Dr. Malthouse will present homeopathic success stories from his years in medical practice. Interesting cases – lots of different remedies. A glimpse of what homeopathy can do. Click here to register for the webinar Read more about this event on 4Homeopathy...
Homeopathic Cell Salts for Colds and Flu – Your Quick and Easy Guide By Christy Zettl BSc (Hons) Hom What are Cell Salts? Schuessler Cell Salts (aka tissue or mineral salts) are micro-doses of the most common inorganic salts found in your body that help regulate and...
Learn to confidently integrate homeopathy into your current or future practice, regardless of what other modalities you use. The New England School of Homeopathy is the longest continuous training program of classical homeopathy in the US and is thrilled to be...
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is the fastest-growing disorder in the world. There is much misinformation surrounding its diagnosis such as what’s the most effective treatment and what’s the cause of autism. This webinar series is designed to provide Practitioners...
Great information to share!A good time to share this post again... “There is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works”
This is probably the most frequently quoted, completely inaccurate statement about homeopathy. Homeopathy research is a relatively new field, so it’s true to say that there are not a huge number of studies, but some evidence is very different from no evidence.
By the end of 2014, 189 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 100 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, 104 papers were placebo-controlled and were eligible for detailed review:
41% were positive (43 trials) – finding that homeopathy was effective 5% were negative (5 trials) – finding that homeopathy was ineffective 54% were inconclusive (56 trials)
How does this compare with evidence for conventional medicine?
An analysis of 1016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine had strikingly similar findings:
44% were positive – the treatments were likely to be beneficial 7% were negative – the treatments were likely to be harmful 49% were inconclusive – the evidence did not support either benefit or harm.
Although the percentages of positive, negative and inconclusive results are similar in homeopathy and conventional medicine, it is important to recognise a vast difference in the quantity of research carried out; chart A represents 189 individual trials on homeopathy, whereas chart B represents 1016 reviews on conventional medicine, each analysing multiple trials.
This highlights the need for more research in homeopathy, particularly large-scale high quality repetitions of the most promising positive studies.
The difference in quantity is also not surprising when one considers the tiny amounts of funding made available for research into ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM). For example, in the UK only 0.0085% of the total medical research budget is spent on CAM, of which homeopathy is only one example.