Can Homeopathically Prepared Mercury Cause Symptoms in Healthy Volunteers? A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Haselen, Robbert van; Heger, Marianne

doi:10.1089/107555301750164208

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adverse events (AE) were defined [32] as those symptoms that (i) resulted in subjects taking excluded medication (i.e. non-Belladonnarelated medication) to alleviate their effects; or (ii) were true symptoms that led to the subject withdrawing from the study; or (iii) were any false symptom that required excluded medication.…”

Section: Adverse Event Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C

Brien

Lewith

Bryant

2003

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To investigate if ultramolecular homeopathy has any clinical effects. This was assessed using the proving of the homeopathic remedy Belladonna given at an ultramolecular dose (30C), as a model. A proving states that when a homeopathic remedy is given to a healthy person, they will experience symptomatic effects specific to that remedy. If ultramolecular doses are clinically active, the Belladonna 30C group should experience more true Belladonna proving symptoms than the placebo group. Methods Healthy subjects ( n = 253), aged 18-30 years, took part in this doubleblind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Total study duration was 4 weeks. Subjects were randomized before 1 week placebo run-in. They received 2 weeks of treatment intervention (Belladonna 30C or placebo) and were followed up for 1 week. Subjects recorded any symptoms experienced during the total study period on a daily basis using a structured questionnaire. Symptom diaries were analysed blind to determine if each subject had proved or not (based on predefined criteria). The main outcome was the proportion of subjects who had proved in each treatment group. Results No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine. Conclusion Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.

show abstract

Section: Adverse Event Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C

Brien

Lewith

Bryant

2003

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Five of the studies involved proved the homeopathic remedy Belladonna, albeit in different potencies (12c [19] or 30c [19][20][21]23]) except for Vickers et al [22] who reproved Mercury 12c. Table 2 summarises each of the six studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five of the studies [18][19][20][21]23] tested this hypothesis using the acute homeopathic remedy Belladonna (the ultramolecular dilution 30c was used in all these studies and one study additionally used the high potency 12C [19]. Vickers et al [22] investigated this using a high potency (12c) of the remedy Mercury.…”

Section: What Were the Aims Of The Study?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Homeopathic Proving Using Questionnaire Methodology: Consideration and Implications for Future Studies

Brien¹,

Lewith²

2005

Complement Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homeopathic pathogenetic trials (or provings) provide the foundations for the clinical practice of homeopathy. The most recent review of proving studies indicated that provings are generally of poor methodological quality. Methods to improve the quality and scientific rigour are needed to critically assess the clinical basis of homeopathy. This article describes a methodology using a symptom diary with a selection of predefined remedy specific symptoms (proving questionnaire). The proving questionnaire was developed as an alternative to the traditional qualitative proving methods in an attempt to provide a quantitative method that could rigorously validate the original provings. This article considers the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and provides suggestions for future work in this area.

show abstract

“…Many good quality studies of the last 12 years have yielded negative results, for instance, concerning systematic reviews and meta-analyses [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ; infections of the upper respiratory tract and allergic rhinitis 12,13 ; post-operative ileus 14 ; asthma 15 ; warts [16][17][18] ; pain relief and muscle soreness [19][20][21][22][23] ; treatment of adenoid vegetation 24 ; chronic headache [25][26][27][28] ; ear inflammation 29,30 ; eczema 31 ; arthritis 32,33 ; bruising 34,35 ; anxiety 36 ; "provings" (see below) with belladonna, arnica, Pulsatilla and mercury [37][38][39][40][41] and "aggravations" ("good" worsening of symptoms, said by homeopaths to precede patient recovery) 42 . Detailed comments on many of these studies are published 2,5,43 .…”

Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another homeopathic research topic that has yielded fully negative results is the one of "homeopathic provings" [37][38][39][40][41] . This is a fundamental procedure for the definition of homeopathic prescriptions.…”

Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

Almeida

2003

Rev. Hosp. Clin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy. METHODOLOGY:Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references.RESULTS: Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely.CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable. Homeopathy, introduced by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann at the beginning of the 19th century, consists of the treatment of the symptoms of a disease by means of ultra-diluted substances. These substances are chosen based on the assumption that they would cause the same symptoms in healthy subjects if ingested in measurable amounts. Minerals, vegetables, or substances obtained from living organisms may be used in the preparation of homeopathic medicines. Supposedly, the effect of these substances becomes stronger the more they are diluted. An important step in their preparation is called the succussion: "shakes" that are applied to the substance after each dilution stage. Although mostly recommended for small afflictions, sometimes radical statements about the effectiveness of homeopathy are made, for instance, concerning the treatment of AIDS 1 .In Brazil, homeopathy is accepted as a medical, pharmaceutical, and veterinary specialty. Homeopathy also has an accepted medical status in England, India, and some States of the United States (Arizona, Connecticut, and Nevada), and its use is widespread in many other countries 2 . The amount of research on homeopathic topics rose substantially in the last 20 years. The analysis of its scientific status, therefore, can already take into account a large number of studies, and such an analysis is obviously important, both in terms of general scientific advancement and for health financing reasons. The objective of the present study was to critically review and assess the current scientific status of homeopathic medici...

show abstract

Can Homeopathically Prepared Mercury Cause Symptoms in Healthy Volunteers? A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Cited by 23 publications

References 5 publications

Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C

Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C

Assessing Homeopathic Proving Using Questionnaire Methodology: Consideration and Implications for Future Studies

A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About