On their  website, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently published a statement on homeopathy which, I think, is important enough to get cited extensively:

… Food and Drug Administration proposed a new, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labeled as homeopathic. To protect consumers who choose to use homeopathic products, this proposed new approach would update the FDA’s existing policy to better address situations where homeopathic treatments are being marketed for serious diseases and/or conditions but where the products have not been shown to offer clinical benefits. It also covers situations where products labeled as homeopathic contain potentially harmful ingredients or do not meet current good manufacturing practices…

The FDA’s proposed approach prioritizes enforcement and regulatory actions involving unapproved drug products labeled as homeopathic that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients…  The FDA intends to focus its enforcement authorities on the following kinds of products:

  • products with reported safety concerns;
  • products that contain or claim to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns;
  • products for routes of administration other than oral and topical;
  • products intended to be used for the prevention or treatment of serious and/or life-threatening diseases and conditions;
  • products for vulnerable populations; and
  • products that do not meet standards of quality, strength or purity as required under the law.

Examples of products that may be subject to the enforcement priorities in the draft guidance are infant and children’s products labeled to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns, such as belladonna and nux vomica; and products marketed for serious conditions, such as cancer and heart disease.

While the FDA considers comments to the draft guidance, the FDA intends to examine how the agency is implementing its current compliance policy. Given the concerns about the proliferation of potentially ineffective and harmful products labeled as homeopathic, the FDA will consider taking additional enforcement and/or regulatory actions, consistent with the current enforcement policies, which also align with the risk-based categories described in the draft guidance, in the interest of protecting the public…

Until relatively recently, homeopathy was a small market for specialized products. Over the last decade, the homeopathic drug market has grown exponentially, resulting in a nearly $3 billion industry that exposes more patients to potential risks associated with the proliferation of unproven, untested products and unsubstantiated health claims. During this time, the FDA has seen a corresponding increase in safety concerns, including serious adverse events, associated with drug products labeled as homeopathic. In addition, the agency has also found an increasing number of poorly manufactured products that contain potentially dangerous amounts of active ingredients that can create additional risks.

In September 2016, the FDA warned against the use of homeopathic teething tablets and gels containing belladonna, a toxic substance that has an unpredictable response in children under two years of age, after the products were associated with serious adverse events, including seizures and deaths, in infants and children. An FDA lab analysis later confirmed that certain homeopathic teething tablets contained elevated and inconsistent levels of belladonna. A similar issue occurred in 2010 when Hyland’s Teething Tablets were found to contain varying amounts of belladonna. An FDA inspection of that product’s manufacturing facility indicated substandard control of the product’s manufacturing.

The FDA has issued warnings related to a number of other homeopathic drug products over the past several years. These include certain homeopathic zinc-containing intranasal products that may cause a loss of sense of smell, homeopathic asthma products that have not been shown to be effective in treating asthma and various homeopathic drug products labeled to contain potentially toxic ingredients, like nux vomica, which contains strychnine (a highly toxic, well-studied poison often used to kill rodents).

“Homeopathic products have not been approved by the FDA for any use and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The draft guidance is an important step forward in the agency’s work to protect patients from unproven and potentially dangerous products.”…

The FDA is not alone in reexamining its approach to homeopathy. In November 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a new enforcement policy explaining that they will hold efficacy and safety claims for over-the-counter homeopathic drugs to the same standard as other products making similar health claims. Notably, the FTC said that companies must have competent and reliable scientific evidence for health-related claims, including claims that a product can treat specific conditions…


US homeopaths were quick to respond, as reported here:

The National Center for Homeopathy’s board of directors stated:

The National Center for Homeopathy supports the FDA’s efforts to ensure safety and good manufacturing practices in the industry. We are committed to working with industry partners to protect consumer access to homeopathic medicines, and we are hopeful that this action will not impede access. Homeopathic medicines are safe, gentle and effective when products are manufactured in accordance with HPUS (Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States) guidelines under CGMPs (Current Good Manufacturing Practices). We welcome the opportunity to educate consumers and healthcare professionals about the unique aspects of homeopathic medicine.

Of course, the unique aspect of homeopathic medicines undoubtedly is that they usually contain no active molecules and therefore do not work. But somehow, I doubt that the NCH was thinking of telling consumers the truth.

The NCH statement is tame in comparison with the NCH’s response to the FDA’s actions during the homeopathic teething investigation last year. Prior to the recall, the FDA issued a warning to consumers, which the NCH dubbed as “arbitrary and capricious.” The NCH went on to say that the FDA’s warning led to “exaggerated fear mongering” in the media and a “public scare” that threatened access to homeopathic products. “[G]roups interested in seeing homeopathy destroyed continue to hammer away at the system—making exaggerated claims that create misunderstandings about and limit consumer access,” the NCH wrote [emphasis theirs].

