinoplasty Surgery. Ann of Plast Surg. 2016 May; 76(5): 477-82. Retrieved on 2-28-2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6165/ac4653c602938bc7547babf501b39960aba3.pdf