Homeopathy

David Brulé et al. (2024) · Journal of integrative and complementary medicine

This randomized trial of 146 treated children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) explored whether homeopathy helps manage the condition, and which part of the treatment might be responsible. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition marked by inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, and roughly 30% of diagnosed children do not respond to standard medication or behavioral treatment. Homeopathy uses highly diluted natural substances prescribed one patient at a time, and in practice it combines a long consultation with a chosen remedy. Earlier open-label results could not tell those two components apart, so this study separated them. Children aged 6 to 16 in Toronto, Canada were randomly assigned to one of three groups. One group (47 children) received homeopathic consultations plus an individualized remedy, a second (48 children) received the same consultations plus a look-alike placebo granule, and a third (51 children) continued usual care only. Consultations lasted up to two hours at intake and recurred about monthly for 28 weeks. Parents rated symptoms with the Conners 3 Global Index-Parent T-score, where lower scores mean fewer symptoms. Symptom scores fell by about 6.2 points in the remedy group and 6.4 points in the placebo group, compared with 2.2 points in usual care (complete-case analysis, 126 children). After adjustment, the remedy-plus-consultation group differed from usual care (p=0.037), while the placebo-plus-consultation group fell just short of the corrected significance threshold (p=0.026 against a cutoff of 0.025). The two consultation groups did not differ from each other (p=0.93). A clinically meaningful improvement (a drop of at least 7.36 Conners T-score points) occurred in 35.9%, 44.2% and 13.6% of the three groups respectively (p=0.006). Parents in both consultation groups also reported better coping (p=0.012 and p=0.003). Side effects were all mild (Grade 1), mainly increased hyperactivity, emotional outbursts and tics, and did not differ between groups. Because the remedy and placebo groups improved similarly, the authors attribute the benefit to the consultation rather than the remedy itself. Participants knew whether they were receiving consultations, parents scored the main outcome, and recruitment fell short of the planned 177 because the COVID-19 pandemic halted trials, so expectation effects and limited statistical power remain possible. The authors recommend further research into the mechanism and into whether other forms of consultation or psychological support produce comparable results.

H J Hamre et al. (2023) · Systematic reviews

This systematic review examined six earlier meta-analyses (statistical pooling studies) of placebo-controlled randomized trials of homeopathy for any health condition in humans, asking whether homeopathy shows an effect beyond placebo. Homeopathy is built on drug provings (recording symptoms in healthy people), the principle that a substance causing a symptom pattern is used to treat a similar one, and potentization, which means serial dilution with vigorous shaking. Because the six meta-analyses, published between 1997 and 2017, used different methods and reached different conclusions, the authors reviewed them together under a published protocol and judged their risk of bias and the certainty of the overall evidence. The authors searched eight databases plus a private collection and contacted experts, identifying 16 reports covering six meta-analyses, with searches running to December 2020 and an update to April 2023. Two reviewers screened and extracted data independently. The meta-analyses together covered 310 trials or trial comparisons (182 distinct trials published between 1943 and 2014), most often on respiratory conditions such as allergic rhinitis and influenza. Each meta-analysis was rated for risk of bias with ROBIS, and the combined evidence was graded with a GRADE-based approach. All five meta-analyses with reported pooled estimates found a significant effect favouring homeopathy across all trials, for example an odds ratio of 2.45 (95% CI 2.05-2.93) across 89 trials in the 1997 analysis and a standardized mean difference of 0.33 (0.21-0.44) across 54 non-individualised trials in 2017. When only high-quality trials were kept, three of four analyses stayed significant, but the 2017 analysis did not (SMD 0.18, -0.09 to 0.46, 3 trials). Only 6-29% of trials met each analysis's high-quality criteria. Three analyses showed significant heterogeneity and funnel plot asymmetry, a pattern that can signal publication or small-study bias; individualised homeopathy showed neither. Two analyses that combined quality and trial-size restrictions found no significant difference from placebo. Three meta-analyses were rated low and three high risk of bias. The authors rated evidence certainty as high for individualised homeopathy and moderate for the other categories. The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis of no difference from placebo and that placebo-controlled evidence gives no justification for regulatory action against homeopathy. The review only covers trials already in six meta-analyses, so trials after 2011 (individualised) and 2014 (non-individualised) are missing. It also reports no indication-specific results, and its use of GRADE tested whether any effect exists rather than how large it is. The authors recommend updating the individualised homeopathy analysis and studying specific non-individualised treatments for specific conditions.

