George Vithoulkas, has been mentioned on this blog repeatedly. He is a lay homeopath – one that has no medical background – and has, over the years, become an undisputed hero within the world of homeopathy. Yet, Vithoulkas’ contribution to homeopathy research is perilously close to zero. Judging from a recent article in which he outlines the rules of rigorous research, his understanding of research methodology is even closer to zero. Here is a crucial excerpt from this paper intercepted by a few comment from me in brackets and bold print.

Which are [the] homoeopathic principles to be respected [in clinical trials and meta-analyses]?

1. Homoeopathy does not treat diseases, but only diseased individuals. Therefore, every case may need a different remedy although the individuals may be suffering from the same pathology. This rule was violated by almost all the trials in most meta-analyses. (This statement is demonstrably false; there even has been a meta-analysis of 32 trials that respect this demand)

2. In the homoeopathic treatment of serious chronic pathology, if the remedy is correct usually a strong initial aggravation takes place []. Such an aggravation may last from a few hours to a few weeks and even then we may have a syndrome-shift and not the therapeutic results expected. If the measurements take place in the aggravation period, the outcome will be classified negative. (Homeopathic aggravations exist only in the mind of homeopaths; our systematic review failed to find proof for their existence.)

This factor was also ignored in most trials []. At least sufficient time should be given in the design of the trial, in order to account for the aggravation period. The contrary happened in a recent study [], where the aggravation period was evaluated as a negative sign and the homoeopathic group was pronounced worse than the placebo []. (There are plenty of trials where the follow-up period is long enough to account for this [non-existing] phenomenon.)

3. In severe chronic conditions, the homoeopath may need to correctly prescribe a series of remedies before the improvement is apparent. Such a second or third prescription should take place only after evaluating the effects of the previous remedies []. Again, this rule has also been ignored in most studies. (Again, this is demonstrably wrong; there are many trials where the homeopath was able to adjust his/her prescription according to the clinical response of the patient.)

4. As the prognosis of a chronic condition and the length of time after which any amelioration set in may differ from one to another case [], the treatment and the study-design respectively should take into consideration the length of time the disease was active and also the severity of the case. (This would mean that conditions that have a short history, like post-operative ileus, bruising after injury, common cold, etc. should respond well after merely a short treatment with homeopathics. As this is not so, Vithoulkas’ argument seems to be invalid.)

5. In our experience, Homeopathy has its best results in the beginning stages of chronic diseases, where it might be possible to prevent the further development of the chronic state and this is its most important contribution. Examples of pathologies to be included in such RCTs trials are ulcerative colitis, sinusitis, asthma, allergic conditions, eczema, gangrene rheumatoid arthritis as long as they are within the first six months of their appearance. (Why then is there a lack of evidence that any of the named conditions respond to homeopathy?)

In conclusion, three points should be taken into consideration relating to trials that attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathy.

First, it is imperative that from the point of view of homoeopathy, the above-mentioned principles should be discussed with expert homoeopaths before researchers undertake the design of any homoeopathic protocol. (I am not aware of any trial where this was NOT done!)

Second, it would be helpful if medical journals invited more knowledgeable peer-reviewers who understand the principles of homoeopathy. (I am not aware of any trial where this was NOT done!)

Third, there is a need for at least one standardized protocol for clinical trials that will respect not only the state-of-the-art parameters from conventional medicine but also the homoeopathic principles []. (Any standardised protocol would be severely criticised; a good study protocol must always take account of the specific research question and therefore cannot be standardised.)

Fourth, experience so far has shown that the therapeutic results in homeopathy vary according to the expertise of the practitioner. Therefore, if the objective is to validate the homeopathic therapeutic modality, the organizers of the trial have to pick the best possible prescribers existing in the field. (I am not aware of any trial where this was NOT done!)

Only when these points are transposed and put into practice, the trials will be respected and accepted by both homoeopathic practitioners and conventional medicine and can be eligible for meta-analysis.



  1. A well-designed study of homeopathy can always be recognised by its positive result.
  2. Any trial that fails to yield a positive finding is, by definition, wrongly designed.

10 Responses to The two essential principles of homeopathy research

  • Special Pleading and ignorance.

    “Homeopathic aggravations” = disease taking it’s natural path before regressing to the mean.

    An excuse has to be made for every reason why the magic sugar pills aren’t doing anything.

    • Spoken like a true armchair investigators with no experience and little understanding of homeopathy. Do a homeopathic proving and experience directly how the remedy will cause symptoms that you have never had, just as it will aggravate existing symptoms in a sick person. But you Pseudo-skeptics seem to be afraid of their own experience. If homeopathy really is placebo it should bias the results so no new symptoms are caused, right? Trust your own experience not Dr E’s failed study.
      Or you can go to India and sit in on homeopathic clinics that see huge numbers of patients every day. Just one example is Dr Farokh Master’s clinic in Mumbai. He is an MD homeopath like others that sees all the same conditions that other doctors see day in day out. He uses all the same testing criteria that allopathic doctors use. You can inspect his clinical records. Aggravations happen sometimes and his patients regress far beyond to mean to cure. You can see that documented too. Get off your butt and go check it out.
      In India there is actual competition in medicine. There are three medical systems (allopathic, homeopathhic & ayruvedic) and patients without a lot of money dont waste it on what doesnt work. Homeopathy is not a fringe treatment but everyday medicine for millions of people in hospitals, clinics and medical schools.
      The lack of evidence is your lack of acceptance of any study that shows that it works. A “fatal” flaw can be found in any study.

      • Roger

        The “little understanding of homeopathy” argument is made often. It is never pointed out exactly WHAT we don’t understand but it is commonly used when someone has eviscerated another piece of fatuous nonsense spouted by a delusional homeopathy fan.

        As regards the standard ad populem argument about India, millions of Indians also invoke the power of the god Dhanvantari to heal them. Does this mean Dhanvantari exists and can exert his power on request?

        Farok Master’s clinical records are not evidence. They are a collection of anecdotes.

        That positive studies of homeopathy are riddled with errors is the problem of the homeopaths who conduct them, Roger. Not of science.

        There are plenty of excellently-conducted trials of homeopathy out there, Roger. Guess what they show overall? A very weak positive. Which, statistically, is entirely consistent with the expectations from an inert remedy.

        Continue to rail against the nasty scientists and sceptics with their facts and logic. We will continue to point and laugh at the silly people with their absurd beliefs in the power of magic shaken water.

      • What’s there to understand about homeopathy? You turn on the faucet, out comes the medicine.

        Like many in my neighbourhood, I’ve had a line permanently installed in my home (we are very progressive). I’ve even got it running hot and cold. I know it may be wasting a valuable resource but cooking my pasta the homeopathic way just makes it taste better. I can’t prove that but I’m pretty sure it does.

  • Mr Vithoulkas may not be very knowledgeable about science and the principles of randomized controlled clinical trial, but he definitely is an expert on the third of the three pillars of homeopath (“Verdünnen, Schütteln, Scheiße labern”)

  • Hmm… there’s a link in the first paragraph to Has anyone else clicked that? I was redirected to a dodgy scam site on a totally different domain.

  • Ah, Vithoulkas. Winner of the “alternative Nobel Prize” etc.

    He seems to be associated with this outfit Indeed his name turns up on various of their “case reports” –

    The quality of the photographs is terrible in both.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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.