Article

How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? – Results from a long term observational study

Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, D-10098 Berlin, Germany.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.32). 12/2008; 8:413. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-413
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Homeopathy is a highly debated but often used medical treatment. With this cohort study we aimed to evaluate health status changes under homeopathic treatment in routine care. Here we extend former results, now presenting data of an 8-year follow-up.
In a prospective, multicentre cohort study with 103 homeopathic primary care practices in Germany and Switzerland, data from all patients (age >1 year) consulting the physician for the first time were observed. The main outcome measures were: The patients' perceived change in complaint severity (numeric rating scales from 0 = no complaint to 10 = maximal severity) and quality of life as measured by the SF-36 at baseline, and after 2 and 8 years.
A total of 3,709 patients were studied, 73% (2,722 adults, 72.8% female, age at baseline 41.0 +/- 12.3; 819 children, 48.4% female, age 6.5 +/- 4.0) contributed data to the 8-year follow-up. The most frequent diagnoses were allergic rhinitis and headache in adults, and atopic dermatitis and multiple recurrent infections in children. Disease severity decreased significantly (p < 0.001) between baseline, 2 and 8 years (adults from 6.2 +/- 1.7 to 2.9 +/- 2.2 and 2.7 +/- 2.1; children from 6.1 +/- 1.8 to 2.1 +/- 2.0 and 1.7 +/- 1.9). Physical and mental quality of life sores also increased considerably. Younger age, female gender and more severe disease at baseline were factors predictive of better therapeutic success.
Patients who seek homeopathic treatment are likely to improve considerably. These effects persist for as long as 8 years.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Claudia M Witt, Jun 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
87 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from 'comparable to conventional medicine' to 'no evidence of effects beyond placebo'. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence-for homeopathy and for conventional medicine-can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the 'crossword analogy', we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence.
    Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 04/2012; 16(3). DOI:10.1007/s11019-012-9413-9 · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cell death that occurs during ovary differentiation in the honeybee worker's larval development accounts for ovariole reabsorption. From a morphological standpoint, three modes of death were detected. Germinative cells in the ovarioles die by an apoptotic-like process, whereas the somatic cells die by an autophagic process, type II cell death; and during pupation, stromatic and ovarian capsular cells die through cytoplasmic disintegration, releasing their components into the hemolymph. These modes of cell death are in part determined by the pattern of tissue organization within which the cell occurs.
    Cell Biology International 02/2002; 26(3):243-51. DOI:10.1006/cbir.2001.0839 · 1.64 Impact Factor