Homeopathy as a Bone of Contention

0 Comment

Nuhn et al (2010) conducted a systematic literature review on placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs on classical homeopathy. Each of those trials was then compared with three placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs from conventional medicine. The matching criteria included were the choice of outcome parameter, treatment duration, and the severity of complaints (ibid). The study took into account 35 RCTs on classical homeopathy and compared with matching conventional trials. The study made the stunning revelation that the placebo effect of homeopathic trials was larger than the average placebo effect of conventional medicine in 13 matched sets. However, in 12 of the sets, homeopathic trials had lower average placebo effect than the conventional trials. Also, a significant difference in placebo effect was not visible in any of the cases (ibid). Thus, it becomes evident that the allegation that homeopathy is based on the placebo effect is baseless. At least homeopathy is no guiltier than conventional medicine is.
In another groundbreaking study, Linde et al (1997) looked into 89 homeopathic placebo-controlled medicine trials. The study found that the overall odds ratio was 2.45 in favor of homeopathy. In other words, using homeopathy has 2.45 times higher chances of a benefit than using placebo. and thus, the study reached the conclusion that the effectiveness of homeopathy is not fully due to placebo (ibid). Thus, one gains the insight that though homeopathy might have some placebo effect, the same is not considerably higher than that of conventional medicine.
In order to counter the allegation that homeopathic medicine is not as effective as conventional medicine, it becomes necessary to report the study by Riley et al (2001). It was an elaborate study which included 30&nbsp.investigators, 6 clinics, 4 countries, and 456 patients who suffered from upper respiratory allergies, lower respiratory allergies, or ear disorders.