Monika Kujawska et al. (2019) · Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine

This historical review examined Bryonia alba (white bryony), a vine in the cucumber family, tracing its use across northern and central-eastern Europe from antiquity through the twentieth century. The authors, an ethnobiologist and an ethnologist, worked from written and oral sources rather than a clinical study, covering Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania and the Balkans. White bryony's root closely resembles the root of mandrake (Mandragora officinarum), a plant with an extensive European magical and medicinal reputation; the paper's central finding is that this resemblance let bryony function as mandrake's cheaper stand-in, inheriting much of its folklore in the process. Rather than enrolling participants, the authors searched historical floras, pharmacopoeias, ethnographic monographs, and travel accounts for every mention of the plant, then sorted findings into categories: ritual and folk-belief use, food, folk and historical medicine, ethnoveterinary practice, and ornamental planting. They cross-checked, where sources allowed, whether a given account referred to B. alba or its close relative B. dioica, and separated practices documented only in printed herbals ("booklore") from those recorded as living oral tradition passed between households. Across independent sources, root preparations were repeatedly recorded for oedema (fluid swelling, called dropsy at the time), convulsions and epilepsy, intestinal worms, wounds, and rheumatic pain — a 1792 Swedish account describes juice collected from a hollowed-out root curing oedema and treating worms, convulsions and headache, while twentieth- and twenty-first-century accounts from Serbia and Kosovo describe the same root used as a purgative, diuretic and topical anti-rheumatic agent. The authors cite phytochemical literature attributing these effects to cucurbitacins (bitter plant compounds), also linked elsewhere to antitumor activity, while stating plainly that historical claims for epilepsy specifically lack sufficient supporting study. Toxicity is dose- and season-dependent: freshly harvested summer root contains the more toxic cucurbitacin I, and the berries carry a cited lethal dose of roughly 15 for a child and 40 for an adult. The authors report that medicinal use had become obsolete across Scandinavia, Germany and western Slavic regions by the twentieth century, surviving only in isolated Balkan communities in Serbia and Kosovo. The authors present this decline as an unusual case: a plant of substantial historical medicinal and magical importance that today survives mainly as an ornamental garden relic or, in North America, as an unrelated invasive weed. Because the review synthesizes historical and ethnographic records rather than testing the plant directly, it offers no controlled data on safety or effectiveness, and the authors themselves flag some recorded folklore as possibly the invention of root sellers rather than genuine tradition. Future work, the authors suggest, could extend this same source-based method to B. dioica across German-, Latin- and Celtic-speaking Europe.

Michael Frass et al. (2026) · Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

