Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “HOMEOPATHY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in homeopathy have suggested that homeopathy is more than a placebo response. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the effectiveness of homeopathy in primary care with conventional medicine in primary care for three commonly encountered clinical conditions. DESIGN: An international multicenter, prospective, observational study in a real world medical setting comparing the effectiveness of homeopathy with conventional medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty (30) investigators with conventional medical licenses at six clinical sites in four countries enrolled 500 consecutive patients with at least one of the following three complaints: (1) upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies; (2) lower respiratory tract complaints including allergies; or (3) ear complaints. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes criterion was the response to treatment, defined as cured or major improvement after 14 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes criteria were: (1) rate of recovery; (2) occurrence of adverse events; (3) patient satisfaction; and (4) length of consultation. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-six (456) patient visits were compared: 281 received homeopathy, 175 received conventional medicine. The response to treatment as measured by the primary outcomes criterion for patients receiving homeopathy was 82.6%, for conventional medicine it was 68%. Improvement in less than 1 day and in 1 to 3 days was noted in 67.3% of the group receiving homeopathy and in 56.6% of those receiving conventional medicine. The adverse events for those treated with conventional medicine was 22.3% versus 7.8% for those treated with homeopathy. Seventy-nine percent (79.0%) of patients treated with homeopathy were very satisfied and 65.1% of patients treated with conventional, medicine were very satisfied. In both treatment groups 60% of cases had consultations lasting between 5 and 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Homeopathy appeared to be at least as effective as conventional medical care in the treatment of patients with the three conditions studied.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Making medicine indigenous: homeopathy in South India.

Historical studies of homeopathy in Europe and the USA have focused on practitioners' attempts to emphasize 'modern' and 'scientific' approaches. Studies of homeopathy in India have focused on a process of Indianization. Arguing against such unilineal trajectories, this paper situates homeopathy in South India within the context of shifting relations between 'scientific' and 'indigenous' systems of medicine. Three time periods are considered. From 1924 through 1934, homeopathy was singled out by Government of Madras officials as 'scientific', as contrasted with the 'indigenous' Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani systems of medicine. From 1947 through 1960, both 'indigenous' and 'scientific' interpretations of homeopathy were put forward by different factions. An honorary director of homeopathy proposed the Indianization of homeopathy, and its reconciliation with Ayurveda; this view conflicted with the Madras government's policy of expanding the 'scientific' medical curriculum of the Government College of Indigenous Medicine. It was not until the early 1970s that homeopathy was officially recognized in Tamilnadu State. By then, both homeopathy and Ayurveda had become conceptualized as non-Tamil, in contrast with promotion of the Tamil Siddha system of 'indigenous' medicine. Thus, constructs of 'indigenous' and 'scientific' systems of medicine are quite malleable with respect to homeopathy in South India.

Colonialism↗
PubMed2006

Is homeopathy possible?

As a therapeutic intervention, homeopathy is the target of increased scepticism because in the main, its remedies are diluted and succussed (potentized) out of material existence. This puts homeopathy seemingly at odds with the paradigm of conventional science, in particular, that atoms and molecules are the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Accordingly, homeopathy cannot work, so that any reported beneficial effects must, at best, be due to the placebo effect. The purpose of this article is to challenge that conclusion and to suggest that there may well be conventional science-based explanations of how homeopathy could be possible. Homeopathy's key principles are first described. Then the double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT), the chief means by which homeopathic remedies and prescribing are tested, is shown to be based on a linear reductionism that is too blunt an instrument with which to test the efficacy of complex interventions such as homeopathy The memory of water hypothesis, as a mechanism for how potentized remedies might work, is reviewed, along with some evidence for its existence. A possible rationale for the water memory effect is proposed in terms of a dynamic 'ordering' of water's constantly switching network of intermolecular hydrogen bonds, induced by the manufacturing process of homeopathic remedies. This could lead to a long-range molecular 'coherence' between trillions of mobile water molecules. However, the water memory effect is an essentially pharmacological explanation of homeopathy's putative efficacy. It is pointed out that healing also entails an interaction between consenting beings. From this point of view, an explanation of any therapeutic procedure should include an attempt to describe the nature of the patient-practitioner interaction. From this perspective, a quantum theoretical treatment of the therapeutic process, involving a form of macro-entanglement between patient, practitioner and remedy (PPR), is advanced as another possible explanation of the homeopathy's efficacy. This shows that the reason double-blind RCTs deliver at best only equivocal results on homeopathy's efficacy is because it effectively breaks the PPR entangled state. A comparison is made between the entanglement-breaking effect of double-blind RCTs and the wave-function 'collapsing' effect of observation in orthodox quantum theory. The article concludes by suggesting that the memory of water and PPR entanglement are not competing but most likely complementary hypotheses, and that both are probably required in order to provide a complete description of the homeopathic process. While awaiting experimental evidence of these hypotheses, it is suggested that observations of clinical outcomes would be superior to RCTs for further testing homeopathy's efficacy.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

