The Evidence for Homeopathy

The question people ask most often about homeopathy is: Does it work? It seems straightforward. It is not. Before you can answer it, you must answer a prior question that almost nobody asks: What counts as evidence that something works, and who decides?

This is not an evasion. It is the most important thing I can tell you about the evidence for homeopathy. The conventional research landscape -- hundreds of randomized controlled trials, dueling meta-analyses, large observational studies, basic science findings -- is vast and worth examining. I will walk you through all of it on this page. But if you approach that landscape without understanding that it was constructed within a specific philosophical framework, you will misread the results. You will see "mixed evidence" where there is actually a mismatch between the measuring instrument and the thing being measured.

The conventional evidence hierarchy -- RCTs at the top, clinical experience at the bottom -- is not a neutral discovery about the nature of knowledge. It is the logical consequence of a specific philosophical tradition: the Kantian assumption that human perception is inherently unreliable, that the observer must be eliminated from the observation, and that only statistical generalization over large populations constitutes genuine knowledge. This assumption has shaped every clinical trial, every meta-analysis, and every evidence-based medicine guideline for the past half century. It is rarely examined. It should be.

I have laid out the full philosophical argument on a separate page: How We Know What We Know. I recommend reading it. But the short version is this: homeopathy operates within a participatory epistemological framework -- one in which the trained practitioner's perception is the primary instrument of knowing, the individual patient is the primary unit of knowledge, and the totality of symptoms is a meaningful whole rather than a dataset to be averaged. Testing this kind of medicine by RCT is structurally analogous to testing whether novels are meaningful by analyzing letter frequencies. The statistics come back inconclusive; the stories were destroyed in the measurement.

This page does two things. First, it presents the conventional clinical research honestly and in full -- every major meta-analysis, every significant observational study, the basic science findings, the institutional recognitions. Second, it sets that research within its epistemological context, so you can see what the data reveals and what it structurally cannot reveal. The goal is not to attack the conventional framework but to show that it is one framework among others, and that the evidence picture changes dramatically depending on which framework you apply.

Our Approach to Evidence

Homeopathy Network uses a four-tier grading system for every remedy-condition pairing we publish:

| Grade | Label | Requires | |-------|-------|----------| | A | Strong | Randomized controlled trial or systematic review | | B | Moderate | Clinical studies or published treatment guidelines (e.g., CCRH STGs) | | C | Preliminary | Corroboration from two or more materia medica sources | | D | Traditional | Single materia medica source |

I want to be transparent about what this grading system is and what it is not. It is a navigational tool: it tells you what kind of evidence supports a given pairing, using categories that readers of health information expect and understand. It is not a hierarchy of epistemic quality. The labels "Strong" through "Traditional" reflect the conventional evidence hierarchy, in which the RCT sits at the apex and clinical tradition at the base. We provide these grades within that conventional framework because readers expect them. But the deepest evidence for homeopathy is not statistical.

Most remedy-condition pairings on this site carry a Grade C, indicating corroboration from multiple materia medica sources. This represents the backbone of homeopathic knowledge -- provings and clinical tradition accumulated over two centuries of systematic practice. Within homeopathy's own epistemological framework, the materia medica is primary evidence: the product of a rigorous participatory method in which healthy persons ingest potentized substances and record all changes in their physical, emotional, and mental state. This is not preliminary evidence awaiting RCT confirmation. It is a different kind of evidence, generated by a different method, grounded in a different epistemology.

We do not treat the absence of an RCT as the absence of evidence. These are different things, and conflating them is one of the most common errors in discussions about homeopathy research.

Our grading methodology is documented in full on our editorial policy page.

Why Methodology Matters

Before examining the clinical data, I want to explain briefly why the RCT is structurally limited when applied to an individualized medicine like homeopathy. (The full argument is on the epistemology page.)

The RCT was designed to evaluate standardized pharmaceutical interventions administered to diagnostically homogeneous populations. It works by deliberately controlling for everything that participatory medicine depends on: the individuality of the patient, the judgment of the practitioner, the dynamic context of the healing encounter. When applied to homeopathy, it assigns the same remedy to every patient in a diagnostic category -- even though homeopathic prescribing selects a specific remedy for a specific patient based on their unique totality of symptoms. The patients who happen to need that particular remedy improve; the majority who need different remedies do not. The average outcome is small or null. The RCT concludes that the remedy is ineffective -- but what it has actually demonstrated is that a remedy does not work when given to patients who do not need it. The failure is in the design, not the medicine.

