Search

Although homeopathy is frequently used by many health professionals, there are ongoing debates concerning its effectiveness. Currently no unifying explanation how homeopathy works exists. Homeopaths are frequently challenged by skeptics, and in public opinion, the swan song for homeopathy is frequently sung. Regarding the efficacy of homeopathy, several well-designed RCTs, observational studies, case studies, and case reports, have been published, demonstrating its clinical efficacy. Regarding its mode of action, the discovery of the working principle of homeopathy would be a major advance towards a thorough scientific recognition of homeopathy. Basic research has already discovered some milestones, e.g., significant and reproducible effects of homeopathic preparations in plants. To overcome the distrust of skeptics and public opinion, the support of basic research is indispensable. Second, homeopaths should continue to design prospective randomized clinical studies in order to create robust clinical evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. Third, they should continue to publish their treatment outcomes, as these publications document clinical effectiveness beyond doubts about its mode of action. These measures will not only support homeopaths in continuing their clinical work, but may lead to a better recognition of this treatment in both the scientific world and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common morbidities in persons with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). Repetitive antibiotic treatment increases the risk of selecting multi-resistant bacteria. Homeopathic treatment has been reported to be effective in these patients. The mechanism of action, however, has not been clarified. Recently, a direct bactericidal effect of homeopathic remedies was shown. Such an effect is not in accordance with the general principles of homeopathy. To test this paradigm, we assessed the in vitro effects of homeopathic drugs on Escherichia coli derived from patients with NLUTD. Methods E. coli bacteria were harvested from28 consecutive urine cultures. Standard antibiotic resistance testing and simultaneous resistance testing to homeopathic drugs (Apis mellifica, Cantharis, Causticum hahnemanni, Staphysagria, Nux vomica, Berberis vulgaris, and Lycopodium clavatum) in high (C30) potency were performed. Results No significant inhibitory effect of any of the tested homeopathic drugs on any E. coli population could be found, irrespective of their sensitivity to antibiotic treatment. Conclusion Based on our results, effects of homeopathic treatment of UTI are not based on direct bactericidal or bacteriostatic effects. These findings are in concordance with the hypothesis that homeopathy is based on host effects: for example, activation of the immune system, rather than effects on pathogens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]