Monthly Archives: May 2014

A recent US study found that belief in conspiracy theories is rife in health care. The investigators presented people with 6 different conspiracy theories, and the one that was most widely believed was the following:


A total of 37% agreed with this statement, 31% had no opinion on the matter, and 32% disagreed. What is more, the belief in this particular conspiracy correlated positively with the usage of alternative medicine.

Essentially, this implies that the current popularity of alternative medicine is at least partly driven by the conviction that there is a sinister plot by the FDA or more generally speaking ‘the establishment’ that prevents people from benefitting from the wonders of alternative treatments.

I think it was Woody Allen who noted that, just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not following you. So, let’s look for evidence suggesting that the FDA or any similar organisation is suppressing alternative medicine.

A prime candidate is, of course, the often implicated, thoroughly evil ‘BIG PHARMA‘. I am not a fan of the pharmaceutical industry and I know few people who are. But where is the evidence for BIG PHARMA’s conspiracy against alternative medicine? In the many years of researching this sector, I have never come across a jot of evidence to support this notion. On the contrary, BIG PHARMA seems all to keen to jump on to the alternative bandwagon and make a few quick bucks from the gullibility of the consumer.

What about the rest of the medical establishment? All I see is that universities, hospitals, charities and other organisations in health care currently bend over backwards in order to accommodate as much alternative medicine as they possibly can get away with in view of the often embarrassing lack of convincing evidence for the treatments in question. Conspiracy against alternative medicine? I don’t think so.

The closer we look, the more we arrive at the conclusion that the conspiracy against alternative medicine is a myth and a figment of the imagination of those who religiously believe in alternative medicine. They seem to long for an explanation why their favourite therapy is not in even more wide-spread use. Cognitive dissonance seems to prevent them to consider that the lack of evidence has anything to do with this situation. Consequently, they prefer to invent a conspiracy theory.

And this is where an interesting question emerges, in my view: do people who believe that the FDA or other organisations prevent the public from getting more alternative medicine really need more alternative medicine, or do they perhaps just need an effective treatment for their paranoia?

I have often asked myself whether it is right/necessary to scientifically test things which are entirely implausible. Should we, for instance test the effectiveness of treatments which have a very low prior probability of generating a positive effect such as paranormal healing, homeopathy or Bach flower remedies? If you believe in the principles of evidence-based medicine you might focus on the clinical evidence and see biological plausibility as secondary. If you are a basic scientist, you are likely to do the reverse.

A recent article addressed this issue. The author points out that evaluating the absurd is absurd. Specifically, he noted that the empirical evaluation of a therapy would normally assume a plausible rationale regarding the mechanism of action. However, examination of the historical background and underlying principles for reflexology, iridology, acupuncture, auricular acupuncture, and some herbal medicines, reveals a rationale founded on the principle of analogical correspondences, which is a common basis for magical thinking and pseudoscientific beliefs such as astrology and chiromancy. Where this is the case, it is suggested that subjecting these therapies to empirical evaluation may be tantamount to evaluating the absurd.

This makes a lot of sense – but is it really entirely true? Are there no legitimate reasons at all for testing alternative treatments that lack biological plausibility? Ten or twenty years ago, I would have disagreed with the notion that plausibility is an essential prerequisite for scientific testing; today, I have changed my mind a little, but not as much as to agree completely with the assumption. In other words, I still see more than one good reason why evaluating the absurd might be reasonable or even advisable.

  1. Using plausibility as the only arbiter of scientific ‘evaluability’, assumes that we understand everything about plausibility there is to know. Yet it might just be possible that we mis-categorise something as implausible simply because we are not yet fully aware of all the facts.
  2. Declaring something as plausible and another thing as implausible are not hard and fast verdicts but judgements which, at least to some degree, are subjective. Sceptics find the axioms of homeopathy utterly implausible, for instance – but ask a homeopath, and you will hear all sorts of explanations which, at least to them, sound plausible.
  3. If an implausible alternative treatment is in wide-spread use, we arguably have a responsibility to test it scientifically in order to demonstrate the truth about it (to those proponents of that therapy who are willing to accept that rigorous science can find the truth). If we fail to do this, it will be the enthusiasts of that therapy who conduct less than rigorous science and produce false positive results. In turn, this will give the impression that the treatment is effective and mislead consumers, politicians, journalists etc. Seen from this perspective, it might even be unethical to not do the science.

So, I am in two minds about this (which might be a reflection of the fact that, during different periods of my life, I have been a clinician, a basic scientist and a clinical researcher). I realise that plausibility and prior probability are important – much more so than I appreciated years ago. But I think they should not be the only criteria. The clinical evidence should not be pushed aside completely.

I’d be interested to learn your views on this tricky issue.

When I first read about agrohomeopathy (i.e. the use of potentised preparations for the health of plants and soils) I thought that it must be a hoax. Then I realised that it was entirely serious (a Google search returns ~28 000 hits for ‘agrohomeopathy’) – serious but nevertheless too weird for words. Because it is so utterly unbelievable, I cite (in italics) the key parts of an article on the subject.

What’s better than ORGANIC or BIODYNAMIC farming? AGROHOMEOPATHY! What is Agrohomeopathy? It’s the specialized area of homeopathy used to treat your garden and crops. Agrohomeopathy is the most chemical free, non-toxic method of growing food and other crops that you can get. Agrohomeopathy makes your plants resistant to disease and pests by strengthening them from the inside out. In nature, it is the weakest of organisms that are attacked and destroyed. Agrohomeopathy helps build up the plant’s basic structure and gives it optimum health, thus reducing and sometimes even eliminating it’s susceptibility. And the skeptics can’t blame THESE effects on placebo, can they?!….

