Scientific evidence for benefits of Homeopathy?

Question

Could someone provide me with some links to any journal (internationally recognized and accpted) or other articles on scientific research that prove definite benfits and effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.
Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

A few clinical trials have shown a slight benefit over placebos while the vast majority have shown no significant beneft.
Metanalaysis of mutliple trials have shown no real evidence for the benefits of homeopathy.


European Journal of Cancer 2006 study
In January 2006 the European Journal of Cancer published a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio- and chemo-therapy.[110] Three of the trials included were randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors were from the Department of Complementary Medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. Their analysis found insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic remedies in cancer treatment recovery. They wrote that "In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy."


Lancet 2005 study
In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials [111] based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The outcome of this meta-analysis suggested that the clinical effects of homeopathy are likely to be placebo effects. The Lancet paper is notable not least for its design, as another "global" meta analysis of homeopathy, not an analysis of particular effects, i.e. it tested the global hypothesis that the reported effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. If this is accurate, then the reported positive effects are due to placebo effects, publication bias, observer effects etc., and if so, then the magnitude of reported effects should diminish with sample size and study quality, and with the best studies there should be consistently no effect, and this is the prediction that the study sought to test. For comparison, they subjected an equal set of conventional medicine trials for identical analysis. These were matched for study disease and sample size, but not for trial quality which was significantly better in the homeopathic trials than the randomly chosen biomedical trials. The prediction was supported by the study - whereas the conventional tests showed a real effect independent of sample size, the homeopathy studies did not. The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective or that all its findings are placebo effects, but does show that the totality of tests analysed show outcomes consistent with the interpretation that all of the reported effects are placebo effects. The Lancet accompanied the meta-analysis with invited editorials. The Lancet study was criticized by a number of homeopathic researchers and statisticians on methodological grounds, including lack of transparency concerning the review protocol and reporting, leading to the allegation of data dredging.[112] The Lancet rejected the majority of the criticisms submitted for publication. Some of the correspondence rejected by the Lancet was subsequently published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.[113]

British Medical Journal 1991 study
In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." The proportion of positive results may be biased by the so-called 'drawer effect,' where studies with positive results are more easily and more readily published than studies with negative results (which tend to end up in the desk drawer). They found evidence for successful treatment of respiratory and other infections, diseases of the digestive system, hay fever, rheumatological disease, mental or psychological problems and other ailments. In addition, they found evidence that homeopathic treatment helped patients recover after abdominal surgery and to address pain or trauma.

Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy.

The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."


Evidence-based medicine
There is widespread consensus in the medical community that evidence based medicine is the best standard for assessing efficacy and safety of health-care practices, for it is "the expression of the scientific method in clinical medicine." [117] Therefore, systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential to establish proof for various therapies. While committed to this principle, much of modern medicine is subject to ongoing efforts to comply with evidence-based standards.

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found insufficient evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma, [118] dementia, [119] and induction of labor.[120] They also found no evidence that homeopathic treatment can prevent influenza,[121] but reported that it appears to shorten the duration of the disease. Systematic reviews conducted by other researchers found insufficient evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis, [122] migraine prophylaxis,[123] delayed-onset muscle soreness,[124] or symptoms of menopause.[125]

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, states that:[126]
The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.
A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.
There is a point of view that homeopathy does work, but that modern scientific methods have not yet explained why. The failure of science to provide full explanations for all treatments is not unique to homeopathy.
Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary.
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine continues to fund research into homeopathy.


By the way, nice avator!

Answer 2

The following is a detailed analysis you are looking for.
http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=Article&ID=942

Others:
Art, Science and Placebo: Incorporating Homeopathy in General Practice - group of 4 »
C May, D Sirur - Sociology of Health and Illness, 1998 - Blackwell Synergy
... 20 No.2 1998 ISSN 0141–9889, pp. 168–190 Art, science and placebo: incorporating
homeopathy in general practice Carl May and Deepak Sirur ...

Answer 3

Way to paint every theist with a broad brush. Not all are like that. Some do value the advances modern medicine has brought, although there will always be that "element."

Answer 4

www.heilpflanzen-welt.de/science/1999/10394673.htm

http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/research/scienti.php

Here's a couple to start you off...hope it helps!

Kimberly, RRT

Answer 5

Some useful links:

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/homeopathy.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/112902.html

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197§ionId=15346

Answer 6

Here's one.

http://www.complemed.com/VertigoHeel.htm