(NaturalNews) In August of 2005, the prestigious British medical journal the
Lancet published a review comparing clinical trials of homeopathy with trials of conventional medicine. The conclusion of this study, which was widely hailed as evidence that homeopathy is worthless quackery, stated that homeopathic medicines are non-effective and, at best, just placebos. What's more, an accompanying editorial in the
Lancet said this "evidence" should close the door on the non-toxic, alternative treatment method, and flatly proclaimed this review should mark "the end of homeopathy". Now two newly published studies, one in the journal
Homeopathy and the other in the mainstream medical
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, have both gone on record to say the
Lancet review was enormously flawed and downright inaccurate. Instead of showing homeopathy doesn't work, the conclusion should have been that, at least for some ailments, it is effective.
Homeopathy involves giving very small doses of substances called remedies that, according to homeopathy, would produce the same or similar symptoms of illness in healthy people if they were given in larger doses. The goal of homeopathy is to stimulate the body's defense system in order to prevent or treat illness. Homeopathy treatment is tailored to each individual and homeopathic practitioners work to select remedies according to a total picture of the patient, including not only symptoms but lifestyle, emotional and mental states, and other factors.
The original claim made in the
Lancet review that homeopathic medicines are worthless treatments (other than being placebos) was based on six clinical trials of conventional medicine and eight studies of
homeopathy. But what trials, exactly, were studied? It turns out the
Lancet did not reveal this most basic information and, as the new studies point out, seriously flawed assumptions were made about the data that was presented. There are a limited number of homeopathic
studies so it is not difficult to pick and choose facts to interpret selectively and unfavorably, which appears to be just what was done in the original
Lancet anti-homeopathy article.
Bottom line: the
Lancet's report showing homeopathy is worthless lacked the academic care and scientific approach called for in medical journals. In fact, it could well be seen as a hack job.
In a statement to the press, George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University in Great Britain, stated: "The
review gave no indication of which trials were analyzed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable."
The two recently published scientific papers that investigated the previous
Lancet review conclude that an analysis of
all high quality trials of homeopathy show positive outcomes. What's more, the eight larger and higher quality trials of homeopathy looked at a variety of medical conditions. The new studies point out that because homeopathy worked consistently for some of these ailments and not others, the results must indicate that homeopathic remedies can't be simply placebos. In addition, the studies conclude that comparing homeopathy to conventional medicine was a meaningless apples-and-oranges approach. There are also concerns that the original anti-homeopathy review used unpublished criteria. For example, the researchers didn't bother to define what they meant by "higher quality" homeopathy research.
The new studies not only cast serious doubts on the original
Lancet review, which was headed by Professor Matthias Egger of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Berne, but they strongly indicate Egger and his team based their conclusions on a series of hidden judgments that were prejudiced against homeopathy. So far,Professor Egger has declined to comment on the findings of the new studies in
Homeopathy and the
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
A press statement from the National Center for Homeopathy explains that an open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for many conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and flu, but agrees that much more research is needed. To that end, the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has announced it is currently supporting research in these areas:
* Homeopathy for physical, mental, and emotional symptoms of fibromyalgia (a chronic disorder involving widespread musculoskeletal pain, multiple tender points on the body, and fatigue).
* Homeopathy to help relieve or prevent brain deterioration and damage in stroke and dementia.
* Homeopathy (specifically the remedy cadmium) to potentially prevent damage to the cells of the prostate when those cells are exposed to toxins.
About the author
Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA’s "Healthy Years" newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic’s "Men’s Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.
Have comments on this article? Post them here:
people have commented on this article.
Email this article to a friend
Now Available from 
