Monthly Archives: November 2025
The aim of this randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to analyze the effect of using Bach’s emergency compound, Five-Flower essence, on the stress level of mothers with premature newborns.
The study was conducted with 117 postpartum women. They were divided into intervention (with five-flower) and control groups. Their children were admitted to a Maternity Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, from June 2019 to May 2021. The use of the Five-Flower essence was proposed during hospitalization (4 drops every 15 min four times a day) and at home (16 drops a day at pre-determined times) in the ten days after the first intervention. The pre-and post-intervention parameters were evaluated using the Instrument Parental Stress Scale: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and cortisol analysis. Student’s T, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests, and Generalized Estimating Equation models were used to analyze the data. The 5 % significance level was considered in statistical tests.
The groups were homogeneous regarding sociodemographic, obstetric, and neonatal characteristics (p > 0.05). Mean stress scores were calculated for the control (3.75) and intervention (3.82) groups before intervention and a range was observed for the control (2.75-3.44) and intervention (2.55-3.54) groups after the intervention; the difference between groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Mean cortisol levels were calculated for the control (3.53) and intervention (3.45) groups before intervention and a range was observed for the control (3.38-2.75) and intervention (2.32-2.86) groups after intervention, showing distinct declines in the groups but without statistical difference (p > 0.05).
The authors concluded that the use of the Five-Flower essence as a non-pharmacological therapy is effective in reducing the stress and cortisol levels in mothers of premature newborns admitted to neonatal and semi-intensive care units.
This is odd!
The remedy does not contain relevant doese of pharmacologically active molecules (other than alcohol). This means that, in this study, the authors tested one placebo against another one. Why then is there a differnce in the outcome?
I read the paper carefully in an attempt to find out. Here is what might have happened (the article does not disclose all the relevant details, so I can only guess):
- The placebo which the authors fail to describe was a water solution or a solution that tasted different than the verum.
- The authors do, however, state this: “Regarding blinding, the manufacturer of the flower essences previously identified the bottles as A and B, one of which was the intervention and the other the placebo.”
- It is possible that the patients were de-blinded, meaning one or two knew how the Bach remedy should taste and communicated this to the several other patients.
- In this case, the expectation of patients affected the results accordingly. In other words, the results are due to a placebo effect.
In any case, the conclusion (even if the ‘Five-Flower essence’ did work exactly as described) is far too optimistic. Before anyone might accept the results, we need an INDEPENDENT replication of this dubious study.
Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health issue due to its high prevalence and associated disability burden. Clinical practice guidelines recommend non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions for managing pain and function in people with LBP. This overview of Cochrane review is aimed ato providing accessible, high-quality evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for people with LBP and to highlight areas of remaining uncertainty and gaps in the evidence regarding the effects of these interventions for people with LBP.
the team searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 15 April 2023, to identify Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials testing the effect of non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions, unrestricted by language. Major outcomes were pain intensity, function and safety. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the quality of the reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was placebo/sham.
A total of 31 Cochrane reviews were included of 644 trials that randomised 97,183 adults with LBP. The team had high confidence in the findings of 19 reviews, moderate confidence in the findings of two reviews, and low confidence in the findings of 10 reviews. They present results for non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions compared to placebo/sham or no treatment/usual care at short-term (≤ three months) follow-up. Placebo/sham comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to placebo, there is probably no difference in function (at one-week follow-up) for spinal manipulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.21; 2 trials, 205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for heated back wrap. Compared to placebo, heated back wrap may result in skin pinkness (6/128 participants versus 1/130; 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to sham acupuncture, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07; 3 trials, 957 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to sham traction, there is probably no difference in pain intensity for traction (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -4, 95% CI -17.7 to 9.7; 1 trial, 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for acupuncture. There may be no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture for safety outcomes (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.10; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 465 participants; low-certainty evidence). No treatment/usual care comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.41; 2 trials, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.49; 2 trials, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for massage. There may be no difference between massage and usual care for safety (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07; 1 trial, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to no treatment, acupuncture probably provides a medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -10.1, 95% CI -16.8 to -3.4; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a small improvement in function (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (MD 9.4, 95% CI 6.15 to 12.65; 1 trial, 734 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment/usual care, exercise therapies probably provide a small to medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2; 35 trials, 2746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (0 to 100 scale, MD -6.8, 95% CI -8.3 to -5.3; 38 trials, 2942 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, multidisciplinary therapies probably provide a medium reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.28; 9 trials, 879 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.19; 9 trials, 939 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment, psychological therapies using operant approaches probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.11; 3 trials, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, psychological therapies (including progressive muscle relaxation and behavioural approaches) probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -5.18, 95% CI -9.79 to -0.57; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there is probably no difference in function (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.02; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions and no treatment/usual care for safety (very low-certainty evidence).