And this response is tame compared to what a prominent US homeopaths claimed at the time:

“It’s time to hold these people accountable. There are laws in every country against officials taking bribes and malfeasance in office. Write to your legislators and demand that they investigate and bring these criminals to justice. Send them the links to hundreds of homeopathy studies, including disease prevention with homeopathy, at the end of this article.   Tell them that the regulatory agencies are protecting Pharma profits, not the public.

Meanwhile, let us insist that pharmaceutical drugs be labeled honestly, like this:

“This drug was tested by the same company that profits from it, and which company has been fined millions of dollars in the past for lying about test results. This drug does not cure any medical condition, but only suppresses symptoms which may ultimately make the patient sicker. This drug has already  killed or injured X  number of people.”

The outrage is understandable for two reasons, I think:

  1. even homeopaths cannot deny that the days of unchecked claims are counted;
  2. against rage of this sort homeopathic remedies are obviously not working.

Electrohomeopathy is a version of homeopathy few people know about. Allow me to explain:

Cesare Mattei (1809–1896), an Italian count, was interested in homeopathy. Mattei believed that fermented plants gave off ‘electrical’ energy that could be used to cure illness. He also believed that every illness had a cure provided in the vegetable kingdom by God. He began to develop his system from 1849. The large bottles are labelled ”Red”, ”Green”, “White”, “Yellow” and “Blue” so the actual ingredients remained a secret. Ointments were made up with ingredients from the small and large bottles. The vial labelled “Canceroso 5” was used for bruises, cancers, chilblains, hair loss, skin diseases and varicose veins, among other conditions. Although dismissed by the medical profession as quackery, Mattei’s system was popular. It formed part of the treatment at St Saviour’s Cancer Hospital in London from 1873.

Wikipedia offers more informing us that:

“… Mattei, a nobleman living in a castle in the vicinity of Bologna studied natural science, anatomy, physiology, pathology, chemistry and botany. He ultimately focused on the supposed therapeutic power of “electricity” in botanical extracts. Mattei made bold, unsupported claims for the efficacy of his treatments, including the claim that his treatments offered a nonsurgical alternative to cancer. His treatment regimens were met with scepticism by mainstream medicine:

The electrohomeopathic system is an invention of Count Mattei who prates of “red”, “blue”, and “green” electricity, a theory that, in spite of its utter idiocy, has attracted a considerable following and earned a large fortune for its chief promoter.

Notwithstanding criticisms, including a challenge by the British medical establishment to the claimed success of his cancer treatments,  electrohomeopathy (or Matteism, as it was sometimes known at the time) had adherents in Germany, France, the USA and the UK by the beginning of the 20th century; electrohomeopathy had been the subject of approximately 100 publications and there were three journals dedicated to it.

Remedies are derived from what are said to be the active micro nutrients or mineral salts of certain plants. One contemporary account of the process of producing electrohomeopathic remedies was as follows:

As to the nature of his remedies we learn … that … they are manufactured from certain herbs, and that the directions for the preparation of the necessary dilutions are given in the ordinary jargon of homeopathy. The globules and liquids, however, are “instinct with a potent, vital, electrical force, which enables them to work wonders”. This process of “fixing the electrical principle” is carried on in the secret central chamber of a Neo-Moorish castle which Count Mattei has built for himself in the Bolognese Apennines… The “red electricity” and “white electricity” supposed to be “fixed” in these “vegetable compounds” are in their very nomenclature and suggestion poor and miserable fictions.

According to Mattei’s own ideas however, every disease originates in the change of blood or of the lymphatic system or both, and remedies can therefore be mainly divided into two broad categories to be used in response to the dominant affected system. Mattei wrote that having obtained plant extracts, he was “able to determine in the liquid vegetable electricity”. Allied to his theories and therapies were elements of Chinese medicine, of medical humours, of apparent Brownianism, as well as modified versions of Samuel Hahnemann‘s homeopathic principles. Electrohomeopathy has some associations with Spagyric medicine, a holistic medical philosophy claimed to be the practical application of alchemy in medical treatment, so that the principle of modern electrohomeopathy is that disease is typically multi-organic in cause or effect and therefore requires holistic treatment that is at once both complex and natural.”


