In this 21st Century, science demands evidence as to support the hypothesis, factual finding confirmed from basic fundamental experiments, In-vitro, in-vivo and clinical trial. Homeopathic system of medicine has faced a lot of criticism, in spite of having documented evidences. Homeopathy has always survived in crucial times of evidences in various clinical and preclinical researches. This letter highlights a nutshell of events, challenges and evidences of homoeopathic medicines.
Homeopathy a controversial medical system discovered by a German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) was first postulated at the end of the 18th century and mentioned in the first edition of his Organon in 1810.(1) In such anecdotal times, where theories about the deficiency, four bodily fluids, theories about “corrupted juices” were propagating, against all odds, the beginning of pre‐scientific medical theories were booming with evidence. Homeopathy was safest to administer and sustained the practice and preaching in the community due to its easy acceptance as compared to other line of treatment which involved painful procedures. But when explored in domain of criteria of evidence based medicine, homeopathy has always being in conflicts of proving itself different from the placebo effects and providing evidence on its mechanism of action.
Challenges against evidences for homoeopathy:
Researchers over the globe are curious in understanding the homeopathic science because the results of so called diluted medicines are contradicting the existing available literatures of research in basic science, modern medicine and pharmacological responses which are observed in these homeopathic medicines preceding the Avogadro’s limit. Experiments of Benveniste(2) and Montagnier et al(3-4), are worth documenting the evidence, but the replications of results had challenged their hypothical theories or plausible explanations as to how are these high diluted medicines exactly showing the effects different from placebo. Another challenge persists of deciphering the principles of potentization as it contradicts the second principle of thermodynamics, law of mass action and dose‐to‐effect relationship. Principle of Similia too is a challenge in exploring the effects and justifying the evidence based on laws and principles of basic science.(1,5)
Evidence for homoeopathy:
To counter act the myths and dogmatism on the effects of Homeopathic medicines, researchers with their unbiased methodologies had decipher the actions of these diluted medicines. There are ongoing attempts as to prove the science of homeopathy in domain of evidence-based medicine. Various government funded agencies had analyzed the effects of homeopathic medicines in clinical research, among them their seems to be a conflicts of evidences provided by “Swiss Report on Homeopathy”(6-18) followed with Australian Report on Homeopathy(19-25) and British Science and Technology Report on Homeopathy(26-28).
These high diluted medicines with suitable drug/toxic substance had exhibited physicochemical and biological properties; they had been explored in domain of hormesis, and also studied on gene expression. Research on water had also been explored through their exclusion zone phase and hypothesized as having a memory but for a short period. The nanoparticle-exclusion zone shells present in these homeopathic medicines might provide drug-specific information and might open up new domain of research in nanopharmacology.(29)
In this 21st century, science had dominated with its par excellence evidence as to perceive the wisdom in treating the humanity with its suffering. Complementary and Alternative medicine (CAM) has always been a challenge in justifying evidence’s as per the standard criteria. (30) Homeopathy resembling a form of CAM has the potential in bringing up new evidences and providing the safest way of treatment for patients. Appropriate trial designs and methodologies if executed with rationale approach might change the pharmaco-economic industries and healthcare delivery system.
Conflict of Interest:
Authors declare no conflict of Interest.
No funding source was provided for this work.
1. Hopff W (1991) Homöopathiekritischbetrachtet. Stuttgart: Thieme; [Google Scholar]
2. Hirst SJ, Hayes NA, Burridge J, Pearce FL, Foreman JC (1993) Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. Nature 366: 525–527 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Montagnier L, Aïssa J, Ferris S, Montagnier JL, Lavallée C (2009) Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA sequences. Interdiscip Sci 1: 81–90 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Luc Montagnier, in: HomöopediaInformationenzur Homöopathie http://www.homoopedia.eu/index.php/Artikel:Luc_Montagnier.
5. Ernst E (2017) The debate about homeopathy is over. These verdicts prove it. The Spectator, 9 June 2017 https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-debate-about-homeopathy-is-over-these-verdicts-prove-it/.
6. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al.: Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet. 2005, 366:726-32. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2.
7. Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB: The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61:1197-204. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.015.
8. Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ. 2000, 321:471-6. 10.1136/bmj.321.7259.471.
9. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T: Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet. 1986, 2:881-6. 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90410-1.
10. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB: Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet. 1997, 350:834-43. 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)02293-9.
11. Fisher P: Homeopathy and The Lancet. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006, 3:145-7. 10.1093/ecam/nek007.
12. Bornhöft G, Matthiessen PF: Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 2011. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642206375.
13. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, et al.: Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementmed. 2006, 13 Suppl 2:19-29. 10.1159/000093586
14. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. (2009). Accessed: January 18, 2021: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Therapy_supporters_roll_up_sleeves_after_vote.html?cid=670064.
15. Why alternative therapies are covered by health insurance. (2016). Accessed: January 18, 2021: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/homeopathy-in-switzerland_why-alternative-therapies-are-covered-by-health-insur....
16. Shaw DM: The Swiss report on homeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012, 142:w13594. 10.4414/smw.2012.13594
17. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G: Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ. 1991, 302:316-23. 10.1136/bmj.302.6772.316
18. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al.: Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet, September 20. 1997, 350:834-843. 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)02293-9
19. National Health and Medical Research Council: NHMRC Information Paper: evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia; 2015.
20. Nuts, bolts, and tiny little screws: how clinical evidence works. (2017). Accessed: 18 April,2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20170709180954/http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/nuts-and-bolts.html.
21. The National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Research Integrity. (2013). Accessed: January 18, 2021: http://www.nhmrchomeopathy.com/undisclosed-expert-peer-reviewer-feedback.html.
22. Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud P: Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2013, 346:f2304. 10.1136/bmj.f2304.
23. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. (2019). Accessed: August 20, 2019: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/Draft-annotated-2012-homeopathy-report.pdf.
24. Why is there an Ombudsman Complaint against the NHMRC?. (2019). Accessed: January 18, 2021: https://www.yourhealthyourchoice.com.au/news-features/information-reel-why-there-is-a-senate-petition-and-ombudsman-c....
25. The first (hidden) NHMRC Homeopathy Review. (2012). Accessed: January 18, 2021: http://www.nhmrchomeopathy.com/the-first-homeopathy-review.html.
26. Homeopathy. (2015/16). Accessed: January 18, 2021: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/homeopathy.
27. Science and Technology Committee - Fourth Report. Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy. (2009). Accessed: January 18, 2021: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm.
28. Homeopathy. (2021). Accessed: January 18, 2021: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/.
29. Ullman D. Exploring Possible Mechanisms of Hormesis and Homeopathy in the Light of Nanopharmacology and Ultra-High Dilutions. Dose-Response. April 2021. doi:10.1177/15593258211022983.
30. Angell M, Kassirer JP. Alternative medicine—the risks of untested and unregulated remedies. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:839-41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199809173391210.