Homeopathic treatment for your crops is a win-win situation. It is backed by decades of research and practice. Try it for yourself and see. And if you have problems or need help, there are experts in the field who are eager to help, who want to get your feedback & experience…

If you think this is far-fetched, rest assured that other sources go even further. Look at this statement, for instance:

Agro-Homeopathy not only treats the disease symptoms of the plant and performs preventive actions, but can also treat traumas retained in the biological memory of the plant, which resulted from conditions such as forced hybridization, moving to places outside their natural habitats , or exaggerated fertilization that maximizes production to the extreme.

So, plants have a ‘biological memory’ that is able to retain information of a past trauma! Fascinating, this gets more fantastic by the minute.

And there is plenty of practical advice too; just consider this helpful hint, if you are a keen gardener: the effects and benefits of homeopathic Silicea are so numerous that an entire article has been devoted to them at: Homeopathic Silica – The Gardener’s Friend. Needless to say, Silicea is one remedy no gardener or farmer should be without…

According to this website, homeopathic silica is a miracle cure; it

  1. Aids germination of seeds
  2. Reduces transplant shock
  3. Strengthens weak and spindly plants
  4. Increases vigour and resistance of plants to pests, moulds, and mildew
  5. Aids water retention in plants growing on arid soils
  6. Stimulates flower growth, both in number and size
  7. Assists seed generation and development
  8. Improves fruit-setting when applied after flowering
  9. Stimulates premature flowering and prevents seed formation when applied in overdose to weeds
  10. Changes the ionisation of soil particles so that water-repellent soil readily absorbs moisture … and more!

The sceptics can indeed not blame ‘THESE effects’ on placebo. Nobody needs to do that because they do not exist! I could not find a single piece of reliable evidence to demonstrate that highly diluted homeopathic remedies can cure diseases of plants.

I hope that a few agrohomeopathic readers of these lines will correct me by showing me solid data – but somehow I doubt it.

It has been reported that Belgium has just officially recognised homeopathy. The government had given the green light already in July last year, but the Royal Decree has only now become official. This means that, from now on, Belgian doctors, dentists and midwives can only call themselves homeopaths, if they have attended recognised courses in homeopathy and are officially certified. While much of the new regulation is as yet unclear (at least to me), it seems that, in future, only doctors, dentists and midwives are allowed to practice homeopathy, according to one source.

However, the new law also seems to provide that those clinicians with a Bachelor degree in health care who have already been practicing as homeopaths can continue their activities under a temporary measure.

Moreover, the official recognition as a homeopath does not automatically imply that the services will be refunded from a health insurance.

It is said that, in general, homeopaths are happy with the new regulation; they are delighted to have been up-graded in this way and argue that the changes will result in higher quality standards: “This is a very important step and it can only be to the benefit of the patients’ safety. Patients will know whether or not they are dealing with someone who correctly applies homeopathic medicine”, Leon Schepers of the Unio Homeopathica Belgica was quoted saying.

The delight of homeopaths is in sharp contrast to the dismay of rational thinkers. The NHMRC recently assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy. The evaluation is both comprehensive and independent; it concluded that “the evidence from research in humans does not show that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered.” In other words, homeopathic remedies are implausible, over-priced placebos.

Granting an official status to homeopaths cannot possibly benefit patients. On the contrary, it will only render health care less effective and charlatans more assertive.

The mechanisms thorough which spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) exerts its alleged clinical effects are not well established. A new study investigated the effects of subject expectation on clinical outcomes.

Sixty healthy subjects underwent quantitative sensory testing to their legs and low backs. They were randomly assigned to receive a positive, negative, or neutral expectation instructional set regarding the effects of a spe cific SMT technique on pain perception. Following the instructional set, all subjects received SMT and underwent repeat sensory tests.

No inter-group differences in pain response were present in the lower extremity following SMT. However, a main effect for hypoalgesia was present. A significant interaction was present between change in pain perception and group assignment in the low back with participants receiving a negative expectation instructional set demonstrating significant hyperalgesia.

The authors concluded that this study provides preliminary evidence for the influence of a non- specific effect (expectation) on the hypoalgesia associated with a single session of SMT in normal subjects. We replicated our previous findings of hypoalgesia in the lower extremity associated with SMT to the low back. Additionally, the resultant hypoalgesia in the lower extremity was independent of an expectation instructional set directed at the low back. Conversely, participants receiving a negative expectation instructional set demonstrated hyperalgesia in the low back following SMT which was not observed in those receiving a positive or neutral instructional set.

More than 10 years ago, we addressed a similar issue by conducting a systematic review of all sham-controlled trials of SMT. Specifically, we wanted to summarize the evidence from sham-controlled clinical trials of SMT. Eight studies fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three trials (two on back pain and one on enuresis) were judged to be burdened with serious methodological flaws. The results of the three most rigorous studies (two on asthma and one on primary dysmenorrhea) did not suggest that SMT leads to therapeutic responses which differ from an inactive sham-treatment. We concluded that sham-controlled trials of SMT are sparse but feasible. The most rigorous of these studies suggest that SMT is not associated with clinically relevant specific therapeutic effects.

