By Charnicia E. Huggins

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Some complementary and alternative health advocates may be convinced, despite a lack of scientific studies, that homeopathy is more effective than an inactive pill (placebo) in treating certain ills. And results from a recent series of trials suggest that these individuals may be right.

Homeopathy is ``a method of stimulating or provoking the body to defend itself (rather than the usual methods of blocking body responses by drugs),'' study author Dr. David Reilly of the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

``Too much discussion in this area is driven by belief or prejudice and is 'data free,''' Reilly contends. Therefore, in the fourth of a series of trials, he and his colleagues aimed to provide data by testing if in fact homeopathy is no better than a placebo.

They studied 51 patients who suffer with perennial hay fever. Twenty-four of the study subjects received daily homeopathy and 27 received a daily placebo treatment during the 4-week study period. In addition, all of the subjects kept a diary in which they recorded twice daily their nasal air flow measurements and symptoms such as sneezing, runny nose, and eye and chest symptoms.

The study was conducted according to scientific standards, including using a placebo for comparison purposes, randomly assigning participants to either treatment or placebo, and making it ``double blind,'' that is, making sure that neither participant nor researcher knew who was taking the homeopathic drug.

The study results, published in the August 19th issue of the British Medical Journal, show that of the 50 patients who completed the study (one was lost to follow-up), those who received homeopathy had a 28% improvement in their nasal air flow whereas those in the placebo group experienced a 3% improvement.

``These positive objective results reinforce the three previous trials in the series--work conducted to the highest standards (described as of 'exceptional rigour') by a previous Lancet article,'' Reilly stated.

``There are two ways of interpreting the fact that four trials in a row have produced positive results,'' he commented. Either homeopathy works, in which case ``we need to explore the clinical potential and the scientific challenges, (or) homeopathy does not work (and) the clinical trial is proving an unreliable tool capable of worrying false positive results,'' Reilly stated.

However, the authors admit that their study results are not enough to prove the efficacy of homeopathy. ``Like any other therapy, homeopathy requires rigorous scientific testing, and one study is insufficient evidence,'' they concede.

``For potential patients, I would stress that what is needed is a partnership of effective approaches to care--not an either/or approach,'' Reilly added. ``I am a doctor who at times uses homoeopathy--but it is not a cure-all or substitute for conventional knowledge,'' he pointed out.

In a related editorial, Tim Lancaster of the Oxford Institute of Health Sciences and Andrew Vickers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, acknowledge that the methods employed by Reilly and his colleagues ``were rigorous and it is unlikely that their results arose from methodological bias.''

The editorialists conclude, ``The new challenge for Reilly and colleagues is to do the large trials that really could change thinking.''

(From Yahoo)