About Us News Sign In
“I was disenchanted with drugs and looking for a healthier approach. Homeopathy has improved my overall health by miles and I never have a need for anything else. ”
Victoria McCurdy
“I was disenchanted with drugs and looking for a healthier approach. Homeopathy has improved my overall health by miles and I never have a need for anything else. ”
Victoria McCurdy
As well as running and teaching at The School of Homeopathy, Mani Norland runs a practice from the School's homeopathy clinic in Stroud town centre. He sees patients online or in-person.  
View Mani Norland's Profile

Evidence in Homeopathy

The experience of patients
Hundreds of thousands of patients have benefited from homeopathy. Many patients referred for homeopathic treatment have a complexity of health problems. The recording of clinical data from everyday practice reflects the experiences of real patients, and demonstrates excellent outcomes. These patient reported outcomes are an increasingly valued part of evidence-based medicine. View results from the homeopathic hospitals.

Randomised controlled trials
The widely accepted method of proving whether or not a medical intervention works is called a randomised controlled trial (RCT). One group of patients, the control group, receive placebo (a “dummy” pill) or standard treatment, and another group of patients receive the medicine being tested. The trial becomes double-blinded when neither the patient nor the practitioner knows which treatment the patient is getting. RCTs are often referred to as the “gold standard” of clinical research.

A total of 221 RCTs in homeopathy have been published in good quality scientific journals, of which 129 were placebo-controlled trials suitable for analysis. Of these, positive effects have been reported in 58 (45% of the total), negative findings have been reported in 5 (4%) and 66 (51%) were inconclusive. As you would expect, the total number of studies published on conventional medicine is much greater than the number of studies carried out on homeopathy, but the proportions of positive, negative and inconclusive studies are in fact very similar in both.

Systematic reviews
The most solid evidence for a treatment comes from reviewing more than one RCT. This is known as a systematic review. Systematic reviews of RCTs in specific medical areas have presented positive conclusions for homeopathy in conditions, such as childhood diarrhoea, hay fever, influenza treatment, post-operative ileus and vertigo.

For full details of these 129 placebo-controlled RCTs, and more in-depth information on the research, visit the Homeopathy Research Institute website. This includes details of those RCTs that were either negative or non-conclusive.

Difficulties with RCTs
The RCT model of measuring efficacy of a drug does pose problems for homeopathic research. In homeopathy, treatment is usually tailored to the individual. A homeopathic prescription is based not only on the symptoms of disease in the patient but on a host of other factors that are particular to that patient, including lifestyle, emotional health, personality, eating habits and medical history. These factors can often make a “one drug to fit all patients” type of RCT less meaningful in homeopathic research.

Non-randomised studies
There are other types of study that form an essential part of the evidence base for any medical intervention. Clinical outcome studies often record the patient's self-reported response after treatment. Studies of this kind are neither randomised nor controlled. They are seen as being close to the bottom of the hierarchy of research evidence. However, non-randomised studies such as these can reflect how homeopathy is working in practice, and indicate where RCT research might be targeted.