Taken together, these two articles provide intriguing evidence to suggest that SMT is little more than a theatrical placebo. Given the facts that SMT is neither cheap nor devoid of risks, the onus is now on those who promote SMT, e.g. chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists, to show that this is not true.

An article in the ‘Huffpost Healthy Living’ recently discussed “the top three things that surprise people about acupuncture”. On closer inspection, they turn out to be the top three untruths about acupuncture. Here is (in italics and slightly abbreviated) what the article said.

Acupuncture is not just for pain

…It’s true that acupuncture can work wonders on pain conditions…However, acupuncture can alleviate a wide variety of ailments that have nothing to do with physical pain. Whether you have digestive issues, gynecological conditions, emotional concerns such as anxiety and depression, asthma, seasonal allergies, you name it, acupuncture can help address your symptoms.

Acupuncturists go to school for a long time

People tend to be unaware of the extent to which acupuncturists train to become licensed in their profession. Many assume becoming an acupuncturist is similar to becoming a massage therapist or Reiki practitioner or yoga instructor… At minimum, a licensed acupuncturist in the United States has been to three years of graduate school. Four years is more common. They hold master’s degrees. Some acupuncturists with doctorates have studied at the graduate level for five-plus years. Upon graduating from an accredited school, all acupuncturists must pass multiple board exams to become licensed in their state. In addition to the academic and state requirements for practicing acupuncture, many acupuncturists seek hands-on training and mentorship in the form of apprenticeships and continuing education seminars.

Acupuncture is relaxing

Acupuncture needles are surprisingly thin. They do not bear any resemblance to needles that are used for injections or to draw blood… In most cases, the insertion of acupuncture needles does not hurt…Once the needles are in, they start working their magic, which is where the relaxation part comes in. Acupuncture helps shift your body out of sympathetic mode (fight or flight) and into parasympathetic mode (rest and digest). It mellows out the nervous system, decreases muscular tension, and helps quiet internal chatter…


1) There is not a single condition for which the evidence is truly compelling demonstrating that acupuncture is more than a placebo. Certainly there is no good evidence that acupuncture works for digestive issues, gynecological conditions, emotional concerns such as anxiety and depression, asthma or seasonal allergies.

2) In most countries, anyone can call themselves an acupuncturist, regardless of background or training.

3) The relaxing element of an acupuncture session is foremost the fact that patients lie down and have to keep still for 20 minutes or so. The insertion of needles does cause mild pain in many patients, and the claim about parasympathetic mode is mostly phantasy.

I despair about the nonsense that is published about alternative medicine on a daily basis – not because I have an axe to grind, but because it misleads patients into making wrong therapeutic decisions.

In China (and increasingly elsewhere too), the gentle, meditative exercise of tai chi is being promoted and used for disease prevention, particularly for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). But are these exercises effective? We carried out a Cochrane review to find out.

We searched both English language and Asian electronic databases as well as trial registers and reference lists for relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied. We considered randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of tai chi lasting at least three months and involving healthy adults or adults at high risk of CVD. The comparison groups received no or only minimal interventions. Our outcome measures were CVD clinical events and CVD risk factors. We excluded trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions or focusing on weight loss. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study.

We identified 13 trials with a total of 1520 participants and three on-going studies. All of them had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias, and some were at high risk of bias. Duration and style of tai chi differed between trials. Seven studies recruited 903 healthy participants, the other studies recruited people with hypertension, elderly people at high risk of falling, and people with ‘liver or kidney yin deficiency syndromes’.

No studies reported on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality or non-fatal events as most studies were short-term. There was also considerable heterogeneity between studies, which meant that it was not possible to combine studies statistically for cardiovascular risk. Nine trials measured systolic blood pressure (SBP), and 6 of them found reductions in SBP. Two trials found no clear evidence of a difference, and one trial found an increase in SBP with tai chi. A similar pattern was seen for diastolic blood pressure (DBP): three trials found a reduction in DBP, while three found no clear evidence of a difference.

Three trials reported lipid levels and two found reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C and triglycerides, while the third study found no clear evidence of a difference between groups on lipid levels. Quality of life was measured in only one trial: tai chi improved quality of life at three months. None of the included trials reported on adverse events, costs or occurrence of type 2 diabetes.

From these findings, we drew the following conclusions: “There are currently no long-term trials examining tai chi for the primary prevention of CVD. Due to the limited evidence available currently no conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of tai chi on CVD risk factors. There was some suggestion of beneficial effects of tai chi on CVD risk factors but this was not consistent across all studies. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies included in this review and studies were small and at some risk of bias. Results of the ongoing trials will add to the evidence base but additional longer-term, high-quality trials are needed.”

These findings are somewhat disappointing. Tai chi might convey many health benefits, but whether a reduction of cardiovascular risk is amongst them seems doubtful. Even if a risk reduction were established beyond doubt, one would need to ask whether its effect size is larger than that achievable through regular conventional exercise. In my view, this is unlikely.

Guest post by Michelle Dunbar

According to the CDC, more than 30,000 people died as a result of a drug overdose in 2010. Of those deaths none were attributed to marijuana. Instead the vast majority were linked to drugs that are legally prescribed such as opiates, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, tranquilizers and benzodiazepines. As misuse and abuse of prescription medications continues to rise, the marijuana legalization debate is also heating up.

