Background A novel pandemic disease offered the opportunity to create new, disease-specific, symptom rubrics for the homeopathic repertory. Objective The aim of this study was to discover the relationship between specific symptoms and specific medicines, especially of symptoms occurring frequently in this disease. Materials and Methods Worldwide collection of data in all possible formats by various parties was coordinated by the Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis. As the data came in, more symptoms were assessed prospectively. Frequent analysis and feedback by electronic newsletters were used to improve the quality of the data. Likelihood ratios (LRs) of symptoms were calculated. An algorithm for combining symptom LRs was programmed and published in the form of an app. The app was tested against 18 well-described successful cases from Hong Kong. Results LRs of common symptoms such as ‘Fatigue’ and ‘Headache’ provided better differentiation between medicines than did existing repertory entries, which are based only on the narrow presence or absence of symptoms. A mini-repertory for COVID-19 symptoms was published and supported by a web-based algorithm. With a choice of 20 common symptoms, this algorithm produced the same outcome as a full homeopathic analysis based upon a larger number of symptoms, including some that are traditionally considered more specific to particular medicines. Conclusion A repertory based on clinical data and LRs can differentiate between homeopathic medicines using a limited number of frequently occurring epidemic symptoms. A Bayesian computer algorithm to combine symptoms can complement a full homeopathic analysis of cases.

Background/Objective During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several homeopathic prognostic factor research (PFR) projects have been undertaken. We found two projects with comparable outcomes to assess consistency and possible flaws. Methods Two comparisons were made. (1) Outcome of a PFR data collection from the Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis (LMHI) by about 100 doctors with 541 cases was compared with a previous analysis of 161 cases in the same database. (2) The updated LMHI database was also compared with a data collection carried out in India by four doctors with a total of 1,445 cases. Differences that resulted in conflicting outcomes (indication in one, contraindication in the other) were examined for possible causes. Results There was only a single outcome in the updated LMHI database that conflicted with the previous dataset, and this could have been due to statistical variation. The Indian data contained many cases, from few doctors, while the LMHI database had few cases per doctor, but many doctors. The overlap between the projects (individual cases entered in both) was between zero and 22%. In 72 comparisons we found six (8.3%) conflicting outcomes. Possible causes were statistical error due to small numbers of cases and/or observers, confirmation bias, and keynote prescribing if this resulted in symptoms being inadequately checked. Conclusion There was little conflict between the outcomes of the two versions of one project and between the two different PFR projects. Differences could mostly be explained by causes that can be managed. This consistency should primarily be interpreted as showing a strong overall consensus between homeopathic practitioners worldwide, but with variation of consensus between small groups of practitioners.

This is an edited transcript of a debate held at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA on 25 October 2007. Homeopathy is a widely used but controversial form of complementary and alternative medicine. Six distinguished international speakers, including advocates and skeptics concerning homeopathy, debated the plausibility, theoretical principles, clinical and basic research evidence, ethical and other issues surrounding homeopathy.

No abstract