If one would assume that electrohomeopathy is nothing more than a bizarre and long-forgotten chapter in the colourful history of homeopathy, one would be mistaken; it is still used and promoted by enthusiasts who continue to make bold claims. This article, for instance, informs us that:

  • Electro Homeopathic remedies tone up the brain and the nerves through which overall body processes are controlled and strengthen the digestion process.
  • The tablets provide food for the red blood cells and provide nourishment for the white corpuscles of the lymph and the blood.
  • They provide the useful elements to the plasma of the blood and provide required nutrients for the cells of which tissues are made.
  • They enhance the eviction through the skin and other modes and unnecessary substances which disturb the function and health of the body.
  • They cure the diseases and are helpful to the patients who use them.
  • They are curative as well as palliatives.
  • They are helpful in curing the serious diseases whether it is acute or chronic, non-surgical or surgical, for women, men, and children. They provide 100 percent cure.
  • They cure diseases such as tuberculosis, cancer, fistula, and cancer. They can cure these diseases without operation.
  • They cure all type of infectious diseases with certainty and are also helpful in prophylactics in the epidemics.

This article also provides even more specific claims:

Here are the 5 best Electro Homeopathic medicines for curing kidney stones –

  • Berberis Vulgaris – is the best medicine for left-sided kidney stones
  • Cantharis Vesicatoria– is one of the best medicine for kidney stones with burning in urine
  • Lycopodium – is the best remedy for right-sided kidney stones
  • Sarsaparilla – is the best medicine for kidney stones with white sand in urine
  • Benzoic Acid – is best homeopathic medicine for renal calculi…

The aforesaid homeopathic medicines for kidney stones have been found to be very effective in getting these stones out of the system. It does not mean that only these medicines are used.

What all of this highlights yet again is this, I think:

  • There are many seriously deluded people out there who are totally ignorant of medicine, healthcare and science.
  • To a desperate patient, these quacks can seem reasonable in their pretence of medical competence.
  • Loons make very specific health claims (even about very serious conditions), thus endangering the lives of the many gullible people who believe them.
  • Even though this has been known and well-documented for many years, t here seems to be nobody stopping the deluded pretenders in their tracks; the public therefore remains largely unprotected from their fraudulent and harmful acts.
  • In particular, the allegedly more reasonable end of the ‘alt med community’ does nothing to limit the harm done by such charlatans – on the contrary, whether knowingly or not, groups such as doctors of ‘integrative medicine’ lend significant support to them.

The common cold is a perfect condition for providers of alternative medicine:

  • it is prevalent (good money to be earned),
  • it is not normally dangerous,
  • it nevertheless reduces quality of life and thus patients look for a treatment,
  • there probably is not a single alternative therapy that does not claim to be effective for it,
  • it is gone after about a week, treated or not.

But is there an alternative therapy that does actually work? An article by the Cochrane Collaboration provides an excellent overview. It includes conventional as well as alternative treatments; here I have merely copied the passages related to the latter:


There was great excitement in the 1970s when Linus Pauling, (a Nobel laureate twice over), concluded from placebo-controlled trials that Vitamin C could prevent and alleviate the common cold. Further research followed and a Cochrane review, published in 2013, found 29 clinical trials, involving 11,306 participants. Unfortunately, the review did not confirm Pauling’s findings. Taking regular Vitamin C did not reduce the incidence of colds in the general population, although there was a modest reduction in the duration and severity of symptoms. The only people who appeared to derive some benefit were those who undertook short bursts of extreme exercise, such as marathon runners and skiers. In this group the risk of getting a cold was halved.

Trials looking at taking high dose Vitamin C at the onset of cold symptoms showed no consistent effect on the duration and severity of symptoms and more research is needed to clarify these findings.


Echinacea is widely used in Europe and North America for common colds. A Cochrane review (2014) showed that some Echinacea products may be more effective than placebo in treating colds but the overall evidence for clinically relevant effects was weak. There was some evidence of a small preventative effect.


Inhaled steam has been used for decades (see earlier reference to my childhood humiliation!) thinking that it helps drain away mucus more effectively and possibly destroys the cold virus. A Cochrane review (2017) of six trials with 387 participants showed no consistent benefit for this intervention.


A single trial with 146 participants showed that taking garlic every day for three months might prevent occurrences of the common cold but the evidence was of low quality and more research is needed to validate this finding. (Cochrane review 2014.)


The article obviously focuses only on such therapies for which Cochrane reviews have been published. What about other treatments? As I already mentioned, if we believe the promoters of alternative medicine, the list is long. But fortunately, we do not believe them and want to see the evidence.


Unsurprisingly, the evidence is not good. One of my posts even expressed the fear that it might involve scientific misconduct.


Yes, some chiropractors claim that their manipulations are effective for the common cold. But, as with almost all of their claims, this cannot be taken seriously; the assumption is bogus.


A systematic review concluded that their use for common cold is not supported by robust evidence.


Ages ago, I published a small study with promising results:

Twenty-five volunteers were submitted to sauna bathing, with 25 controls abstaining from this or comparable procedures. In both groups the frequency, duration and severity of common colds were recorded for six months. There were significantly fewer episodes of common cold in the sauna group. This was found particularly during the last three months of the study period when the incidence was roughly halved compared to controls. The mean duration and average severity of common colds did not differ significantly between the groups. It is concluded that regular sauna bathing probably reduces the incidence of common colds, but further studies are needed to prove this.