Nearly 100 years of propaganda, fear mongering and blatant misinformation regarding marijuana has taken its toll on our society. As the veil of lies surrounding marijuana is being lifted, more and more people are pushing for legalization. Marijuana is now legal for both medicinal and recreational use in two states and other states are introducing legislation of their own. Marijuana is approved for medicinal use with a prescription in 21 states and also Washington, D.C. with most other states expected to introduce legislation to approve use for medicinal purposes in the next few years.

Last year Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the medical correspondent for CNN, aired a controversial documentary, “Weed”, where he showed various promising medicinal uses for marijuana. He admits that he was wrong for many years about marijuana legalization, and after doing his own extensive research he is encouraged by the many real life cases he has seen where people with chronic, serious medical issues have been and continue to be helped by marijuana. He noted that marijuana does not have the dangerous side effects that many prescription medications do and that it is actually safer than many drugs being prescribed today. Dr. Gupta said in the program that there is not one documented case where death was due to marijuana overdose and he is right.

But as with any systematic paradigm shift, there will always be those whose minds are closed to change. So as the march toward legalization continues, there is new anti-legalization propaganda being written and spread through mainstream and social media. There have been multiple reports out of Colorado that there are now deaths attributed to marijuana overdose. Some say children were involved which automatically evokes feelings of fear in parents across the country. But when I tried to find more reliable sources to verify these articles, none existed. The AP reported on April 2 that a Wyoming college student jumped to his death in Colorado after eating a marijuana cookie while on Spring Break in Colorado. The autopsy listed marijuana intoxication as a “significant contributing factor” in the teen’s death. (Gurman)

Like alcohol, Colorado bans the sale of marijuana and marijuana edibles to people under the age of 21. But much like alcohol, teens that want to get it will always find a way. This young man was just 19, and his death has been ruled accidental. While it is true his death is tragic, is it a reason to reverse the course with marijuana? If you believe this is the case then you must consider the real dangers posed by alcohol. Many people who would like to see marijuana legalized say that it is much safer than the legal drug alcohol. Based solely on the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, especially with young people, they would be right.

According to an article posted on in March of this year, “1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each school year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries.” The author, Dr. Robert Glatter, MD attributes these deaths to one of the leading health risks facing our young people, and that is binge drinking. This number is quite small in comparison to emergency room visits and hospitalizations of young people that are a direct result of alcohol use.

Taking the most heat are the marijuana edibles that are now for sale in states where marijuana has become legal. The concern is that children are eating marijuana laced candy and baked goods and becoming ill. This would seem to be confirmed by an article in USA Today that reported that calls to the Rocky Mountain Poison Control is Colorado regarding marijuana ingestion in children had risen to 70 cases last year. While they admitted that this number was low, it was the rapid rise from years previous that caused concern. To put this in perspective, there are approximately 1.4 million pediatric poisonings each year involving prescription medications not including marijuana. (Henry, That is an average of approximately 28,000 calls per state. Tragically several hundreds of these cases result in deaths of these children, with the highest rates of death involving narcotics, sedatives and anti-depressants. (Henry,

Of those 70 cases reported in Colorado involving marijuana, none resulted in death. The results are quite clear marijuana is as safe as prescription drugs are dangerous. For those who want to weigh in on the marijuana legalization debate, it is important to do your research, look at the big picture and put everything in perspective. Alcohol is legal and heavily regulated, yet its use is linked to thousands of deaths each year. Prescription drugs are legal and heavily regulated, yet they too are linked to thousands of deaths each year. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not legal and not available in much of the country, and thus far has not caused one death from overdose ever.

Additionally, research is showing marijuana has promise in treating many diseases more effectively and safely than dangerous prescription medications being used today. From cancer to epilepsy to depression and anxiety, to chronic autoimmune diseases, scientists are just scratching the surface when it comes to the potential life-changing and perhaps even, life-saving uses for marijuana.



Drug Overdose in the United States: Fact Sheet. (2014, February 10). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from

Glatter, R. (2014, March 11). Spring Break’s Greatest Danger. Forbes. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from

Gurman, S. (2014, April 2). Young man leaps to death after eating pot-laced cookie. USA Today. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from

Henry, K., & Harris, C. R. (2006). Deadly Ingestions. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 53(2), 293-315.

Hughes, T. (2014, April 2). Colo. Kids getting into parents’ pot-laced goodies. USA Today. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from

It is not often that we see an article of the great George Vithoulkas, the ‘über-guru‘ of homeopathy, in a medical journal. In fact, this paper, which he co-authored with several colleagues, seems to be a rare exception: in his entire career, he seems to have published just 15 Medline- listed articles most of which are letters to the editor.

According to Wikipedia, Vithoulkas has been described as “the maestro of classical homeopathy” by Robin Shohet; Lyle Morgan says he is “widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist”; and Scott Shannon calls him a “contemporary master of homeopathy.” Paul Ekins credited Vithoulkas with the revival of the credibility of homeopathy.

In his brand new paper, Vithoulkas provides evidence for the notion that homeopathy can treat infertility. More specifically, the authors present 5 cases of female infertility treated successfully with the use of homeopathic remedies.


