Homeopath Robert Medhurst has presented a year long series of articles on research validating homeopathy. This time the focus is on Paradoxical Effects of Drugs and Hormesis.

He reports how he once asked a prominent medical scientist and noted critic of Homoeopathy what he’d do if he were given the results of a clinical trial showing that homeopathy actually worked. His response was, “I’d design a different trial.”

From near and far for the last 70 odd years, those working in the area of Homoeopathy have been asked by their medical counterparts to, “Show us your proof!”  That proof has been around for quite some time. In the last 50 or so years there have been lots of trials conducted on these medicines, many done double blind and most, placebo controlled. In some respects it may be wise to look with scepticism at clinical trials themselves, particularly given comments made a while back in the Lancet by Canadian Epidemiologist, David Moher.  He found that in clinical trials done on orthodox drugs, the results in some cases may have been exaggerated by up to 50%. Although there are methodological difficulties involved with clinical trials and homeopathy, in the absence of any other objective measure, clinical trials are probably one of the best indicators we have. This is the first of a number of articles looking at the work that’s been done in this area. Prior to looking at these, I thought it might be useful to explore some of the non-clinical areas that provide some fairly solid proof of a homeopathic effect. Click here to see some of the more notable.