The authors concluded that spinal manipulation probably makes no difference to function compared to placebo for people with acute/subacute LBP. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to sham acupuncture. There is probably no difference between traction and sham traction for pain intensity in people with chronic LBP. Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably reduces pain intensity slightly and improves function slightly for people with acute LBP. Acupuncture probably reduces pain intensity, and improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Exercise therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment/usual care. Multidisciplinary therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, psychological therapies probably reduce pain intensity slightly, but probably make no difference to function for people with chronic LBP.
The findings of this overview might surprise some chiropractors, however, it did not surprise me at all*. I have stated more often than I care to remember that, for LBP, we currently have no approach that is truly convincing. One form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) seems to be roughly as effective (or ineffective) as the next. Where they might differ is safety and cost. On both of these measures chiropractic spinal manipulation is less convincing than some of the other options available, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog.
So, in a nutshell, the message to LBP patients can be put simply: stay away from chiros, keep active and, if you insist, use whatever other form of SCAM that you fancy, that is safe and inexpensive.
PS
*I was, however, surprised that the authors had low confidence in the findings of 10 of the 31 reviews. Cochrane reviews should be the most reliable evidence available to date!!!
Taekwondo (TKD) and Tai Chi (TC) are promoted for enhancing the health of older people, yet few studies have compared their effects across multiple domains. This study aimed to compare the effects of TKD versus TC on health status in independent older women.
A randomized controlled trial was conducted with two parallel groups: TKD (n = 11) and TC (n = 10). Both groups trained three times per week for 8 weeks. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included anthropometry, submaximal CPX, 2-min step test, Timed Up-and-Go (TUG), isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), maximal isometric handgrip strength (MIHS), 30 s chair stand, 30 s arm curl, sit-and-reach, and back scratch.
Compared with TC, the TKD group showed significantly greater improvements in several cardiorespiratory outcomes, including VO2 at VT1 and VT2, power output, VO2/HR, OUES, and VE/VCO2 slope (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001; d = 0.69–1.29). TKD participants also exhibited superior gains in maximal and relative IMTP, MIHS, relative MIHS, 30 s arm curl repetitions, and TUG performance (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001; d = 0.61–1.26). Both groups improved similarly in the 30 s chair stand test (p < 0.05). Flexibility outcomes diverged, with TKD improving sit-and-reach and TC showing greater gains in the back scratch test (p < 0.05).
The authors concluded that TKD was more effective than TC in improving cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, and balance in older women and may represent a valuable health-oriented training strategy for this population.
On the one hand, it is to be applauded that studies compare different forms of physical/mental exercise in order to find out which is more effective. On the other hand, this trial was worngly designed and therefore cannot provide a useful answer to the question.
- As an equivalence study, its sample size was at least one dimention too small.
- It employed to treatments with largely unproven efficacy, which is never a good idea for equivalence studies.
- If you want to determine the ‘health status’ of older women, you need more and different outcome measures.
- Eight weeks is too short a follow-up time for determining a relevant effect.
My conclusion is therefore (yet again):
If you design a nonsense study, you are bound to get a nonsense result.
Clinical trials of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – and of course other treatments as well – are often poorly designed. If you don’t believe me, read some of my pervious posts; I have written about this more regularly than about any other subject. Such trials are not a mere nuisance but they violate fundamental ethical principles and can can lead to significant harm. Here is a brief summary of the damage they can cause.
