L'homéopathie preuves basées
“Efficacy of homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in cases of mild and moderate bovine clinical mastitis” - Department of Animal Nutrition and Animal Health, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Germany
Results: “...the difference between the homeopathic and the placebo treatment at day 56 was significant (P<0•05) The results indicate a therapeutic effect of homeopathic treatment in cases of mild and moderate clinical mastitis...”
READ MORE
“Homeopathic medicinal treatment slows down prostate cancer growth in rats” - Samueli Institute, Alexandria, USA.
Results: They appear to significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in Copenhagen rats injected with MAT-LyLu prostate cancer cells. READ MORE
Effects of Homeopathic medicines on Hay fever - University Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, and Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Results: The homoeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patient and doctor assessed symptom scores. The significance of this response was increased when results were corrected for pollen count and the response was associated with a halving of the need for antihistamines. No evidence emerged to support the idea that placebo action fully explains the clinical responses to homoeopathic drugs. READ MORE
Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for of the proving hypothesis -Academic Unit, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, London, UK
Results: There was evidence of an order effect: subjects were much more likely to think they received active Bryonia in the first rather than the second period. In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. READ MORE
“Double-blind, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials: symptom collection and analysis”- Centro Omeopatico Vescovio, Rome, Italy.
Results: “The principal results were: Placebo reported less symptoms than verum groups. Symptom distribution according to predefined classes (common symptoms increased in intensity and/or duration-, cured, old, new and exceptional) was statistically different between placebo and verum group at a high level of significance (P<0.001). Compared to verum, placebo provers reported less new and old but more common (increased in duration or intensity) symptoms. Within repertory categories, other differences were detected. The two groups differ in terms of the duration of each symptom and kinetics of symptoms: most symptoms were more persistent in verum than in placebo groups and verum provers recorded a decreasing number of symptoms with time”. READ MORE
Double-blind, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials: symptom collection and analysis - InstitutionCentro Omeopatico Vescovio, Rome, Italy.
Results:
“The principal results were: Placebo reported less symptoms than verum groups. Symptom distribution according to predefined classes (common symptoms increased in intensity and/or duration-, cured, old, new and exceptional) was statistically different between placebo and verum group at a high level of significance (P<0.001). Compared to verum, placebo provers reported less new and old but more common (increased in duration or intensity) symptoms. Within repertory categories, other differences were detected. The two groups differ in terms of the duration of each symptom and kinetics of symptoms: most symptoms were more persistent in verum than in placebo groups and verum provers recorded a decreasing number of symptoms with time. Placebo provers did not show such a temporal pattern.” READ MORE
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Münchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universität/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universität, München, Germany.
Results:“The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05).
The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.” READ MORE
Back to the scientific foundation page.