Sadly, the findings were never replicated.



Grin and bear it!

(That is the cold as well as the myriad of false claims made by enthusiasts of alternative medicine)


The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) has launched a campaign to inform the public that, despite everything non-homeopaths may say and despite the undeniable facts about homeopathy, their remedies are highly effective. This article provides a detailed account of their incompetence.

I saw the image below first on Twitter. It is part of their current campaign and summarises ‘POSITIVE MESSAGES ABOUT HOMEOPATHY’ as the SoH proclaim them. Presumably, they did this piece of work to help their members finding the right arguments when defending the indefensible.

I am not usually prone to laughing fits, but this had me in stiches! It is hilarious, I think; a true masterpiece of comedy.

The masterpiece is almost too perfect to tarnish with my comments; however, I cannot resist. Sorry!

I will take the arguments in turn going clockwise and starting with


Should this not be ‘homeopathic medicines’? In any case, the remedies (medicines seems too strong a word) are tested in so-called ‘provings’ – yes, safely because they normally contain no active ingredient… and effectively? I cannot see why provings might be ‘effective’; they are pure fantasy.


No, as we have discussed often on this blog, adding cow pie to apple pie is not a positive contribution to anything.


Appeal to tradition = fallacy.

Appeal to authority = fallacy.


This too is false logic, because all good medicine puts the patient at the centre; in addition it is grammatically false English (if I as a non-native speaker may be so bold).


I doubt it. But even if this figure is correct, an appeal to popularity is a fallacy and not a logical argument.


I doubt it. But even if this figure is correct, an appeal to popularity is a fallacy and not a logical argument.


What is ‘natural’ in endlessly diluting things like ‘Berlin Wall’ and pretending it is a medicine? In any case, the appeal to tradition is yet another fallacy.


This is where I almost fell off my chair; homeopathy is the opposite of progress, it is a dogma and a belief-system.


All good medicine is holistic; arguably, homeopathy is not holistic.


Yes, this is what homeopaths believe, but it is not true.

To conclude what better than quoting the person who, a long time ago, said: “HOMEOPATHS ARE THE CLOWNS AMONGST THE HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS” ?


Sorry, but something I stated in my last post was not entirely correct!

I wrote that “I could not find a single study on Schuessler Salts“.

Yet, I do know of a ‘study’ of Schuessler Salts after all; I hesitate to write about it because it is an exceedingly ugly story that goes back to the ‘Third Reich’, and some people do not seem to appreciate me reporting about my research on this period.

The truth, however, is that I already did mention the Schuessler salts before on this blog: “…in 1941 a research unit was established in ‘block 5’ [of the Dachau Concetration Camp] which, according to Rascher’s biographer, Sigfried Baer, contained his department and a homeopathic research unit led by Hanno von Weyherns and Rudolf Brachtel (1909-1988). I found the following relevant comment about von Weyherns: “Zu Jahresbeginn 1941 wurde in der Krankenabteilung eine Versuchsstation eingerichtet, in der 114 registrierte Tuberkulosekranke homöopathisch behandelt wurden. Leitender Arzt war von Weyherns. Er erprobte im Februar biochemische Mittel an Häftlingen.” My translation: At the beginning of 1941, an experimental unit was established in the sick-quarters in which 114 patients with TB were treated homeopathically. The chief physician was von Weyherns. In February, he tested Schuessler Salts [a derivative of homeopathy still popular in Germany today] on prisoners.”

Wikipedia provides further details: [Im Dritten Reich] konnten erstmals mit staatlicher Billigung und Förderung Untersuchungen durchgeführt werden, in denen die behauptete Wirksamkeit „biochemischer“ Arzneimittel überprüft wurde. Solche Versuche fanden auch in den Konzentrationslagern Dachau und Auschwitz statt, unter Leitung des Reichsarztes SS Ernst-Robert Grawitz. Dabei wurden unter anderem künstlich herbeigeführte Fälle von Blutvergiftung und Malaria weitgehend erfolglos behandelt. Für die Häftlinge nahmen diese Experimente in den meisten Fällen einen tödlichen Ausgang.

My translation: During the Third Reich, it became possible for the first time possible to conduct with governmental support investigations into the alleged effectiveness of ‘biochemical’ Schuessler Salts. Such tests were carried out in the concentration camps of Dachau and Auschwitz under the leadership of Reichsarzt SS Ernst-Robert Grawitz. They involved infecting prisoners with sepsis and malaria and treating them – largely without success. Most of the prisoners used for these experiments died.

I also found several further sources on the Internet. They confirm what was stated above and also mention the treatment of TB with Schuessler Salts. Furthermore, they state that the victims were mostly Polish priests:

The last source claims that at least 28 prisoners died as a result of these unspeakably cruel experiments.