- Waste of participants’ good will: If a study design is scientifically flawed, it is sure to produce an uninterpretable or irrelevant result. This means that the subjects have endured the burdens of participating (e.g. time, pain, inconvenience) unnecessarily. Strictly speaking, this is unethical.
- Waste of money: If a study is poorly designed and thus unable to produce a meaningful result, the often considerable amounts of money that have gone into the trial are wasted. Strictly speaking, this is unethical.
- Waste of effort: If a study does not contribute meaningfully to advancing our knowledge, the time spent by researchers to conduct it is wasted and should have been spent more wisely. Strictly speaking, this is unethical.
- Misleading conclusions: Flawed trial methodologies (e.g., selection bias, inappropriate endpoints, incorrect statistical analysis) lead to inaccurate, misleading or wrong results that send us all up the garden path. This can cause considerable harm to patients. Strictly speaking, this is not only unethical but also very dangerous.
- Erosion of Public Trust: Trials that are useless destroy public trust in science and medical research, making future, ethical studies more difficult to conduct. Strictly speaking, this is dangerous.
- Unwarranted credibility: Poorly designed trials of an implausible SCAM transfer unwarranted credibility to that form of treatment. Consequently consumers might believe it to be evidence-based and use it. Strictly speaking, this can harm their health and is therefore dangerous.
The lesson for SCAM researchers is simple: design your studies well. Unfortunately translating this lesson into action is not simple.
Many of you will remember the multiple posts on this blog about this study and about the fact that Frass himself has stated that his dubious ‘homeopathy for cancer study’ will be retracted. At the time, our resident defender of the indefensible (pseudonym ‘sandbox’) commented (as almost aways incorrectly) as follows:
1. Ernst attempted to retract a high-quality article using falsehoods.
2. Ernst accused the principal investigator of fraud without evidence.
3. Ernst sent a letter to the editor that was not published.
4. The verdict allowed the clinical trial to continue through a corrigendum.
5. Ernst felt desperate and, with his group of friends, pressed to try again to retract the article.
6. Ernst realises that, apparently (from a vague statement by Frass), the trial is going to be retracted.
7. Ernst congratulates himself because he has managed to retract the article, but admits that, not for his reasons, he has no confirmation (yet) from The Oncologist.
8. Ernst calls The Oncologist incompetent for publishing an editorial in which they only ask to test each of the drugs used in the trial.
That was around a month ago. Now, finally, an official retraction notice has appeared:
This is a retraction of: Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk‐Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer‐Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, Homeopathic Treatment as an Add‐On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, Double‐Blind, Three‐Arm, Multicenter Study, The Oncologist, Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages e1930–e1955, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548.
The journal published the article in November 20201 and a correction in March 2021.2 In August 2022, the journal received a request from the Commission for Research Integrity of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI) to retract the article following an investigation they conducted at the request of the Vice Rector of the Medical University of Vienna. The journal published an Expression of Concern in October 2022,3 followed by a second correction4 and accompanying Editorial in September 2024.5
Subsequent to the two corrections, concerns have continued to be raised about the study. In light of this continued uncertainty and the issues previously covered in the corrections, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions reported in the article and has decided to retract.
Many co-authors disagree with the journal’s decision to retract6, while one agrees7 and others have not commented either way.
REFERENCES
1 Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk‐Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer‐Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, Homeopathic Treatment as an Add‐On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, Double‐Blind, Three‐Arm, Multicenter Study, The Oncologist, Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages e1930–e1955, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548
2 Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk-Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study, The Oncologist, Volume 26, Issue 3, March 2021, Page e523, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13693
3 Expression of Concern: Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study, The Oncologist, Volume 27, Issue 12, December 2022, Page e985, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac221
5 Correction to: Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study, The Oncologist, Volume 29, Issue 11, November 2024, Pages e1631–e1632, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae253
4 William D Figg, Susan E Bates, Clinical trial results: each patient’s participation should count, The Oncologist, Volume 30, Issue 7, July 2025, oyae252, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae252
6 Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Raj K. Manchanda, and Otto Burghuber disagree with the journal’s decision to retract.
7 Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller agrees with the journal’s decision to retract.
