Homeopathic medicine has existed since the
late 1700s and in the us since 1939 as a
completely unregulated entity. The use
of toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury,
and plant extracts have abounded without
any clinical (read double blind placebo
controlled trials). In the absence of
homeopathy conducting these studies, over
the past 5 years concerned physicians and
researchers have done so and have
conclusively demonstrated that homeopathic
treatment is sham therapy but with the
added benefit of having a homeopath
spending time with the patient giving
assurances and listening to the patient.
Certainly the physicians and chiropractors
can learn several things from the
homeopaths outside of any useful
clinically effective medicine or
therapies.
The following demonstrate the dangers of
homeopathy along with conclusive evidence
of ineffectiveness:
am j contact dermat. 2002
sep;13(3):148-52. Contact dermatitis to
botanical extracts.
Pediatr dermatol. 2004
mar-apr;21(2):160-3. Childhood bullous
pemphigoid: report of a case with
life-threatening course during homeopathy
treatment. While the role of homeopathy
in triggering the disease remains unclear,
our observation attests to the potential
life-threatening course of childhood bp in
instances where appropriate treatment is
withheld.
Acta derm venereol. 2004;84(3):223-6.
Systemic contact dermatitis from herbal
and homeopathic preparations used for
herpes virus treatment.
Med clin (barc). 2004 mar 6;122(
:318-9. [fatal
acute pancreatitis in a patient who
received an homeopathic treatment]
[article in spanish] barquero romero j,
redondo lopez jm, galeano diaz f, perez
miranda m.
J toxicol clin toxicol. 2003;41(7):963-7.
Arsenic toxicity from homeopathic
treatment. Homeopathic medicine is
commonly believed to be relatively
harmless. However, treatment with
improperly used homeopathic preparations
may be dangerous
rev hosp clin fac med sao paulo. 2003
nov-dec;58(6):324-31. Epub 2004 jan 28.
A critical review of the possible benefits
associated with homeopathic medicine.
Conclusions: as a result of the recent
scientific research on homeopathy, it can
be concluded that ample evidence exists to
show that the homeopathic therapy is not
scientifically justifiable.
Br j clin pharmacol. 2003
nov;56(5):562-8. Erratum in: br j clin
pharmacol. 2004 jan;57(1):117.
Ultramolecular homeopathy has no
observable clinical effects. A
randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled proving trial of
belladonna 30cresults: no significant
group differences in proving rates were
observed [belladonna provers n = 14
(13.9%); placebo provers n = 15 (14.3%);
mean difference -0.4%, 95% confidence
interval -9.3, 10.1] based on intention to
treat analysis. Primary outcome was not
affected by seasonality or the
individual's attitude to complementary
medicine. Conclusion: ultramolecular
homeopathy had no observable clinical
effects.
Dermatol ther. 2003;16(2):93-7.
Homeopathy in dermatology. To date,
however, there is no convincing evidence
for a therapeutic effect. There are only
a few controlled trials, most of them with
negative results. The few studies with
positive results have not been reproduced.
Acceptance by the patient seems largely
based on counseling and emotional care
rather than on objective responses to the
homeopathic drugs.
J clin psychiatry. 2003 mar;64(3):282-7.
A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled study of classical
homeopathy in generalized anxiety
disorder. Results: significant (p
<.05) improvement in most measures,
including the ham-a, was observed in both
the active treatment and placebo groups,
yet no group effect was observed.
Conclusion: the effect of homeopathic
treatment on mental symptoms of patients
with generalized anxiety disorder did not
differ from that of placebo.
J altern complement med. 2003
feb;9(1):113-32. Quality assessment of
physical research in
homeopathyconclusions: most physical
experiments of homeopathic preparations
were performed with inadequate controls or
had other serious flaws that prevented any
meaningful conclusion. Except for those
of high quality, all experiments should be
repeated using stricter methodology and
standardization before they are accepted
as indications of special features of
homeopathic potencies.
Thorax. 2003 apr;58(4):317-21
individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in
the treatment of childhood asthma: a
randomised placebo controlled trial.
Conclusions: this study provides no
evidence that adjunctive homeopathic
remedies, as prescribed by experienced
homeopathic practitioners, are superior to
placebo in improving the quality of life
of children with mild to moderate asthma
in addition to conventional treatment in
primary care.
J r soc med. 2003 feb;96(2):60-5.
Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain
and bruising: randomized
placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery.
The results of this trial do not suggest
that homeopathic arnica has an advantage
over placebo in reducing postoperative
pain, bruising and swelling in patients
undergoing elective hand surgery.
Br j clin pharmacol. 2002
dec;54(6):577-82. A systematic review of
systematic reviews of homeopathy. It is
concluded that the best clinical evidence
for homeopathy available to date does not
warrant positive recommendations for its
use in clinical practice.
Prescrire int. 2001 oct;10(55):156.
Homeopathic arnica: just a placebo. [no
authors listed] four placebo-controlled
trials of homeopathic dilutions of arnica
in treating trauma have been sufficiently
robust to give interpretable results. In
all of them homeopathic arnica was no more
effective than the placebo.
Bmc complement altern med. 2001;1(1):12.
Epub 2001 dec 31. A systematic review of
the quality of homeopathic clinical trials
conclusions: clinical homeopathic research
is clearly in its infancy with most
studies using poor sampling and
measurement techniques, few subjects,
single sites and no replication. Many of
these problems are correctable even within
a "holistic" paradigm given sufficient
research expertise, support and methods.
Therapie. 2001 jul-aug;56(4):397-402.
[homeopathic specialties as substitutes
for benzodiazepines: double-blind vs.
Placebo study] [article in french] no
statistically significant difference
between homeopathic drugs and placebo was
observed for the main outcome or for the
secondary outcomes.
Rheumatology (oxford). 2001
sep;40(9):1052-5. A randomized controlled
trial of homeopathy in rheumatoid
arthritis. Conclusions: we found no
evidence that active homeopathy improves
the symptoms of ra, over 3 months, in
patients attending a routine clinic who
are stabilized on nsaids or dmards.
J r soc med. 2002 apr;95(4):189-91. Can
homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines by
dowsing? A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial. Mccarney r,
fisher p, spink f, flint g, van haselen r.
Academic unit, royal london homoeopathic
hospital, london wc1n 3hr, uk. These
results, wholly negative, add to doubts
whether dowsing in this context can yield
objective information.