This three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (98 randomized patients plus 52 observed controls) examined whether add-on homeopathy — an individualized complementary treatment using highly diluted plant-, mineral-, or animal-derived preparations chosen for each patient's overall symptom picture — could improve quality of life and survival in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, the most common form of lung cancer) already receiving standard chemotherapy. An earlier report of this exact same trial dataset was published in The Oncologist in 2020 and was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections, a decision most of the trial's own co-authors disagreed with; this article is an independently re-analyzed, more conservative account of the same underlying data. Ninety-eight adults (mean age 63, most with stage IV NSCLC) at four Austrian hospitals were randomly assigned, double-blind, to individualized homeopathic remedies or an identical-looking placebo alongside their usual chemotherapy, while a further 52 patients who declined randomization were tracked as an untreated comparison group. Quality of life was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer questionnaire, the SF-36 health survey, and a visual-analogue well-being scale at the start of treatment and again at 9 and 18 weeks, while survival was followed for up to two years. Patients receiving homeopathy reported markedly better global health status than the placebo group at both 9 and 18 weeks (p<0.001, a difference well above the 10-point size doctors consider clinically meaningful), and nearly every functioning and symptom score — physical, emotional, and social functioning, fatigue, pain, and appetite among them — favored homeopathy by 18 weeks; results from the SF-36 health survey and the well-being scale pointed the same direction. Survival differed too: median survival was 435 days with homeopathy versus 257 days with placebo (p=0.010) and 228 days in the untreated comparison group, translating to 2-year survival rates of 45.1%, 23.4%, and 13.5% respectively (homeopathy vs. placebo p=0.020; homeopathy vs. control p<0.001). No side effects were attributed to either the homeopathic remedy or the placebo, and every death in the trial was confirmed to be a direct result of the cancer itself rather than a treatment complication. The authors are careful to note that their design cannot tell whether the benefit came from the remedy itself or from the long, attentive homeopathic consultation both randomized groups received; that the untreated comparison group was not randomized and may differ from the treated groups in ways beyond homeopathy; and that the trial ran before modern immunotherapy became standard NSCLC care. Combined with the dataset's retraction history, these findings should be read as encouraging but preliminary, awaiting independent replication by researchers not previously involved in homeopathy research before they influence clinical decisions.

Urooj Ali et al. (2023) · Phytochemistry reviews : proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe

This literature review explores Chimaphila umbellata, commonly called Pipsissewa or prince's pine, a small evergreen shrub in the Ericaceae (heath) family found across the cool temperate Northern Hemisphere. The review draws on nearly two centuries of phytochemistry research, starting with the 1892 discovery of chimaphilin — the compound that gave the plant's genus its name and remains its most characteristic chemical marker. Pipsissewa has a long history as both a traditional folk remedy and a homeopathic preparation, and this review asks what current phytochemical and biotechnological research says about the plant, what challenges stand in the way of studying and cultivating it further, and where research should go next. Rather than testing an intervention on participants, this is a narrative synthesis of previously published phytochemistry and biotechnology research on Pipsissewa. The authors trace historical findings (starting with the 1892 study isolating chimaphilin), catalog the plant's known chemical constituents, and summarize more recent studies — cited but not re-analyzed here — that tested the plant's extracts against tuberculosis bacteria, breast cancer cells in a lab dish, and cardiovascular-disease-related activity. The review identifies chimaphilin, arbutin, sitosterol, ursolic acid, and the essential oil methyl salicylate as Pipsissewa's key bioactive compounds, concentrated mainly in the leaves and roots (chimaphilin production drops to nothing in the fruit). Traditionally, the leaves have been brewed as teas or applied topically for urinary tract discomfort, bladder stones, fluid retention, epilepsy, anxiety, muscle spasms, chronic rheumatism, and skin sores, while the whole plant is used homeopathically as a fast-assimilating mother tincture. The review cites — without providing the original statistics — recent laboratory studies reporting antitubercular activity, an antiproliferative (cell-growth-slowing) effect on MCF-7 breast cancer cells, and cardiovascular-related activity. It also flags a real caution: long-term or excessive use has been linked to tinnitus (ringing in the ears), confusion, vomiting, and seizures. A major practical obstacle the review raises is that Pipsissewa is difficult to grow outside its natural habitat (it needs full shade early on, then partial shade) and its wild populations carry conservation concerns. Practically, the review recommends biotechnology and computational (bioinformatics) approaches — better lab-culture methods, nanoparticle delivery research, and pathway-mapping software — to responsibly scale up Pipsissewa's medicinal potential without over-harvesting wild plants. The clearest limitation is that this is a synthesis of other researchers' work, not new experimental data: none of the traditional uses or the cited tuberculosis, cancer-cell, or cardiovascular findings come with statistics reported in this paper itself, so they should be read as promising leads for future study rather than established clinical evidence.

