Homeopathy was developed in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, a leading scientist who studied medicine and chemistry. It is grounded in scientific thinking and based on accurate documentation. A review of the scientific basis of homeopathy concludes that there is sufficient pre-clinical and clinical evidence of its effectiveness to justify and confirm its place in the medical establishment.

Homeopathy can provide over 200 years of successful clinical experience. Its effectiveness is demonstrated time and again both in humans, including the very young, and with animals.

In addition, there exist a considerable number of homeopathic studies which fulfil the strictest criteria of evidence based medicine and demonstrate evidence of effectiveness. The most extensive and carefully collected review of homeopathic clinical trials is Kleijnen et al.’s Clinical trials of homoeopathy (Br Med J 1991, 302(6772):316-323), which systematically searched a total of 107 studies for three years and assessed them according to a panel of criteria relating to the quality of the studies. 81 studies showed a result in favour of homeopathy (compared with placebo), 24 did not. Of the studies with the highest qualitative rating, 15 showed significant results in favour of homeopathy and only 7 did not. The authors stated: ‘The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible.’

The most recent comprehensive work about homeopathy consists in the results of a five-year Health Technology Assessment (large scale multi level research design), which was initiated by the Swiss authorities involving many independent international university researchers in order to evaluate the benefits of complementary medicine within the national health system. The authors concluded that: ‘the effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and with professional and adequate application can be seen as safe’.

There are many other good reviews of research studies available and many research studies show positive results for homeopathy. The best examples can be found within three areas – childhood diarrhoea, influenza, and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Nevertheless, today’s ‘gold standard’ of evidence based medicine, the randomised controlled clinical trial (RCT), is not well suited to the specific nature of certain types of highly individualized homeopathic treatment. New more appropriate approaches to research design are being successfully pursued in order to overcome methodological problems.

Dr Ton Nicolai, President of the European Committee for Homeopathy (ECH), writes: ‘Mainstream research studies most often ignore the basic rules of homeopathy and are usually without any value to actual homeopathic practice. … The historical evidence, the case reports and 200 years practice on millions of patients: this ‘soft’ evidence can and should not be ignored’.

Research budgets for homeopathy are extremely limited, particularly in relation to mainstream pharmaceutical medicines, since the sector is composed of many small and medium sized independent companies. Most products have been known for decades, so products cannot be patented, reducing the incentive for companies to invest in research. National funding is only provided in exceptional cases and EU funding has so far been limited to single projects.

ECHAMP believes that homeopathy’s exceptional safety profile, particularly in comparison to chemical drugs, its low cost and the high degree of popularity with patients and health care providers warrant a stronger commitment on the part of national and EU governments to invest in research in this area.