Yes, really! The American Medical College of Homeopathy informs us that homeopathy has an absolute solution that can augment your probability of conception. Homeopathic treatment of Infertility addresses both physical and emotional imbalances in a person. Homeopathy plays a role in treating Infertility by strengthening the reproductive organs in both men and women, by regulating hormonal balance, menstruation and ovulation in women, by escalating blood flow into the pelvic region, by mounting the thickness of the uterine lining and preventing the uterus from contracting hence abating chances of a miscarriage, and by increasing quality and quantity of sperm count in men. It can also be advantageous in reducing anxiety so that the embryo implantation can take place in a favourable environment. Homoeopathy is a system of medicine directed at assisting the body’s own healing process.

Imagine: the 5 women in Vithoulkas ‘study’ wanted to have children; they consulted homeopaths because they did not get pregnant in a timely fashion. The homeopaths prescribed individualised homeopathy and treated them for prolonged periods of time. Eventually, BINGO!, all of the 5 women got pregnant.

What a hoot!

It beggars belief that this result is being credited to the administration of homeopathic remedies. Do the authors not know that, in many cases, it can take many months until a pregnancy occurs? Do they not think that the many women they treated unsuccessfully for the same problem should raise some doubts about homeopathy? Do they really believe that their remedies had any causal relationship to the 5 pregnancies?

Vithoulkas was a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award in 1996. I hope they did not give it to him in recognition of his scientific achievements!



Guest Post by Jan Willem Nienhuys

The so-called Swiss government report of 2011 on homeopathy was actually an expanded translation of a 2006 book, which in itself was an expanded version of a document submitted to a Swiss committee (PEK) in charge of evaluation of alternative medicine. It has been severely criticised. A summary of criticisms with links can be found on the RationalWiki item to which we may add the Zeno’s Blog. I present here the results of my scrutiny of chapter 10 (1), although I base my report on the original German edition.

This chapter by itself shows a familiar result: the better the investigation, the less evidence in favor of homeopathy it shows. It shows also how homeopaths systematically distort unfavorable results by mispresenting them. Chapter 10 deals with clinical investigations of homeopathy. The authors restrict their attention to an odd assortment of diseases such as acute rhinitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, sinusitis, adenoid vegetations, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, influenza-like infection and otitis media, together denoted as ‘upper respiratory tract infections/allergic reactions’ or URTI/A for short.

The number of papers reviewed is very small. The authors looked at much more than randomized clinical trials. Apparently their search did not extend further than 2003, but then they might have found over 150 papers, of which about one third double blind randomized trials that compared how well highly diluted homeopathy and placebo cured one of the indicated diseases. They managed to miss 25 papers mentioned in earlier meta-analyses and about four papers that are summarized in Pubmed.

Among the papers they missed is an extremely strong support for the claim ‘homeopathy works for URTI/A’. For example Riverón-Garrote et al. (2) did a placebo controlled double blind randomized clinical trial of homeopathy (apparently individualised) for asthma. Of about 33 verum patients 32 improved, whereas of about 30 placebo patients only 4 improved. The so-called p-value for such a result is less than 10–11. One wonders why this result wasn’t published in Science or Nature, but only in an obscure Spanish language homeopathic journal. Maybe the paper was excluded because it didn’t state that it was about allergic asthma, but note that in about three quarters of all asthma some kind of allergy is implicated.

Of course this pales in comparison to the paper by Friese and Zabalotnyi (3). Again a double blind randomised clinical trial with 72 sinusitis sufferers for both verum and placebo. But here 71 out of 72 verum patients were free of complaints after three weeks, or at least improved, whereas this was the case for only 8 of the placebo patients. Fisher’s Exact Test gives p = 2.47 times 10-29 (one tailed). A remarkable result, because it is well known that over 80% of sinusitis cases cures spontaneously within two weeks. Maybe placebos are dangerous in the hands of homeopaths. Again one wonders why Friese and Zabalotnyi didn’t share the Nobel prize in, say, 2008, and why it is necessary at all to meticulously analyse papers in which homeopathy shows a marginal advantage.

Instead, Maxion-Bergemann et al. include in their survey a paper by Bahemann (4). We quote the summary of the paper from the internet: ‘In homeopathic practice, Kalium bromatum is known as a remedy in the case of paranoid delusions, e. g. if someone suffers from the delusion of being the object of divine revenge, of being damned, or of being pursued. It is also a very important remedy in the case of nocturnal fears in children as well as in the case of convulsions, when they are hereditary, when they occur in childbed, or during teething. The following case demonstrates the successful treatment of a severe mononucleosis after studying the Materia medica.’ Mononucleosis isn’t even mentioned in the list given that specifies URTI/A. Maybe it was included because one of the symptoms of mononucleosis is a sore throat. Apparently the mononucleosis patient was given Kalium Bromatum (Maxion-Bergemann et al. state that it is Kalium Chromatum 200C, presumably Chromatum and Bromatum don’t differ too much to bother) because of something remarkable the patient said during the anamnesis. The reason for giving Kalium bromatum 200C in cases of paranoia might be that an overdose of bromide can induce psychoses. The homeopathic Materia Medica contains quite a few ‘symptoms’ from accidental poisonings reported in old medical literature; potassium bromide was liberally used in the nineteenth century for the calming of seizure and nervous disorders, according to Wikipedia.

