A Double-Blind, Randomized, Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trial with Healthy Persons: Comparing Two High Potencies

Möllinger, Heribert; Schneider, Rainer; M, Löffel; Walach, Harald

doi:10.1159/000082120

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We have reported previously on a new method of combining the quantitative approach of science with the qualitative approach used by homeopathy [11] of collecting many individual, idiosyncratic symptoms [12,13]. We were able to show in those pilot studies that homeopathic remedies seem to produce symptoms which are typical for the remedy and distinct from non-specific placebo symptoms, and that in tendency such typical symptoms can be seen more frequently in the group receiving homeopathic remedies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials Produce Specific Symptoms Different from Placebo

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Homeopathy uses information gathered from healthy volunteers taking homeopathic substances (pathogenetic trials) for clinical treatment. It is controversial whether such studies produce symptoms different from those produced by placebo. Objective: To test whether homeopathic preparations produce different symptoms than placebo in healthy volunteers. Methods: Three armed, double-blind, placebo controlled randomised experimental pathogenetic study in 25 healthy volunteers who took either one of two homeopathic remedies, Natrum muriaticum and Arsenicum album in 30CH or identical placebo. Main outcome parameter was the number of remedy-specific symptoms per group. Results: On average, 6 symptoms typical for Arsenicum album were experienced by participants taking arsenicum album, 5 symptoms typical for Natrum muriaticum by those taking natrum muriaticum, and 11 non-specific symptoms by those in the placebo group. Differences were significant overall (Kruskall Wallis test, p = 0.0002,) and significantly different from placebo (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Homeopathic remedies produce different symptoms than placebo.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials Produce Specific Symptoms Different from Placebo

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a homoeopathic proving comparing Calendula officinalis, Ferrum muriaticum, and placebo, Möllinger et al showed that both remedies led to significantly more symptoms than placebo. However, although the Calendula officinalis group experienced more remedy-specific symptoms than placebo, the authors also observed more Calendula-specific symptoms in the Ferrum muriaticum group than placebo [24]. The main criterion for defining homoeopathic proving symptoms is the appearance of new symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glauca

Teut

Dahler²,

Schnegg³

2008

Forsch Komplementmed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Homoeopathic provings are a fundamental concept in homoeopathy. The aim of this study was to record the symptoms produced by a homoeopathic drug compared to placebo. Methods: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 1-week baseline, 4-week proving, and 2-week post-observational period. Subjects: 15 healthy physicians and medical students volunteered as provers; 11 were randomised to verum and 4 to placebo. Proving substance: Galphimia glauca C12 compared to placebo; maximum intake of 5 days. Outcome measures: Proving symptoms according to ICCH definition and the number of proving symptoms. The proving symptoms were analysed qualitatively using the Boenninghausen method. Results: A total of 682 symptoms were observed in both groups. Galphimia glauca provers experienced states of exhaustion, weakness, lack of concentration, feelings of confusion, dryness of mouth, lacrimation, and burning sensation in the eyes. Two provers experienced an amelioration of their allergic rhinitis. Proving symptoms were completely reversible. The statistical analysis showed more ICCH proving symptoms for placebo (mean 72.3 ± SD 37.3) than for Galphimia (35 ± 24.2), but the group difference was not significant (95% confidence interval, –78 to 1, p = 0.097). Discussion: Although statistical analysis showed no significant group differences, we observed specific symptoms under Galphimia glauca that correspond to those seen in clinical studies of phytotherapeutic preparations, including relaxing, sedative, anxiolytic, and anti-allergic effects. Conclusion: Our results confirm the toxicological and clinical effects of Galphimia glauca compared to placebo, but the ICCH criteria for proving symptoms were not suitable to distinguish between specific and unspecific symptoms.

show abstract

“…[77][78][79][80] Researchers using more recent study designs have reported that symptoms observed overall are specific and not just "background noise." [81][82][83] Very few studies have been done with these recent study designs and much remains to be clarified in this field.…”

Section: Pathogenetic Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art

Walach

Jonas²,

Ives³

et al. 2005

The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we review research on homeopathy from four perspectives, focusing on reviews and some landmark studies. These perspectives are laboratory studies, clinical trials, observational studies, and theoretical work. In laboratory models, numerous effects and anomalies have been reported. However, no single model has been sufficiently widely replicated. Instead, researchers have focused on ever-new models and experiments, leaving the picture of scattered anomalies without coherence. Basic research, trying to elucidate a purported difference between homeopathic remedies and control solutions has also produced some encouraging results, but again, series of independent replications are missing. While there are nearly 200 reports on clinical trials, few series have been conducted for single conditions. Some of these series document clinically useful effects and differences against placebo and some series do not. Observational research into uncontrolled homeopathic practice documents consistently strong therapeutic effects and sustained satisfaction in patients. We suggest that this scattered picture has to do with the fourth line of research: lack of a good theory. Some of the extant theoretical models are reviewed, including placebo, water structure, silica contamination, energy models, and entanglement models. It emerges that local models, suggesting some change in structure in the solvent, are far from convincing. The nonlocal models proposed would predict that it is impossible to nail down homeopathic effects with direct experimental testing and this places homeopathy in a scientific dilemma. We close with some suggestions for potentially fruitful research.

show abstract

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trial with Healthy Persons: Comparing Two High Potencies

Cited by 28 publications

References 15 publications

Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials Produce Specific Symptoms Different from Placebo

Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials Produce Specific Symptoms Different from Placebo

A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glauca

Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About