A review of the use and role of low potencies in homeopathy.

BACKGROUND: The issue of potency choice in homeopathy has always been controversial. In "high" potencies there are no molecules of the starting substance remaining and in low potencies (including tinctures) the line between homeopathy and herbal medicine is blurred. METHOD: The literature on potency selection is reviewed, including the use of low potencies and their effects on organ physiology. This article attempts to examine the overlapping boundaries between homeopathy and herbal medicine in clinical practice and basic research. FINDINGS: Both low and high potencies are utilized in all areas of homeopathy ranging from prescribing for acute or chronic diseases to constitutional treatment. Low dilutions play a role in homeopathic prescribing, and are particularly prominent in systems of homeopathy focusing on the organotropic effects of homeopathic medicinal products integrated with conventional medicine diagnosis and treatment. (Mother) tinctures may be employed in homeopathy as well as in herbal medicine. The distinction between the two is based on the clinical context, the rationale behinds its use, and the production method of the tincture. Data available from basic research on low and high potencies do not suggest a superiority of low potencies over high potencies or vice versa. CONCLUSION: Low potency homeopathic medications (with detectable concentrations of the starting material) and high potency homeopathic medications (with no detectable amount of the starting material in the finished product) have been available since the beginning of homeopathy. Given that both groups of homeopathic medications have shown effectiveness in clinical trials and in the absence of a definitive mechanism of action for homeopathy (including the possibility that there may be multiple mechanisms of action present) this wide of range of potencies for homeopathic medicines should be maintained, ranging from mother tinctures to homeopathic medicinal products with no measurable concentration.

Dose-Response Relationship, Drug↗
PubMed2003

A critical overview of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is a 200-year-old therapeutic system that uses small doses of various substances to stimulate autoregulatory and self-healing processes. Homeopathy selects substances by matching a patient's symptoms with symptoms produced by these substances in healthy individuals. Medicines are prepared by serial dilution and shaking, which proponents claim imprints information into water. Although many conventional physicians find such notions implausible, homeopathy had a prominent place in 19th-century health care and has recently undergone a worldwide revival. In the United States, patients who seek homeopathic care are more affluent and younger and more often seek treatment for subjective symptoms than those who seek conventional care. Homeopathic remedies were allowed by the 1939 Pure Food and Drug Act and are available over the counter. Some data--both from randomized, controlled trials and laboratory research--show effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1994

[Is homeopathy accessible to research?].

This paper critically examines the scientific status of homeopathy. Against the background of latest research and the theoretical presuppositions of homeopathy, it is discussed, whether and how, homeopathy is amenable to scientific research. At the outset, the principal notions of homeopathy: similarity, potentiation and understanding of chronic diseases, are explained. Then the question is posed whether in recent research these notions have found adequate expression in research protocols, design and measured parameters. Although there is quite a bulk of literature now, only few publications address the principal notions of homeopathy adequately. It can be concluded, therefore, that homeopathy has not, as yet, been properly investigated. The question is addressed, how the homeopathic notion of the individual remedy should be put into practice in clinical trials, and what kind of clinical trials are possible in homeopathy. The necessity for placebo-controlled, randomized trials is discussed and a modification of the classical design for long term studies is introduced. Other research options are also shown. Finally, theoretical models for the explanation of possible high-dilution effects are shortly introduced and examined. It is argued that homeopathy is amenable to scientific research, and the terms of such research are made explicit.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2000

Homeopathy for chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy involves the use, in dilution, of substances which cause symptoms in their undiluted form. It is one of the most widespread forms of complementary medicines and is also used to treat asthma. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of homeopathy in people with chronic stable asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field trials register, the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital database, the Muenchener Modell database and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and possibly randomised trials of homeopathy for the treatment of stable chronic asthma, with observation periods of at least one week. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by the second reviewer. Trial quality was assessed by the reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 154 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used three different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results. The standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. In one trial, severity of symptoms was lessened in the homeopathy group compared to the placebo group. In another trial, lung function measures and medication use showed improvement in the homeopathy group compared to the placebo group. The third trial found improvement in both the homeopathy and placebo groups, but no difference between the groups. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond.

