Historic Evidence for the Efficacy of Homeopathy:
Homeopaths treated cholera successfully. During the 19th century, there were seven
severe epidemics in America, the most serious in 1832. The death rates of people treated
without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.
In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a
commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular"
hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital’s death rate was 16
percent.
In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera treated [at the
London Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of 16.4; of the 331 cases ofcholeraic and simple diarrhoea treated, one died. The neighbouring Middlesex Hospitalreceived 231 cases of cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patientstreated 123 died, a fatality rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the victims being one of thenurses.
Dr. Macloughlin, one of the medical inspectors appointed by the General Board of
Health, visited the wards, examined the cases under treatment, and watched theirprogress. His statement, addressed to Mr. Hugh Cameron [1810-1897], a member of the
medical staff, was as follows:• "You are aware that I went to your hospital prepossessed against the homeopathic
system, that you had in me in your camp an enemy rather than a friend... and I need nottell you that I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with the rise, progressand medical treatment of cholera, and that I claim for myself some right to be able torecognise the disease, and to know something of what the medical treatment ought to be,
and that there may, therefore, be no misapprehension about the cases saw in yourhospital, I will add that, all I saw were true cases of cholera, in the various stages of thedisease, and that I saw several cases which did well under your treatment which I haveno hesitation in saying would have sunk under other. In conclusion I must repeat to youwhat I have already told you, and what I have told everyone whom I have conversed,that although an allopath by principle, education and practice yet were it the will ofProvidence to afflict me with cholera, and deprive me of the power of prescribing formyself, I would rather he in the hands of a homeopathic than an allopathic adviser."

Dr. Macloughlin, as shown by his researches and publications, was undoubtedly wellinformed as to the nature of cholera. [Quoted in A History of the London Homeopathic
Hospital, 1914.]• "...in Germany homeopaths were highly successful in treating the typhoid fever that
Napoleon’s tattered remnant of an army brought back with them [in 1812] from
Moscow." [Griggs, 1981, p.179]"...a committee was set up...to report on the various methods of treatment adopted[against cholera]...It was a dismal record of failure...but...it was completely silent on the
two therapies which had been strikingly successful, those of the medical botanists, andhomeopathic treatment with minute doses of camphor." [Griggs, 1981, p.208]"Homeopathic treatment of cholera proved remarkably successful. Of the 1655 cholera
patients treated in Raab [Hungary], for example, only six of the 154 patients treatedhomeopathically died, whilst of the remainder, 821 [almost 50%] treated conventionally,
died." [Cook, 1981, p.157]
Modern Evidence for the Efficacy of Homeopathy•
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy
Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials." Lancet, September 20,
1997, 350:834-843.

This state of the art meta-analysis reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined
criteria. Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy oftreatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data. The
results showed that patients taking homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more likely
to experience a positive therapeutic effect than placebo.

J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy." British Medical
Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. Thismeta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%)
showed positive effect. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchersconcluded: "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient forestablishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." Further, "Theamount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us."

C. N. Shealy, MD, R.P. Thomlinson, V. Borgmeyer, "Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparisonof Homeopathy and Acetaminophen." American Journal of Pain Management,
1998;8:89-91
A double-blinded study to document the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies incomparison to acetaminophen for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis(OA) among 65 patients. An IRB approved protocol. Results of the study documented
better pain relief in the homeopathic group (55% achieved measured relief from
homeopathy as compared to 38% from acetaminophen); however, the superiority of thistreatment, in comparison with the acetaminophen group, did not reach statisticalsignificance. The investigators conclude that homeopathic treatments for pain in OA
patients appear to be safe and at least as effective as acetaminophen, and are without
its potential adverse effects including compromise to both liver and kidney function.

Many of the patients asked to continue with the homeopathic treatment.

M. Weiser, W. Strosser, P. Klein, "Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A
Randomized

Double-Blind

Controlled

ClinicalStudy."

ArchivesofOtolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885.
This was a study with 119 subjects with various types of vertigo, half of whom were
given a homeopathic medicine (a combination of four homeopathic medicines) and half
were given a leading conventional drug in Europe for vertigo, betahistine hydrochloride.
The homeopathic medicines were found to be similarly effective and significantly safer
than the conventional control.

