Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?<\/b><\/p>\n
D.T Reilly, FRCP M.A Taylor, BSc\u00a0 <\/span>J.H Campbell, MRCP\u00a0 <\/span>R Carter, MSc\u00a0 <\/span>R.D Stevenson, FRCP Ngm Beattie, MRCGP et al.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/b><\/p>\n Summary<\/p>\n We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy.<\/p>\n 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a complement to their unaltered conventional care.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n A daily visual analogue scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p=0\u00b7003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests.<\/p>\n A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p=0\u00b70004). Is the reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof of the clinical trial’s capacity to produce false-positive results?<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140-6736(94)90407-3\/fulltext<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"