_________________________________________
I am of course pleased that this is finally done, but believe that the wholly incompetent Editorial (ref 4 above) needs retracting as well. Finally, I feel that an appology from the editor(s) (for their endless delay tactics, their refusal to understand the issues at hand, for not answering multiple emails, etc., etc.) might be in order.
In the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial of 1946/47, some of the Nazi doctors who had committed crimes against humanity were prosecuted and sentenced. The trial has a historical significance far beyond its original remit. It established the influential “Nuremberg Code”, a set of ethical principles for human experimentation, emphasizing ethical imperatives to avoid harm to patients and study participants. The code then formed the basis for formal ethical guidelines across the world.
Three of the key features of the Code include:
- The human subject must give voluntary, informed consent before participating in a medical experiment.
- The experiment must be designed to yield results that are for the good of society.
- The experiment must be conducted by scientifically qualified persons who possess adequate training and skills.
As these principles have become generally accepted, it might be interesting to ask whether they are also implemented in research of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here are my impressions based on the many studies I have reviewed on this blog:
- As I have repeatedly pointed out, fully informed consent may not even be possible in all areas of SCAM research. (In clinical practice, it is very often neglected, simply because patients would run a mile, if they knew what questionalbe treatment is being proposed.)
- Societal benefit of testing highly implausible SCAMs is frequently doubtful.
- SCAM researchers are frequently not scientifically qualified but, as we have seen with depressing regularity, they often abuse science not to test but to confirm their beliefs.
As mentioned, the principles of the ‘Nuremberg Code’ were incorporated in virtually all national ethical guidelines that exist today. They apply to medical research in all areas. This, of course, also includes SCAM! Yet, as I have often pointed out on this blog and elsewhere, in the realm of SCAM, they are frequently ignored. I find this increasingly intolerable and therefore appeal once again to SCAM researchers, funders, journal editors, reviewers and everyone else concerned to make sure that the basic principles of medical ethics are not violated by SCAM research.
- Reiki,
- sham Reiki (i.e., Feiki),
- mindfulness meditation,
- waitlist control.
Treatments were delivered in four weekly 30-minute sessions.
- Reiki was superior to doing nothing (waiting list) which can be expected due to a placebo effect.
- Mindfulness was superior to doing nothing (waiting list) which can be expected not least due to a placebo effect.
- Mindfulness was superior to Feiki which can be expected as mindfulness might work.
- Reiki demonstrated effects comparable to mindfulness which is due to an inadequate sample size; for comparing two allegedly effective treatments, one would need a proper equivalence study with much larger sample sizes.
- The above argument also applies to the fact that “reductions in symptoms (>30 %) were reported by 55 % of participants in the Reiki and mindfulness groups, compared to 20 % in the Feiki group”.
The most interesting result is not mentioned in the abstract: there was no difference between Reiki and Feiki interventions. Thus, if this trial shows anything meaningful at all, it must be this:
THE CLINICAL EFFECTS OF REIKI RELY ON PLACEBO.
Or to put it differently:
REIKI HAS NO SPECIFIC EFFECTS.
Or to put it bluntly:
REIKI IS BOGUS!
Two days ago, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) published an announcement; here are its ‘key points’:
- The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
- Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.
- HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.
In the announcement proper, they make the following argument:
The rise in autism prevalence since the 1980s correlates with the rise in the number of vaccines given to infants. Though the cause of autism is likely to be multi-factorial, the scientific foundation to rule out one potential contributor entirely has not been established. For example, one study found that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines had the highest statistical correlation with the rise in autism prevalence among numerous suspected environmental causes…
I am concerned with all the many other relationships that have not been adequately investigated, presumably because of powerful interests from influential organisations. Here are just three examples.:
- It is well known that the consumption of ice cream correlates with death from drowning. How many people have to die until the government finally stops the BIG ICE CREAM lobby?
- Similarly, it is a fact that the more margarine is consumed, the higher the divorce rate in Maine. How many marriages will have to break up, until BIG MARGERINE is finally stopped?
- Finally, it is well known that the rate of chocolate consumption correlates within a country with the number of Nobel Prizes that country is awarded. How long do we have to wait until chocolate consumption becomes mandatory to boost the cognitive function of our children?
