Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1807742
“Homeopathy is not Placebo Effect” Proof of Scientific Evidence for Homeopathy by Marcus Zulian Teixeira, MD
“This work is open access. Partial or total reproduction of this work is permitted, as long as the source and authorship are cited and respecting the Creative Commons License indicated.”
“Sad time! It is easier to disintegrate an atom than a prejudice.” Albert Einstein
After the usual introductory material, homeopathy explained, etcetera, the remaining chapters of this thorough 240 page treatise are: II. Homeopathy (50 references cited); III. Homeopathic clinical epidemiology (46 references cited); IV. Overview of homeopathy research – Databases (21 references cited); V. Scientific evidence for homeopathy (Cremesp Dossier, 2017; 49 references cited); VI. Pharmacological basis of the principle of similitude (50 references cited); VII. Experimental studies in biological models (in vitro, plants and animals – 127 references cited); VIII. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs; 65 references cited); IX. Clinical efficacy of homeopathy: systematic reviews and global reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 21 references cited); X. Systematic reviews and global reports with positive results of homeopathy compared to placebo (15 references cited); XI. Systematic reviews and global reports with negative results of homeopathy compared to placebo (Methodological flaws; 44 references cited); XII. Systematic reviews for specific clinical conditions (27 references cited); XIII. Observational studies (37 references cited); XIV. Pseudoskeptical and pseudoscientific strategies used in attacks on homeopathy (10 references cited); and XV. Conclusion (with no references cited).
“VIII.2. What scientific evidence is there that homeopathy works? Considering that the scientific evidence for homeopathic medicine is based on the same types of clinical trials used to test conventional medicine treatments, the Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) makes available “What scientific evidence is there that homeopathy works?” (18) on its page; an analysis of the results of homeopathic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) carried out to date, compared with evidence from conventional medicine. In this survey, a total of 271 randomized clinical trials of homeopathic treatment for 144 clinical conditions were published in peer-reviewed journals by the end of 2022, with sufficient information to analyze the results. Of the 271 RCTs, 157 were randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials covering 95 different medical conditions. Analysis of the effects of these homeopathic treatments showed that: • 43% were positive (67 trials) - finding that homeopathy was effective. • 3% were negative (5 trials) - finding that homeopathy was ineffective. • 54% were inconclusive (85 trials). An analysis of 1,128 systematic reviews of conventional medicine RCTs showed similar results in terms of the proportion of effects (positive, negative or inconclusive)(19)…” –p. 131.
Perhaps you are already familiar with Dr. Teixeira for he has conducted a vast amount of homeopathic research for many years now. His researches in homeopathic topics, such as the curative rebound effects of medications, are noteworthy—he has been working on this topic since the early 1990s.
In addition to this “placebo” work, Teixeira has produced a three-volume treatise which is comprehensive and made freely available to the community in:
New Homeopathic Medicines: use of modern drugs according to the principle of similitude:
-
Volume 1: Scientific basis of the principle of similitude in modern pharmacology (2023; 2 ed.)
-
Volume 2: Homeopathic Materia Medica of Modern Drugs (2023; 2 ed.)
-
Volume 3: Homeopathic Repertory of Modern Drugs (2023; 2 ed.)
He concludes: “Primarily, we have attempted to shed light on the action mechanism of homeopathic treatment as it applies to modern pharmacology. We based the analogy on the relationship between the secondary effect or curative vital reaction, desired in the use of the similitude principle, and the rebound effect or paradoxical reaction observed after the utilization of numerous pharmacological substances.
Applying a partial similitude, we can awake a curative response of the organism with the use of modern medicines, as long as we choose a substance with an evident primary effect similar to the disturbance we wish to eliminate, either with ponderous or infinitesimal doses.”
It is next to impossible to digest his “placebo” e-book or the three volumes in any great detail, so my suggestion is to print the 238 pages on substantial stock and place it in a 3-ringed binder. Go through it with your feet-up, scratch pad in hand, as it will remain a fine, essential reference for years to come.
Who among our adversaries would spend such precious moments assembling a massive amount of truthful and unbiased information if for no other reason than love: love of healing, love of the truth. Who?
Sure, many criticize and negatively degrade nearly every study dealing with homeopathy claiming them to be false and, for the ones which they can't rationalize with their mighty golden pens, cough it off as “placebo.” It has taken many of our ranks to out-shoot, out gun them and yet still they remain unmoved in their positions on homeopathy.
Bellavite, Oberbaum, Kurz, Stephenson, Coulter, how many more must I name before the unlistening listen: Bonamin, Chauhan, Matthiessen, Linde, Jonas, Kiene, Rutten, Reilly, Mathie, Fisher, Kleijnen, Walach, van Wassenhoven, Jacobs, Frass, Bell, Roberts, Poitevin, Dantas, Endler, Sukul, Pongratz, Belon, Pinto, and Tournier, etc., etc.
It is a sad story when the majority so blindly has its way whether it be on the societal or medical playing fields. When will our critics be vanquished and admit they just do not understand homeopathy—finding it so incredulous. Perhaps, it is a question which is more rhetorical. Perhaps, it resides in the minds of behaviorists and those involved with psychology to ponder.
Why does one not see and accept the truth of something which has benefited so many? Could it be one cannot admit being wrong—could it be that simple, simple ego? To be sure, wars have occurred because of ego and now we find this ongoing “medical war” to be any less similar. The first precept, as you well know, is to “do no harm.” Yet by conducting themselves as they do, they are a source of harm.
Teixeira's researches and now this, his latest document, are important and exhibit a love which doesn't fade. The cherry on this cake, improved health for clients, makes our struggles that much more rewarding.
We must give praise to all Teixeiras whether from our past but most certainly those from our present. Homeopathy provides so much healing to all despite the continued efforts of the blind. They wear blinders with such tenacity that perhaps much of their entire existence is obscured.
Notes:
-
[1] Marcus Zulian Teixeira (1957) is a Sao Paulo, Brazil homeopathic physician who initially graduated as an agricultural engineer, in 1981, from the University of Sao Paulo. He received his medical degree from the Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo (USP) in 1991. He has served as professor and coordinator of the “Fundamentals of Homeopathy” course at his alma mater since 2003. His medical thesis, “Quali-quantitative clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and the effectiveness of individualized homeopathic treatment in perennial allergic rhinitis,” was published in 2009.
-
Teixeira received his postgraduate homeopathic education from the Paulista Association of Homeopathy (APH) in 1994.
-
His focus of research concerns the primary and secondary effects of medicines and remedies and the “rebound effect.”
-
-
[2] In expanding the dissemination of the trilingual book series “Homeopathy is not placebo effect: proof of scientific evidence for homeopathy,” we inform, with great satisfaction, that the three versions of the work are available free of charge on the platforms of the journal “La Homeopatía de México” and the group “Similia - Propulsora de Homeopatía S.A.”:
“We thank our Mexican homeopathic colleagues Fernando González and Rafel Mejía who, together with their teams, made this dissemination possible, helping us to fulfill the mission of bringing homeopathic scientific knowledge to all individuals, demystifying fallacies of pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists, the main purpose of this work.”-Teixeira.
Publication History
Article published online:
10 April 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India