Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C.

Sarah Brien, George Lewith, Trevor Bryant
Author Information
  1. Sarah Brien: Complementary Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK. s.brien@soton.ac.uk

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate if ultramolecular homeopathy has any clinical effects. This was assessed using the proving of the homeopathic remedy Belladonna given at an ultramolecular dose (30C), as a model. A proving states that when a homeopathic remedy is given to a healthy person, they will experience symptomatic effects specific to that remedy. If ultramolecular doses are clinically active, the Belladonna 30C group should experience more true Belladonna proving symptoms than the placebo group.
METHODS: Healthy subjects (n = 253), aged 18-30 years, took part in this double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Total study duration was 4 weeks. Subjects were randomized before 1 week placebo run-in. They received 2 weeks of treatment intervention (Belladonna 30C or placebo) and were followed up for 1 week. Subjects recorded any symptoms experienced during the total study period on a daily basis using a structured questionnaire. Symptom diaries were analysed blind to determine if each subject had proved or not (based on predefined criteria). The main outcome was the proportion of subjects who had proved in each treatment group.
RESULTS: No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine.
CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.

References

  1. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1990;38(2):139-47 [PMID: 2197682]
  2. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jul;90(3):158-62 [PMID: 11479784]
  3. J Psychosom Res. 1993 Dec;37(8):851-60 [PMID: 8301625]
  4. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):107-11 [PMID: 8038643]
  5. Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43 [PMID: 9310601]
  6. JAMA. 1998 Nov 11;280(18):1569-75 [PMID: 9820257]
  7. J R Soc Med. 1998 Nov;91(11):579-82 [PMID: 10325874]
  8. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;56(1):27-33 [PMID: 10853874]
  9. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Aug 21;135(4):262-8 [PMID: 11511141]
  10. BMJ. 2002 Mar 2;324(7336):520 [PMID: 11872551]
  11. Homeopathy. 2002 Jul;91(3):145-9 [PMID: 12322867]
  12. Lancet. 1986 Oct 18;2(8512):881-6 [PMID: 2876326]
  13. Eur J Pharmacol. 1987 Mar 31;135(3):313-9 [PMID: 3034632]
  14. BMJ. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23 [PMID: 1825800]
  15. J Altern Complement Med. 2001 Apr;7(2):141-8 [PMID: 11327520]
  16. Lancet. 2001 Mar 10;357(9258):757-62 [PMID: 11253970]
  17. Complement Ther Med. 2001 Mar;9(1):2-11 [PMID: 11264963]
  18. J Psychosom Res. 2001 Mar;50(3):155-60 [PMID: 11316508]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Atropa belladonna
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Male
Materia Medica
Pilot Projects
Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal

Chemicals

Materia Medica

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0provingBelladonnaeffects30Cgroupplaceboultramolecularhomeopathyclinicalremedy=randomizedstudyusinghomeopathicgivenexperiencesymptomssubjectsdouble-blindplacebo-controlledweeksSubjects1weektreatmentprovedbasedoutcomeproversN14UltramolecularobservableAIMS:investigateassesseddosemodelstateshealthypersonwillsymptomaticspecificdosesclinicallyactivetrueMETHODS:Healthyn253aged18-30yearstookpartTotalduration4run-inreceived2interventionfollowedrecordedexperiencedtotalperioddailybasisstructuredquestionnaireSymptomdiariesanalysedblinddeterminesubjectpredefinedcriteriamainproportionRESULTS:significantdifferencesratesobserved[Belladonna139%153%meandifference-04%95%confidenceinterval-93101]intentiontreatanalysisPrimaryaffectedseasonalityindividual'sattitudecomplementarymedicineCONCLUSION:trial

Similar Articles

Cited By