Asthma↗
PubMed2006

Homeopathy for anxiety and anxiety disorders: a systematic review of the research.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the clinical research evidence on homeopathy in the treatment of anxiety and anxiety disorders. METHODS: A comprehensive search of major biomedical databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClNAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library; and of specialist complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) databases: AMED, CISCOM and Hom-Inform was conducted. Efforts were made to identify unpublished and ongoing research using relevant sources and experts in the field. Relevant research was categorised by study type and appraised according to study design. Clinical commentaries were obtained for studies reporting clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled studies were identified. The types of anxiety and anxiety disorders studied were test anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder and anxiety related to medical or physical conditions such as cancer or surgical procedures. Single case reports/studies were the most frequently encountered study type but other study types including uncontrolled trials/case series and surveys were also found. No relevant qualitative research was identified. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive search demonstrates that the evidence on the benefit of homeopathy in anxiety and anxiety disorders is limited. A number of studies of homeopathy in such conditions were located but the randomised controlled trials report contradictory results, are underpowered or provide insufficient details of methodology. Several uncontrolled and observational studies reported positive results including high levels of patient satisfaction but because of the lack of a control group, it is difficult to assess the extent to which any response is due to homeopathy. Adverse effects reported appear limited to 'remedy reactions' and included temporary worsening of symptoms and reappearance of old symptoms. On the basis of this review it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the efficacy or effectiveness of homeopathy for anxiety. However, surveys suggest that homeopathy is quite frequently used by people suffering from anxiety. If shown to be effective, it is possible that homeopathy may have benefits in terms of adverse effects and acceptability to patients. Consequently, further investigation is indicated. Future research should be of pragmatic design and include qualitative studies.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMed2000

Clinical trials of homeopathy and placebo: analysis of a scientific debate.

OBJECTIVE: Homeopathy is controversial, primarily because of the use of medicines diluted beyond the Avogadro limit. This article examines the scientific debate on whether homeopathy can have effects greater than placebo in humans. METHODS: Five rigorous English-language clinical studies published in high-impact journals that favored homeopathy were identified. Letters and other articles written in response to these articles were then retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: Much of the content of responses to positive homeopathic research was rhetorical in nature and antagonistic in tone: homeopathic researchers were accused of bias and of being in the pocket of homeopathic manufacturers; arguments were raised that are demonstrably inaccurate or irrelevant to the interpretation of research; words such as "magic" or "potion" were used to paint homeopathic research as inherently unscientific. Other commentators argued that based on theoretical grounds homeopathy could not possibly be effective, any positive trial result must be due to bias. Surprisingly few responses raised substantive methodologic or statistical issues. Many of these are clearly inaccurate or irrelevant. The possibility of publication bias-selective publication of positive results-was raised by some commentators and remains an important criticism of the apparently positive nature of the clinical trial evidence. The most persuasive argument against accepting differences between homeopathy and placebo on the basis of current evidence is that homeopathy is scientifically implausible and so requires more evidence than normal. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators undertaking clinical research in homeopathy need to be responsive both to the dangers of publication bias and to the requirement for stronger than usual levels of evidence.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment.

INTRODUCTION: The Health Technology Assessment report on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the 'Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)'. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases accessible by Internet were systematically searched, complemented by manual search and contacts with experts, and evaluated according to internal and external validity criteria. RESULTS: Many high-quality investigations of pre-clinical basic research proved homeopathic high-potencies inducing regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms. 20 of 22 systematic reviews detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy. In our estimation 5 studies yielded results indicating clear evidence for homeopathic therapy. The evaluation of 29 studies in the domain 'Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/Allergic Reactions' showed a positive overall result in favor of homeopathy. 6 out of 7 controlled studies were at least equivalent to conventional medical interventions. 8 out of 16 placebo-controlled studies were significant in favor of homeopathy. Swiss regulations grant a high degree of safety due to product and training requirements for homeopathic physicians. Applied properly, classical homeopathy has few side-effects and the use of high-potencies is free of toxic effects. A general health-economic statement about homeopathy cannot be made from the available data. CONCLUSION: Taking internal and external validity criteria into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe. Reliable statements of cost-effectiveness are not available at the moment. External and model validity will have to be taken more strongly into consideration in future studies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2001

Treatment for hyperactive children: homeopathy and methylphenidate compared in a family setting.