I am convinced that these three examples – there are plenty more, if you only do your research as well as RFKJr clearly does – are at least as important and just as plausible as the one currently tackled by the CDC. Therefore I urge the CDC to speed up their research and go after all the red herrings they can possibly find.
PS
In my experience, there are some readers who are intellectually too limited to identify satire. Let me therefore make it clear that THIS POST IS SATIRE!
PPS
There has been wide-spread condemnation of the CDC announcement, e.g.:
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): The president of the AAP called the change “false information” and asserted that the updated page was promoting a harmful myth. The organization emphasized that over 40 high-quality studies involving more than 5.6 million people have clearly and unambiguously concluded that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
- Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: Public health experts and former CDC officials argued that the revision was “reckless and harmful,” had “no scientific rationale,” and was driven by “politics” rather than science. They warned that the move would sow doubt in routine childhood immunizations and undermine public trust in the CDC as a credible scientific voice.
- Lack of Scientific Review: Critics noted that the updated content did not cite any new research and appeared to have been implemented without the normal scientific clearance process involving career scientists at the CDC.
- Why use adolescents when wanting to improve cognitive function? This parameter is impaired mostly in the eldely!
- If the study had generated a positive finding, would it have been attributed to shiatsu or to aromatherapy. Well-planned trials are designed to answer specific questions.
- A controlled clinical trial is for comparing outcomes between groups. For looking within group changes, we do not need a control group. Analysing within group changes in a controlled trial is irrelevant nonsense. Thus these findings should be discarded.
- What did this controlled trial control for? It certainly did not control for placebo effects!
- Why use “rest in sitting position for 10 minutes” as the control intervention? This is not remotely similar to the verum! A possible control treatment might have been to use shiatsu massage on non-acupuncture points with a nice smelling fragrance that is not an aromatherapy oil.
So, here is my conclusion of this study:
If you design a lousy trial, you get a lousy result.
Every now and then, I come across a paper that stuns me – not because it is so brilliant (scientific articles are supposed to be brilliant) but because of other qualities. Here is a truly impressive example entitled “The Principle of Homeopathy” This is its abstract [I have not changed a word]:
Homeopathy is based on the principle that the body’s immune system maintains a dynamic equilibrium between health-supporting molecules [A] and disease supporting molecules [B] to prevent systemic collapse. According to the Law of Similars and in alignment with Le Chatelier’s principle, administering a remedy that induces symptoms similar to those of the disease in a healthy individual stimulates the production of health-supporting molecules, thereby accelerating the healing process. The effectiveness of homeopathic treatment is attributed to a process known as succussion – a combination of serial dilution and vigorous milling – which enhances the remedy’s therapeutic properties by transforming it from a suspension into a highly potent [B] simillimum solution.
The abstract is already remarkable, but it pales vis a vis some of the text in the paper itself. My favourite secition is entitled “Thermodynamic Perspective”:
From a thermodynamic standpoint, the body’s immune system establishes a dynamic equilibrium [A]↔[B] between action of health supporting molecules (A) and action of disease-supporting molecules (B) to prevent systemic collapse. Dynamic equilibrium is a fundamental concept in natural laws governing energy changes and the probability distribution of particles in biochemical reactions [8, 9]. Mathematically, this Dynamic equilibrium can be expressed using the Law of Mass Action [10].
K = [B] / [A]
Where, K is the equilibrium constant.
If the system is disturbed – for example, by introducing a homeopathic remedy (Simillimum) – the equilibrium shifts according to Le Châtelier’s principle [11]. This means the body may compensate for the disruption by adjusting concentrations of [A] and [B], leading to an increase in health-supporting molecules [A] at the expense of disease supporting molecules [B]. This concept aligns with homeopathy’s core principle: “like cures like.” In this theoretical framework, dynamic equilibrium provides a scientific basis for homeopathy, paralleling other biological regulatory mechanisms.
I know that many of my readers have doubts about homeopathy and its actions. I am confident that these doubts are now laid to rest by the author of this paper, Mihael Drofenik fron the Jožef Stefan Institute, Materials Synthesis, Ljubljana, Slovenia and the University of Maribor, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Maribor, Slovenia.
