World Homeopathy Day is celebrated on April 10 every year. It aims at marking the importance of homeopathy and its contributions to medicine. It also honors the memory of Dr. Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann — the founder of homeopathy.
Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) was born in Meissen, Germany. He studied medicine in Germany and Austria and received his doctorate in 1779 from the university of Erlangen. He practised as a physician but soon became disenchanted with the medicine of his time which he felt was neither effective nor safe. Eventually, he stopped practising and lived from translating medical texts. In the course of this work, he came across a remark about the action of Cinchona bark which prompted him to do experiments on himself. These experiments eventually led to the creation of homeopathy. Hahnemann’s new therapy was controversial but soon became a worldwide success. When Hahnemann was about to retire at the age of 75, he was visited by a young women from Paris. The two were soon married and Hahnemann started a new career in the French metropole where he died in 1843.
Hahnemann’s followers have suffered one defeat after the next, in recent years. More and more countries have stopped reimbursing homeopathy, and the fact that homeopathics are pure placebo has become undeniable. For some of them, this is reason to retreat into their traditional position claiming that homeopathy is, in this or that way, so special that it cannot be squeezed into the straight jacket of science. Here is a very recent article that might serve as an apt example of this notion:
Integrating homeopathy into mainstream medical practice requires a thorough understanding of how the medicine works and what it involves. However, homeopathy, a highly individualized and philosophically alternative medicine, may not be accurately captured by the existing EBM hierarchy. Despite the utility EBM may have as a systematic tool for recognizing evidence-laden treatment options, it overlooks the relevant complexities related to homeopathy. The EBM hierarchy’s narrow focus on statistical significance and empirical data may not be sufficient to capture the complexities and unique principles of homeopathic medicine. A more inclusive, unbiased, and flexible approach that values individualization, mechanistic reasoning, as well as historical and traditional evidence within homeopathy, is needed to develop a nuanced understanding of this alternative medical practice. To bridge this gap, it is crucial to develop an alternative epistemic framework that is consistent with the underlying principles of homeopathy. Such a framework should envelope a more diverse range of data such as mechanistic and experiential evidence. Collaboration between homeopathic practitioners, researchers, and experts in evidence-based methodology could help establish a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to evaluating the evidence for homeopathic treatments.
The article itself explains it as follows:
An appropriate design for assessing homeopathy would consider its unique healing philosophy, thus accurately reflecting the practice under study. To achieve this, we must assess the mechanistic underpinnings that contribute to the treatment’s effectiveness. Homeopathy’s healing philosophy emphasizes individualization and potentization. These practices rely on the practitioner’s assessment of the individual and the resulting design of the medicine prescribed. Furthermore, such a study would not conflate different homeopathic medicines; instead, it would elucidate the effectiveness of the mechanisms giving rise to homeopathy’s healing capacity. For instance, if a certain potency of Ignatia works for one individual, it may be ineffective if prescribed to another without considering their constitution. This relationship regarding the efficiency of homeopathy is backed by the treatment’s medical philosophy. Therefore, it is unfair to reject homeopathy as a medical treatment in its entirety based on a few cases of ineffectiveness, especially when the source of the ineffectiveness can’t be pinpointed.
These arguments sum up the somewhat delusional feelings of many homeopaths. These defenders of the indefensible seem to live on a different planet than the rest of us. Here on planet earth, we have many rational, fair, independent and thus reliable assessments of homeopathy – let me remind you of some of their conclusion:
• “The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available” (Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia)
• “Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.” (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia)
• “Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence-based medicine.” (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
• “The incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine.” (Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden)
• “There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition” (National Health Service, England)
So, on the occasion of World Homeopathy Day, rational thinkers might conclude that:
- there is a wide consensus stating that homeopathy is a placebo therapy;
- only homeopaths do not agree with this consensus;
- those homeopaths who disagree use transparently bogus arguments in defence of their trade;
- closer inspection reveals that they are, in fact, members of a cult.