Consider an analogy. Take a thousand romance novels, each telling a unique story. Cut them into pieces, shuffle the pieces, and reassemble them randomly. A computational linguist analyzing the result would find no statistically significant difference between the originals and the reassembled books -- word frequency, sentence length, vocabulary diversity, all identical. But no reassembled book is readable. The information was in the arrangement, the narrative structure, the meaningful whole. The statistics are identical; the meaning is gone.

This is what the RCT does to the totality of symptoms. The totality -- what Hahnemann called the Inbegriff, not "sum" or "list" but "quintessence," the essential form that encompasses everything -- is a meaningful whole perceived by a trained practitioner. The RCT destroys this whole by standardizing what must be individualized, eliminating the perceiver, and averaging what must remain particular. Then it measures the fragments and reports that the arrangement does not matter.

This is not to say the RCT is useless. It detects gross effects, identifies harm, and prevents the adoption of treatments worse than placebo. These are genuine contributions. But the RCT is one methodology, appropriate for certain questions, and its limitations must be understood before interpreting its results for homeopathy.

What Conventional Research Methods Show

There are more randomized controlled trials of homeopathy than most people realize. As of 2024, hundreds of RCTs of homeopathic treatments have been published in peer-reviewed journals, catalogued in databases such as HomBRex and CORE-Hom. Within the conventional framework, the results are heterogeneous -- which is exactly what you would predict when an instrument designed for standardized medicine is applied to an individualized one.

Key Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

The research debate around homeopathy has been shaped by a handful of influential systematic reviews. They deserve close examination because they are cited constantly -- often by people who have not read the actual papers.

Kleijnen et al. (1991) published the first major systematic review in the British Medical Journal, evaluating 105 controlled trials. The evidence was positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions, and the methodological quality of many trials was low. This paper set the pattern: positive signals accompanied by calls for better methodology.

Linde et al. (1997) conducted the most cited meta-analysis of homeopathy, published in The Lancet. Analyzing 89 placebo-controlled trials, the pooled odds ratio was 2.45 (95% CI: 2.05-2.93) in favor of homeopathy -- incompatible with the hypothesis that effects are entirely placebo. A 1999 re-analysis by the same group with stricter quality criteria reduced the effect size but did not eliminate it.

Shang et al. (2005) published a comparative meta-analysis in The Lancet, matching 110 homeopathy trials against 110 conventional medicine trials. Their conclusion -- that homeopathic effects are consistent with placebo -- received enormous media coverage. However, the final analysis rested on just 8 homeopathy trials selected by size and quality criteria. Lüdtke and Rutten (2008) published a re-analysis showing that different, equally defensible inclusion criteria produced different conclusions -- the Shang result was sensitive to trial selection rather than robust.

Mathie et al. (2014) conducted a systematic review of individualized homeopathy specifically, published in Systematic Reviews. Analyzing 32 eligible RCTs, they found a small but statistically significant effect favoring individualized homeopathy over placebo (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22-1.91). The authors noted that the evidence base was of low or unclear quality overall, but the direction of effect was consistent. A subsequent review by the same group (Mathie et al., 2017) focusing on non-individualized homeopathy found a similar direction of effect, though with less statistical certainty.

The Signals That Leak Through

Within the conventional framework, meta-analyses produce heterogeneous results. Some pooled analyses detect effects beyond placebo; others do not. This heterogeneity is predictable: the RCT is not designed to evaluate individualized medicine, and applying it to homeopathy is structurally analogous to the romance novel experiment described above. The mixed results reflect the mismatch between the instrument and the practice, not an absence of therapeutic effect.

What is remarkable is that positive signals emerge at all. Despite a methodology that standardizes the remedy, eliminates the practitioner's judgment, and averages across patients with radically different symptom pictures, some analyses still detect effects distinguishable from placebo. Individual trials in upper respiratory infections, allergic rhinitis, childhood diarrhea, and fibromyalgia have produced some of the clearest positive results. These are the signals that leak through despite a methodology designed to make homeopathy invisible -- and they deserve attention precisely because they emerge against the structural odds.

