Homeopathy: A Critique of Current Clinical Research

The aim of this article is to critically evaluate the clinical research of the research group that, in recent years, has published most of the clinical research in homeopathy.

An evaluation of the clinical research by the group that has published most of the papers in homeopathy, 2005–2010, finds numerous flaws in the design, conduct, and reporting along with a tendency to overinterpret weak data.

Homeopathy has remained one of the most controversial medical treatments in the world. It is based on the “like cures like” principle and the idea that serial dilution of a substance renders it not less but more potent. Both of these axioms of homeopathy lack biological plausibility (Sehon and Stanley 2010). Nevertheless, homeopathy was recently cited as one of “the most popular and widely used forms of medicine in the world” (Chatfield 2011).

Advocates of homeopathy argue that homeopathy’s “clinical effectiveness cannot be disputed” (Chatfield 2011). To prove their point, they produce evidence that seems to confirm this assumption (Fisher 2011). Critics tend to counter that these data are seriously flawed—so much so that they cannot be relied upon (Bewley et al. 2011).

Methods

Medline searches were conducted to identify the team that, in the period between 2005 and 2010, had published more original, clinical research in home­o­pathy than any other group world­­wide. Subsequently, all their publications were obtained and read in full. Data were extracted according to pre-defined criteria (Table 1). Each article was then critically evaluated.

Results
The most prolific research group in this area was identified to be from Berlin. Within the last five years, this team published a total of eleven clinical studies (Brinkhaus et al. 2006; Keil et al. 2008; Teut et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2005a; Witt et al. 2009a; Witt et al. 2005b; Witt et al. 2008; Witt et al. 2009c; Witt et al. 2009b; Witt et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2011) (Table 1). The articles refer to randomized clinical trials and cohort studies published in both conventional (n=7) and alternative medical journals (n=4). Most of the articles have major limitations, which will be discussed below.

To further read the artcile visit the following URL

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/homeopathy_a_critique_of_current_clinical_research/