The most detailed account (and even there, it is just 2 or 3 pages) about these experiments that I could find is in the superb and extremely well-researched book ‘AUSCHWITZ, DIE NS MEDIZIN UND IHRE OPFER’ by Ernst Klee. In it (p 146), Klee cites Grawitz’s correspondence with Himmler where Grawitz discloses that, prior to the Dachau ‘Schuessler experiments’, there were also some in Auschwitz where all three victims had died. Apparently Grawitz tried to persuade Himmler to stop these futile and (even for his standards) exceedingly cruel tests; the prisoners suffered unimaginable pain before their deaths. However, Himmler reprimanded him sharply and instructed him to continue. Dr Kiesswetter was subsequently recruited to the team because he was considered to be an expert on the clinical use of Schuessler Salts.

[Another book entitled Der Deutsche Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte im Nationalsozialismus‘ also mentions these experiments. Its author claims that Weyherns was not a doctor but a Heilpraktiker (all other sources agree that he was a medic). In general, the book seems to down-play this deplorable story and reads like an attempt to white-wash German homeopathy during the Third Reich] .

Klee concludes his chapter by reporting the post-war fate of all the doctors involved in the ‘Schuessler experiments’:

Dr Waldemar Wolter was sentenced to death and executed.

Dr Hermann Pape disappeared.

Dr Rudolf Kiesswetter disappeared.

Dr Babor fled to Addis Abeba.

Dr Laue died.

Dr Heinrich Schuetz managed to become a successful consultant in Essen. Only in 1972, he was charged and tried by a German court to 10 years of jail. Several of his colleagues, however, certify that he was too ill to be imprisoned, and Schuetz thus escaped his sentence.

Why do I dwell on this most unpleasant subject?

Surely, this has nothing to do with today’s use of Schuessler Salts!

Do I do it to “smear homeopathy and other forms of complementary medicine with a ‘guilt by association’ argument, associating them with the Nazis“, as Peter Fisher once so stupidly put it?


I have other, more important reasons:

  • I do not think that the evidence regarding Schuessler Salts is complete without these details.
  • I believe that these are important historical facts.
  • I feel that the history of alternative medicine during the Third Reich is under-researched and almost unknown (contrary to that of conventional medicine for which a very large body of published evidence is now available).
  • I feel it should be known and ought to be much better documented than it is today.
  • I fear that we live in times where the memory of such atrocities might serve as a preventative for a resurgence of fascism in all its forms.

Yes, I did promise to report on my participation in the ‘Goldenes Brett’ award which took place in Vienna and Hamburg on 23/11/2017. I had been asked to come to Vienna and do the laudation for the life-time achievement in producing ridiculous nonsense. This year, the award went to the ‘DEUTSCHER ZENTRALVEREIN HOMOEOPATHISCHER AERZTE’ (DZVhÄ), the German Central Society of Homoeopathic Doctors.

In my short speech, I pointed out that this group is a deserving recipient of this prestigious negative award. Founded in 1829, the DZVhÄ  is a lobby-group aimed at promoting homeopathy where and how they can. It is partly responsible for the fact that homeopathy is still highly popular in Germany, and that many German consumers seem to think that homeopathy is an evidence-based therapy.

Cornelia Bajic, the current president of this organisation stated on her website that “Homöopathie hilft bei allen Krankheiten, die keiner chirurgischen oder intensivmedizinischen Behandlung bedürfen“ (homeopathy helps with all diseases which do not need surgical or intensive care), advice that, in my view, has the potential to kill millions.

The DZVhÄ also sponsors the publication of a large range of books such as ‘Was kann die Homoeopathie bei Krebs’ (What can homeopathy do for cancer?). This should be a very short volume consisting of just one page with just one word: NOTHING. But, in fact, it provides all sorts of therapeutic claims that are not supported by evidence and might seriously harm those cancer patients who take it seriously.

But the DZVhÄ does much, much more than just promotion. For instance it organises annual ‘scientific’ conferences – I have mentioned two of them previously here, here and here. In recent years one of its main activity must have been the defamation of certain critics of homeopathy. For instance, they supported Claus Fritzsche in his activities to defame me and others. And recently, they attacked Natalie Grams for her criticism of homeopathy. Only a few days ago, Cornelia Bajic attacked doctor Gram’s new book – embarrassingly, Bajic then had to admit that she had not even read the new book!

The master-stroke of the DZVhÄ , in my opinion, was the fact that they supported the 4 homeopathic doctors who went to Liberia during the Ebola crisis wanting to treat Ebola patients with homeopathy. At the time Bajic stated that “Unsere Erfahrung aus der Behandlung anderer Epidemien in der Geschichte der Medizin lässt den Schluss zu, dass eine homöopathische Behandlung die Sterblichkeitsrate der Ebola-Patienten signifikant verringern könnte” (Our experience with other epidemics in the history of medicine allows the conclusion that homeopathic treatment might significantly reduce the mortality of Ebola patients).