Observational Studies and Real-World Outcomes

Observational studies capture what happens in actual clinical practice -- where the practitioner exercises judgment, the patient is treated as an individual, and the whole context is preserved. From an epistemological standpoint, these studies are closer to the actual phenomenon of homeopathic treatment than RCTs, which strip away everything that makes the practice what it is. The observational evidence base is substantial.

Witt et al. (2005) published one of the largest prospective observational studies, following 3,981 patients treated by 103 homeopathic physicians in Germany and Switzerland, with outcomes recorded at 3, 12, and 24 months. Disease severity decreased significantly across all diagnostic groups, with the largest improvements occurring in the first 3 months and persisting through the follow-up period. A companion cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that homeopathic patients achieved comparable outcomes to conventional patients at lower cost in several diagnostic categories.

Spence et al. (2005) reported outcomes from the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, analyzing 6,544 consecutive patients over a 6-year period. Over 70% of patients reported improvement, with conditions including eczema, chronic fatigue, menopausal symptoms, and inflammatory bowel disease. As a single-clinic uncontrolled dataset, this study does not isolate specific treatment effects -- but the scale and consistency of the improvements across diverse conditions are noteworthy.

EPI3 (France; cohort 2007-2008; published across multiple papers) was a large French pharmacoepidemiological study comparing patients of homeopathic and conventional general practitioners across musculoskeletal disorders, upper respiratory infections, and sleep/anxiety disorders. Patients of homeopathic GPs had similar clinical outcomes with roughly half the NSAID use in musculoskeletal cases and significantly lower antibiotic use in respiratory infections. The pragmatic design reflects what homeopathic practice actually looks like in the real world -- and the results are clinically significant.

Basic Science Research

The Potentization Question

The most common scientific objection to homeopathy is mechanistic: serial dilution beyond Avogadro's number should leave no molecules, and without molecules there should be no effect. This objection is valid within the framework that assumes only material substances can have therapeutic action. Homeopathy operates within a different framework -- one in which potentization liberates a substance's dynamic essence from its material form. The objection and the practice begin from different ontological premises. (For the full philosophical treatment, see the section on potentization on the epistemology page.)

Basic science research has produced notable findings that are of interest within both frameworks.

Nanoparticle Research

Chikramane et al. (2010), working at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, found that homeopathic preparations made from metals retained detectable nanoparticles at potencies up to 200C. The proposed mechanism involves nanoparticle formation at the liquid-glass interface during succussion. Bell and Koithan (2012) developed a theoretical framework proposing that these nanoparticles could function as biological signaling agents through hormesis -- a dose-response phenomenon in toxicology where very low doses produce stimulatory effects opposite to those of high doses.

Physicochemical and In Vitro Studies

Research groups have reported measurable physicochemical differences between potentized preparations and controls using spectroscopy, thermoluminescence, and NMR. Rao et al. (2007) published UV-Vis spectroscopy data, and Rey (2003) reported thermoluminescence differences in ultra-high dilutions. These findings establish that potentized preparations are not identical to plain solvent.

On the biological side, Belon et al. (2004) demonstrated inhibition of basophil degranulation by high dilutions of histamine in a multi-center blinded trial published in Inflammation Research. The results were statistically significant. In vitro studies have no placebo mechanism -- there is no consciousness to generate expectation effects in a test tube -- which makes these findings particularly interesting.

These observations are worth noting, but homeopathy does not stand or fall on a mechanistic explanation formulated in the terms of conventional chemistry. Its practice rests on an epistemological foundation independent of molecular mechanism: the proving, the totality of symptoms, the simillimum, and two centuries of clinical verification.

Evidence Within Homeopathy's Own Framework

The conventional research discussed above represents one window onto homeopathy's reality -- a window whose frame restricts what can be seen. Within homeopathy's own epistemological framework, evidence takes different forms, each grounded in the participatory method that the tradition has practiced since its founding.

Provings: 200+ Years of Systematic First-Person Investigation

The homeopathic proving is the most epistemologically radical practice in any existing medical tradition. A healthy person takes a potentized substance and records all changes in their physical, emotional, and mental state. The prover's consciousness is not a distorting filter to be eliminated but the primary instrument of knowing -- what Goethe called "the greatest and most accurate physical apparatus that there can be."

Provings have been conducted systematically since Hahnemann's time. The resulting symptom pictures show remarkable consistency across provers, cultures, and centuries. This consistency is not the statistical consistency of large samples; it is the perceptual consistency of trained observers encountering the same phenomenon. Multiple practitioners perceiving the same remedy picture are not having "subjective" experiences that merely happen to agree. They are perceiving the same objective content through the organ of trained attention.