38 Responses to World Homeopathy Day: celebrating a cult?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
This one phrase can tell us why homeopathy is a failure:
– No ‘mechanistic underpinnings’ have ever been found. Homeopathic preparations are just shaken water, and the shaking does nothing special at all.
– Thousands of studies into the effectiveness of homeopathy demonstrates a strong negative correlation between a study’s rigor and the purported effectiveness. In other words: the higher the quality of a study, the less effect is found – and this also goes for studies with completely individualized treatments. The reverse also applies: lower quality studies tend to find more effects. Almost all studies carried out by homeopaths are of low quality, showing their clear biases and preconceived notions rather than any actual effects.
So yes, ‘mechanistic underpinnings’ contribute to ‘a treatment’s effectiveness’. And as there are no mechanistic underpinnings, there is no effectiveness either. Which of course also shows from countless studies.
My answer is Yes! Homeopathy IS a quasi-religious cult.
Hahnemann is his prophet, the Organon is the Holy Scriptures. All the variants of homeopathy that have been discovered/developed over the last 200 years correspond to religious denominations.
What homeopathy can do that allopathy can’t do. Food allergies can’t be cured by allopathy.I have my experiment where I cured food allergies with the help of common cold. The experiment follows Hering’s law. I want doctors help to conduct clinical trials. There are many patients in UK and US.
Well, my dear homeopath and copywriter: What the many people in the USA and UK (and the rest of the world) certainly do not need is “support” from a proven ineffective treatment method that only serves to make them poorer and you richer.
See S D Naikar on Friday 19 April 2024 at 06:44
https://edzardernst.com/2024/04/the-fake-diagnoses-of-so-called-alternative-medicine-part-1/#comment-151094
I’m an engineer.my experiment is an integrated approach that can be done by doctors only.That could be test for homeopathy
Hering’s Law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hering%27s_law_of_equal_innervation
What?
How does this have anything to do with food allergies?
And yet the dear old NHS has allergy clinics all over the country…Which treat genuine allergies, not just supposed intolerances.
I’m an engineer.This experiment can be carried out by doctors only
Give US NIH a call, Bhattacharya may be interested.
Dear George
Please give US NIH and Bhattacharya contact details
Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D.
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
301-496-4000
Please keep us all informed of your progress.
Dear George
Give your contact number and email address
Just FYI: He may be busy, his boss just told him he needs to determine the cause of autism by this September.
@George
Sounds great. Maybe he can look into Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease as well? No real hurry, having a definitive cause by November this year is early enough.
I would rather be a homeopathee in the cult of homeopathy than a logicalfalacyee in the cult of so called ‘Evidence’ (ha ha) Based Medicine.
Genius EBM medicine ‘researchers’ utilising their many years of highly skilled EBM research will next be telling us that relaxation helps lower high blood pressure.
@Troll JK
Yes, that is what serious EBM researchers do. Conducting studies (especially when there have been none) to prove assumptions, hypotheses and even gut feelings and common knowledge. This is something that all homeopathy supporters have been failing at for 200 years in their so-called studies on the efficacy of homeopathy.
The authors concluded that the results of our study indicated that many relaxation interventions show promise for reducing blood pressure in the short term but the longer term effects are unclear. Future studies in this area should include adequate follow-up to establish whether the effects on blood pressure persist over time, both while the relaxation interventions are ongoing and after they have been completed. Researchers should also use rigorous study methods and reporting to minimise the risk of bias in the results. Finally, we encourage researchers to assess all relevant outcomes, including cardiovascular events and adverse events, as well as blood pressure itself.
https://edzardernst.com/2025/04/stress-management-and-relaxation-for-hypertension/
RPGNo1 on Friday 11 April 2025 at 11:49
“Conducting studies (especially when there have been none) to prove assumptions, hypotheses and even gut feelings and common knowledge.”
REALLY? Don’t confuse drugs with medicine and the drug users ability to understand medicine. A short list of some of the “evidence based” drugs and the outcome after use.
Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
• Approved: 1999
• Withdrawn: 2004
• Use: Pain relief (arthritis)
• Issue: Significantly increased risk of heart attacks and strokes
• Note: One of the most infamous drug recalls — over 60,000 deaths estimated worldwide.
Valdecoxib (Bextra)
• Approved: 2001
• Withdrawn: 2005
• Use: Pain relief (COX-2 inhibitor like Vioxx)
• Issue: Serious skin reactions (Stevens-Johnson Syndrome) and cardiovascular risks
Tegaserod (Zelnorm)
• Approved: 2002
• Withdrawn: 2007 (reintroduced under restrictions later)
• Use: IBS with constipation
• Issue: Associated with serious cardiovascular events (angina, heart attack, stroke)
Pemoline (Cylert)
• Approved: 1975
• Withdrawn: 2005
• Use: ADHD
• Issue: Linked to severe liver toxicity, even liver failure requiring transplants.
Troglitazone (Rezulin)
• Approved: 1997
• Withdrawn: 2000
• Use: Type 2 diabetes
• Issue: Liver failure and death; more than 60 cases of liver damage reported.
Cerivastatin (Baycol)
• Approved: 1997
• Withdrawn: 2001
• Use: Cholesterol-lowering statin
• Issue: High risk of rhabdomyolysis (severe muscle breakdown), especially with gemfibrozil.
Efalizumab (Raptiva)
• Approved: 2003
• Withdrawn: 2009
• Use: Psoriasis
• Issue: Associated with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) — a fatal brain infection.
Alosetron (Lotronex)
• Approved: 2000
• Withdrawn: 2000 (returned under restricted use in 2002)
• Use: IBS with diarrhea
• Issue: Ischemic colitis and serious gastrointestinal complications.
Rimonabant (Acomplia)
• Use: Anti-obesity drug.
• Developed/Approved: 2006 (Europe).
• Withdrawn: 2008 (Europe).
• Reason: Caused severe psychiatric side effects, including depression and suicidal thoughts, outweighing weight loss benefits.
Lumiracoxib (Prexige)
• Use: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory for osteoarthritis.
• Developed/Approved: 2003 (various countries).
• Withdrawn: 2007-2008 (multiple countries, e.g., Australia, Canada).
• Reason: Linked to severe hepatotoxicity (liver damage), with risks deemed too high compared to pain relief benefits.
Sibutramine (Meridia/Reductil)
• Use: Weight loss.
• Developed/Approved: 1997 (US, later globally).
• Withdrawn: 2010 (US, Europe, others).
• Reason: Increased risk of cardiovascular events (heart attack, stroke) in patients, outweighing modest weight loss.
Rosiglitazone (Avandia)
• Use: Type 2 diabetes.
• Developed/Approved: 1999 (US, Europe).
• Withdrawn/Restricted: 2010 (withdrawn in Europe, restricted in US).
• Reason: Increased risk of heart attack and cardiovascular death, outweighing glycemic control benefits.
Gatifloxacin (Tequin)
• Use: Antibiotic for infections.
• Developed/Approved: 1999 (US).
• Withdrawn: 2006 (US).
• Reason: Severe blood sugar imbalances (hypo- and hyperglycemia), particularly in elderly patients, outweighed its infection-fighting benefits.
Belviq (Lorcaserin)
• Use: Weight loss.
• Approved: 2012 (US).
• Withdrawn: 2020 (US).
• Reason: Increased cancer risk (e.g., pancreatic, colorectal, lung) identified in a post-marketing trial
(CAMELLIA-TIMI 61).
The FDA concluded risks outweighed weight loss benefits.
Withdrawn voluntarily by Eisai in the US; limited use elsewhere.
Zinbryta (Daclizumab)
• Use: Multiple sclerosis.
• Approved: 2016 (US, EU).
• Withdrawn: 2018 (US, EU).
• Reason: Linked to severe liver injury and fatal cases of encephalitis and meningoencephalitis. Reports of 12 serious inflammatory brain disorders prompted voluntary withdrawal by Biogen and AbbVie worldwide.