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, N. Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?"
Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
This study successfully reproduced evidence from two previous double-blinded trials allof which used the same model of homeopathic immunotherapy in inhalant allergy. In
this third study, 9 of 11 patients on homeopathic treatment improved compared to only 5of 13 patients on placebo. The researchers concluded that either homeopathic medicines
work or controlled studies don’t. Their work has again be recently replicated and is
submitted for publication.

J. Jacobs, L. Jimenez, S. Gloyd, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with
Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua." Pediatrics, May
1994, 93,5:719-25.
This study was the first on homeopathy to be published in an American medical journal.

The study compared individualized high potency homeopathic preparations against aplacebo in 81 children, between ages 6 mo. and 5 yrs., suffering with acute diarrhea.
The treatment group benefited from a statistically significant 15% decrease in duration.
The authors noted that the clinical significance would extend to decreasing dehydrationand postdiarrheal
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al.,"Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy
Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials." Lancet, September 20,
1997, 350:834-843.
This state of the art meta-analysis reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined
criteria. Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy oftreatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data. The
results showed that patients taking homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more likely
to experience a positive therapeutic effect than placebo.

J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy." British Medical
Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. Thismeta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%)
showed positive effect. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchersconcluded: "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient forestablishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." Further, "Theamount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us."

C. N. Shealy, MD, R.P. Thomlinson, V. Borgmeyer, "Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparisonof Homeopathy and Acetaminophen." American Journal of Pain Management,
1998;8:89-91

A double-blinded study to document the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies incomparison to acetaminophen for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis(OA) among 65 patients. An IRB approved protocol. Results of the study documented
better pain relief in the homeopathic group (55% achieved measured relief from
homeopathy as compared to 38% from acetaminophen); however, the superiority of thistreatment, in comparison with the acetaminophen group, did not reach statisticalsignificance. The investigators conclude that homeopathic treatments for pain in OA
patients appear to be safe and at least as effective as acetaminophen, and are without
its potential adverse effects including compromise to both liver and kidney function.
Many of the patients asked to continue with the homeopathic treatment.

M. Weiser, W. Strosser, P. Klein, "Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A
Randomized

Double-Blind

Controlled

ClinicalStudy."

ArchivesofOtolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885.
This was a study with 119 subjects with various types of vertigo, half of whom were
given a homeopathic medicine (a combination of four homeopathic medicines) and half
were given a leading conventional drug in Europe for vertigo, betahistine hydrochloride.
The homeopathic medicines were found to be similarly effective and significantly safer
than the conventional control.

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, N. Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?"
Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
This study successfully reproduced evidence from two previous double-blinded trials allof which used the same model of homeopathic immunotherapy in inhalant allergy. In
this third study, 9 of 11 patients on homeopathic treatment improved compared to only 5of 13 patients on placebo. The researchers concluded that either homeopathic medicines
work or controlled studies don’t. Their work has again be recently replicated and is
submitted for publication.

J. Jacobs, L. Jimenez, S. Gloyd, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with
Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua." Pediatrics, May
1994, 93,5:719-25.
This study was the first on homeopathy to be published in an American medical journal.
The study compared individualized high potency homeopathic preparations against aplacebo in 81 children, between ages 6 mo. and 5 yrs., suffering with acute diarrhea.
The treatment group benefited from a statistically significant 15% decrease in duration.
The authors noted that the clinical significance would extend to decreasing dehydrationand postdiarrheal malnutrition and a significant reduction in morbidity.

E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, and K.L. Resch,"Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomized Placebo-controlled,
Double-Blind Trial." Phlebology, 1990, 5:157-163.

This study of 61 patients showed a 44% improvement in venous filling time in the
homeopathic treated group when compared with placebo.

P. Fisher, A. Greenwood, E.C. Huskisson, et al.,"Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis." British Medical Journal, August 5,
1989, 299:365-66.

This trial was double-blind with a crossover design, comparing Rhus toxicodendron to aplacebo in 30 patients all suffering from an identical syndrome identified as theadmission criteria. It showed a significant reduction in tender spots, by 25%, when
patients were given the homeopathic medicine, as compared to when they were given
the placebo.

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, C. McSherry,"Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homeopathic Potency with
Pollen in Hayfever as Model." Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.