Galib Ruknuddin et al. (2026) · JMIR research protocols

This paper is not a study of a treatment — it is a detailed, PROSPERO-registered plan (protocol) for a future systematic review that will evaluate India's AYUSH traditional medicine systems (Ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa/Tibetan medicine, and homeopathy — governing prevention and personalized care) for managing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes affects roughly 537 million people worldwide, a number expected to more than double by 2050, and India alone had over 74 million cases in 2021 — with about half going undiagnosed — making a clear-eyed evidence review of its traditional treatment options a genuine public-health priority. Once underway, two independent researchers will search major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase) plus AYUSH-specific sources, screening for studies conducted in India that test any of these six systems — whether used alone or alongside standard diabetes care — measuring outcomes like blood sugar levels (fasting and after meals), long-term blood sugar control (HbA1c), and insulin resistance, alongside safety data. As of this publication, there are no results to report (the review had not yet started; database searching was planned for September 2025). What the protocol does establish is exactly how quality will be judged: each study will be scored with standard tools (from the NIH, and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) and then sorted into a visual "evidence map" — graded green, yellow, or red by the World Health Organization's A/B/C evidence-quality scale — showing at a glance where each traditional system has strong support and where the gaps are. The completed review and its findings are expected around December 2026, with publication in early 2027. For now, the practical takeaway is that this protocol tells us what will be studied and how carefully, not what was found. Until the finished evidence map is published, none of the six systems named here has established evidence for diabetes management; the protocol itself states upfront limitations even for the eventual review: English-language sources only, India-based studies only, and no pooled statistical meta-analysis planned.

Ubiratan Cardinalli Adler et al. (2022) · Journal of integrative medicine

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 86 analyzed participants explored whether a homeopathic remedy could help people recover faster from mild COVID-19 while isolating at home in Brazil. Homeopathy is a medical system built on the "principle of similars" - the idea that a highly diluted substance capable of causing symptoms in a healthy person can treat similar symptoms in someone who is sick. The remedy tested, Natrum muriaticum (a homeopathic preparation of sodium chloride, common salt), was prepared using Samuel Hahnemann's fifty-millesimal (LM) method: repeated 1:50,000 dilutions with vigorous shaking (succussion) between steps, governing how homeopaths believe a remedy's potency rises as its material dose falls. Adults with a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and flu-like symptoms were randomly assigned to take drops of Natrum muriaticum LM2 or an identical-looking placebo every six hours (more often if symptoms were severe) during home isolation. Researchers tracked recovery by phone and WhatsApp, asking participants to rate 15 to 17 symptoms - including cough, fatigue, and loss of smell or taste - on a 0-to-3 severity scale, then combined these into a daily symptom score analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the statistical method used to track time-to-event outcomes like recovery. The main result was a null one: time to full symptom recovery did not differ significantly between the homeopathy and placebo groups (P = 0.56 overall, P = 0.06 among the most symptomatic participants) - homeopathy showed a numerically shorter median recovery time (3 days versus 6 days) in the sicker subgroup, but the gap was not statistically reliable. A secondary analysis told a more encouraging, though still tentative, story: among participants who started with a high symptom burden, those taking homeopathy reached a 50% reduction in symptoms significantly faster than those on placebo (P = 0.04), improving roughly 0.9 days sooner over the first five days (P = 0.022) - though this edge disappeared by day 7 and day 10, suggesting it may reflect the natural course of a self-limiting illness rather than a true treatment effect. Hospitalization was numerically lower with homeopathy (2.4% versus 6.8%) but not statistically significant, and side effects were mild and similar between groups. For patients and clinicians, this trial does not provide evidence to recommend homeopathic Natrum muriaticum LM2 as a COVID-19 treatment - the confidence intervals around the promising secondary findings were too wide to draw firm conclusions, and the study fell short of its planned 90-participant sample after dropouts left 86. Baseline differences between groups, including more respiratory disease in the homeopathy arm, add further uncertainty. The authors frame this as a pioneering but inconclusive first step, calling for larger, more targeted trials - particularly in patients with more severe symptoms at enrollment - before homeopathy's role in COVID-19 care can be assessed.