As I said: the DZVhÄ are a well-deserving winner of this award!


Malaria is an infection caused by protozoa usually transmitted via mosquito bites. Malaria is an important disease for homeopaths because of Hahnemann’s quinine experiment: it made him postulate his ‘like cures like’ theory. Today, many experts assume that Hahnemann misinterpreted the results of this experience. Yet most homeopaths are still convinced that potentised cinchona bark is an effective prophylaxis against malaria. Some homeopathic pharmacies still offer homeopathic immunisations against the infection. In several cases, this has caused people who believed to be protected fall ill with the infection.

Perhaps because of this long tradition, homeopaths seem to have difficulties giving up the idea that they hold the key to effective malaria prevention. An article published in THE INDIAN EXPRESS entitled ‘Research suggests hope for homoeopathic vaccine to treat malaria’ reminds us of this bizarre phenomenon:

…In a laboratory test set-up, an ultra-dilute homoeopathic preparation was prepared by extracting samples from Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. The homoeopathic preparation was used in-vitro to check if it had anti-malarial activity… “Homoeopathy has been criticised for lack of scientific evidence. This lab-model test established that a medicine developed from an organism that causes malaria can be used to treat the infection,” said Dr Rajesh Shah, principal investigator in the research.

Following the tests, Shah is approaching the government in order to conduct a full-fledged clinical trial for the homoeopathic medicine. “We found that the homoeopathic medicine exhibited 65 per cent inhibition against malaria while chloroquine treatment has 54 per cent efficacy,” Shah claimed. The research was published in the International Journal of Medical and Health Research in July. It observed that the homoeopathic solution inhibited enzyme called hemozoin is known to have an anti-malarial effect…


I thought this story was both remarkable and odd. So I looked up the original paper. Here is the abstract:

The inventor has developed malaria nosode and has subjected it for evaluation of antimalarial activity in vitro assay along with few other homeopathy preparations. The potential antimalarial activity of the Malaria nosode, Malaria officinalis and China officinalis was evaluated by β-Hematin Formation Assay. The hemozoin content was determined by measuring the absorbance at 400 nm. The results were recorded as % inhibition of heme crystallization compared to negative control (DMSO) Malaria nosode, Malaria officinalis and China officinalis exhibited inhibition of hemozoin and the inhibition was greater than the positive control Chloroquine diphosphate used in the study. The study has shown anti-disease activity of an ultra-dilute (potentized) homeopathic preparation. The Malaria nosode prepared by potentizing Plasmodium falciparum organisms has demonstrated antimalarial activity, which supports the basic principle behind homeopathy, the law of similar.

Now I am just as puzzled!

Why would any responsible scientist advocate running a ‘full-fledged clinical trial’ on the basis of such flimsy and implausible findings?

Would that not be highly unethical?

Would one not do further in-vitro tests?

Then perhaps some animal studies?

Followed by first studies in humans?

Followed perhaps by a small pilot study?

And, if all these have generated positive results, eventually a proper clinical trial?

The answers to all these questions is YES.

But not in homeopathy, it seems!

There has been a flurry of legal actions against manufacturers of homeopathic products (mostly) in the US. Many of these cases seem to settle out of court which means that we hardly hear about them. Of those that go to court, most are being won by the plaintiffs, but unfortunately some are also lost.

The recent case of Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc. is such an incidence. The US lawyer Robert G Knaier has analysed this case in detail and recently published a paper about it. The article is fascinating and well worth reading in full.

Here I take the liberty to show you a (shorted) section of Knaier’s paper where he asks what went wrong:

… How did a jury decide that Hyland’s did not misrepresent the efficacy of its products? Surely, the court’s instruction that Hyland’s would be liable only if the plaintiffs proved homeopathy “cannot work” contributed to the result. So long as defense experts were able to propose ways that homeopathy might work, the jury was left with the difficult decision—for laypersons, in any event—of rejecting that testimony.

But should the jury ever have been put in the position of having to make that choice? Should the defense experts ever have been allowed to testify? Had the court in Allen granted the plaintiffs’ motions to exclude those experts, the case likely would have ended with a settlement. Without the ability to put on evidence supporting its products, Hyland’s may very well have recognized that it had no realistic chance of prevailing at trial. But the court denied those motions.

In this respect, the court erred. There can be little doubt that expert testimony in support of the efficacy of homeopathy fails tests of admissibility. Consider the Federal Rules of Evidence and the factors that courts should evaluate under Daubert and its progeny. Is testimony that homeopathy is effective “the product of reliable principles and methods”?

