Homeopathy

Grant Duncan - 1 November 1989

The Editor,

N.Z. Skeptic.

Dear Sir,

In order to supplement the article on homeopathy by Bill Morris (March, 1989), I enclose copies of abstracts of clinical trials of homeopathic preparations published in reputable medical journals, some of which Morris has overlooked.

As you will see, some of the results are unfavourable to homeopathy (especially Hitzenberger et al., 1982), and three of them are clearly lacking in adequate controls. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that some of the results are suggestive that homeopathic remedies are actually effective.

Gibson et al. (1980) showed that homeopathic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis produced a “significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength…whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo.” Morris is therefore misreading this paper by interpreting its results as showing “a small improvement in symptoms in favour of homeopathy.”

To accept as unlikely a concept as homeopathy we do indeed require the highest standard of empirical verification. The present evidence is too scant and inconclusive for us to be able to say whether or not homeopathy has a valid role in our health services. There are results both pro and con. We must also remember that homeopathy can be applied to any form of disease, and so whilst it may be shown to be ineffective in one area it may be useful in others. I suggest we withhold our negative judgement until homeopathy has been clinically tested in properly controlled conditions—without prejudice—on a wider variety of disorders.

I realise, however, that for some the best scientific evidence possible will not shake their faith in their accepted beliefs. We observe this all the time amongst the charlatans of this world, and it is all the more disturbing to observe it in Bill Morris, a physician and man of science who can say: “T have to confess that I would feel very uneasy if an impeccably designed trial were to show an unequivocal and reproducible effect” showing that homeopathy works. :

Where would science be today if scientists had always felt so ill at ease with scientific evidence simply because it conflicted with previously held theories? As a member, I would like to ask the editor whether a ‘skeptic’ is a person who is prepared to accept the challenges of scientific investigation, or one who will refuse to accept scientific evidence if it does not agree with the laws he or she was taught at university. If the answer is the latter, then I hereby withdraw my membership because I firmly believe that the greatest value of scientific method is in its ability to throw doubt on the traditional and open up new avenues of thought.

As for homeopathy, I simply ask that we wait until sufficient evidence exists either for or against its effectiveness before we pass judgement.

Yours faithfully,

Grant Duncan, M.A.(Hons)

Br. J. clin. Pharmac. (1980), 9, 453-459

HOMOEOPATHIC THERAPY IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: EVALUATION BY DOUBLE-BLIND CLINICAL THERAPEUTIC TRIAL

R. G. GIBSON, SHEILA L. M. GIBSON, A. D. MacNEILL & W. WATSON

BUCHANAN

The Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital and The Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, University Department of Medicine, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland

1. Twenty-three patients with rheumatoid arthritis on orthodox first-line anti-inflammatory treatment plus homoeopathy were compared with a similar group of twenty-three patients on orthodox first-line treatment plus an inert preparation…

2. There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index. stiffness and grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo.

3. Two physicians were involved in prescribing for the patients and there were no significant differences in the results which they obtained.

4. No side effects were observed with the homoeopathic remedies.

Clinical experimental test and equilibrimetric measurements of the therapeutic action of a homeopathic drug …

ARZNEIMITTEL Forschung

34(12) ; 1984 ; 1791-98

Claussen, C.F.

Summary: Clinico-experimental Study and Equilibrimetric Measurements Assessing the Therapeutic Efficacy of a Homoeopathic Drug with the Ingredients Ambra. Cocculus, Conium, and Mineral Oil in Vertigo and Nausea Cases

This paper presents a study by means of a modern neurotological technique for investigating the action and the site of action of an antivertiginous drug.

The sensory motor tests are able to discriminate the sites of the lesions in the equilibrium regulating system, ie, peripheral vestibular system, lower brainstem regulating system, upper brainstem nystagmus generating system and Supratentorial system. Acoustic brainstem evoked potentials add information.

A sample of 40 vertigo and nausea patients was treated by a combined drug, containing cocculus D4 210 mg, conium D3 30 mg, ambra D6 30 mg, mineral oil D8 30 mg (Vertigoheel®). The patients received 3 tablets 3 times per day during 14 days. An initial investigation wes performed just before starting the treatment. A second directly followed the therapy.

By subjective self-rating 57.5% of the patients reported on an improvement after the intake of Vertigohecl. Statistical evaluations showed that the different vertigo and nausea symptoms as well as the trigger mechanisms of vertigo and nausea (i.e. getting up, turning the head or gazing aside), highly Significantly improved due to the therapy. The objective sensory motor tests showed a highly significant improvement in the monaural caloric butterfly chart as well as in the vestibulospinal head and body sway.

