Objective: To evaluate the overall effectiveness in general practice of homeopathy and acupuncture, and to estimate costs.
Method: Prospective documentation of all patients insured with an insurance company who are provided with free treatment of acupuncture and homeopathy. 4000 patients treated by acupuncture and 1000 patients by homeopathy will be enrolled. All patients will be followed up from the beginning of treatment for another 4 years. Doctors will provide data on each visit (diagnosis, treatment, change of symptoms, etc.), patients will fill in questionnaires at the beginning and at the end of treatment, as well as each year after the end of treatment (complaints, current treatment, general health status as measured by the MOS-SF 36). Insurance data on workdays lost will be provided by the insurance company.
Results: Data acquisition and entry is continuing. Up to now data from the first questionnaire of 1453 patients have been entered and 951 patients have returned the follow-up questionnaire. Doctors’ ratings of the change of the main diagnosis shows improvement of around 80% with only 2% deteriorated. This impression is vindicated by the patients’ follow-up questionnaire. 36% patients rated the therapy as efficacious, 47% as partially efficacious. Quality of life as measured by the SF 36 questionnaire improved significantly in all dimensions. Data on workdays off will be presented.
Conclusion: Homeopathy and acupuncture are clinically effective in a variety of medical problems.
Among homeopaths the common idea about a working hypothesis for homeopathic effects seems to be that, during the potentization process, ‘information’ or ‘energy’ is being preserved or even enhanced in homeopathic remedies. The organism is said to be able to pick up this information, which in turn will stimulate the organism into a self-healing response. According to this view the decisive element of homeopathic therapy is the remedy which locally contains and conveys this information. I question this view for empirical and theoretical reasons. Empirical research has shown a repetitive pattern, in fundamental and clinical research alike: there are many anomalies in high-dilution research and clinical homeopathic trials which will set any observing researcher thinking. But no single paradigm has proved stable enough in order to produce repeatable results independent of the researcher. I conclude that the database is too weak and contradictory to substantiate a local interpretation of homeopathy, in which the remedy is endowed with causal-informational content irrespective of the circumstances. I propose a non-local interpretation to understand the anomalies along the lines of Jung's notion of synchronicity and make some predictions following this analysis.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：