The clinical and pre-clinical proofs for homeopathy 2012


I wonder sometimes what would happen, and what the world would be like, if homeopathy was the medicine of first choice. It certainly wouldn’t flourish under the current requirements that it monetarily support a huge health care industry. Some of these billionaires would have to go out and get jobs!

The focus of homeopathy is cure, not cash.

As you may already know, ad nauseam, homeopathy works on the minimum dose, and presumably, following that doctrine, if this information here alone was viewed by only 5% of the public, the results would be profound.

The following was inspired by a skeptic’s WordPress blog on homeopathy called “Skepticmind.”  It has the usual misconceptions about homeopathy, and being that it’s been years now since the seminal article for this  blog “Proof for Homeopathy,” I felt compelled to add to it here tonight.

The major objection, or claim, by lamestream medicine, is that homeopathy is simply a “placebo,” that it’s vehicles of water, sugar and alcohol are biologically inert and any clinical effects are imaginary, or due to false or erroneous reporting. Tests that show the action of homeopathics 0n both human and non human subjects are dismissed by these skepti as being poorly conducted and of low quality.

However, a closer look at the literature that reports on the action on the materials in question, tells a different story that can be disappointing, if not disturbing, to see how reactionary, if not vicious, the medical establishment can be when faced with a challenge to it.


It is often said that no test has ever shown homeopathy to work or be effective. But the fact is that there is more truth in an opposite assertion. No major meta-analysis or review of the literature has ever been able to conclude that homeopathy is a placebo.

Cucherat, which the author of “Skeptic Mind” links to here, is no exception. The only meta that came close to being an exception was Shang, which stated that there was “a weak effect,” but that it was still equivalent to a placebo. Subsequent analysis however revealed that Shang had doctored the results . For a while the researchers refused to even reveal what studies they were reviewing. A closer look showed something completely different.  Statistical analysis of Shang’s data by Ludtke and Rutten revealed a significant effect!

And yet Shang remains the cornerstone for the case against homeopathy!

Here are a list of the reviews and meta analyses of studies, tests and trials of homeopathy. And it does not include all of them, there is more, there’s a lot more studies, tests and trials that prove homeopathy works. And once again, from the data these reviews analyze, none of them conclude or are able to prove (Shang) that  homeopathy is a “placebo.”

BORNHOFT: Homeopathy in Healthcare 
FISHER: Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research “hi quality experiments yield positive results”.
JOHNSON: ‘meta-analyses conclude homeopathic treatment significantly better than placebo
SHANG>Ludtke Rutten: ‘find significant effect beyond placebo
LINDE: “results incompatible with placebo hypothesis
CUCHERAT homeopathy more effective than placebo
KLEIJNEN clinical trial evidence positive
WITT The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature
(in vitro review)

It should be noted about Witt, that it reviews, with explicit criteria and weighted value, 50 years of in vitro research showing the biochemical action of homeopathics.

These metas and reviews represent only a part of the growing research database for homeopathy. The medical materials reference base alone is a rich source of clinical studies that spans observations by medical doctors over 200 years to present, as can be seen in the following materia medica


I estimate that there are now over 400 of these “materia medica.”

Homeopathy is now being used in the nation’s top cancer hospital.

HOSPITAL USE of homeopathy at the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic

International Journal of Oncology  Feb 2010  V.36, 2
Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells

 Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study

Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):343-9.
 Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Homeopathic remedies for the present study have no direct cellular anticancer effects but appear to significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in Copenhagen rats

It’s been said there are no physical differences between potentized homeopathic remedies and their vehicles of water, sugar and alcohol. There are, however, a growing number of studies that contradict that notion.


ROY Structure of Liquid Water
 RAO Epitaxy
 ELIA Thermodynamics
 JOSEPHSON Molecular Memories
TILLER thermodynamics

And this is merely a sampling of the online data base.  PubMed now lists over 4500 references to homeopathy.

I wonder how many people know there’s now a medical college devoted to training MD’s to use homeopathy in their pratices?

American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix

Homeopathy is now a licensed practice in Arizona.


Summary of Cuban Experiences on Leptospirosis Prevention

BMC Public Health.

