Lancet Publishes Major Review of Research
on Homeopathic Medicine
The Lancet published the most significant
and comprehensive review of homeopathic research ever published
in its September 20, 1997 issue. This article was a meta-analysis
of 89 blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.
The authors conclude that the clinical effects of homeopathic
medicines are not simply the results of placebo.
The researchers uncovered 186 studies,
119 of which were double-blind and/or randomized placebo-control
trials, and 89 of which met pre-defined criteria for inclusion
into a pooled meta-analysis. The researchers found that by
pooling the 89 trials together that homeopathic medicines
had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo.
The Lancet concurrently published two
critiques of the homeopathic research. One critique by Jan
Vanderbroucke, MD, a Dutch professor, acknowledged, "The
meta-analysis is completely state of the art." And yet,
despite its results, he asserts that homeopathic medicines
"cannot possibly produce any effect."
Because homeopathic medicines are often
so small in dose that physicians and scientists commonly assert
that they cannot work, an increasing number of controlled
trials and an ever increasing public interest in homeopathy
is proving them wrong.
The authors of the research include Klaus
Linde, MD, German professor and author of the famed review
of research on the herb, St. Johns wort, for depression, and
Wayne Jonas, MD, head of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine.
Dana Ullman, MPH, a leading spokesperson
for homeopathy and author of numerous books, including The
Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, stated, "This research
places homeopathy squarely in the arena of legitimate medical
science. Homeopathy is effective, but we now need to know
simply how effective it is."
Ever since homeopathy's introduction in
America in 1825, it has been derided by skeptics who assumed
that the medicines were simply placebos. Homeopathy and homeopaths
were attacked even though homeopathy became popular in the
19th century in the US and Europe, primarily as the result
of the significant effects the medicines seemed to have in
treating the various infectious disease epidemics that raged
during that time, including cholera, scarlet fever, yellow
fever, and typhoid.
Dana Ullman, MPH, asserts, "It is
unlikely that a placebo would be effective in treating these
often fatal infectious diseases. Skeptics of homeopathy have
commonly sought various ways to deny the facts of history
and to ignore the evidence from controlled clinical trials.
Despite the attacks against homeopathy, it has not only persisted
but grown, especially in Europe where it is presently the
leading alternative therapy. Whether one points to the 200
years of clinical experience or new scientific data, conventional
physicians and scientists will have to learn to accept homeopathy
as a legitimate medical system."
Ullman readily admits, "Even though
we may not know precisely how homeopathic medicines work,
this has never stopped physicians from using medicines or
treatments that have been shown to be effective."
A new survey of primary care physicians
who are members of the AMA revealed that an astonishing 49%
of them expressed interest in training in homeopathy (British
Homeopathic Journal, July, 1997). This survey was conducted
by researchers at the University of Maryland. They had earlier
surveyed Maryland family practice doctors and discovered that
69% expressed interest in homeopathic training (Journal of
the American Board of Family Practice, 1995, 8, 361-6).
A major reference book on homeopathic
research is Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science (North
Atlantic, 1995) authored by a professor of pathology, P. Bellavite,
MD, and A. Signorini, MD.
Correspondence:
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, California 94704
510-649-0294
800-359-9051 (orders only)
Fax 510-649-1955