Basic HTML Version
Volume 106 Number 2
80 AJHM Summer 2013
Reported by Joyce Frye D.O.,M.B.A.,M.S.C.E.
Research Update
Homeopathic Research
T
he 8
th
Annual International Congress of Complemen-
tary Medicine Research was held in London, UKApril
11-13, 2013 with several hundred attendees, multiple si-
multaneous oral presentations and approximately 150
posters presented for viewing on one day each. A pdf of
the full complement of oral presentations can be found at
http://www.fht.org.uk/mainwebsite/resources/document/
news%20iccmr%20programme.pdf. The next gathering
of this group will be held in Miami, FL May 14-16, 2014.
Check out the website (http://www.ircimh.org/About-
ISCMR) or the youtube video for highlights
and consider at-
tending (lots of CME). The last one held in the US was
in Portland, OR, May, 2012, and had over 1000 attendees
from six continents.
A pre-congress scientific session organized by the
International Scientific Committee on Homeopathic
Investigations (ISCHI) was well-attended and included
three interesting presentations despite interruption by
a building evacuation. Robert Mathie, PhD described
ongoing work on Model Validity (MV) as first published
in 2012 (Mathie RT, Roniger H, Van Wassenhoven M,
et
al
., ‘Method for appraising model validity of randomized
controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater
concordance study,’
BMC Med Res Methodol
2012; 12:
49) with review of thirty-one RCTs in homeopathy. MV
of the eligible RCTs was appraised in six domains: (i)
the rationale for the choice of the particular homeopathic
intervention; (ii) the homeopathic principles reflected in
the intervention; (iii) the extent of homeopathic practitioner
input; (iv) the relevance of the main outcome measure;
(v) the capability of the main outcome measure to detect
change; (vi) the length of follow-up to the endpoint of
the study. The assessment found that of thirty-one trials,
only eight were acceptable in all categories, twenty had
at least one domain that did not clearly meet the criteria,
and three were considered unacceptable in MV. This
concept is especially important for negative studies that
are identified as homeopathic, when they do not, in fact,
follow homeopathic principles in their intervention. The
next step will be to assess seventy-two studies using
complex homeopathy. Additional reviewers are needed
for this task. Anyone interested should write to rmathie@
BritishHomeopathic.org.
Laurence Terzan, MD, medical director of Boiron,
presented further results from the Epi3 project conducted
in France in 2010. In 804 GP practices a total of
6,379 participants were interviewed: allopaths (CM =
conventional medicine) were consulted alone by 26.5%,
23.5% consulted certified homeopaths (Ho) and 50.0%
consulted physicians with a mixed practice (Mx). On
the survey day, 6.6% of physicians from the CM group
prescribed homeopathic drugs to at least one participant,
as compared to 32.9% among Mx and 93.7% of Ho.
Patients seeking treatment from physicians with practicing
preferences for homeopathy were comparable globally to
those who visit conventional physicians. For the anxiety
and depression disorders (ADD) cohort, patients seen by
homeopathic physicians showed a higher clinical rate of
improvement in anxiety and depressive disorders when
compared to patients seen in conventional medicine practice
with less psychotropic drugs and fewer side effects.
John Ives, PhD of the Samueli Institute, gave an excellent
summary of recent developments in the silica nanoparticle
work (described in my last report and in recent articles by
Iris Bell, MD), which generated much excitement among
the attendees.
Other homeopathic sessions are described in the
provided abstracts, which may also be found in Forschende
Komplementärmedizin, Research in Complementary
Medicine, Vol 20, Supplement 1, March 2013. My excerpts
are taken from the pdf provided attendees as it was not
possible to participate in all sessions.
In a session entitled ‘The magic of homeopathy is not
in the remedy but in the interaction between patient and
practitioner,’ Dr Michael Hyland assessed and compared
expectancy results in thirty gestalt therapy clients, thirty-
three sophrology clients (a meditation technique,) and
thirty-one homeopathy clients who completed assessments
on their first visit to the clinic (mood and expectancy) and
after one month (mood, intrinsic motivation, empowerment,
effort). Results indicated expectancy was not different
between therapies, but gestalt therapy and sophrology were
more intrinsically motivating (p <.05), empowering (p <
.05) and effortful (p < .5 and < .001 respectively) compared
to homeopathy. All predictor variables were entered in a
multiple regression. Results indicated that there were worse
outcomes for high expectations compared to clients who