WITT: Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, D-10098 Berlin, Germany

BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413

How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?–Results from a long term observational study.$=citedinpmcarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Eur J Pediatr. 2007 May;166(5):509.

PEDIATRICS: Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial.

The anti-homeopathy crowd may crow how they win all the battles. They may go around telling all their friends it doesn’t work, and it’s just a placebo, but I think it’s safe to say they’ll’ never win the war. They’ve had two hundred year to do it, and their stupid arguments haven’t changed since then.

Mark Twain wrote about homeopathy in 1867. He said you can choose allopathy and die of an overdose, or you can choose homeopathy and die of an under.

Twain chose homeopathy and made exclusive use of medical doctors trained in the use of homeopathics, just like John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Gandhi , the Queen, the British Royal family, and countless others have done. No doubt they will continue to do for many years to come. No matter how much ridicule, abuse and cyberbullying can be heaped on it, homeopathy will remain the wise woman’s and intelligent man’s curative medicine of choice.

John Benneth,PG Hom – London (Hons)

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Please report dysfunctinal inks in the commentary section


5 comments on “The clinical and pre-clinical proofs for homeopathy 2012

  1. luxpeter says:

    Free Energy in a Free World … that was the title of a article I once wrote and it explained that Free Energy Technology (like the Joe Cell which is based on water and magnetism) could never become successful in this kind of world or system we are living in, because the worldview does not permit it. So active suppression is just one of many problems our society is facing. The main problem is apathy!

    APATHY …
    write it on the walls with great red letters,
    it’s the murder of awareness,
    the killer of consciousness and life,
    the silent thief of time and possibilities,
    the illusionist of everything is fine


  2. the skeptotroll says:

    Hi, John

    Have you seen this, regarding “regulation” of medical production & sale in the UK? I’ve only just seen it myself.

    Open for comment 9 March – 12 April.
    Part of

    Loads of idiotic comments from the skeptic tank, of course, whose “scientific” outlook seems to be that “if it supports homeopathy, it isn’t evidence”.

    Best not encourage them.


    • johnbenneth says:

      No I haven’t seen it, so thanks for the intelligence data. I did read it, and my reaction to the issue of labelling is equivocal, as the use of homeopathics for most conditions is best guided by cross indexing the individual’s totality of symptoms, as there are more often than not many remedies indicated by a single symptom. The OTC mfg.’s get around this with mixes of several remedies for the same condition, which isolates unicist doctrine. Idiopathic labelling doesn’t lead to best use of these materials, so the practice leaves me ambivalent towards labelling any remedy for any one thing, unless, as an example, they want to to give all 11,680 indications for Sulphur on the label, what it precedes and follows well, what it compliments, and all the antidotes . . if they had a label big enough for all that.
      What is it do you think that would encourage them to do what?


      • the skeptotroll says:

        I agree with what you say about labelling per condition rather than per complete picture. However, it does no harm to be permitted to give some general indications for the un-initiated. I’m thinking arnica, graphites, aconite, all with general spheres of action, and tissue salts of course. Whilst not optimal, these can form an introduction to ‘real’ homeopathic medicine.

        I wouldn’t want a regime that forced labelling “contains no active ingredient, cannot scientifically work” (even if that is half-right!).

        My concern is to discourage any rules which might be applied in such a way as to result in an effective on the sales of homeopathics, or to be restrictive in such a way as to prevent advances or even cures, as some countries have done. (Canada has banned some nosodes, France has, I think, limited potencies to sub-Avogadro dilutions.)

        For example, regulators could insist on re-registration, then prohibit the sale of any remedy not shown to work for some specific condition (as you say) in an expensive RCT. End of homeopathic manufacture & sale.

        It’s interesting that supporters of homeopathy (indeed, all alternatives) are thin on the ground there, whereas the skeptic lobby seems to have been well tipped-off. Most comments are of the usual witless & rude “it can’t work” variety, but I’d say it’s clear that a lot of them would like the freedom to choose homeopathy stopped altogether.

        It isn’t a good impression to leave with the legislators, the homeopathic side needs a better showing.


      • the skeptotroll says:

        “effective ban on “, I should have written


What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s