The double-blind study compared a high dilution homeopathic preparation of grasspollens against a placebo in 144 patients with active hay fever. The study method
considered pollen counts, aggravation in symptoms and use of antihistamines andconcluded that patients using homeopathy showed greater improvement in symptoms
than those on placebo, and that this difference was reflected in a significantly reduced
need for antihistamines among the homeopathically treated group. The results
confirmed those of the pilot study and demonstrate that homeopathic potencies show
effects distinct from those of the placebo.

J. Lamont,"Homeopathic Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Controlled
Study."
British Homoeopathic Journal, October, 1997, 86:196-200.

Forty-three children were randomly assigned to either placebo or homeopathic
treatment groups, and then those initially given a placebo were given an individualized
homeopathic medicine. All subjects underwent a homeopathic interview to determine
which individualized remedy was appropriate. Results show significant improvement
once the patient began taking the homeopathic medicine.

K.H. Friese, S. Kruse, H. Moeller,"Acute Otitis Media in Children: A Comparison of Conventional and Homeopathic
Treatment." Biomedical Therapy, 60,4,1997:113-116, originally published in German inHals-Nasen-Ohren (Head, Nose, and Otolyngarology) August, 1996:462-66.

This study of 131 children allowed parents to choose homeopathic or conventional
medical care from their ear, nose, and throat doctor. 103 children underwent
homeopathic treatment, while 28 underwent conventional care. They found that the
total recurrences of the homeopathic treated group was .41 per patient, while theantibiotic treatment group was .70 per patient. Of the "homeopathic" children who did
have another earache, 29.3% had a maximum of three recurrences, while 43.5% of the"antibiotic" children had a maximum of six recurrences.

Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli,"Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions." Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, June 1999

An extensive thermodynamic study has been carried out on aqueous solutions obtained
through successive dilutions and succussions of 1% in weight of some solutes up toextremely diluted solutions, (less than 1x10-5 mol kg-1) obtained via several 1/100
successive dilution processes. The interaction of acids or bases with the extremely
diluted solutions has been studied calorimetrically at 25_C. Measurements have been
performed of the heats of mixing of acid or basic solutions, having different
concentrations, with bidistilled water or with the extremely diluted solutions. Despite
the extreme dilution of the solutions, an exothermic heat of mixing in excess has beenfound, in about the 92% of the cases, with respect to the corresponding heat of mixing
with the untreated solvent. Here [it is shown] that successive dilutions and succussions
may alter permanently the physical-chemical properties of the solvent water. The
nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, but significant
experimental results are obtained.

J. Dittmann and G. Harisch,"Characterization of Differing Effects Caused by Homeopathically Prepared andConventional Dilutions Using Cytochrome P450 2E1 and Other Enzymes as Detection
Systems." The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1996 2:2,279-290.

Target of investigation was to ascertain differences in the effects of homeopathic
potencies (D) and equally concentrated conventional dilutions (V) on p-nitrocatechol
formation catalyzed by CYP 2E1. Arsenicum album and potassium cyanatum (D) werecompared to equivalent dilutions of As203 and KCN (V). Significant differences inenzyme activity were found. The difference of influence exists and this may be
attributable to the manufacturing process of homeopathic drugs, namely, the stepwise
dilution with intermediate agitation.

K. Linde, W.B. Jonas, D. Melchart, D., et al.,"Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental
Toxicology," Human and Experimental Toxicology, 1994, 13:481-92.

This meta-analysis of 105 studies in toxicology showed that homeopathic medicines may
be useful in treating toxic exposures. This meta-analysis was conducted by a similargroup of researchers who recently published a meta-analysis on clinical studies in The
Lancet.

P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, G. Kastberg, et al.,"The Effect of Highly Diluted Agitated Thyroxine on the Climbing Activity of Frogs."
Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 1994, 36:56.

P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, et al.,"Transmission of Hormone Information by Non-molecular Means." FASEB Journal,
1994, 8, Abs.2313.

These two studies show that a homeopathic medicine can influence the growth anddevelopment of tadpoles in water.

J. Benveniste, P.C. Endler and J. Schulte, (eds.),

"Further Biological Effects Induced by Ultra High Dilutions: Inhibition by a Magnetic
Field." Ultra High Dilution, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994, 35.
J. Benveniste, B. Arnoux, L. Hadji,"Highly Dilute Antigen Increases Coronary Flow of Isolated Hart from Immunized
Guinea-pigs." FASEB Journal, 1992, 6: Abs. 1610.