In other words, does it have a “reliable foundation”? Is “the reasoning or methodology underlying [it] . . . scientifically valid”?  As explained above, homeopathy’s core principles—provings, like cures like, and the law of minimum dose—are based on little more than Samuel Hahnemann’s late eighteenth-century speculations. They were not developed through, nor have they been validated by, controlled scientific studies… the principles and efficacy of homeopathy have been “tested” and “subjected to peer review and publication” — but they have consistently failed those tests and the scrutiny of that review process… Indeed, the FDA has stated that it simply is “not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective.”

Thus, homeopathy’s “rate of error” is known, and far from gaining “general acceptance” in the scientific and medical community, it has gained near-universal condemnation. The defense of homeopathy, in some respects, presents a classic example of “unjustifiably extrapolat[ing] from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion.”  Advocates extrapolate from the efficacy of vaccines that similia similibus currentur has a sound scientific basis, and from the concept of hormesis that providing ultralow doses is well-founded methodology. But as one contemporary skeptic has explained, unlike homeopathic remedies, vaccines actually “contain measurable numbers of antigen molecules,” and “act by well-understood scientific mechanisms”; and hormesis, even in the limited circumstances in which it appears to operate, “describes a response to a low dose, not to no dose.”  As Martin Gardner noted many decades ago, the defense of homeopathy thus begins with plausible-sounding principles, and then “exaggerate[s] them to the point of absurdity.”  In other words, it impermissibly extrapolates to “unfounded conclusion[s].”

Finally, the defense of homeopathy glaringly fails to “account for obvious alternative explanations.” Do people who take homeopathic remedies sometimes feel better? Of course they do. But studies of homeopathy have overwhelmingly concluded that the reason for this is not that homeopathy is actually efficacious, but rather because it is “the ideal placebo.” It is cheap. It has no side effects (unless, as discussed below, it is adulterated). And practitioners spend substantial time with their “patients,” thus encouraging psychosomatic effects.

In the end, advocates of homeopathy may have little to stand on other than that many people—including some “experts” who would gladly be paid to testify—inexplicably seem to believe that it works. But this will not do. That homeopathy has many believers does not validate it as a scientifically sound “field of expertise,” or color it, against nearly 200 years of evidence to the contrary, as one “known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.”  As our Supreme Court perhaps most saliently observed, “general acceptance” of a principle cannot “help show that an expert’s testimony is reliable where the discipline itself lacks reliability.” As the Court explained, general acceptance of “principles of astrology or necromancy,” for example, would not transform those subjects into appropriately reliable subjects of expert testimony.  The Court could easily have added homeopathy to that list.

Thus, in allowing the jury to receive testimony about the principles of homeopathy—not as a matter of historic curiosity, but as a matter of scientific validity—the Allen court arguably abdicated its gatekeeping responsibility to screen out unreliable expert testimony. By permitting “experts” to testify in favor of a field the bases of which defy basic principles of biology, chemistry, and physics — indeed, in some respects “basic logical principles” — the “integrity and fairness of the trial process” was compromised.


I fully agree with Knaier. Allowing the ‘flat earth society’ to present to a court their views about the shape of our planet, while instructing the jury that they must accept them as ‘evidence’ (unless the plaintiff can prove it to be untrue) cannot be the right way forward. In fact, it is a method of preventing progress. Following this logic, I cannot imagine the proponents of any absurdity – however ridiculous – to not be victorious in court.

Knaier’s ultimate conclusion is, I think correct: “Trial courts have robust power and clear responsibility to preclude litigants from introducing irrelevant and unreliable evidence in support of purportedly scientific claims… To the extent that courts continue abdicating their evidentiary gatekeeping role in this way, they may contribute to a waste of time and resources, financial harm to consumers, and risks to public health. But to the extent that litigants and courts strengthen their spines in this regard, take seriously the dangers of unfounded expert testimony, and make genuine efforts to seek and grant its exclusion, they might contribute to the health and well-being of both the courts and those who turn to them for help.”

Some doctors use homeopathy, and for proponents of homeopathy this has always been a strong argument for its effectiveness. They claim that someone who has studied medicine would not employ a therapy that does not work. I have long felt that this view is erroneous.

This article goes some way in finding out who is right. It was aimed at describing the use of homeopathy by physicians working in outpatient care, factors associated with prescribing homeopathy, and the therapeutic intentions and attitudes involved.

All physicians working in outpatient care in the Swiss Canton of Zurich in the year 2015 (n = 4072) were approached. Outcomes of the survey were:

  • association of prescribing homeopathy with medical specialties;
  • intentions behind prescriptions;
  • level of agreement with specific attitudes;
  • views towards homeopathy including explanatory models,
  • rating of homeopathy’s evidence base,
  • the endorsement of indications,
  • reimbursement of homeopathic treatment by statutory health insurance providers.