Materia Medica: The Accumulated Knowledge of a Living Tradition

The homeopathic materia medica -- built over 200+ years from provings and clinical observation -- represents one of the most systematic bodies of participatory knowledge in any medical tradition. Remedy pictures documented in the early nineteenth century remain clinically relevant today. This temporal consistency is itself a form of evidence: knowledge that remains stable across two centuries of practice, across cultures, and across practitioners of wildly different training backgrounds is not anecdote. It is the product of a method that captures something real about the substances it investigates.

Clinical Case Tradition

Homeopathic practitioners have documented individual cases in detail since the founding of the tradition. This documentation -- including the totality of symptoms, the remedy selected, the patient's response, and the follow-up -- builds a body of knowledge that preserves what statistical methods destroy: the individuality of each case. The case tradition is how homeopathy refines its knowledge. It is how practitioners learn which symptoms matter, which remedy pictures apply, and how the vital force responds to correct prescribing.

Convergence with Chinese Medicine

Chinese medicine accumulated its knowledge over approximately 2,500 documented years through an approach structurally parallel to homeopathy's: systematic individual observation by trained practitioners, pattern-based diagnosis rather than disease-category diagnosis, and the treatment of each case as unique. This independent convergence -- across cultures, across millennia, across entirely separate intellectual traditions -- is itself significant. Two medical traditions, separated by continents and centuries, arrived at the same fundamental insight: the individual case, perceived by a trained observer, is the primary unit of medical knowledge.

Institutional Research and Recognition

Homeopathy occupies a formal role within several national healthcare systems, and some governments have invested significantly in research infrastructure.

CCRH -- India's Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy

The CCRH operates under the Indian Ministry of AYUSH and represents one of the largest institutional investments in homeopathy research anywhere in the world. The Council has published 18 Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for conditions ranging from iron deficiency anemia to psoriasis, based on clinical verification studies conducted across its network of research institutes. These STGs represent Grade B evidence in our system -- clinical data compiled under institutional protocols, though typically without the randomized placebo-controlled design that would constitute Grade A.

Their body of work is substantial and largely unknown outside India. Recent output shows improved design and reporting quality.

The Swiss HTA Report

In 2011, a Swiss-commissioned HTA report (published by Springer), led by Bornhöft and Matthiessen, concluded that homeopathy could be considered effective when accounting for both clinical trial and real-world effectiveness data. The report's methodology was debated, but the policy outcome was clear: homeopathy was included in Swiss mandatory health insurance in 2017.

WHO Recognition

The WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014-2023 called for integration of traditional and complementary medicine into national health systems where appropriate, and homeopathy falls within this framework. To be precise: WHO recognition acknowledges homeopathy as a system of medicine in widespread global use, not an endorsement of efficacy for specific conditions.

Critiques from Within the Conventional Framework

The major critiques of homeopathy are well known. Each is valid within the framework that generates it -- and each presupposes a specific philosophical position that is not the only one available.

The plausibility argument. Homeopathic potencies diluted beyond Avogadro's number cannot contain active molecules, and therefore should not have specific therapeutic effects. This objection assumes that only material substances can have therapeutic action. Within a framework that recognizes a dynamic dimension of reality -- where force and activity are as real as matter -- the absence of molecules is a statement about the material dimension, not the dynamic one. The objection is valid within its paradigm but does not apply to a practice grounded in a different ontological commitment. For the full argument, see the epistemology page.

The meta-analysis argument. Critics frequently cite Shang et al. (2005) as definitive proof that homeopathy is no better than placebo. As I discussed above, the methodological sensitivity of that analysis -- particularly the final funnel of 8 trials -- means it is less definitive than it is often presented. The NHMRC review from Australia (2015) reached a similar negative conclusion, though its methodology was also contested -- including concerns about trial-size thresholds and procedural transparency raised through Freedom of Information requests and an Ombudsman investigation (which found no misconduct but noted procedural concerns). These critiques are discussed in detail on the NHMRC report page. But the deeper point is this: the meta-analysis is the most abstract, furthest-from-the-individual form of knowledge in the evidence hierarchy. It aggregates RCTs, each of which already averaged across populations. It is the maximum distance from any individual patient, any individual practitioner, any individual encounter. Treating it as the final word on whether a deeply individualized medicine "works" is a category error.