Raxone (Idebenone)
• Use: Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON).
• Approved: 2015 (EU).
• Withdrawn: 2020 (EU).
• Reason: Insufficient evidence of sustained vision improvement, coupled with risks of liver toxicity and cardiac arrhythmias, led Santhera to withdraw it after EMA reassessment found benefits too marginal.
Know the name of the companies behind these developments? The first time they were producing “medicine”?
What happened to to the “EBM researchers, Conducting studies and the outcome?” Death and painful existence for the patients!!!!!!!!
“What happened to to the “EBM researchers, Conducting studies and the outcome?”
Has it escaped your sharp mind that these drugs were withdrawn not least because of the research of scientists who care about outcomes?
Edzard on Saturday 12 April 2025 at 10:51
“Has it escaped your sharp mind that these drugs were withdrawn not least because of the research of scientists who care about outcomes?”
Are you implying that there are 2 teams? One for sending anything and everything “as drug for use” to the market with documentation showing scientific evidence of successfully meeting treatment outcome and the other group of researchers who check REAL outcome? What are the achievement objectives of the second group?
How many years it took to withdraw these drugs, after release into the market????
How many dead and maimed patients are to be counted before withdrawal is accepted and initiated?
What is done to handle the collateral damage???????????? Treatment cost reimbursed? Undertaker’s expenses? Finding ways to not pay damages by bringing in experts?
The first team gets their bonus on meeting timeline for launch. (What happens to this amount when the drug is withdrawn?) What is the criterion for bonus for the second team? How many times they cover up failure with “evidence based scientific statements?” Look for a set of doctors to support their documentation analysis?
“Go to one doctor, and get one answer. Go to another, and get a different one. Or think about expert testimony. You don’t have to hire an expert to lie. You can just find one who truly believes the number you want.” (Know which doctor made this statement?).
One evidence. Many interpretations.
This explains the evidence in evidence based medicine or explains the biggest ongoing SCAM??????
“These patients and families experienced many profound LTIs after their harmful medical event. For some, these impacts evolved into secondary harms ongoing 10 years and more after the event. Our results draw attention to the persistent impacts patients and families may experience long after harmful events and the need for future research to understand and support affected patients and families.”
Did you know this? Or this blog is about Alternative medicine????????
Krishna, if you have concerns about pharmaceutical products, there are appropriate regulatory bodies you could approach.
This Blog is about so-called alternative medicine. This thread in this Blog is about “World homeopathy day”.
@Krishna
You have no idea about drug development and approval and the monitoring of the same, but you act as if you were the Great Expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research#Phase_IV
DavidB on Monday 14 April 2025 at 00:09
“if you have concerns about pharmaceutical products, there are appropriate regulatory bodies you could approach.”
NONE. I have no use for these.
“This Blog is about so-called alternative medicine.”
Is that what YOU think? Think again.
This blog is about running down all other forms of treatment by using stray cases and treating these as the universe. All the while hiding facts that the so called “scientific evidence based medicine”, used for comparison is actually a lot worse in outcome, for similar treatments.
“Evidence” is the most used word thrown around here, supposedly being used by practicing GP’s even earlier to 1996. Consequent to Dr. Eddy’s sever criticism of the medical practices, Gill et al came in with a study and Prof here circulated it.
Yet, for doctors trained to handle medicine based upon EVIDENCE alone, suddenly forgot their training overnight when Covid struck. During the 1920 flu pandemic, doctors killed their patients with Aspirin, quinine…, and this time they used “scientifically developed, evidence based, Ivermectine, Paracetamol, steroids…to kill patients: exactly the same approach as during the flu 100 years ago.
On this blog, the Prof is routinely spinning yarns about “evidence” “science” “double blind, controlled studies… as if this creates the difference, never explaining how the use of Antibiotics has created new chronic diseases including cancers, how doctors manage to kill patients when “science” is on their side and get Nobel prize in medicine for treatment processes like Lobotomy!!
