Some complementary and alternative health advocates have been convinced that homeopathy is more effective than a placebo in treating certain conditions, in spite of the lack of scientific studies supporting their position. A recent series of trials may prove them right once and for all.

Homeopathy is a method of stimulating or provoking the body to defend itself rather than using drugs to block the body's responses.

"Too much discussion in this area is driven by belief or prejudice and is 'data free,'" study author Dr. David Reilly told Reuters . To address this, Dr. Reilly and his colleagues aimed to provide data by testing if in fact homeopathy is no better than a placebo.

The researchers examined 24 patients who received daily homeopathy and 27 who received a daily placebo treatment during the 4-week study period. Moreover, all of the participants kept a diary in which they recorded their nasal air flow measurements and symptoms such as sneezing, runny nose, and eye and chest symptoms twice daily.

The study used a placebo for comparison purposes, randomly assigning participants to either treatment or placebo, and was labeled "double blind,"-making sure that neither participant nor researcher knew who was taking the homeopathic drug.

The researchers' report, published in the August 19th issue of the British Medical Journal , revealed that of the 50 patients who completed the study those who received homeopathy had a 28 percent improvement in their nasal air flow, while those in the placebo group experienced a 3 percent improvement.

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

"There are two ways of interpreting the fact that four trials in a row have produced positive results," he added. 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," Dr. Reilly commented.

The authors did admit, however, 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 wrote.

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

In an accompanying editorial, Tim Lancaster and Andrew Vickers acknowledged that the methods employed by Dr. Reilly and his colleagues were "rigorous and it is unlikely that their results arose from a methodological basis."

They concluded, "The new challenge for Reilly and colleagues is to do the large trials that really could change thinking."
　　
　　(From HealthWorld Online)