The sharp increase of the prescription of methylphenidate (MPD) in hyperactive children in recent years is a matter of increasing uneasiness among professionals, parents and politicians. There is little awareness of treatment alternatives. The purpose of this prospective trial was to assess the efficacy of homeopathy in hyperactive patients and to compare it MPD. The study was performed in a paediatric practice with conventional and homeopathic backgrounds. Children aged 3-17 y, conforming to the DSM-IV criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a Conners Global Index (CGI) of 14 or higher were eligible for the study. All of them received an individual homeopathic treatment. When clinical improvement reached 50%, the parents were asked to reevaluate the symptoms. Those who did not improve sufficiently on homeopathy were changed to MPD, and again evaluated after 3 months. One hundred and fifteen children (92 boys, 23 girls) with a mean age of 8.3 y at diagnosis were included in the study. Prior to treatment the mean CGI was 20.63 (14-30), the mean index of the homeopathy group 20.52 and of the MPD-group 20.94. After an average treatment time of 3.5 months 86 children (75%) had responded to homeopathy, reaching a clinical improvement rating of 73% and an amelioration of the CGI of 55%. Twenty-five children (22%) needed MPD; the average duration of homeopathic (pre-) treatment in this group was 22 months. Clinical improvement under MPD reached 65%, the lowering of the CGI 48%. Three children did not respond to homeopathy nor to MPD, and one left the study. In cases where treatment of a hyperactive child is not urgent, homeopathy is a valuable alternative to MPD. The reported results of homeopathic treatment appear to be similar to the effects of MPD. Only children who did not reach the high level of sensory integration for school had to be changed to MPD. In preschoolers, homeopathy appears a particularly useful treatment for ADHD.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[The Efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of chronic low back pain compared to standardized physiotherapy].

AIM: The aim of this pilot project was to evaluate the efficacy of treatment of chronic low back pain during two months either by homeopathy or by standardised physiotherapy. METHOD: 43 patients suffering from chronic low back pain were included in this controlled, randomised prospective study. They were divided in two treatment groups: homeopathy and standardised physiotherapy. Based on the initial and final clinical investigations, the Oswestry questionnaire and the visual analogue scale, that were assessed at the beginning, at the end and 18.5 months after therapy, the results were statistically evaluated. A further questionnaire documented the acceptance of treatment. RESULTS: A comparison of the groups from the beginning to the end of treatment reveals a significant decrease of the Oswestry score in patients treated by homeopathy. This tendency could not be confirmed 18.5 months later. Homeopathy was well accepted by most of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, nothing can be said against attempting treatment of chronic low back pain by means of homeopathy. Further research is recommended to confirm the results of our investigation, using a larger number of patients, a third treatment group, homeopathy double blinded.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Homeopathy.

Homeopathy is a form of complementary medicine which relies heavily on observation and experience. The three distinguishing characteristics of homeopathy are that remedies are prescribed on the totality of a person's symptoms, that the remedy likely to cure a person is a dilution of that substance which would cause the same symptoms in a healthy person, and that remedies are prepared using microdoses of substances which are diluted and then vigorously shaken. Mainstream medicine criticizes homeopathy by saying that its gentleness has outlived its usefulness and treatment successes are probably no more than placebo action. In addition, its critics charge that homeopathy is unscientific, runs counter to the "laws of nature" and will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Homeopaths reply that mainstream medicine is dangerous, that homeopathy works in children and animals (usually thought resistant to placebo), and that several good controlled clinical trials have shown positive results. There is a difference between showing that homeopathy works and adequately accounting for its mechanism of action. Clinical trials have concentrated on the former and remain unexplained in the latter.

Complementary Therapies↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine].