These two studies show that certain magnetic fields can neutralize the effects of ahomeopathic medicine.

E. Davenas, B. Poitevin, and J. Benveniste,"Effect on Mouse Peritoneal Macrophages of Orally Administered Very High Dilutionsof Silica." European Journal of Pharmacology, April, 1987, 135:313-319.

This study showed Silica 6C and Silica 10C induced a statistically significant increasein immune function, as measured in macrophages in the blood of mice.

Paolo Bellavite and Andrea Signorini,
Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1995.

This is the most notable book on homeopathic research to date. There are some excellent
chapters that present compelling theories on how homeopathic medicines may work, inthe light of new physics, biophysics, fractals, chaos, and complexity theory.

P.C. Endler and J. Schulte (editors),
Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994.

A compilation of articles on basic science research. A second volume, entitledFundamental Research Ultra High Dilutions and Homeopathy, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic, was published in 1998.

Roeland van Wijk and Fred A.C. Wiegant,
Cultured Mammalian Cells in Homeopathy Research: The Similia Principle inSelf-Recovery. Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 1994.

This is a technical book which discusses research by cell biologists. This research
verifies the homeopathic principle of similars.

M. Doutremepuich (ed.),Ultra-Low Doses. Washington, DC/London: Taylor and Francis, 1991.
This is a compilation of articles on basic science research.

Economic Benefits of Homeopathic Treatment

Cost Effectiveness of Homeopathic Treatment,
Caisse Nationale de l’Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salaris, 1996.

A study of 130,000 prescriptions confirmed the results of the 1991 French Government
Report (see below) and suggest further benefit and savings to the homeopathic approachto care. This survey also noted that the number of paid sick leave days by patients
under the care of homeopathic physicians were 3.5 times less (598 days/year) thanpatients under the care of general practitioners (2,017 days/year). Although
homeopathic medicines in France represent 5% of all medicines prescribed byphysicians, they represent only 1.2% of all drug reimbursements due to their lower cost
per prescription. (Homeopathic medicines are reimbursable under the French healthcare system).

Jacobs, J, Smith, N.
"Charges, utilization, and practice patterns from a pilot insurance program covering
alternative medical services." American Public Health Association Conference, NewYork City, November 18-21, 1996.

Study conducted in Seattle, WA which compared the utilization and cost of homeopathic,
naturopathic, and acupuncture services. Researchers concluded that homeopathic care
was the least costly and that patient visits to homeopaths were less often than to otheralternative care professionals. (This study, however, did not compare utilization or costs
against conventional medical care). See also, W.B. Jonas and J. Jacobs, Healing with
Homeopathy. New York: Warner, 1996.

"Cost-effectivenessof

homeopathic

treatmentinadentalpractice,"

BritishHomoeopathic Journal. January, 1993;82,1:22-28

This study evaluated a single homeopathic dentist’s practice and suggested that it wasmore cost-effective than conventional dental care.

Swayne, J., W. Feldhaus.
"The cost and effectiveness of homeopathy." British Homoeopathic Journal July
1992;81,3:148-150.5H.
This study suggested that doctors practicing homeopathic medicine issued fewer
prescriptions and at a lower cost than their conventional medical colleagues.

Gerhard, I, G. Reimers, C. Keller, and M. Schmuck,"Weibliche

fertiltitasstorungen.

Vergleichhomoopathischer

einzelmittel—mit

konventioneller hormontherapie." Therapeutikon. 1991;7:309-315.

A small study of the homeopathic treatment for infertility. This study showed that
homeopathic care for infertility was 30 times less expensive per successful delivery thanthe match comparison group given conventional care.

French Government Report: Social Security Statistics.
CNAM (National Inter-Regulations System) 61, January 1991.

Conducted by the French government in 1991, this study showed a significantly reduced
cost from homeopathic care versus conventional medical care. The totality of costs
associated with homeopathic care per physician was approximately one-half of thetotality of care provided by conventional primary care physicians. However, because
homeopathic physicians, on average, saw significantly fewer patients, the overall cost
per patient under homeopathic care was still a significant 15% less. It is also appearedthat these savings increase the longer a physician has been using homeopathy.