Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial

Lewith, George; Watkins, Alan; Hyland, M E; Shaw, Stephen; Broomfield, Jackie; Dolan, Gina; Holgate, S. T.

doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7336.520

Cited by 119 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Summary tables of clinical trials in homeopathy as well as systematic reviews of homeopathy in general and on single medical conditions can be found on the Web site of the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ homeopathy/). 4,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Is Understanding Homeopathy a Simple Task? No, not really.…”

Section: Does Research On Homeopathy Need Special Considerations?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory Research in Homeopathy: Pro

Khuda‐Bukhsh

2006

Integr Cancer Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homeopathy is a holistic method of treatment that uses ultralow doses of highly diluted natural substances originating from plants, minerals, or animals and is based on the principle of "like cures like." Despite being occasionally challenged for its scientific validity and mechanism of action, homeopathy continues to enjoy the confidence of millions of patients around the world who opt for this mode of treatment. Contrary to skeptics' views, research on homeopathy using modern tools mostly tends to support its efficacy and advocates new ideas toward understanding its mechanism of action. As part of a Point-Counterpoint feature, this review and its companion piece in this issue by Moffett et al (Integr Cancer Ther. 2006;5:333-342) are composed of a thesis section, a response section in reaction to the companion thesis, and a rebuttal section to address issues raised in the companion response.

show abstract

Section: Does Research On Homeopathy Need Special Considerations?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory Research in Homeopathy: Pro

Khuda‐Bukhsh

2006

Integr Cancer Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies were at first considered to be of good methodological quality, in which positive results were found, concerning, for example, allergic rhinitis and childhood diarrhea 44,45 . These studies, however, could not be independently replicated 13,46 , and some methodological flaws were later detected in their designs 47,48 In 1991, Kleijnen et al published a meta-analysis 51 that reported a small positive effect for homeopathic treatments. However, the authors emphasized the fact that clear conclusions were not feasible, since most studies had a very low methodological quality, which could severely bias the results.…”

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

“…All 6 studies found a benefit for active therapy, and all 6 studies used the sublingual-swallow method (i.e., the extract was placed under the tongue, held there for a period of minutes, and then swallowed). 32 Systemic side effects were relatively rare, and none of the side effects were judged to be life threatening. A significant reduction in skin test reactivity was found in one study, but there were no measurable changes in bronchial responsiveness to allergen or to methacholine.…”

Section: Topical Immunotherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Harsono¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT)involves the administration of allergenextracts to modify or abolish symptomsassociated with atopic allergy. The process isspecific, in that the treatment is targeted at thoseallergens recognized by the patient and physician asresponsible for symptoms. A decision to use SITtherefore demands a careful assessment of the patient’scondition and the role of allergic triggers.Immunotherapy was first developed at St Mary’sHospital, London at the end of the 19th century, andmany of the basic principles remain valid today.

show abstract

Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial

Cited by 119 publications

References 17 publications

Laboratory Research in Homeopathy: Pro

Laboratory Research in Homeopathy: Pro

A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

Specific immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About