The site of the action of Vertigoheel iy in the brainstem and the Medulla oblongata, especially the middle longitudinal fascicle (MLF). The localisation in this area can be stressed by the investigation with acoustically brainstem evoked potentials (ABEP).

Thus it can be demonstrated that the drug Vertigoheel exhibits a subjective as well as objéctive action upon the brainstem as it could be expected from the composition of its major components cocculus and conium.

Klinische prufung zum Nachure is der therapeutischen wirksamkeit des homoopathischen Arzneimittels Eupatorium perfoliatum D2 (Wasserhanf composite) bei der Diagnose “Grippaler Infekt”.

Gassinger, C.A. von, Wunstel, G and Netter, P. (1981)

Arzneimittel-Forschung, 31, 732-36.

Acetylsalicylic acid and Eupatorium perfoliatum equally effective in controlling symptoms of common cold.

Kontrollierte randomisierte doppelblinde Studie einer Behandlung von Patienten mit essentieller Hypertonie mit homöopathischen und pharmakologisch wirksamen Medikamenten

G. Hitzenberger, A. Korn, M. Doresi, P. Bauer und F. X. Wohlzogen

Abteilung fur Klinische Pharmakologie der 1. Medizinisehen Universititsklinik Wien, sudwiz Bolizmann-institut fiir HomGopathie und Institut fie medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation

A Controlled Randomized Duuble-Blind Cross*Over Study of the Effects of Antihypertensive Pharmacotherapy and Homeopathy in Patients with Essential Hypertension

Summary,

In a randomized double-blind Crossover study the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy were compared with those of homeopathic treatment in [0 patients with essential hypertension. The conclusions are:

1. The blood pressure lowering effect under pharmacotherapy is clearly superior to that under homeotherapy, where it was negligible and statistically not significant.

2. Ay far as improvement of subjective complaints of the Patients is concerned there was no Superiority of pharmacotherapy over homeopathic treatment.

3. The cross-over design appears less suitable than, perhaps, a design with parallel treatment groups because of the long duration of such a study and the observed carry-over effect,

Controlled randomized double blind study for the comparison of the treatment of patients with essential hypertension

‘WIENER Klinische Wochenschrift 94(24) ; 1982 ; 665-70

Hitzenberger, G.

REFERENCE: Index meadicus 1983

Double-blind Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of the Homeopathic Preparation Galphimia Potentisation D6, Galphimia Dilution 10” and Placebo on Pollinosis

From the Departments of General Medicine! and Clinical Documentation? of the University of Ulm (Federal Republic of Germany)

Arzneim.-Forsch./ Drug Res. 35 (11), Nr. 11 (1985) Wiesenaver et al. — Galphimia

By M. Wiesenauer and W. Gaus

Summary: The preparation of homeopathic drugs is based on potentisation. In this potentisation the primary substance is specially mixed with a carrier (typically 90% ethanol) in the ratio 1:10. Usually this potentisation is done repeatedly and the final drug is labeled, e.g., “D6” which means a 6 times decimal potentisation.

In a controlled randomized strictly double-blind trial with 164 patients the effectiveness of homeopathically prepared Galphimia D6, a conventional Galpnimia dilution 10~ and a placebo was investigated for the therapy of pollinosis. The average duration of treatment was about 5 weeks. Although no statistical significance was achieved, it is remarkable that there was a clear trend for the superiority of Galphimia D6 while the Galphimia dilution 10-° was about equally effective compared with placebo. The study itself demonstrates that it is possible to do strictly controlled trials for homeopathic drugs and with medical practitioners.

IS HOMOEOPATHY A PLACEBO RESPONSE?

CONTROLLED TRIAL OF HOMOEOPATHIC POTENCY, WITH POLLEN IN HAYFEVER AS MODEL

THE LANCET, OCTOBER 18, 1986

David TAYLOR REILLY, MORAG A. TAYLOR, CHARLES MCSHARRY, TOM AITCHISON

Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital; University Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow; and Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow

Summary

The hypothesis that homeopathic potencies are placebos was tested in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The study model chosen compared the effects of a homeopathic preparation of mixed grass pollens with placebo in 144 patients with active hayfever. The homeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patient and doctor assessed symptom scores. The significance of this response was increased when results were corrected for pollen count and the response was associated with a halving of the need for antihistamines. An initial aggravation of symptoms was noted more often in patients receiving the potency and was followed by an improvement in that group. No evidence emerged to support the idea that placebo action fully explains the clinical responses to homeopathic drugs.