The debate about the value of homeopathy is as old as homeopathy itself.1 Recently, it has reached new heights when ‘the end of homeopathy’ was proclaimed by a leading medical journal.2 A central issue in this debate obviously is the scientific proof of efficacy of homeopathic medicines.3 Homeopaths tend to either claim that conventional science does not provide the tools for evaluating homeopathy,4 or that much of the clinical trial data are demonstrably positive.5 Yet independent systematic reviews of rigorous studies regularly fail to confirm this notion.6
In this context, it is relevant to evaluate the contents of the websites of professional associations of homeopaths. This was the purpose of the present survey. In particular, my aim was to monitor what therapeutic claims are being published.
METHOD
The websites of all professional homeopathic associations were visited (date 5 August 2008). Those using languages other than English, French, or German were excluded. All sites were searched for statements on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific medical conditions. Subsequently, this information was extracted into a table (Table 1).
RESULTS
Thirty associations' websites were located of which eight were excluded because of the language restrictions mentioned above. Of the remaining 22 sites, 12 published statements about the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific medical conditions (Table 1).7–17
These data show that about half of all homeopathic associations recommend homeopathic treatments for a wide range of conditions some of which are serious, even life-threatening. There seems to be little agreement between these recommendations.
DISCUSSION
According to this survey, many professional homeopathic associations provide rather concrete recommendations evidently aimed at the lay public. Frequently mentioned indications include asthma, eczema, and infections.
It is relevant to contrast these recommendations with the evidence from controlled clinical trials. A Cochrane review entitled ‘Homeopathy for asthma’ found six such studies with a total of 556 patients. Its authors concluded that ‘there is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma’.18 No data from controlled clinical trials seem to exist for eczema.19 In the case of infections, a Cochrane review is available of homeopathic oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Its authors conclude that, ‘although promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation …’20 For other types of infections, for example, hepatitis, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, or upper respiratory infections, there are either no or no convincing trial data.21 As to the other conditions mentioned in Table 1, compelling evidence from clinical trials is also lacking.21
Homeopaths might argue that the clinical trial is not an adequate method for establishing the value of homeopathy.4 A full discussion of this question would be beyond the scope of this article; but even if we accepted this notion to be true, one would have to insist that this is made clear to the readers of the websites in question. One could, for instance, include a disclaimer stating that none of these statements is supported by evidence from controlled clinical trials.
Therefore, it seems to follow that the recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence from controlled clinical trials. As they are, at least in some cases, related to potentially serious conditions, this advice does not seem responsible. It may therefore be hardly surprising that, in the UK, more and more NHS trusts reject homeopathy.22
- © British Journal of General Practice, 2009.