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.