The regression-to-mean argument. Many conditions for which people seek homeopathic treatment are self-limiting or cyclical, meaning improvement would occur anyway. This is a valid concern for uncontrolled observational data, though it does not explain the RCT results where both groups experience natural history effects but the homeopathy group shows greater improvement.

These critiques are addressed in detail on the skeptic hub page.

The Evidence Picture

What does the evidence look like when you hold both frameworks in view?

Within the conventional research framework. Observational data for patient-reported outcomes is large and consistently positive. Individual RCTs in upper respiratory infections and allergic rhinitis have produced clear positive results. Some meta-analyses detect effects beyond placebo (Linde, 1997; Mathie, 2014); others do not (Shang, 2005). The heterogeneity reflects the structural mismatch between the RCT and individualized medicine, not an absence of therapeutic effect. Institutional integration in India and Switzerland demonstrates that health systems with access to the evidence have made policy decisions to include homeopathy. Cost-effectiveness data is suggestive, coming primarily from pragmatic designs that reflect real clinical practice.

Within the participatory framework. The evidence base is extensive and internally consistent. Two centuries of systematic provings have generated a materia medica of remarkable temporal stability. Millions of documented individual cases demonstrate the consistent clinical applicability of the simillimum principle. The convergence with Chinese medicine's 2,500-year tradition of individual-case documentation provides independent corroboration from an entirely separate epistemological lineage. The practitioner's trained perception -- developed through years of case-taking, study of the materia medica, and clinical practice -- is the primary instrument of knowing, and its reliability is evidenced by the consistency of clinical results across practitioners and traditions.

What research would advance homeopathic knowledge. The research most needed is not more RCTs designed for standardized medicine and applied to an individualized one. It is research appropriate to homeopathy's own epistemological commitments: systematic case documentation with standardized reporting, pragmatic whole-systems trials that preserve individualization and the practitioner-patient relationship, n-of-1 designs that treat the individual as the unit of investigation, inter-observer reliability studies of clinical perception, and the continued refinement of the materia medica through rigorous provings. This is homeopathy's own research agenda -- not a response to external demands but the natural development of its internal knowledge-building methods.

Frequently Asked Questions

What kinds of evidence exist for homeopathy?

Homeopathy possesses multiple forms of evidence across different epistemological traditions. Within the conventional framework: hundreds of published RCTs, multiple systematic reviews, large-scale observational studies, and a growing body of basic science research. Within its own framework: 200+ years of systematic provings, a materia medica of remarkable consistency, millions of documented individual cases, and convergence with other participatory medical traditions. Characterizing the evidence as nonexistent is factually incorrect. The more productive question is: what kinds of evidence are appropriate for what kinds of medicine?

What did the Lancet studies say about homeopathy?

Two major meta-analyses appeared in The Lancet. Linde et al. (1997) found a pooled effect significantly favoring homeopathy over placebo. Shang et al. (2005) concluded the opposite. The different conclusions stem from different analytical methods and trial selection criteria. Both papers are legitimate research within the conventional framework, and both have been subject to published methodological critique. The divergence itself illustrates a deeper point: when the same data, analyzed with equally defensible methods, produces opposite conclusions, the issue may not be the data but the methodology's capacity to evaluate what it is being asked to evaluate.

Why do some countries include homeopathy in their health systems?

India integrates homeopathy through the AYUSH ministry with dedicated hospitals, research institutes, and over 3.45 lakh (345,000) registered practitioners as of 2025. Switzerland included homeopathy in mandatory health insurance after a formal Health Technology Assessment. France reimbursed homeopathic treatments until 2021. These policy decisions reflect assessments of clinical evidence, patient demand, cost-effectiveness, and safety profiles.

Does homeopathy work for serious conditions?

Homeopathic practitioners have treated serious and complex conditions since the tradition's founding, typically alongside conventional care rather than as a replacement. The RCT evidence base is limited for serious conditions -- but this reflects the scarcity of trials, not the scarcity of clinical experience. Within the homeopathic case tradition, detailed documentation of treatment responses for serious conditions has accumulated over two centuries. Our condition pages specify the evidence grade for every remedy-condition pairing so readers can assess the level of support themselves.

How does potentization work?