Does the Professor, even understand the meaning of evidence in medicine?
““Doctors now routinely test for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to try to diagnose prostate cancer. But there’s no evidence that using the test improves survival. Recent evidence suggest that PSA might lead to wrong diagnosis where cancer does not exist in the first place. Some experts believe that as many cancers would be detected through random biopsies. Then, once cancer is spotted, there’s no way to know who needs treatment and who doesn’t. Plus, there is a plethora of treatment choices — four kinds of surgery, various types of implantable radioactive seeds, and competing external radiation regimens. How is a poor patient supposed to decide among those?
Most of the time, patients don’t even know Large randomized studies did not deliver the goods as expected because we have been treating the human body as bio-medical electromechanical machine like a car engine. Human body is much more complicated and follows totally different rules of the game. We need to think afresh. So it’s no surprise that up to one-third of clinical studies lead to conclusions that are later overturned. Even when common treatments are proved to be dubious, physicians don’t rush to change their practice. They may still firmly believe in the treatment — or in the money it brings in. ” Gill and the Professor surely missed this or deliberately?
The Nobel Prize committee repeated the failure again for accepting antibiotic use for removal of H Pylori as one “great invention”, that led to doctors thoughtlessly unleashing misuse of antibiotics and making the future generations perpetually sick. This is result of scientific medicine supported by evidence at the highest level!!!
“This thread in this Blog is about “World homeopathy day”.”
Homeopathy worked during the 1920 flu, it worked this time equally well.
https://www.ecampnd.com/homeopathy/A_Chorus_of_Fifty_in_Harmony.pdf
Check for data on dead per 1000 in Florida and across the water in Cuba. Compare!
Krishna, you are trolling, and offensive. I don’t think you realise how powerfully you mtigate against homeopathy.
@Krishna
People who contracted the Spanish flu were not successfully treated with homeopathy. Homeopathy was ineffective. This has been refuted many times on this blog and elsewhere.
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0033-1357693?device=desktop&innerWidth=412&offsetWidth=412&lang=de
You are a troll, ignoramus and plastic shaman.
DavidB on Tuesday 15 April 2025 at 15:39
‘you are trolling, and offensive.”
You are clueless. All references and statements that I provide come from researchers and doctors with degrees and recognition way beyond that of the Prof here. ALL from the allopathic system. And they should know better than make unsubstantiated claims like here.
I wrote earlier that I have no interest in the Pharma industry as I don’t use their products. Not totally correct. In July 2020, when Covid wave started across Europe and America and people were falling off like flies, I offloaded my equity investments and put most of my money into MFs focused on pharma and healthcare: (I had zero clue of who makes what) and doubled my investment in 2 years. If there were companies in the undertaking business, I would have multiplied my money 10 times considering the state of “scientific medicine”.
When the reports of cardiac issues arising consequent to mass Covid vaccinations started, I have put my funds into a hospital chain that focuses upon treating cardiac problems ONLY. I have already doubled my money in the past 3 years and it just continues to improve.
With so many suckers around and such fear psychosis, money making was never so easy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953608005066
“The articles analyzed five strikes around the world, all between 1976 and 2003. The strikes lasted between nine days and seventeen weeks. All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods.”
The offensive part:
“Hospital systems are built around procedures and billing, not outcomes — especially in for-profit models. Doctors (particularly specialists) generate more revenue than nurses — so despite the data, systemic power dynamics stay skewed.
When nurses strike work, patients start dying!!!!!!!!!!
RPGNo1 on Wednesday 16 April 2025 at 08:51
“People who contracted the Spanish flu were not successfully treated with homeopathy. Homeopathy was ineffective. This has been refuted many times on this blog and elsewhere.”
You sound like a broken record stuck on the same track……. “Homeopathy ineffective”!!!!!
Below is the statement of Victor C Vaughan, past President of AMA: an arrogant doctor brought to his knees by the Spanish flu.
