Scientific proving of ultra high dilutions on humans

Background: Homeopathic drug provings or pathogenetic trials (HPTs) are the pillar of homeopathy. This review summarizes the authors’ findings and interpretations derived from a series of homeopathic drug proving between 1994 and 2015. It gives an overview over a series of attempts to use modern scientific experimental methodology to answer the question, whether such HPTs produce symptoms in healthy volunteers that can be distinguished from placebo symptoms.

Methods: Various experimental models were used: repeated crossover trials with categorical data collection, and a single-case, randomised study. Final models use diligent qualitative data-collection in experienced volunteers. In those, raters decide whether symptoms are typical for a remedy delivered or not. The design is triple-blind and placebo-controlled.

Result: While previous attempts were inconclusive, this new model allowed to separate placebo symptoms from verum symptoms repeatedly in a series of two definitive studies following promising pilot studies. Results were statistically significant. Also, some signs of the purported non-local signature of homeopathic effects were visible, and the consequences for future methodology is discussed.

Conclusion: Provided some cautionary notes are taken into account, HPTs can be used to separate out true specific symptoms from placebo symptoms. By the same token this is a road to experimental proof that homeopathic remedies are not just placebos. However, this needs to be taken forward by independent groups.

Keywords

Remedy provings - Pathogenetic trials - High dilutions - Homeopathy - Double blind experimental studies

• References

• 1 Walach H. Scientific proving of an ultra high dilution on humans. In: Endler P.C., Schulte J. (eds). Ultra High Dilution. 1994. Dordrecht: Kluwer; pp 69-79.
• 2 Walach H. Does a highly diluted homoeopathic drug act as a placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna C30. J Psychosom Res 1993; 37: 851-860.
• 3 Walach H. Provings: the method and its future. Br Homoeopath J 1994; 83: 129-131.
• 4 Sherr J. The dynamics and methodology of homoeopathic provings. West Malvern: dynamis books. 1994.
• 5 Riley D.S. Contemporary drug provings. J Am Inst Homoeopath 1994; 87 (03) 161-165.
• 6 Walach H., Hieber S., Ernst-Hieber E. Effects of Belladonna 12 CH and 30 CH in healthy volunteers. A multiple, single-case experiment in randomization design. In: Bastide M. (eds). Sings and Images Selected Papers from the 7th and 8th GIRI Meeting, held in Montpellier, France, Nov 20–21, 1993, and Jerusalem, Israel, Dec 10–11, 1994. 1997. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer; pp 215-226.
• 7 Bell I.R., Kothan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization n a complex adaptive system. BMC Complement Altern Med 2012; 12: 191.
• 8 Walach H., Gaus W., Haeusler W. et al. Classical homoeopathic treatment of chronic headaches. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 119-126.
• 9 Walach H. Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Br Homeopath J 2000; 89: 127-140.
• 10 Walach H. Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalizsed entanglement predicted by Weak Quantum Theory. Forsch Komplementärmedizin Klass Naturheilkd 2003; 10: 192-200.
• 11 Walach H., Köster H., Hennig T. et al. The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers – a randomized, double-blind experiment. J Psychosom Res 2001; 50: 155-160.
• 12 Bayr G. A model for homeopathic drug tests including statistical analysis. Br Homeopath J 1986; 75: 80-88.
• 13 Teut M., Dahler J., Schnegg C. et al. A homoeopathic proving of Galphimia glauca. Forsch Komplementärmedizin 2008; 15: 211-217.
• 14 Teut M., Dahler J., Hirschberg U. et al. Homeoapathic drug proving of Okoubaka aubrevilli: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Trials 2013; 14: 96.
• 15 Walach H., Sherr J., Schneider R. et al. Homeopathic proving symptoms: result of a local, non-local, or placebo process? A blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 179-185.
• 16 Möllinger H., Schneider R., Löffel M. et al. A double-blind, randomized, homeopathic pathogenetic trial with healthy persons: comparing two high potencies. Forsch Komplementärmedizin Klass Naturheilkd 2004; 11: 274-280.
• 17 Brien S., Prescott P., Owen D. et al. How do homeopaths make decisions? An exploratory study of inter-rater reliability and intuition in the decision making process. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 125-131.
• 18 Goodyear K., Lewith G., Low J.L. Randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial of homoeopathic proving for Belladonna C30. J R Soc Med 1998; 19: 579-582.
• 19 Lucadou W., Römer H., Walach H. Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory. J Conscious Stud 2007; 14 (04) 50-74.
• 20 Walach H., Möllinger H., Sherr J. et al. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce more specific than non-specific symptoms: results from two double-blind placebo controlled trials. J Psychopharmacol 2008; 22: 543-552.
• 21 Möllinger H., Schneider R., Walach H. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce symptoms different from placebo. Forsch Komplementärmedizin 2009; 16: 105-110.
• 22 Vickers A., McCarney R., Fisher P. et al. Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Br Homeopath J 2001; 90: 126-130.
• 23 Vickers A.J., Van Haselen R., Heger M. Can homeopathically prepared mercury cause symptoms in healthy volunteers? A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7: 141-148.
• 24 Jansen J.P., Jong M., Hildingsson I. et al. A minimum protocol for randomised homeopathic drug proving as basis for further research. Forsch Komplementärmedizin 2014; 21: 232-238.
• 25 Dantas F., Fisher P., Walach H. et al. A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 4-16.