Homoeopathica February 2006

By Bruce Barwell

In August of last year the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet published a paper with the heading “Are the clinical effects of homœopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo­controlled trials of homœopathy and allopathy.”

As can be expected all major news agencies thought this was a good story and inaccurate and superficial interpretations of the Lancet paper spread around the world. NewsTalk ZB rang me for my comments then; I said that since I had not read the Lancet piece I was in no position to comment with any authority, but the radio journalist seemed to think this no handicap, so I said I would contact him after I had read the comments of respected homœopaths.

After reading some very thorough-going analyses of the paper’s faults I offered my own comments. Unfortunately this turned into a sound-bite or two – which was to be expected as the matter is somewhat complex.

I know last August is a long time ago but I still think it worthwhile to put on record a bona-fide homœopathic view on this, yet another, confused attempt to discredit homœopathy.

The authors of the Lancet paper, and I have a copy of it now, claim to have studied the report of 110 trials using homœopathic medicines. Of this number they found 21 trials they considered to be of better quality than the rest. They do not say exactly how they assessed this.

Of this 21, 8 were selected because they had larger numbers of participants. These 8 were then compared with a group of said to be similar allopathic trials; similar in size, quality and medical condition involved.

Unbelievably what exactly these trials were is not given! Readers of the Lancet are expected to trust the authors’ methodology and freedom from bias to this degree – unheard of in scientific papers.

Some Swiss homœopaths believe they know which are these crucial eight. We cannot be sure this is 100% correct, but it seems plausible.

The trials involved are said to be:

Three using Oscillococcinum 200c as a preventative and/or treatment for influenza-like conditions. (Attena et al, 1995; Ferly et al, 1989; Pape et al, 1998). These trials involved a total of 3378 people, an impressive number, but the results were poor – because, of course, trying to prevent or treat all sorts of flu with one remedy is not proper homœopathy.

The New Zealand website which is supposed to be giving unbiased information on “complementary and alternative medi­cine” (www.cam.org.nz) has this to say on Oscillococcinumand similar trials, not making it clear that this sort of thing is not real homœopathy.

“The flu (influenza) is a highly infectious viral disease. Homœ­opathic preparations, such asOscillococcinum or similar products, are often prescribed by homœopaths for the prevention and treatment of the flu. This evidence summary identified one systematic review and seven clinical trials (with a total of 3459 patients) on the use of homœopathic Oscillococcinum for the prevention and treatment of the flu.

“In three clinical trials (involving 2265 people) homœopathic Oscillococcinum taken on a regular basis did not prevent the flu, although the development of fever and muscle aches and pain was reduced slightly. In four clinical trials (involving 1194 people) taking homœopathicOscillococcinum once the flu was contracted shortened the duration of the illness by about a quarter of a day (on average) and reduced the severity of some of the symptoms experienced. Mild but reversible side effects (such as headache or skin rash) can occur when taking homœopathic Oscillococcinum.”

Three other trials were of preparations that were mixes of several remedies given in the same fashion as the Oscillococcin fiascos. (Ferley et al, 1987; Diefenbach et al 1997; Rottey et al, 1995).

The 1987 trial use a remedy called L52, containing Eupatorium 3x, Aconitum 3x, Bryonia 3x, Arnica 4x, Gelsemium 6x, China4x, Belladonna 4x, Drosera 3x, and Senega 3x.

The 1997 one used Bronchiselect, containing Drosera 3x, Bryonia 4x, Antimonium tart 4x, Spongia 6x, and Ipecac 4x.

The 1995 one used Mucococcinum, containing Klebsiella pnemoniae, Branhamella catarrhalis, Micrococcus tetragenes, all in 200c.

None of these three fit the description of “homœopathy” as the majority of homœopaths understand it.

Another trial (Vickers et al, 1998) was to see if Arnica 30x did anything for muscle soreness after long distance running.

Here is a summary of this experiment:

A total of 519 runners anticipating delayed-onset muscles soreness after long-distance races were given Arnica 30x and an indistinguishable placebo. They completed a visual analog scale and Likert scale of muscle soreness every morning and evening for the 5 days following their race. Race times were also recorded. The main outcome measure was mean 2-day visual analog scores.

Results were obtained from 400 subjects. Groups were well matched at baseline. Mean 2-day visual analog soreness scores for Arnica and placebo were 45.2 mm and 41.0 mm, respectively. The 95% confidence interval was between 8.81 mm in favour of placebo and 0.51 mm in favour ofArnica. No differences were found for Likert scores or race time. The authors concluded that homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness following long-distance running.

Hardly a surprising result because Arnica is by no means an appropriate remedy for the treatment of muscle soreness according to traditional homœopathy.

Our Kiwi rowing champions the Ever-Swindell twins however appear in Weleda advertisements claiming to be very happy with the results from applying Arnica cream to their stressed bodies.

That leaves one more trial to examine (Mokkapatti et al, 1992). This experiment was reported in the British Homœopathic Journal. The homœopaths concerned treated an epidemic of conjunctivitis among 1306 Indian schoolchildren with placebo or Euphrasia 30c.

The BHJ report offers no evidence that Euphrasia was used exclusively because it was considered to be, after careful study, the genius epidemicus. It provides an example of using a potentised medicine in the same way as an allopathic drug.

Incidentally, a more recent trial of Euphrasia in the treatment of conjunctivitis was carried out in Cuba. This time the remedy must have been a far better fit to the nature of the condition because the doctors reporting the trial say that of 35 patients on Euphrasia and 32 on placebo the homœopathic patients had 82.8% of their group with good results in contrast to the others who had only 31.2% with improvement.

The trial, in Spanish, can be found using Google “Efecto de la Euphrasia como medicamento homeopatico”.

All-in-all the Lancet article appears to be a contrived, shabby attempt to discredit homœopathy. It reflects badly on the integrity, and critical faculties, of the editor of that journal.