More impressive in the list of 13 RCTs of Maxion-Bergemann are two of the largest ‘homeopathic’ trials known, namely of the remedy Oscillococcinum. These trials cannot be taken seriously. The first one, by Ferley et al. (5), has one glaring fault. They started with 478 ‘influenza’-patients (237 verum), tried to make 149 family physicians note down when the patients recovered, and then elected to restrict their attention to the 63 patients (39 verum) that recovered within 48 hours and therefore probably didn’t have flu at all. Coincidentally this was the only possibility out of 14 that gave a ‘significant’ result: correctly computed, p is just below 0.05. (Ferley et al. based their computation on 462 patients with 228 verum and applied a chi-squared test without continuity correction). It is hardly credible that they set this 48-hour criterion in advance, because even if the remedy worked, the risk of having too few subjects to get a significant result would have been considerable. But if one picks out one result among many possibilities, one should correct for multiple outcome. So the Ferley et al. investigation is at most an exploratory result in need of independent confirmation.

This ‘confirmation’ was undertaken soon afterwards, namely in the beginning of 1991, but the results were only published in 1998 and cannot be found on Pubmed (6). In this paper the definitions are somewhat different, but Papp et al. report that of 334 patients (167 verum) a total of 57 (32 verum) were cured in 48 hours. Now 25 versus 32 is not remarkable at all. One doesn’t need any elaborate computation for this. Calculation gives p=0.4. So one might think that the Ferley hypothesis was soundly refuted. But Papp et al. used something they call ‘the Krauth test’, probably some kind of automated post hoc fishing trip to select the best criteria to distinguish the placebo and verum groups. They claim that this ‘test’ gives p=0.0028. They specifically refer to ‘the null hypothesis (the number of patients free of symptoms after 48 hours is equal in both treatment groups)’, so their computation is wrong. The most remarkable thing about Papp et al. is that nobody seems to have to have noticed the large discrepancy between what the numbers say and the claim of the paper.

Another paper with ‘positive’ results is the 1994 study of Reilly et al. (7), number 28 in Maxion-Bergemann et al. The group of Reilly investigated allergic diseases treated by what they called homeopathy. The typical Reilly experiment consists of administering a highly diluted causative agent such as pollen or house dust mite or cat hairs or bird feathers to persons suffering from pollen allergy (seasonal rhinitis) or allergic asthma. However for true homeopathy one uses a substance that has been the subject of a so-called proving, and the remedy is chosen of the totality of all patient ‘symptoms’ – including things like sleeping position and fear of thunderstorms – sufficiently matches the symptoms of the proving. Let me call Reilly’s method ultra-isopathy. Reilly was already discussing this study on a symposium in 1990, but that paper is not clear. It is about 28 asthma patients, and only 24 were analysed. This small number in itself is already reason enough not to consider it. The main analysis was by comparing a subjective measure of wellbeing, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Here we find a significant difference (p=0.003) in favor of ultra-isopathy. However, in the small print we see that change in the very important FEV1-value (Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second) was non-significant (p=0.08) but this refers only to the 18 patients that took such a test before and after the experiment.

Reilly attracted more attention with his first experiment in this vein (8). He started out with 79 patients in both the verum and the placebo group. The treatment was ultradiluted grass pollen for hay fever. The analysis was only about 56 verum and 52 placebo (in a diagram 53 placebo are shown). Such a large dropout (32%) is not good. On basis of the VAS-scores Reilly found p=0.02. VAS is only an ordinal scale and it is not at all clear that one person’s 60 mm means the same as another person’s 60 mm, and also not that two patients with respectively 40 mm and 80 mm together can be considered as equivalent to two other patients with 60 mm each. If we distinguish only better / equal / worse, then the numbers for the verum group were 34 / 9 / 13 and for the placebo group 27 / 5 / 21. One can analyse this in various ways: as a 3 by 2 contingency table (p=0.15), or as a 2 by 2 table, namely by joining the middle group either to the right (p=0.10) or to the left (p=0.34). In this manner the difference is less impressive.

Maxion-Bergemann et al. collected 29 articles. I take the liberty of removing from these everything that is not a double blind RCT that compares how well highly diluted homeopathy and placebo cures an URTI/A disease. We also remove all research with 50 or less patients. The more or less openly fraudulent or at least grossly mistaken Oscillococcinum trials I also leave out. In order of appearance we have then Wiesenauer 1985 (9) [8] Reilly 1986 (8) [6] Wiesenauer 1989 (10) [10] De Lange-de Klerk 1994 (11) [1] Aabel 2000 (12) [4] Jacobs 2001 (13) [22] Friese 2001 (14) [24] Lewith 2002 (15) [25] White 2003 (16) [29] The square brackets refer to the numbering in Maxion-Bergemann et al. A short review of these nine articles follows.