The aim of this study is to explain homeopathy, and make a critical evaluation of the doctrine and its clinical practice. The discipline of homeopathy, a medical doctrine advanced by Samuel Hahnemann in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries, is based on a physiological theory according to which a "vital force dominates the human body in an unopposed and dynamic way"; disease processes are considered the consequence of a disturbance of this vital force. According to this doctrine, there are only three diseases: psora, sycosis and lues. Drugs are believed to act according to the principle of similitude, their efficacy increasing with their progressive dilution. Several schools of homeopathy have emerged since Hahnemann's death. Although they differ from each other, they share two of the fundamental principles advanced by the founder. Homeopathic clinical teaching aims at identifying the greatest number of signs present in the patient and then, on the basis of these signs, and irrespective of any diagnosis, the homeopathic specialist decides what drug(s) should be administered. Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline.

History, 18th Century↗
PubMed2005

Immunology and homeopathy. 1. Historical background.

Homeopathy was born as an experimental discipline, as can be seen from the enormous amount of homeopathic data collected over more than two centuries. However, the medical tradition of homeopathy has been separated from that of conventional science for a long time. Conventional scientific wisdom dictates that homeopathy should have no effect above placebo but experiments on ultra-high dilutions of solutes together with some clinical data suggest the intriguing possibility that it might do in some circumstances. Today, an osmotic process between disciplines, previously seen as in conflict, is facilitated because over the last few decades homeopathy has initiated the methods of current medical science and a substantial number of experimental studies-at molecular, cellular and clinical levels-are available. One area of dialogue and of common progress is that of inflammation and immunity, probably because these are closely related to the traditional 'vital force' of the body's self-healing power. In a series of papers we review the historical origins of homeopathy, the laboratory and animal models related to the field of immunopharmacology, the clinical evidence in favor and against the use of homeopathy in the inflammatory diseases and the hypotheses regarding its action mechanism(s). Finally, we will enlighten the specific characteristics of the homeopathic approach, which places great emphasis on identifying a cure for the whole organism.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2005

Homeopathy in emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Use of homeopathy is not frequently reported in critically ill patients. We describe our experience treating such patients homeopathically in the emergency room, on the wards, and in the intensive care unit of conventional hospitals in Austria and Israel. METHODS: We describe a case series of patients treated in the ER for multiple casualty incidents, two case reports of remarkable cures in the ICU, and two RCTs demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy in septic and intubated patients. RESULTS: A case series documents favorable results in homeopathic treatment of patients in the ER and wards after multiple casualty incidents. Two case reports narration e remarkable homeopathic cures to imminently terminal illnesses. Finally, homeopathy was demonstrated effective as compared with placebo in improving long-term survival in severely ill septic patients and in hastening extubation ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our report suggests that homeopathy may be applicable even for critically ill patients. We discuss the obstacles encountered, including a dearth of tools for successful homeopathic prescription in these situations, suspicion and lack of cooperation by patients and conventional colleagues, and the highly suppressive nature of concomitant conventional therapies. We suggest the development of algorithms and other tools to aid rapid homeopathic prescription in critical care patients and discuss the importance of familiarizing physicians and medical students with homeopathy in order to facilitate communication and cooperation between these complementary branches of medicine.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Priorities and methods for developing the evidence profile of homeopathy. Recommendations of the ECH general assembly and XVIII Symposium of GIRI.

To achieve scientific acceptance, homeopathy must investigate several questions: 1. The activity of very highly diluted preparations. The consensus of the meeting was that there is clear evidence of this. 2. The content of very highly diluted homeopathic preparations. More research is needed but evidence exists that a specific signal is present in homeopathic preparations. 3. A theoretical framework in which the effects of homeopathic diluted preparations can be explained. The 'Body Information Theory' is such a theory. 4. The clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. Because they avoid the placebo effect, animal studies are a priority. For human trials using Quality of Life questionnaires, studies on the activity, content and theoretical basis of homeopathic preparations were reviewed approximately 70% of cases; more in children showed improvement. Homeopathy reduced costs and allowed a better improvement in work-days lost compared with conventional practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) implicitly test the placebo hypothesis; RCTs have been performed and meta-analyses conclude that there is clear evidence of efficacy which cannot be attributed to placebo effect. Priorities depend on the audience. More research is needed especially regarding the content of homeopathic preparations and the transmission of information. Theoretical issues are also important to avoid incorrect design of research protocols. More effort should be dedicated to veterinary research. Clinical effects analysis in humans remains important. Many other questions should be prioritised, such as the potential of homeopathy to avoid invasive procedures in children and the long-term effects of homeopathy in preventing chronic complications.

Animals↗