Homeopathy Works - Not Acceptable To British Researchers

Homeopathy works – not acceptable to British Researchers

I believe British researchers and pharmaceutical lobby have made their mindset not to accept the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in particular and finally not accepting homeopathy system of therapeutics.

In the first week of this month, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has said “Homeopathic products are ‘clearly not’ medicines and should carry labels warning that there is ‘no scientific evidence for homeopathy’ “.

Responding to draft guidance on the advertising of homeopathic medicines published by the MHRA this week, the society expressed concerns that the public does not understand the principles on which homeopathy is based, and said there was ‘general confusion’ about the difference between homeopathic and herbal products.

On 13th Nov. RHEUMATOLOGY – a UK based journal published that “Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy”.

Sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis who visited a homeopathic doctor experienced significant reductions in pain, inflammation and other key markers of the disease, the research shows. Yet it made no difference whether the solution they received was a genuine homeopathic tincture prescribed to treat rheumatism, or a placebo.

Researchers are from the School of Medicine, Primary Medical Care, Aldermoor Health Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, and Center for Managing Chronic Disease, School of Public Health, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA and School of Mathematics, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, UK.

Their main objective was to assess whether any benefits from adjunctive homeopathic intervention in patients with RA are due to the homeopathic consultation, homeopathic remedies or both.

Exploratory double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted from January 2008 to July 2008, in patients with active stable RA receiving conventional therapy. Eighty-three participants from three secondary care UK outpatient clinics were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with either homeopathic consultation (further randomized to individualized homeopathy, complex homeopathy or placebo) or non-homeopathic consultation (further randomized to complex homeopathy or placebo).

Patients were randomized into five groups. Of the five groups, three received a homeopathic consultation (Groups 1 – 3) and two (Groups 4 and 5) did not. The consultation groups were further randomized to individualized treatment (Group 1), a homeopathic complex for RA (Group 2) or placebo (Group 3).

Non-consultation participants were allocated complex (Group 4) or placebo (Group 5); individualized homeopathy can only be prescribed through a consultation.

This study has not disclosed the homeopathic remedies given to Group 1 patients.

Researchers commented “Homeopathic intervention in patients with chronic, active but relatively stable RA has significant clinical benefits that are attributable mainly to the homeopathic consultation process. There appeared to be no specific benefit from the homeopathic remedies themselves”.

Researchers acknowledged the participant homeopaths, June Daniels and Hugh Harrison, and Francis Treuherz, homeopath for help with technical homeopathic queries.

Researchers concluded that homeopathic consultations but not homeopathic remedies are associated with clinically relevant benefits for patients with active but relatively stable RA.

This work was supported by the National Institute of Health Research, the Samueli Institute, USA, the Southampton Complementary Medicine Research Trust and National Health Service Fund for Science.

In the last Researchers mentioned “Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.”

This study clearly shows that individualized homeopathic treatment works, but such outcome is not accepted to these researchers.

Recently, we witnessed an International Homeopathic event in India organized by AHML (Asian Homoeopathic Medical League). We were happy sharing our results & success stories amongst ourselves that homeopathy works and we have evidences, but we could not founded any statement for such derogatory agencies.

I raised this question in one of the scientific session whether we are going to release any guideline or policy for homeopathic clinical trials/research which must be accepted universally. In spite of large gathering of senior homeopaths from many countries, government agencies and private parishioners, we could not release any guideline which might have curbed such reports.

I would appeal here that we need to have some mechanism from Indian govt. agencies like CCRH, CCH, HPL and others to establish the scientificity of homeopathic medicines and homeopathy and that to be accepted worldwide.

Dr. Anil Singhal

( Please take note that Dr Anil Singal is a close friend of Dr Nik Omar )