The participation rate was 38%, mean age 54 years, 61% male, and 40% specialised in general internal medicine. Homeopathy was prescribed at least once a year by 23% of the respondents. Medical specialisations associated with prescribing homeopathy were: no medical specialisation (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.7-9.0), specialisation in paediatrics (OR 3.8 95% CI 1.8-8.0) and gynaecology/obstetrics (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.5-6.7).

Among prescribers, only 50% clearly intended to induce specific homeopathic effects, only 27% strongly adhered to homeopathic prescription doctrines, and only 23% thought there was scientific evidence to prove homeopathy’s effectiveness. Seeing homeopathy as a way to induce placebo effects had the strongest endorsement among prescribers and non-prescribers of homeopathy (63% and 74% endorsement respectively). Reimbursement of homeopathic remedies by statutory health insurance was rejected by 61% of all respondents

The authors concluded that medical specialties use homeopathy with significantly varying frequency and only half of the prescribers clearly intend to achieve specific effects. Moreover, the majority of prescribers acknowledge that effectiveness is unproven and give little importance to traditional principles behind homeopathy. Medical specialties and associated patient demands but also physicians’ openness towards placebo interventions may play a role in homeopathy prescriptions. Education should therefore address not only the evidence base of homeopathy, but also ethical dilemmas with placebo interventions.

These data suggest than many doctors use homeopathy as a placebo. And this is what I had always suspected. Certainly I did often employ it in this way when I still worked as a clinician. The logic of doing so is quite simple: there are many patients where, after running all necessary tests, you conclude that there is nothing wrong with them. You try your best to get the message across but it is not accepted by the patient who clearly wants to have a prescription for something. In the end, due to time pressure etc., you give up and prescribe a homeopathic remedy hoping that the placebo effect, regression towards the mean and the natural history of the condition will do the trick.

And often they do!

I do know that this is hardly good medicine and arguably even not entirely ethical, but it is the reality. If I found myself in the same situation again, I am not sure that I would not do something similar.

It was the very first sentence of the Boiron US website on Oscillococcinum (we have discussed this amazing product before) that caught my attention: “Homeopathy is a therapeutic method that uses diluted substances to relieve symptoms.” I think this is demonstrably wrong.

  • Homeopathy is a therapeutic method that uses mostly the complete absence of an ingredient, and not ‘diluted substances’; specifically, Oscillococcinum is a  C 200 potency ( 1: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) which means the likelihood of any substance being present is zero.
  • Homeopathy is, according to Hahnemann, not ‘to relieve symptoms’ but to tackle the root cause of the condition. Hahnemann meant it to be a causal and not a symptomatic treatment (the truth is that it neither relieves symptoms or the root cause of anything).

And then the website continued to puzzle me by stating this: “The active ingredients in homeopathic medicines include diluted plants, animals or minerals that relieve the same symptoms they cause at full strength (i.e., a micro dose of coffee bean helps to relieve nervousness).” This is wrong too, I think:

  • there is no active ingredient in homeopathic medicines,
  • many of the mother tinctures used in homeopathy cause no symptoms whatsoever,
  • a zero dose is not a micro dose,
  • homeopathic coffee does not relieve nervousness better than a placebo.

Now my interest was aroused and I decided to read on. This is what I found under the heading of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’:


Are there clinical studies on Oscillococcinum?

Yes. Two studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, show that Oscillococcinum helps to reduce the severity and shorten the duration of flu-like symptoms.1-2 The most recent study showed that 63 percent of the patients who took Oscillo at the onset of flu-like symptoms showed “clear improvement” or “complete resolution” of their symptoms after 48 hours, vs. 48% with a placebo.2

1Papp R, Schuback G, Beck E, et al. Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a placebo-controlled, double-blind evaluation. Br Homeopath J. 1998;87:69-76. 2Ferley JP, Zmirou D, D’Adhemar D, Balducci F. A controlled evaluation of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndromes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;27:329-335.


Now, this is strange!

Why would they cite just two studies when there are several more? Surely they don’t want to be seen to be cherry picking!?!? The current Cochrane review by Mathie RT, Frye J, Fisher P., for instance, included 6 trials!

And what did this review show?

The authors concluded that “There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.”

Even though the authors of this Cochrane review are amongst the most ardent homeopathy-promoters on the planet (if not they would not have included this odd 2nd sentence in the above quote), this conclusion does not seem to please Boiron (Christian Boiron seems to have not much time for critical thinking; in a recent, short interview he opined that “Il y a un Ku Klux Klan contre l’homéopathie” THERE IS A KU KLUX KLAN AGAINST HOMEOPATHY).

After studying all this, I ask myself whether Boiron is telling the truth.

What do you think?




Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.