Independent Replication of Pre-Clinical Research in Homoeopathy: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy has been independently replicated. Search Strategy:CISCOM was searched using the key words ‘homeopathy’ and ‘basic research’. Further references were obtained from reviews, bibliographies, citation tracking and contact with experts. Selection Criteria:Studies comparing the effects of one or more homoeopathic medicines to no homoeopathic treatment on any live biological material apart from humans or animals under veterinary care. Research on intoxication and basophil degranulation was excluded. Data Collection and Analysis: Publications were grouped in experimental models. Studies were considered to comprise the same model if the outcome variable, biological material and homoeopathic treatment were the same. Publications relating to each experimental model were then arranged in chronological order. A model was considered to have been independently replicated if the first author was different and fewer than half of all authors had previously published research using that model. Results: 120 papers reported 61 different experimental models. Only three models were investigated by different research teams: growth of yeast, growth of wheat coleoptiles and ultra-violet-induced erythema in albino guinea pigs. In the case of yeast, attempts to replicate findings showing increased growth after treatment with Pulsatilla were unsuccessful. For wheat, two experiments by different research teams were conducted, but no single hypothesis was tested in both papers with the same result. Different research teams conducted very similar experiments on erythema treatment by Apis, but the methodological quality of the publications was low. Conclusions:There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the methodology was questionable.

Homeopathy: Research and Research Problems (preclinical and clinical)

“…The literature available in this field has not yet been sufficiently explored (e.g. Vickers 1999 andBaumgartner et al 2000), but some conclusions can be drawn now: 1. The effect of homeopathic potencies on healthy plants is generally minimal (2-3% max.)…”

Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art

“…15 Arguably, among the first experimental models in homeopathy was the one presented by Kolisko who studied the influence of high potencies of silver nitrate (Argentum nitricum) on the growth of plant seedlings, mostly wheat, and found cyclical changes. [16][17][18] Some potencies, even beyond Avogadro's number, produced an increase in growth length of seedlings, while other potencies produced a decrease. This experiment has recently been reproduced in blinded fashion, with similar results.…”

“…While a number of interesting single results have been reported, 51,52 which have been reviewed in a report soon to be presented to the World Health Organization, 53 there has been no consistent attempt at isolating one replicable model. 18 Thus, there are some hints from experimental research that homeopathic substances diluted and succussed beyond Avogadro's number are biologically active but there are no consistent effects from independently reproducible models.…”

A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

“…For instance, the Belgian researcher William Betz reports that, in a similar situation, when both a placebo and a homeopathic preparation produced the same effect, Madeleine Bastide concluded that the placebo had been "contaminated" by the "homeopathic radiation", arising from the closely stored homeopathic preparation 85 . Finally, Vickers 87 performed a comprehensive review of the literature concerning "pre-clinical research" in homeopathy, concluding that: "There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the methodology was questionable" .…”