HOMEO-WHAT?

'Compared to other medical interventions, the quality of evidence for efficacy of homoeopathy
was similar or higher than for 90% of interventions across medicine.'
Hamre et al. Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication. Syst Rev. 2023 Oct. PMID: 37805577

Homeopathy is hotly debated, often used, and can significantly improve quality of life(1;2;3)
utilizing natural substances i.e., minerals, and plants passed through the pharmaceutical procedure of potentization.(4)
Public health regulation framing the practice and use of homeopathic medicine in New Zealand is legally supported
under The Medicines Act (1981), and in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Act (1989).

A homeopathic medicine, when prescribed by a competent homeopath, has potential to act upon the mental, emotional and physical aspects of a person and result in simultaneous healing.

According to the homeopathic model the primary cause of disease is an imbalanced biofield - the complex organizing energy engaged in homeodynamics.

The electroencephalogram (EEG), electrocardiogram (ECG) and electromyogram (EMG) all measure aspects of the biofield.

Use of EEG to detect treatment effects of homeopathy (across all frequency bands (δ, θ, α, and ß) has been demonstrated in fibromyalgia, insomnia, and environmental chemical intolerance.
(all references linked at the bottom of this page!)

Beyond Avogadro's number (<1023), homeopathic medicines were once considered inactive but biological activity and properties of the initial source material are retained(5-9), hormetic activation observed(10), and distinct promotion of B-cell activity has been shown in infection control(11;12), with Th1 enhancement via homeopathic medicine thought to enable more efficient inflammatory response(13;14). Anti-pathogenic effects against E. coli have been observed(15). The common but now outdated placebo hypothesis can also be countered by paediatric and veterinary meta-analysis(16;17), and anecdotal observations(18).

The popularity of homeopathy in New Zealand runs contrary to its controversy(19). Complementary medicine (CM) is prevalent and considered effective with 80% of GP’s referring to CM practitioners, 25% of GP’s practicing CM(20,21), and the majority of midwives recommending homeopathy(19;22). Many healthcare professionals regard CM as supportive of conventional therapy, and are aware of the cultural importance of holistic health & wellbeing services, but, as elsewhere, increased investment in CM research, education, and regulation is required(20).

In Australia where almost eleven million people access CM*(23) just 0.14% of the national medical research budget was allocated to CM research in 2012(24) despite some of the highest rates of CM utilization in the developed world(25).

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Information Paper on homeopathy published in 2015 (commonly referred to as the Australian Review) concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. But in 2019, after untold damage to homeopathy worldwide, the CEO stated that 'contrary to some claims the review did not conclude that homeopathy was ineffective.'(26).

Containing numerous instances of serious procedural and scientific misconduct, the Australian Review was the NHMRC’s second attempt... Interestingly, the first Review of 2012 which found encouraging evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in five medical conditions remained undisclosed until its existence was uncovered in 2019, when the resultant and sustained international outcry ensured its release(27).

The NHMRC Australian Review stakeholder complaint(28) lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 2016 concluded in 2023.

The Ombudsman’s Office publicly announced on 4 August 2023:
“Despite our best efforts, it was not possible to engage an expert (or experts) to provide independent advice to our Office on this subject.
In the absence of independent, expert scientific expertise we have not been able to conclusively determine those matters of scientific methodology.”

Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive of HRI, stated:
“The use of unprecedented and flawed scientific methods by NHMRC is at the very heart of this case.
It is therefore extremely disappointing that the Ombudsman could not find any scientific experts, sufficiently free from bias – either for or against homeopathy – who were willing to take on the role of judging the validity of the methods used by NHMRC.
Since the NHMRC report on homeopathy has been widely quoted, it is profoundly regrettable that, despite a seven-year investigation, the scientific misconduct case against NHMRC remains unanswered.”(29)

REFERENCES 1-29 can be found by clicking here