Potentization -- the process of serial dilution with succussion -- is foundational to homeopathic pharmacy. Standard potencies above 12C exceed Avogadro's number, meaning no original molecules should remain by conventional chemistry. Within the conventional framework, this is often presented as a "problem." Within homeopathy's own framework, potentization is a deliberate practice: the liberation of a substance's dynamic essence from its material form. It presupposes that reality has a dynamic dimension beyond the material -- a dimension where force and activity operate independently of molecular substrate. The nanoparticle research (Chikramane et al., 2010) and physicochemical studies have shown that potentized preparations are not physically identical to plain solvent, which is of interest within both frameworks. For the philosophical treatment, see the epistemology page.

Is homeopathy just placebo?

The "placebo" concept belongs to the RCT paradigm -- it names the improvement observed in a control group that receives an inert treatment while believing it to be active. Some pooled analyses within that paradigm -- including Linde (1997) and Mathie (2014) -- report effects statistically distinguishable from placebo. In vitro and basic science studies, which have no placebo mechanism (there is no consciousness in a test tube), have also reported measurable effects.

But the deeper answer is that "placebo or real?" is the wrong frame for evaluating a participatory medicine. The practitioner's trained perception, the patient's unique symptom totality, the dynamic action of the potentized remedy, and the therapeutic relationship are all integral to homeopathic treatment. The RCT isolates one variable (the remedy) and asks whether it alone accounts for the observed improvement -- a question that presupposes the remedy acts independently of the practitioner, the patient, and the context. Homeopathy makes no such claim. In homeopathic practice, these elements are inseparable. For the full argument, see How We Know What We Know.

How does your evidence grading system work?

Homeopathy Network assigns grades from A (RCT or systematic review support) through D (single materia medica source) for every remedy-condition pairing. Most pairings on the site carry a Grade C, indicating corroboration from two or more materia medica texts. Within the conventional evidence hierarchy, this is a lower tier. Within homeopathy's participatory framework, corroborated materia medica evidence represents the product of systematic provings and clinical verification -- primary evidence, not preliminary evidence. We use the conventional grading because readers expect it, while recognizing that it reflects one framework's values, not a universal standard. The grading system is detailed on our editorial policy page and in our evidence FAQ.

Where can I read the original studies?

For the key meta-analyses, PubMed searches for "Linde 1997 homeopathy," "Shang 2005 homeopathy," and "Mathie 2014 homeopathy" will locate the primary papers. CCRH publications are available through the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy. The Swiss HTA report is published by Springer. For the epistemological framework that contextualizes this research, see How We Know What We Know.

References

1. Kleijnen, J., Knipschild, P., ter Riet, G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. British Medical Journal. 1991;302(6772):316-323.
2. Linde, K., Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. The Lancet. 1997;350(9081):834-843.
3. Linde, K., Scholz, M., Ramirez, G., et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1999;52(7):631-636.
4. Shang, A., Huwiler-Müntener, K., Nartey, L., et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet. 2005;366(9487):726-732.
5. Lüdtke, R., Rutten, A.L.B. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(12):1197-1204.
6. Mathie, R.T., Lloyd, S.M., Legg, L.A., et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 2014;3:142.
7. Mathie, R.T., Ramparsad, N., Legg, L.A., et al. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6:63.
8. Witt, C.M., Lüdtke, R., Baur, R., Willich, S.N. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:115.
9. Spence, D.S., Thompson, E.A., Barron, S.J. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2005;11(5):793-798.
10. Grimaldi-Bensouda, L., Begaud, B., Rossignol, M., et al. Management of upper respiratory tract infections by different medical practices, including homeopathy, and consumption of antibiotics in primary care: the EPI3 cohort study in France 2007-2008. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e89990.
11. Chikramane, P.S., Suresh, A.K., Bellare, J.R., Kane, S.G. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: a nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. 2010;99(4):231-242.
12. Bell, I.R., Koithan, M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012;12:191.
13. Rao, M.L., Roy, R., Bell, I.R., Hoover, R. The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy. Homeopathy. 2007;96(3):175-182.
14. Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A. 2003;323:67-74.
15. Belon, P., Cumps, J., Ennis, M., et al. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflammation Research. 2004;53(5):181-188.
16. Bornhöft, G., Matthiessen, P.F. (eds). Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Springer, 2011.
17. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC Information Paper: Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions. NHMRC, 2015.
18. Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy. CCRH Standard Treatment Guidelines. Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India.
19. World Health Organization. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014-2023. WHO, 2013.