Homeopathy is safe and does not lack positive evidence in clinical trials

The paper by Ross and colleagues provides useful contemporary data on levels of homeopathic and herbal prescribing by general practitioners in Scotland [1]. The points they make about herbal prescribing and drug interactions, especially in young children, are legitimately expressed concerns. Our disquiet is that the authors have taken the opportunity to challenge the entire research evidence base in homeopathy – an issue that goes well beyond the proper interpretation of their data. Allow us to set the record straight.

The paper cites clinical research publications in homeopathy by referring merely to one review, published in 2005, as the authoritative position on trial data in homeopathy [2]. However, that study was based on just eight randomized controlled trials of homeopathy and was deeply flawed [3]. Moreover, it was conducted by researchers openly hostile to homeopathy. It is therefore not an unbiased foundation on which to state there are ‘widespread concerns about the lack of proven efficacy of homoeopathic remedies’ or to conclude there is ‘no convincing positive clinical trial evidence’. Ross et al. fail to mention the positive research findings reported elsewhere, including several other reviews, for example [4, 5], or even some of the clinical trials specifically studying children: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [6], diarrhoea [7, 8], otitis media [9], stomatitis [10], upper respiratory tract infections [11]. They do not mention the evidence that integrating homeopathy in primary care results in better outcomes for similar costs [12, 13] nor, crucially, that it appears very safe when used by health professionals [14, 15].

With barely 100 full-length articles, the volume of peer-reviewed clinical trial research in homeopathy is minuscule compared with that in orthodox medicine. Since homeopathic medicines cannot be patented, homeopathy attracts very little research funding, and so this imbalance may never be redressed. However, statistically significant and positive data have been reported in about half of those published trials [16]. Much of the other half has been inconclusive. Few studies have been frankly negative (homeopathy less effective than control).

It is understandable that homeopathy can seem ‘unscientific’ in its mode of action – and much more scientific investigation needs to be done in this field – but good research does exist to support its clinical effectiveness. Ross and her coworkers should have checked their facts before pronouncing on an area that their study did not actually address.