Wiesenauer 1985: one standard remedy for hayfever. Randomised 213 patients, analysed only 164. “no statistical significance was achieved” says the abstract on Pubmed. Reilly 1986: this we have discussed already. Ultra-isopathy for hayfever. Randomised 158 patients, analysed 108. Statistically significant, but barely so. Wiesenauer 1989: four groups, each with their own standard remedy or placebo for sinusitis, 152 patients. “There was no remarkable difference in the therapeutic success among the investigated homeopathic drug combinations nor between the active drugs and placebo”, according to the abstract in Pubmed De Lange-de Klerk 1994: this research was reported more extensively in the lead author’s dissertation (17). Individualised homeopathy for recurrent URTI in children. 175 children were randomised and 170 analysed after following them for a year. 128 different remedies/potencies were prescribed and all together 1042 different prescriptions were handed out. The result was a non-significant difference between homeopathy and placebo. One striking aspect of this investigation is that only after all computations were done, it was revealed which of the two groups was the placebo group and which the verum group. So the author or her thesis advisors deliberately made it impossible to fall for the temptation to start a fishing expedition in the data after the code was completely broken. See also Pubmed. Aabel 2000: ultra-isopathy for birch pollen allergy. Strictly speaking this investigation shouldn’t be in this short list because it was partly prophylactic. From Pubmed: “Surprisingly, the verum treated patients fared worse than the placebo group”. No measure of statistical significance is mentioned. Remarkably this article is preceded by a similar article (18) that Maxion-Bergemann et al. apparently weren’t able to locate. Jacobs 2001: 75 children with otitis media were treated with individualised homeopathy or placebo. Pubmed: “differences were not statistically significant”. It seems that Jacobs has indulged in a fishing trip because she mentions a “significant decrease in symptoms at 24 and 64 h after treatment in favor of homeopathy”. But that is wrong. Significance only can have a meaning if it refers to a single outcome that was planned before any patients were seen. Just picking out two results out of many and stating they are ‘significant’ betrays a fundamental ignorance of research methodology. Friese 2001: this article is also published elsewhere (19), at least the numbers are exactly the same according to Pubmed. 97 children randomized for either individual homeopathic treatment or placebo treatment of adenoid vegetations, 82 analysed. Apparently these 82 comprised 41 placebo and 41 verum, and of these 12 and 9 respectively required an operation in the end. This allegedly corresponds to p=0.64, “These results show no statistical significance.” Incidentally, this is the same Friese as reference 3. Lewith 2002: again ultra-isopathy, now for asthma, 242 patients randomised, 202 completed all clinical assessments. The full article can be accessed via Pubmed and elsewhere. The main conclusion is “Homoeopathic immunotherapy is not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma.” The authors notice that the averages in both groups behave somewhat erratic, and they have no explanation for this. White 2003: individualised homeopathy compared to placebo for 96 children with asthma, who are followed for 12 months. The conclusion is that there is no evidence that this kind of homeopathy is better than placebo. In other words, out of nine investigations only one (Reilly 1986) obtains a barely significant result.

But the interpretation of Maxion-Bergemann et al. is totally different: “If only the placebo-controlled, randomized trials with the highest EBM evidence are considered, 12 of 16 trials show a positive result for the homeopathically treated group (significantly positive 8/16 and trend 4/16).” Even in the more restricted subset of nine discussed above they are overly optimistic. They mark Wiesenauer (1985), De Lange-de Klerk (1994), Jacobs (2001) as showing a ‘trend for homeopathy’ and Lewith (2002) is even marked ‘significant’. The meticulous and high quality research of De Lange (1993, 1994) is judged ‘trend for homeopathy’.

In case of De Lange it seems clear where this judgement comes from. De Lange had several outcomes (number of sick periods, total duration of sick periods, sum of all dayscores etc., and all these showed roughly the same small non-significant difference in favor of homeopathy. This is not really strange, because these outcomes all measure about the same phenomenon. It is not remarkable that there is a small difference between the averages of the two groups that can only be noticed if the children are followed for a full year. There is not even the beginning of a reason that this has anything to do with the treatment. For example the homeopathy group had ‘significantly’ less pets at home. This might serve as an explanation why they as a group were slightly less sick. One might also speculate that this was retroactively caused by the homeopathic treatment. This is not really more improbable than highly diluted stuff (more than 95% D6 and higher) having an effect.

By convention ‘statistically significant’ is the lower limit where weak conclusions such as ‘worth investigating further’ can be justified, and we repeat: only if it refers to a single outcome measure or endpoint chosen before any data collection has started. De Lange chose recurrent URTI because homeopathy was reputed to be most effective for this type of complaints, especially after investigations such as those of Reilly (1986). If following 170 children for a full year cannot show a clear advantage, then that is simply a negative result. In the case of Lewith the ‘significant for homeopathy’ is probably based on partial results such as that in week 3 ‘homeopathy’ fared better in the asthma VAS. One can just as well point to week 16 where the FEV1 of the placebo group seems much better than in the homeopathy group.

Maxion-Bergemann et al. seem to have been singularly inept in collecting papers on homeopathic trials, and for no apparent reason they decided to look also at a large number of case reports and investigations without control group or blinding, even after investigators as early as 1991 have remarked that henceforth only well designed large double blind RCTs were worth considering. If we restrict our attention to the properly blinded controlled investigations, we see the same thing as in other meta-analyses of homeopathy: there is lots of rubbish in favor of homeopathy, but the good trials say plainly and clearly: homeopathy is ineffective, precisely what can be predicted from the fact that there is nothing in it.

Homeopaths nowadays have a lot to say about RCTs and how they prove homeopathy. RCTs are subtle and complicated scientific tools. It is somewhat strange to see how homeopaths resolutely ignore two centuries of basic science but then argue their cause on the basis of complicated statistics.

Homeopathy is an assortment of wildly different practices and theories. We have seen ultra-isopathy, individualised homeopathy and the practice of giving one standardised remedy for one diagnosis without asking too many personal details from the patient. These standard remedies are often branded mixtures of highly diluted ‘classical’ homeopathy, quite contrary to the opinions of homeopathy’s inventor Hahnemann. There are many more variants of homeopathy and the homeopaths themselves cannot agree which are the correct ones.

