20 years ago: The British Homeopathic Journal, April 1985

Potent placebo or potency?[ ¹ ]

This ‘Proposed study model with initial findings using homeopathically prepared pollens in hayfever’ was carried out by David T Reilly and Morag A Taylor at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. As the name suggests, their two-fold aim was to assess the claim that the homeopathic response was a placebo one—‘A suggestion not to be dismissed lightly’; and that no activity was possible above Avogadro's number, so a 30c potency was used. Dr Blackie had advised the use of ‘mixed grass pollens 30c, one twice per day for 2–3 weeks’.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled design was chosen with advice from the Glasgow University Department of General Practice and Statistics. A 2-week treatment period was followed by a further 2-week observation period, to allow for the claimed carry-over desensitization effect. Admission criteria included nine items. As well as the tablet night and morning, patients were given ‘escape’ antihistamines, and the latter were continued where required during the second 2 weeks. Progress was monitored daily by patients (digital score of 0–3 for each of six symptoms, and visual analogue score of fine to terrible); and at intervals by their GPs (digital only).

Because of a design deficiency, it was found that 25 patients were in the placebo group, and only 11 in the active. However, in spite of this discrepancy, a statistically significant result was obtained. A daily analysis was made, comparing the median values of each group's scores, for both digital and visual analogue scales. A progressive decline occurred in the symptom scores in the active group, reaching a maximal decrease in the second half of the trial (maximum statistical significance in week three—). There was comparatively little change in the placebo scores. There were two factors which made the results even more remarkable; the withdrawals, and the use of antihistamines. In the placebo group, seven had to withdraw due to severity of symptoms, whilst in the active group only one withdrew after an asthmatic attack. The average use of antihistamines in the placebo group was more than double that of the active one in the second half of the trial, confirming that the improvement in the active group was not due to the use of antihistamines.

The authors considered that the basic study design of this pilot study was satisfactory and could form the basis of more definitive work. A repeat study began in 1984, with some improvements, and in 1986, the striking results of this second study were published in the Lancet (Lancet 1986 2 (8512):881–886).

• References

• 1 Reilly D.T., Taylor M.A. Potent placebo or potency?. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 65-75.
• 2 Baker R.D., Smith C.W. Comment on the paper “Growth of yeast cultures as in vitro model for investigating homoeopathic remedies”. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 93-96.
• 3 Clover A. Some experiences in the treatment of cancer by homoeopathy. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 96-99.
• 4 Douch J. Aristolochia – a dangerous medicine?. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 115-118.
• 5 Williams D.T.H. Homoeopathy and traditional Chinese Medicine. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 76-90.