“The saddest part of my life,” Vaughan admitted, “was when I witnessed the hundreds of deaths of the soldiers in the Army camps and did not know what to do. At that moment I decided never again to prate about the great achievements of medical science and to humbly admit our dense ignorance in this case.” Surveying the scene at Camp Devens, Vaughan observed, “I saw hundreds of young stalwart men in uniform coming into the wards of the hospital. Every bed was full, yet others crowded in. The faces wore a bluish cast; a cough brought up the blood-stained sputum.”
Dr Vaughan also resided in Michigan. With his kind of professional arrogance, he would have allowed Dr Dewey to get away with his claim of successful treatment of over 25,000 cases of flu by homeopathic doctors, right under his nose???
He was sensible enough to accept failure. But your lack of knowledge about difference between medicine and drugs” stays: It is on this blog that homeopathy does not work. In actual practice: it works-always.
@Krishna
Which allopathic system? Ayurveda? Unani? TCM?
Really, @Krishna? You are talking nonsense and expect me to break down? How pathetic! I can play the game better than you.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-manufacturers-products-labeled-homeopathic-putting-consumers-risk-significant-violations
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-homeopathic-firms-putting-patients-risk-significant-violations-manufacturing-quality
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-four-manufacturers-unapproved-injectable-drugs-labeled-homeopathic
https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/warning-letter-and-recall-of-a-homeopathic-medicine-for-children
https://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/fda-warning-slams-drugmaker-made-teething-tablets-containing-belladonna
@JK
Well, yes, that figures – real medicine requires intelligence and a lot of hard work. Homeopathy just requires belief and some superficial reading skills.
@Richard Rasker
Let’s not forget, homeopaths are highly skilled bullshitters.
As evidenced by the word-salad article Professor Ernst quotes above.
In the land of homeopathy, Where logic takes a holiday, JK dances with delight, In his cult, he feels so right.
“Evidence,” he laughs with zest, “Is just a joke, I must confess! Relaxation, Can lower blood pressure? Tee-hee!”
But while JK laughs and jeers, Science marches on, it steers. With studies, trials, and careful thought, It finds the truths that can’t be bought.
So here’s to JK, in his cult so grand, May he find peace in his whimsical land. But for those who seek the facts, you know, Evidence-based medicine is the way to go!
Oh dear Talker the lack of reaction to that effort says it all. I have been reasonably complementary in the past regarding some of your rhymes but not this one.
Don’t worry though as I have some advice.
First of all change your profile name to McTalkerney. Then seek advice from resident blog piss taker Lenny who posts on here and who can actually be quite amusing even for us CAMists with a thick skin.
Then it would be a Lenny/McTalkerney collaboration and that could be a Ticket to Ride . Either that or you could just Let it Be and continue on your Long and Winding Road ,Helter Skelter ride as you head for the bottom.
Oh dear Talker the lack of reaction to that effort says it all. I have been reasonably complementary in the past regarding some of your rhymes but not this one.
Don’t worry though as I have some advice.
First you have to reach some sort of crescendo with these rhymes.
For example in my parody of the specials lyrics to Ghost Town I finished
with ‘No jabs to be found on this country, Talker getting angry’. This is a reasonable effort unlike your last verse.
Secondly change your profile name to McTalkerney. Then seek advice from resident blog piss taker Lenny who posts on here and who can actually be quite amusing even to us CAMists so long as we have a thick skin.
Then it would be a Lenny/McTalkerney collaboration and that could be a Ticket to Ride . Either that or you could just Let it Be and continue on your Long and Winding Road ,Helter Skelter ride as you get to the bottom whilst i head to the top of the slide.
Lack of reaction? Apparently, you have much to say that you had to post twice, and that tells me I got under your skin. 🤣 Thanks for the lessons in rhyming. Keep them coming
I note that this time you didn’t reply with a poem!
Please give it another go if you like.
“Collaboration between homeopathic practitioners, researchers, and experts in evidence-based methodology could help establish a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to evaluating the evidence for homeopathic treatments.”
The 2002 BBC “Horizon” science programme’s homeopathy trial was fully collaborative.