Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce more specific than non-specific symptoms: Results from two double-blind placebo controlled trials

School of Social Sciences and European Office of the Samueli Institute for Information Biology, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK.
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Impact Factor: 3.59). 08/2008; 22(5):543-52. DOI: 10.1177/0269881108091259
Source: PubMed


We conducted two parallel, blinded homeopathic pathogenetic trials conducted at two different sites to determine whether symptoms reported by healthy volunteers were significantly different for homeopathic remedies than for placebos. Study 1 used a two-armed design, testing ozone against placebo. Study 2 used a three-armed design, testing ozone and iridium against placebo. We found significantly more remedy-specific symptoms in provers taking ozone or iridium than in provers taking placebo in the three-armed trial and in both trials pooled for ozone and placebo. We, therefore, conclude that homeopathic remedies produce more symptoms typical for a remedy than non-typical symptoms. The results furthermore suggest a somewhat non-classical pattern because symptoms of one remedy appear to be mimicked in the other trial arm. This might be indicative of entanglement in homeopathic systems.

Download full-text


Available from: Harald Walach, Oct 02, 2015
102 Reads
  • Source
    • "Jeremy Sherr, who actively re-established HDPs in the 1980s and 1990s, writes in his manual The Dynamics and Methodology of Homeopathic Provings: ‘… Furthermore it is interesting to note that placebo proving occasionally seem to produce similar symptoms to the proving symptoms, thus casting further doubt on the use of this medium in proving’ [22]. Walach observed in two more recent HDPs (Atropa belladonna, and Cantharis) symptoms that were considered highly specific for the homeopathic drug also in the placebo group [8,10,23]. However, these results were in contrast to another homeopathic proving, where a specific effect was observed [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Homeopathic drug proving is a basic concept in homeopathy. This study aimed to record symptoms produced by a homeopathic drug compared with placebo. This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial consisted of a 7-day run-in period, a 5-day intervention period and a 16-day post-intervention observation period. Subjects, investigators and statisticians were blinded for intervention groups and identity of the homeopathic drug. Subjects in the intervention group received Okoubaka aubrevillei (potency C12) and subjects in the placebo group received the optically identical sucrose globules. Dosage in both groups was five globules taken five times per day over a maximum period of 5 days. Subjects documented the symptoms they experienced in a semistructured online diary. The primary outcome parameter was the number of characteristic proving symptoms compared with placebo after a period of 3 weeks. Characteristic symptoms were categorised using content analysis. Secondary outcome parameters were the qualitative differences in profiles of characteristic and proving symptoms and the total number of all proving symptoms. The number of symptoms was quantitatively analysed on an intention-to-treat basis using analyses of covariance with the subject’s expectation and baseline values as covariates. Thirty-one subjects were included (19 Okoubaka and 12 placebo). Data for 29 participants could be analysed. No significant differences in number of characteristic symptoms in both groups were observed between Okoubaka (mean ± standard deviation 5.4 ± 6.0) and placebo (4.9 ± 5.6). The odds ratio for observation of a characteristic symptom was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 3.05, P = 0.843). Females and subjects expecting a higher number of symptoms at baseline or feeling more sensitive to homeopathic drugs experienced more characteristic symptoms regardless of allocation. The qualitative analysis showed an inter-coder reliability of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.76). The qualitative comparison of symptom profiles was inconclusive. Combined results of qualitative and quantitative methods did not result in a significant difference of characteristic proving symptoms between O. aubrevillei C12 and placebo. The qualitative comparison of the symptom profiles leaves some open questions. The nocebo effect might be a plausible explanation for most of the phenomena observed in this trial. Trial registration NCT01061229
    Trials 04/2013; 14(1):96. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-96 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The blinded homeopaths identified only Arsenicum album-specific symptoms in the Arsenicum album group, only Natrium muriatricum specific symptoms in the Natrium muriaticum group and only non-specific symptoms in the placebo group. The results of this and a previous HDP showed that specific symptoms of the HDP could be identified and allocated by blinded raters with a high statistical significance [8,9,11]. To our knowledge, it is not clear whether the identification of drug-specific symptoms may also be achieved for new and unknown homeopathic drugs. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study protocol adapts the traditional homeopathic drug proving methodology to a modern clinical trial design. Multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial with 30 healthy volunteers. The study consists of a seven day run-in period, a five day intervention period and a 16 day post-intervention observation period. Subjects, investigators and the statisticians are blinded from the allocation to the study arm and from the identity of the homeopathic drug. The intervention is a highly diluted homeopathic drug (potency C12 = 1024), Dose: 5 globules taken 5 times per day over a maximum period of 5 days. The placebo consists of an optically identical carrier substance (sucrose globules). Subjects document the symptoms they experience in a semi-structured online diary. The primary outcome parameter is the number of specific symptoms that characterise the intervention compared to the placebo after a period of three weeks. Secondary outcome parameters are qualitative differences in profiles of characteristic and proving symptoms and the total number of all proving symptoms. The number of symptoms will be quantitatively analysed on an intention-to-treat basis using ANCOVA with the subject's expectation and baseline values as covariates. Content analysis according to Mayring is adapted to suit the homeopathic qualitative analysis procedure. Homeopathic drug proving trials using the terminology of clinical trials according GCP and fulfilling current requirements for research under the current drug regulations is feasible. However, within the current regulations, homeopathic drug proving trials are classified as phase 1 trials, although their aim is not to explore the safety and pharmacological dynamics of the drug, but rather to find clinical indications according to the theory of homeopathy. To avoid bias, it is necessary that neither the subjects nor the investigators know the identity of the drug. This requires a modification to the informed consent process and blinded study materials. Because it is impossible to distinguish between adverse events and proving symptoms, both must be documented together. identifier: NCT01061229.
    Trials 07/2010; 11(1):80. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-11-80 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nonlocality and quantum entanglement are now generally accepted, empirically confirmed beyond any doubt. Quite to the contrary, extensions to macroscopic systems (macro-entanglement) have been scarcely analysed. It is the purpose of this paper to study conditions under which macro-entanglement may occur, but also situations in which it can be jeopardized. The crucial new term for a theoretical understanding is "common prearranged context". Two entangled entities may have a common historic or organizational context - the latter means that they are both involved in the same organized process. An existing macro-entanglement cannot simply be annihilated, but it can be disturbed by competing effects at the same level. Practical consequences forspecial tests (randomized double-blind controlled tests) are discussed as an example.
    CASYS 2007; 08/2007
Show more