Moreover, if a treatment or trial doesn’t work out, then a number of additional hypotheses about homeopathy can be invoked, which is what Maxion-Bergemann et al. do. Homeopathic remedies supposedly are counteracted by lots of regular medications and even by strong tasting or smelling food, such as coffee, parsley, garlic and peppermint. Hahnemann even disapproved of reading in bed and long afternoon naps and prolonged suckling of infants (Organon, section 260). Poor performance of homeopathy can be blamed on something called ‘initial aggravation’ or else on lack of experience of the poorly performing homeopath.

But that these factors are relevant at all is unknown, just like there is no proof at all for the similia principle, nor for the hundred thousands or even millions of ‘symptoms’ associated with highly diluted materials in the homeopathic Materia Medica. If homeopaths really want scientists to share homeopathic beliefs, they should not think up lame excuses for ‘failed’ tests, but for starters they might try to present proofs for all or at least some of their ‘symptoms’. They don’t try very hard and in so far it has been tried, it also has failed (20).

I would like to thank Willem Betz for helpful remarks.

I am a retired mathematician with no other interest than a desire to promote science.


1. Stefanie Maxion-Bergemann, Gudrun Bornhöft, Denise Bloch, Christina Vogt-Frank, Marco Righetti, André Thurneysen. (2011) Clinical Studies on the Effectiveness of Homeopathy for URTI/A (Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Allergic Reactions) in: Homeopathy in Healthcare – Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. G. Bornhöft and P.F. Mattheiesen (eds.), Berlin etc., Springer 2011, p. 18-157.

2. Riverón-Garrote, M., Fernandez-Argüelles, R.; Morán-Rodríquez, F.; Campistrou-Labaut, J.L. (1998) Ensayo clínico controlado aleatorízado del tratamiento homeopático del asma bronquial, Boletín Mexicano de Homepatía 1998; 31(2):54-61.

3. Friese, K.-H., Zabalotnyi, D.I. (2007) Homöopathie bei akuter Rhinosinusitis, Eine doppelblinde, placebokontrollierte Studie belegt die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit eines homöopathischen Kombinationsarzneimittels, HNO 55(4):271-277.

4. Bahemann A. (2002) Kalium bromatum bei infektiöser Mononukleose. Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie 46:232–233.

5. Ferley J.P., Zmirou D., D’Adhemar D., Balducci F. (1989). A controlled evaluation of a homoeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza like syndromes. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 27:329-335.

6. Papp R., Schuback G., Beck E., Burkard G., Bengel J., Lehrl S., Belon P. (1998). Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation. British Homeopathic Journal 87:69-76.

7. Reilly, D.T., Taylor, M.A., Beattie, N.G.M., Campbell, J.H., McSharry C., Aitchison T.C., Carter R., Stevenson R. (1994) Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?, Lancet 1994 344:1601-1606.

8. Reilly, D.T., Taylor, M.A., McSharry, C., Aitchison, T. (1986) Is Homoeopathy a Placebo Response?, Controlled Trial of Homoeopathic Potency – With Pollen in Hayfever as Model, Lancet II.2:881-886.

9. Wiesenauer, M., Gaus, W. (1985) Double-blind Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Galphimia Potentisation D6 (Homoeopathic Preparation), Galphimia Dilution 10-6 and Placebo on Pollinosis, Arzneimittelforschung 35(11):1745-1747.

10. Wiesenauer M, Gaus W, Bohnacker U, Häussler S (1989) Wirksamkeitsprüfung von homöopathischen Kombinationspräparaten bei Sinusitis: Ergebnisse einer randomisierten Doppelblindstudie unter Praxisbedingungen. Arzneimittelforschung 39:620-625.

11. de Lange-de Klerk E.S.M., Blommers J., Kuik D.J., Bezemer P.D., Feenstra L. (1994). Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. BMJ 309:1329-1332.

12. Aabel, S. (2000) No beneficial effect of isopathic prophylactic treatment for birch pollen allergy during a low-pollen season, A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of homeopathic Betula 30c. British Homeopathic Journal 89(4):169-173.

13. Jacobs, J., Springer, D.A., Crothers, D. (2001) Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children, A preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 20(2):177-183.

14. Friese K.H., Feuchter U., Lüdtke R., Moeller H. (2001) Results of a randomised prospective double-blind trial on the homeopathic treatment of adenoid vegetations. European Journal of General Practice 7:48-54.

15. Lewith, G.T., Watkins, A.D.; Hyland, M.E.; Shaw, S.; Broomfield, J.A.; Dolan, G.; Holgate, S.T. (2002) Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial, BMJ 324:520-523.

16. White, A., Slade, P.; Hunt, C.; Hart, A.; Ernst, E. (2003) Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma, A randomised placebo controlled trial. Thorax 58(4):317-321

17. Lange-de Klerk, E.S.M. de, Effects of homoeopathic medicines on children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1993 (Dissertation).

18. Aabel, S., Laerum, E.; Dölvik, S.; Djupesland, P. (2000) Is homeopathic ‘immunotherapy’ effective?, A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the isopathic remedy Betula 30c for patients with birch pollen allergy. British Homeopathic Journal 89(4):161-168.

19. Friese K.-H., Feuchter U., Möller H. (1997). Die homöopathische Behandling von adenoiden Vegetationen. HNO; 45:618–624.

20. Brien S., Lewith G., Bryant, T. (2003) Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.